B Kavanough and MeToo

[J.C.MacSwell]

I've been pretty disgusted by both sides, the many that have claimed they are certain of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence without closely knowing either Kavanaugh or Ford, and have not yet heard them speak.

This seems especially common for many of the Democrats. Some of them sound even more unreasonable than Trump. "Shut up, and step up" sounds like grab a pitchfork and torch...

Edited September 23, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

 I remember back in 2003 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for Governor a stunt women Rhonda Miller came forward claiming Arnold had sexually harassed her. In response Arnold's campaign falsely advertised that Miller was a felon convicted of prostitution as a way to diminish her. Miller took them to court and In 04' Schwarzenegger struck a deal with her. In 06' Arnold again settle a libel case between his campaign and Journalist Anna Richardson  who had also been defamed during the election in 03' after she came forward. Fast forward a few years after Arnold was out of office and it was revealed that he had a love child behind his wife back with their maid. Actress Brigitte Nielsen also came forward and revealed having an affair with Arnold behind his wife's back. Today Arnold is still making movies, hosting TV shows, is in commercials, and etc. Being outed for sexual harassment and then re-harassing his victims by slandering them publicly hasn't negatively impacted Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is just one example but the pattern is pretty clear. When wealthy men are accused of sexual misconduct they just slander the victim and trot the women in their lives out to defend them. Arnold's wife at the time,  Maria Shriver, did interviews defending her husband and talking about what a great man he was. Can you imagine what a piece of work Arnold must be to trot his wife out to sing his praise while he knows damn well that he has a love child behind her back, has had multiple affairs, and the women accusing him are telling the truth. Truly despicable stuff. 

So while men, primarily self described conservative men, break out the tiny violins to serenade Bret Kavanough's pity party it is worth remembering that plenty of the time victims are merely slandered and dismissed when they come forward and the men continue on their merry way. Anita Hill din't keep Thomas off the bench any more than Donald Trump's 19 sexual misconduct accusers kept him out of the White House. 

[MigL]

Again this isn't about B Kavanough, or Arnie, or Conservatives.

Accusations, true or false can be made against anyone.

And while I'm sure you wouldn't personally attack someone who made an accusation, true or false, against you ( as the people you describe have done ),  do you think for a minute that your life wouldn't change dramatically ( for the worse ) ?

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I've been pretty disgusted by both sides, the many that have claimed they are certain of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence without closely knowing either Kavanaugh or Ford, and have not yet heard them speak.

This seems especially common for many of the Democrats. Some of them sound even more unreasonable than Trump. "Shut up, and step up" sounds like grab a pitchfork and torch...

It isn't The Senates job to just seat whomever the President nominates. It would be an abdication to just hold a vote on Kavanough without addressing the concerns of their constituents. Documents have been withheld, arbitrary timelines placed on proceedings, and now a charge of sexual misconduct. "Step up" is context of everything which has transpired is simply a call for due process and abiding by standard protocol. What unreasonable demands do you feel Democrats have made. Surely moving pushing a vote back to give time for an investigation into sexual misconduct charges isn't unreasonable? 

Quote

 

United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the senate's role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate's role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president's duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitutionstates:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

 

Just now, MigL said:

Again this isn't about B Kavanough, or Arnie, or Conservatives.

Accusations, true or false can be made against anyone.

And while I'm sure you wouldn't personally attack someone who made an accusation, true or false, against you ( as the people you describe have done ),  do you think for a minute that your life wouldn't change dramatically ( for the worse ) ?

Your question is only relevant if I were being falsely accused because if the accusations were true I would deserve my life changing for the worse. In my career I have seen people accused of unwanted sexual advances. I have been a victim's advocate and written statements as a witness for investigations. I work for a federal agency and there is a thorough process for dealing with such matters. I have never seen the much alluded to and feared case where someone was falsely accused. I have seen cases where people honestly didn't seem to understand how what they did was wrong but in those cases ignorance wasn't a much of an alibi. I do not believe that false claims of sexual misconduct are a common occurrence. Generally people lie when there is something to gain by lying. What do the women who come forward gain? Do you not think Christine Blasey Ford's life is dramatically changed for the worse by all of this?

