Kavanaugh hearing

[pErvinalia]

Surely there's got to be enough doubt now about his denials that he shouldn't be appointed. I know the nutjob segment of the repubs (most of them) won't care. Will enough of the sane(ish) ones care enough to vote against him?

[Seabass]

The real question is, would a person like Ford actually just make up this whole story for partisan purposes? Coming from the sane part of the world, I'd have to say "no way". But this is Merka, after all. Is it actually possible that a person of her status would make up a story to stop a SC appointment? What do the reasonable yanks say to this? I'm sure 42 thinks it's possible, but he's hyper-partisan and thinks someone's choice of breakfast cereal is a partisan decision...

Of course not. A very tiny fraction of rape allegations are false. This woman had everything to lose, and nothing to gain by coming forward. Bart O'Kavanaugh on the other hand, has proven to be a liar, as well as a right-wing conspiracy nut and full-blown partisan.

Surely there's got to be enough doubt now about his denials that he shouldn't be appointed. I know the nutjob segment of the repubs (most of them) won't care. Will enough of the sane(ish) ones care enough to vote against him?

My guess is that they'll ram him through. When Republicans are involved, assume the worst. There's really no telling though.

[Tero]

I'll dedicate this Zappa instrumental to Brett Kavanaugh
Don't You Ever Wash That Thing? (Live / Helsinki, Finland / 1974)

[pErvinalia]

When Republicans are involved, assume the worst.

Sage advice, I think.

[Joe]

Yep, McConnell has made his move to wrap it up by the weekend, according to Politico. My guess he has the votes, and the FBI will report nothing big, so unless the media breaks a big story the advocacy groups will count their money and wait for the next scandal they can fund raise off of.

[Tero]

The candidate is not qualified. Here is an example of a candidate who is overqualified for his or her job.

[Galaxian]

So Ms Ford is a mendacious, conspiratorial, lying shill?

It's possible. We are always amazed when fucked up people lie through their teeth (not just about rape or sexual assault). But, she could also be off her rocker.

Mattress girl?
Sabrina Erdely's "Jackie"?
Mary Zolkowski?
Nikki Yolvino?
McMartin preschool?
Duke Lacrosse?
Susan Smith?
Anna Anderson

Some people are nuts, too. Some people think they have relationships with celebrities when they don't. Dr. Ford conceivably may be in need of serious help.
Most people tell the truth. We've been over this before. Even if the allegation was about financial impropriety or a regular assault and battery, or theft of a lawn mower. Most people don't accuse people falsely. However, some people do, whether honestly or dishonestly. This appears to be one of those times.

Agree completely. Look at the video you posted. Go to 2' 47" and 4' 14" at the handwriting samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... KQrzv_52w8

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/kavana ... andwriting


"The handwriting strikes me as chaotic, messy and childish, instead of that of a mature, 52-year-old professional woman, who will be 53 years old on November 28.
Her t’s with low cross-bars indicate emotional insecurities and a lack of ambition and lofty goals.
She often does not dot her i’s, which “denotes distraction, oversight, lack of attention, tendency to get distracted or forget obligations, lack of critical sense, lack of interest, apathy, lack of order, precision and exactitude,” thinking not based in objective conclusions, but wanders and “gives into receptiveness, indolence, negligence, laziness.” (Handwriting & Graphology)
How odd it is that the words in her account are upright, which graphologists say indicates a person who is pragmatic and ruled by logic instead of emotion, but her signature is slanted to the right.
She uses her maiden name Blasey, instead of her married name Ford.
Her signature mis-spells “Christine” as “Christi” and “Blasey” as “Blasy”.
The number zero (0) in “2018” is most peculiar: a little zero inside the zero. Graphologists say that inner loops (or circles) inside the letters “o” and “a” signify lying, dishonesty and secrecy." - Dr. Eowyn.

Does she really hold a doctorate? Her handwriting is that of a year 4 - 5 using a monkey grip. It is atrocious! There's no control of size. The spelling is wanting. The grammar is defective. It's confused, hence the many scribbled out words. Notice the emphasis on the way the personal pronoun "I" has been written; indicating a self-obsessed narcissist. Note the casual indifference to appearance, form, and style; showing she 'can't give a damn how I appear to you or to myself! I am simply GREAT!"
But Galaxian can understand. Her degrees are in psychology... from an Amerikkkan university...hence, SHE is a "professor". What more can we say?
She is a 'Country Club' girl, since she was a child. "Aah, yes, I belong to the glitterati! I got a car when I was just 16. I am 'special', 'indispensable', and 'exceptional'. And I will do whatever it takes to satisfy my ego and that of my handlers, the CIA. So there!"

[Forty Two]

Now you ask me who I found less believable?

No I didn't. You stated that Ms Ford could have been 'off her rocker' rather than give a unequivocal reply to the question about her being a mendacious, conspiratorial, lying shill - which was clearly the implication of the post I quoted.

I did give an unequivocal answer. She could be mendacious, she could be conspiratorial, she could be a shill. She doesn't have to be a shill, but she could be. She could be off her rocker. It could be a combination of the two. She could honestly believe what she's saying, but be flat out wrong.

You've challenged her honesty, integrity, her ethics, and her sanity now.

You essentially asked for the possibilities. What I did was look at her evolving story, and showed how it can't be true in many respects, and how it makes little to no sense in other respects. You asked if that makes her mendacious, etc. It might. It doesn't matter. It's not true, regardless of whether she honestly believes it.

A version of "why would she make it up?" Does not hold water. People have made up weirder things than this. And, there are plenty of reasons why someone would make things up. We don't know what Ford's reasons are, as they are in her head. Maybe she has no reason, and is just flat out wrong. Doesn't matter. For the reasons I stated, her story is not believable, when examined.

As you clearly consider these personal qualities important to an evaluation of her testimony I just wondered how you though Mr Kavanaugh did against that last measure: which one of them seemed more or less 'off their rocker' that the other one in last Thursday's hearing? You brought up the possibility of Ms Ford being 'off her rocker' and I'm asking you if it's possible that such a charge can be levelled against Mr Kavanaugh also.

Neither one of them "seemed" off their rocker, to me. You have misunderstood "she might be off her rocker" with "in her Senate testimony she appeared off her rocker." She didn't. To me, she seemed manipulative, coached and as a result, very well spoken. She also appeared mendacious, having spoken untruths about her flying and the front doors on her house, and changed her story from previous versions.

... First - I was examining the nuts and bolts of her story. My posts here have not relied on who I thought delivered a more believable performance. My posts related to whose stories made sense and whose didn't. It doesn't matter how good Ford portrayed herself -- her facts don't add up.

Nonetheless, your posts here have been entirely focused on Ms Ford, offering reasons why you think she should not be believed. You even told us that she was making it all up, and I don't think that really squares with your self-declared disinterest in the believability (or otherwise) of her 'performance', not least when your focus is to discredit her testimony before the committee (as well as her person).

They haven't been "entirely" focused on Ms. Ford, but clearly I spent more time on her story because Brett Kavanaugh's story is basically "I wasn't there, I never met her as far as I know, and I never did anything like what she says." He doesn't give conflicting reports on his own behavior.

Her story is, at least in part, made up. When you have two conflicting versions of the same events, one cannot be true. It must be made up. It doesn't matter whether you think I am not disinterested -- my points still stand. They do not rely on credibility or believability. They examine Ford's own versions - plural - of events, and the independent witness statements. For example, Ford says Leland was at the party. Leland not only says she doesn't remember the party (a party where she saw, says Ford, Ford "run" out of the house after just having popped upstairs to take a piss - Ford then ran right passed Leland and the others and left the house without a word or comment - and yet Ford says that "nothing eventful happened" at the party from Leland's perspective) - but also Leland says unequivocally "I never met Kavanaugh." She never met him. Doesn't matter how "credible" or "believable" Ford is - doesn't matter if she's lying or off her rocker or just having a brain fart - she's wrong. There was no party with Leland and Kavanaugh in attendance, per Leland. And, then PJ too - no party like that.

Some of Mr Kavanaugh's facts do not add up either, but you're not applying your exacting standards to his testimony,

If you think I'm missing his facts that don't add up - then show the math. What are his differing versions of events? What do you think doesn't add up?

or even acknowledging the existence of certain discrepancies or inconsistencies, or that he clearly dodged some difficult question, in some cases by blatantly changing the subject, becoming disproportionately indignant, bursting into tears, and issuing provocative challenges to his interviewers.