To answer your question directly as possible if I were falsely accused of sexual misconduct I would absolutely not become confrontational, would be honest, and would cooperate to the best of may ability with the investigation. Once the dust settled I'd move on with my life. WTF else could I do? I am not so concerned about the potential of that I feel the need to preempt it with any sort of regulation or policy change that would protect those accused. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It isn't The Senates job to just seat whomever the President nominates. It would be an abdication to just hold a vote on Kavanough without addressing the concerns of their constituents. Documents have been withheld, arbitrary timelines placed on proceedings, and now a charge of sexual misconduct. "Step up" is context of everything which has transpired is simply a call for due process and abiding by standard protocol. What unreasonable demands do you feel Democrats have made. Surely moving pushing a vote back to give time for an investigation into sexual misconduct charges isn't unreasonable? 

 

 

1. No. The context was that Ford should be believed because she had the courage to come forward. Not enough females come forward... so they should be automatically believed so that females can be encouraged and made as comfortable as possible to come forward. It is exactly the opposite of due process.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/senator-mazie-hirono-men-shut-up-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault/index.html

"Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. They need to be believed," Hirono said alongside her Democratic colleagues Tuesday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

 

2. I claimed the Democrats (and Republicans to a lesser extent) were rushing to judgement. I didn't mention demands by either, Democrats or Republicans, however, Ford's (or her Lawyer's) demand that Kavanaugh go first in a hearing is not just unreasonable, it's bizarre and idiotic. What could he say beyond the complete denial he has already made (truthfully or otherwise) at this point?

[iNow]

A second woman has come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

 https://abcn.ws/2MZahZQ

[swansont]

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I've been pretty disgusted by both sides, the many that have claimed they are certain of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence without closely knowing either Kavanaugh or Ford, and have not yet heard them speak.

Knowing them closely is irrelevant, though. That's actually part of the problem, because people will defend sexual predators based on their own interactions, rather than the interactions that took place when they weren't around. It doesn't matter how many women you gather together and say that the accused was a perfect gentleman around them.  

It's the "But Jeffrey Dahmer never ate me!" defense. Can you base his innocence on the people he didn't kill?

Quote

This seems especially common for many of the Democrats. Some of them sound even more unreasonable than Trump. "Shut up, and step up" sounds like grab a pitchfork and torch...

And predominant among the women, too. I wonder, could there be some reason that they might have more insight into the situation than the men?

14 hours ago, MigL said:

Again this isn't about B Kavanough, or Arnie, or Conservatives.

Accusations, true or false can be made against anyone.

And while I'm sure you wouldn't personally attack someone who made an accusation, true or false, against you ( as the people you describe have done ),  do you think for a minute that your life wouldn't change dramatically ( for the worse ) ?

And it's not limited to just this class of crime. But we treat this differently. Then again, the victims of this sort of crime are treated very differently by the system and by society.

False accusations of sexual assault do occur, but it's not as prevalent as people imply, and most of the false allegations are easy to sniff out. It's hard to keep the lies straight.

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

———

edit to add:

We sometimes ask "Why didn't she come forward earlier?" Well, let's apply this to pedophile priests molesting boys. Are the men attacked the same way when they come forward decades later? Are the priests defended as fervently? Do we chastise the men for not speaking up sooner?

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

False accusations of sexual assault do occur, but it's not as prevalent as people imply, and most of the false allegations are easy to sniff out. It's hard to keep the lies straight.

It my experience there are always negative repercussions for women who come forward. Even when their side of the story is vindicated people will still treat them differently moving forward. No one likes a snitch, narc, rat, stoolie, stool pigeon, etc. "Loose lips sink ships". It is partly why Police Officer don't come forward against abusive Officers. There is a stigma attached to speaking out whether one is telling the truth or not. Because of that, among other reasons, there is seldom ever anything to gain from falsely accusing someone. In my opinion concern over false reporting is just propaganda designed to put in people's heads that fasle reporting is a bigger issue that it is as a means of creating plausable deniability for the accused.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Knowing them closely is irrelevant, though. That's actually part of the problem, because people will defend sexual predators based on their own interactions, rather than the interactions that took place when they weren't around. It doesn't matter how many women you gather together and say that the accused was a perfect gentleman around them.  

It's the "But Jeffrey Dahmer never ate me!" defense. Can you base his innocence on the people he didn't kill?

And predominant among the women, too. I wonder, could there be some reason that they might have more insight into the situation than the men?

And it's not limited to just this class of crime. But we treat this differently. Then again, the victims of this sort of crime are treated very differently by the system and by society.

False accusations of sexual assault do occur, but it's not as prevalent as people imply, and most of the false allegations are easy to sniff out. It's hard to keep the lies straight.

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

———

edit to add:

We sometimes ask "Why didn't she come forward earlier?" Well, let's apply this to pedophile priests molesting boys. Are the men attacked the same way when they come forward decades later? Are the priests defended as fervently? Do we chastise the men for not speaking up sooner?

The knowing them closely was the exception only in that they "don't disgust me", for automatically claiming they believe them. I give more of a pass on this to close friends of both Ford and Kavanaugh...not that it makes me believe them.

As for the bold, when they turn this "insight" into claims of certain knowledge of a possible occurrence this proves they lack the integrity required to make a judgement. 

[MigL]

"there is seldom ever anything to gain from falsely accusing someone"

I hope you're never involved in a nasty divorce or custody battle with your ex, Ten oz. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

No one likes a snitch, narc, rat, stoolie, stool pigeon, etc.

Especially in the olden days a bigger issue is that women who got assaulted and raped are considered to be damaged goods. For male victims, the stigma is even worse. There is a huge body of research explaining why victims of sexual abuse rarely come forward and we have rehashed those reason in many threads already.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Because of that, among other reasons, there is seldom ever anything to gain from falsely accusing someone. In my opinion concern over false reporting is just propaganda designed to put in people's heads that fasle reporting is a bigger issue that it is as a means of creating plausable deniability for the accused.

I think there is more to that. Most folks do not think that they would assault anyone. From that perspective it is probably far easier to believe that one might get eventually wrongfully accused at a far higher rate. As a reminder, I would like to use data from the UK (Home Office Research Study 293) using rape statistics. These are rare events so the overall numbers are low. The total number of cases was 2284 and of these only 8% resulted in convictions. Meanwhile there were 216 cases which were deemed to be false convictions (12%). However, from these actually only 39 (1.7%) had cases were a person was named (i.e. accused). 

While one could argue that the assault numbers could face higher false accusations, they are still incredibly low and it is well accepted that in rape cases the situation favors heavily against the victim and it is one of the many factors why relatively few incidences are reported to begin with.

Regarding the question why the accusations only come now. Well this is is part of a hearing of a public office. This is precisely the time when those allegations become unearthed. An important thing specifically with regard to Kavanaugh is the two-fold defense that is being made here. A) it probably did not happen (i.e. it is a false allegation) and B) even if it did, it was long ago and he should not be held accountable.

Note that Kavanaugh himself rid himself of B) as a plausible defense as he categorically denied that it ever happened. Which means two possibilities. One, it is indeed a false allegation (and knowing the backlash Blasey Ford had a lie detector test and calls for an investigation before a hearing) or two, it did happen but he denies accountability.

These will have no legal repercussions on Kavanaugh nor even his nomination per se. It does show his character though, which, again is part of the hearing process.

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think there is more to that. Most folks do not think that they would assault anyone. From that perspective it is probably far easier to believe that one might get eventually wrongfully accused at a far higher rate. As a reminder, I would like to use data from the UK (Home Office Research Study 293) using rape statistics. These are rare events so the overall numbers are low. The total number of cases was 2284 and of these only 8% resulted in convictions. Meanwhile there were 216 cases which were deemed to be false convictions (12%). However, from these actually only 39 (1.7%) had cases were a person was named (i.e. accused). 

While one could argue that the assault numbers could face higher false accusations, they are still incredibly low and it is well accepted that in rape cases the situation favors heavily against the victim and it is one of the many factors why relatively few incidences are reported to begin with.

Regarding the question why the accusations only come now. Well this is is part of a hearing of a public office. This is precisely the time when those allegations become unearthed. An important thing specifically with regard to Kavanaugh is the two-fold defense that is being made here. A) it probably did not happen (i.e. it is a false allegation) and B) even if it did, it was long ago and he should not be held accountable.

Note that Kavanaugh himself rid himself of B) as a plausible defense as he categorically denied that it ever happened. Which means two possibilities. One, it is indeed a false allegation (and knowing the backlash Blasey Ford had a lie detector test and calls for an investigation before a hearing) or two, it did happen but he denies accountability.