Be specific - I've been very specific. What was he asked? What did he answer? What is your basis for saying it's a discrepancy or inconsistency? And what does it have to do with Ford's allegations? If your complaint is that I am not making an argument you'd like to see made, then that says nothing about the actual issue - the Kavanaugh hearing. lMake the argument you want to make.

At the moment it looks like you're only really interested in demonstrating the weakness of Ms Ford's character and intellect,

That's not possibly true, because I have neither attacked her character, nor her intellect. I examined her stories. Her versions. That's what delayed the vote. That's what caused the hearings to reopen. That's what the FBI went out and investiged. Is it really improper to discuss the details?

Again, if you have something of substance to add that says "But Kavanaugh testified X and it's not true or believable because Y, and it's relevant because Z," then have at it. Add to the mix.

and in doing so you ignore the fact that before the committee she was entirely forthcoming about what she couldn't remember and what information she couldn't provide.

So? Does that make her story less inconsistent and less false? Did the front door get added in 2012 like she testified? Or was it still up years earlier to allow strangers to rent her house? Does her saying "there is a lot I don't remember" mean Leland really did meet Kavanaugh and Leland is either lying or misremembering? (I mean - what's Leland's credibility issue? We must trust Ford, but Leland, well, it's 36 years ago, so we don't expect her to remember that she never met anyone? Ford, we believe her because she can't be expected to remember what happened 36 years ago, but Leland, we don't believe her, because she does remember that she never met Brett Kavanaugh?

She even apologised to the committee for those shortcomings. In evaluating this a comparison of testimonies, the believability of each witnesses 'performance' as you put, is entirely appropriate given the circumstance, don't your think?

So, do it. She apologized for shortcomings, but she also modified her story at times when her version was about to be falsified. She remembers some things - 100% - like that she had "one beer" -- for sure - 100% -- but she doesn't remember who drove her to this party and how she got home after running out of a house where attempted rape occurred, leaving her stranded, miles from home.

I don't have an "exacting" epistemology...

I used that term deliberately because it addresses something which you think is really important here - the truth. I don't think it is by any means a stretch to say that the ever-present concern of your posting on this matter has been the truth, or otherwise, of Ms Ford's testimony before the committee: was she telling the truth? I am not disputing that this is indeed an important, vital consideration - the primary consideration in fact, but not the only consideration.

It isn't the only consideration in the appointment of Kavanaugh, but it is a necessary consideration. That's the allegation that was made which supposedly disqualifies Kavanaugh. If it's not true, then there is no scenario where it should be considered relevant to his confirmation.

But I was more specific than that - I referred to "your exacting conditional epistemology" for a reason, that being that the you seem to consider the truth of her testimony as resting on the questions which she could not answer, and as she can't remember certain details about the night in question (again, something she freely acknowledged) then her testimony before the committee is not merely to be treated as false, but it actually is false (she's making it up, etc etc).

Not accurate - she does, of course, not remember a lot that is convenient not to remember. However, more importantly, it's that her actuall recollection changes materially, and other persons say that her recollection is wrong.

This is fallacious for a few reasons: i) her admitted inability to remember certain details about the incident does not mean the incident did not take place,

True, and I never said it did. It doesn't NECESSARILY mean the incident didn't take place. But, in ANY situation where an allegation of wrongdoing is made, the accuser's story is examined as to what makes sense. However, I have not relied on inability to remember - not exclusively. I've noted that she has told different stories altogether. And, others, like Leland Keyser, say she's wrong. When Leland Keyser says "I never met him." That necessarily means "I was not at any party like the one described by Ford." Doesn't mean, necessarily, that Ford is lying - but, it does tend to support Kavanaugh's position that no such party occurred with him at it. And if he wasn't there, what does that do to the sexual assault claim?

ii) her admitted inability to remember certain details about the incident does not mean that what she stated she actually does remember, "100%", is untrue,

That's correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that. However, the inability to remember certain important details, coupled with a change in the timeline, a change in the location of the alleged incident, a change in the floorplan of the house, a change in how many people and who were in attendance, plus statements by witnesses that the event at the changing location did not occur, plus a lie about the reason why she supposedly mentioned something to her therapist in 2012, plus the other items I mentioned do tend to support Kavanaugh's position that the event did not happen.

iii) that the central allegation about the incident--that she was physically subdued and sexually assaulted--is not dependent on what she has not remembered but on what she has,

It is dependent on Kavanaugh having actually attended the party she describes.

and iv) the strength of her testimony, and ultimately any assessment of it's veracity, the truth, does not rest entirely on her claims or her memories alone but also on Mr Kavanugh's responses to specific allegations, upon his testimony, claims, and stated memories before the committee.