These will have no legal repercussions on Kavanaugh nor even his nomination per se. It does show his character though, which, again is part of the hearing process.

I didn't mean to imply the stigma associated with tatleteles was the primary reason. I understand your point about it being easier to fear the a false claim because one has positive control over whether or not the assault. That said I am a man and I have zero fear of being falsely accused of sexual misconduct. So I cannot personally relate to that. 

[CharonY]

Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys provided four affidavits from persons knowing her that she has consistently identified Kavanaugh as her assaulter since 2012. That at least puts a dent in the assumption that she only made the whole story up specifically to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination.

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That at least puts a dent in the assumption that she only made the whole story up specifically to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination.

If only facts mattered to our tribal culture...

Meanwhile, a 3rd woman has now come forward:

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick-client-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-2018-9

[CharonY]

It is somewhat lucky, if you want to call it that way, that this happened in a rather prestigious environment. As such the victims are also from social circles and educational levels that make it much harder to dismiss than as it often (unjustifiably) the case. Kavanaugh's defense in describing himself as a choir boy is going to backfire now.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Nice to see CNN at publish least a couple of more balanced viewpoints on this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/opinions/democrats-have-hijacked-metoo-for-political-gain-sheffield/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/mazie-hirono-on-brett-kavanaugh-threatens-metoo-se-cupp/index.html

But don't let anything get in the way of your rush to judgement...

[CharonY]

Well the way Kavanaugh presented himself makes it difficult not to take position. If he had for example said that he had a wild life as youth and may not have always been appropriate but being young bla bla bla, he could have muddied the waters. Stating that he was always respectful, never drank underaged etc. whilst providing evidence himself that puts it into question, raises question about his character. And just to make it clear, it is not about whether there was sexual assault per se. After all, it is not a trial and statute of limitation has expired. This is about the character of the person and he made it quite unambiguously clear that the women are mistaken. 

Regardless of political maneuvering (after all that is what whole process clearly is) he does not present himself in a trustworthy light. There is of course the possibility that the women have long-term resent against him. But then the question is why, if according to Kavanaugh they really never interacted in an adversarial manner.

[Ten oz]

All the people complaining that Kavanough is being treated unfairly and that we all must withhold judgement seem to be ignoring that Kavanoough is being considered by the nation's elected representatives for a life time appointment. A seat of the supreme court is not Kavanough's birth right. Whether women had come forward against Kavanough or not he should scrutinized carefully. Everyone up for such important positions should be. Now that women have come forward now, during ongoing heirings, is the time to delve into it and not after Kavanough in on the bench for life. Also not getting a lifetime appointment on the supreme Court doesn't ruin one's life. More over is there ever an opportune time to be accused of sexual assault? 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

And just to make it clear, it is not about whether there was sexual assault per se. After all, it is not a trial and statute of limitation has expired.

It may partly be that. Maryland has no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault, which would be one reason that someone (especially a lawyer/judge) would not simply cop to it, as a confession could lead to jail time (also I wonder about possible disbarment)
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/maryland-statutes-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse.html

Kavanaugh may have painted himself into a corner by denying, and then painting himself as a choir boy in his interview. That may have triggered former targets of his into coming forward. And once a few people have done that, I think the bar is lowered for others (if there are more, but there usually are) to do so.

I think his only way out is to withdraw, because if they republicans push this through, the democrats will have grounds to impeach (should they ever gain the necessary numbers) and then prosecute him. By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself. 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nice to see CNN at publish least a couple of more balanced viewpoints on this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/opinions/democrats-have-hijacked-metoo-for-political-gain-sheffield/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/mazie-hirono-on-brett-kavanaugh-threatens-metoo-se-cupp/index.html

But don't let anything get in the way of your rush to judgement...

Oh, please.

The Cupp article says 

"His credibility is already questionable in my mind," she told Jackson, because she doesn't like his politics.

which is a load of crap. Kavanaugh's credibility was shredded when it became clear that he lied to congress and lied in his FOX interview.  Any senator has multiple reasons to question his fitness for the position (in addition to multiple instances of lying, there's the issue of the stolen emails, which raises ethics questions, the issue of the mysterious disappearance of his debt, and there are all of the documents that have not been released. All separate from the question of his judicial qualifications). Any senator could pick any one or two objections and vote no, and not even have to acknowledge the current fiasco as part of their reasoning. Cupp is presenting this as if the sexual assault is the only issue, which is clearly bogus. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

[Ten oz]

In is normal outside of political appointments for multiple different individuals to be considered for a job. Unfortunately when it comes to political appointments the process often because purely about winning vs losing. Once a President nominates someone it is an all out fight to get the person through. The president could nominate someone else but politically that would be seen as a defeat. So the process as it exists seems to be more about political optics than actually getting the best qualified person a lifetime appointment. In my opinion the process needs to change. A list of a dozen potential nominees should be presented to Congress, evaluated, and voted on. It would ensure that whichever Judge moved forward had the support needed to be appointed without controversy which leaves large portions of the population suspicious and dissatisfied throughout the lifetime of that appointment. 

As that applies to the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanough it seems clear to me that many who feel the women are lying assume they are lying for political reasons. The Presidents said this is a con job and the Democrats are laughing "like hell". It is easy to label everything political in the middle of a political spat. It is dehumanizing to an extent because everyone involved becomes an extension of a political ideology rather than a flesh and blood person.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It may partly be that. Maryland has no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault, which would be one reason that someone (especially a lawyer/judge) would not simply cop to it, as a confession could lead to jail time (also I wonder about possible disbarment)
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/maryland-statutes-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse.html

Kavanaugh may have painted himself into a corner by denying, and then painting himself as a choir boy in his interview. That may have triggered former targets of his into coming forward. And once a few people have done that, I think the bar is lowered for others (if there are more, but there usually are) to do so.

I think his only way out is to withdraw, because if they republicans push this through, the democrats will have grounds to impeach (should they ever gain the necessary numbers) and then prosecute him. By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself. 

Oh, please.

The Cupp article says 

"His credibility is already questionable in my mind," she told Jackson, because she doesn't like his politics.

which is a load of crap. Kavanaugh's credibility was shredded when it became clear that he lied to congress and lied in his FOX interview.  Any senator has multiple reasons to question his fitness for the position (in addition to multiple instances of lying, there's the issue of the stolen emails, which raises ethics questions, the issue of the mysterious disappearance of his debt, and there are all of the documents that have not been released. All separate from the question of his judicial qualifications). Any senator could pick any one or two objections and vote no, and not even have to acknowledge the current fiasco as part of their reasoning. Cupp is presenting this as if the sexual assault is the only issue, which is clearly bogus. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

I don't know what lies you are refferring to but I am not defending Kavanaugh. I am attacking the position that an accuser should be believed simply because it is a sex crime and that since sexual assault is underreported it is necessary to assume it is truthful. You and others seem to be in agreement with that line of thinking. You seem emotionally attached to that position. I don't want to put words in your mouth so I emphasize seem. Please correct me if I took what you said the wrong way.

Dr. Ford's testimony may hold up today and Kavanaugh's may fall apart. This may make you feel justified in holding the position described (if you do).

I will still feel the same way with regard to the principles involved.

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I am attacking the position that an accuser should be believed simply because it is a sex crime and that since sexual assault is underreported it is necessary to assume it is truthful. You and others seem to be in agreement with that line of thinking. You seem emotionally attached to that position. I don't want to put words in your mouth so I emphasize seem. Please correct me if I took what you said the wrong way.

Sure, this is easy enough to correct. Nobody is saying that people should believed simply due to their gender and the nature of the crime.

The idea is that we have historical experience here which strongly suggests women don't tend to lie when making these accusations, but men do. Therefore, the default position should be to lean toward trusting them and work to investigate further to see if that leaning toward trust is warranted.

Leaning toward disbelieving women who make these claims suggests a blindness to the reality of their day to day lives and the reality of our past where men more often than not are truly guilty when accused of such things. 

In the Kavenaugh case specifically, all of the accusers and all of the people who believe them support a proper investigation, yet the accused and all of the people standing behind the accused with their support not only are avoiding any actual investigations, but are also trying to rush through the confirmation. The GOP learned last week of other accusers, and instead of working to slow the process to find the truth, they instead sought to accelerate the vote. After public pressure, they gave 3 whole extra days, but still no proper investigation. Further, the testimony from the original accuser doesn't start for another 30 minutes, yet many GOP reps have already confirmed they plan to vote in support of Kavenaugh... Be damned what they hear today. None of the other accusers (I believe there are now 4, plus an ex-girlfriend of his friend who was in the room who is willing to testify under oath to the Senate that his friend in the past confided in her that he'd gone too far with women who were not conscious enough to consent)... none of them have been invited to testify. No other potential witnesses have been called... others who were at the party... others who saw the same things...  No other evidence of people talking about this issue over the past decade... former classmates who have been emailing each other about this for years... therapists who had to help the women deal with the trauma of their assault... and even though all of these events happened well before Kavenaughs nomination... none of it is being considered.

So yeah... I'm open to seeing where the facts lead and will make my conclusion after. I think these women are telling the truth, and am willing to change my mind. Unfortunately, too many people have concluded that they ARE lying and are selecting/ignoring facts which confirm this preconceived conclusion.

tl;dr? Pretty much everyone here that believes the accusers do so provisionally and with a willingness to change their mind, however pretty everyone who disbelieves them suffers from the same absolutism you decry and has made their conclusions regardless of the mounting evidence. Maybe they're too emotionally attached... 

Edited September 27, 2018 by iNow

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't know what lies you are refferring to

They are pretty blatant and should be easy to find (outside of FOX news). They were widely discussed.

Quote

but I am not defending Kavanaugh. I am attacking the position that an accuser should be believed simply because it is a sex crime and that since sexual assault is underreported it is necessary to assume it is truthful.

No, that is not a fair assessment of the situation. A closer statement would be to not automatically dismiss an accusation, which happens a lot and that people have done in this situation.

There are ways of telling if an accusation is credible, and Dr. Blasey Ford has ticked off several check boxes (such as having discussed it with others years before coming forward, having a consistent story, and passing a lie detector test) 

What should give everyone pause is the unwillingness for Kavanaugh and Judge to testify under oath, and the GOP's resistance to having the FBI investigate.

Quote

You and others seem to be in agreement with that line of thinking. You seem emotionally attached to that position. I don't want to put words in your mouth so I emphasize seem. Please correct me if I took what you said the wrong way.

I have no direct emotional attachment. It annoys me when people misrepresent and misconstrue. 

Quote

Dr. Ford's testimony may hold up today and Kavanaugh's may fall apart. This may make you feel justified in holding the position described (if you do).

I will still feel the same way with regard to the principles involved.

Which principles are those?

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

 tl;dr? Pretty much everyone here that believes the accusers do so provisionally and with a willingness to change their mind, however pretty everyone who disbelieves them suffers from the same absolutism you decry and has made their conclusions regardless of the mounting evidence. Maybe they're too emotionally attached... 

Yes. That's what people are not understanding — "believe them" is provisional, as opposed to "reject them out of hand." It means check the story out, not "believe them and the matter is now decided" 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

They are pretty blatant and should be easy to find (outside of FOX news). They were widely discussed.

No, that is not a fair assessment of the situation. A closer statement would be to not automatically dismiss an accusation, which happens a lot and that people have done in this situation.

There are ways of telling if an accusation is credible, and Dr. Blasey Ford has ticked off several check boxes (such as having discussed it with others years before coming forward, having a consistent story, and passing a lie detector test) 

I have no direct emotional attachment. It annoys me when people misrepresent and misconstrue. 

Which principles are those?

I would agree with what you stated and add that the accused also deserves to have their testimony given full consideration, in fact the benefit of the doubt in a trial  I am less sure of where I would draw the line in this process, but if Dr. Ford's story holds up, and Kavanaughs denials does as well, I would think holding up the vote and investigating further would be appropriate, which I don't believe is necessary at this time given the way much of this has been introduced.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would agree with what you stated and add that the accused also deserves to have their testimony given full consideration, in fact the benefit of the doubt in a trial  I am less sure of where I would draw the line in this process, but if Dr. Ford's story holds up, and Kavanaughs denials does as well, I would think holding up the vote and investigating further would be appropriate, which I don't believe is necessary at this time given the way much of this has been introduced.

That this is not a  trial is an important point, and one that some folks don't appreciate — this is a job interview. The threshold for saying "Next candidate" is much lower here. Nobody is entitled to a seat on SCOTUS.