Sure, and he denied them. And, material parts were also denied by PJ, Leland, and Mark Judge. I don't rely on Kavanaugh's denials, because he clearly has an interest in denying them. Sure, if anyone has these allegations leveled against him, he'd be pissed off. But, also if he's lying, he would be prone to be defensive. But Leland? Did she really meet Kavanaugh and says she didn't? Ford remembers this party, but PJ and Leland do not. Kavanaugh kept a calendar which lends some support to his testimony, as it shows he was busy on other things most days during the time frame that Ford finally settled on.

Now you've made some generalized statements of rules by which you want to assess credibility and truth. Fine. Now go ahead - assess credibility and truth like I have - specific reference to facts and witness statements, and assess them.

Your comments stand in direct opposition to these points--indeed, you've rendered your assessment of her claims conditional on their antitheses--which is why I have upbraided you, and others, for focussing entirely on Ms Ford's character, intellect, presumed ethics and political affiliation, and for not acknowledging that her testimony was fully consistent with someone who might have been sexually assaulted as a 15 year old and only brought it to light many years later.

I focused on the facts - conflicting stories told by her - witnesses that do not corroborate her - witnesses that say it did not happen - demonstrated untruths - etc. That's not her character, intellect, ethics or politics. Also, the suggestion that telling conflicting versions of the same story, and not remembering key facts, and having witnesses say things like "I never met" the guy who you claim I was at a party with are also "fully consistent" with someone not telling the truth.

If someone were making an allegation that Kavanaugh beat them up after a football game senior year - take the sex assault out of it - but that person was so embarrassed that they never told anyone until 30+ years later, and then the allegation was raised because of the accuser's belief that it was his civic duty to come out now, and nobody could corroborate the story - he told nobody - nobody confirms that he had bruises the next day in school - and Kavanaugh says "I wasn't even at that game" - what would we do with that allegation? Not telling and not remembering key details is "fully consistent" with the reaction of someone who was embarrassed and humiliated by being beaten up in high school. And, what if the accuser named a couple of witnesses who supposedly were there and would have seen Kavanaugh at the game? And, both of them say "I don't remember any such game" and one says "I never met Kavanaugh?" But, the accuser seemed sincere when questioned - and is 100% sure the beating took place -- the date of the game is murky - we can't really pin it down -- might be one of several that occurred that year - first the guy said it was years later, then years earlier, then settled on one year in testimony -- Kavanaugh presents his calendar - no football games as described by the accuser -- the accuser says - I didn't tell anyone, and I got a ride home from the football game, but I don't remember who that was..... ?

In other words, while the truth about the incident might be unknowble in an absolute sense, we should be looking to assess it (as a judgement must be formed) on where Ms Ford and Mr kavanaugh's testimonies intersect without overburdening one party with the responsibility for proving/disproving the claims of the other.

Oh, the truth is unknowable in an absolute sense, as is the case with most accusations of wrongful or criminal conduct. Leland might be wrong - she may have met Kavanaugh and she may have been at the party. PJ and Mark Judge may be lying through their teeth, and Kavanaugh too may be lying. The person who drove a terribly scared, terrified and shaken Ford home that day may well be hiding out, not wanting to get involved, and unremembered by an honest Dr. Ford. She really may have wanted a second door on her house in 2012, even though there already was a second door on her house and had been for years, and she may really be terrified of flying planes. In an absolute sense, she might be telling the truth completely. Maybe a girl unaccustomed to partying at age 15 did leave her country club completely sober, and get a ride from someone she doesn't remember at all, no matter how much she wracks her brain about it, and gets dropped off at the party by the person who gave her a ride and who apparently wasn't expecting to have to pick her up again later, and then she went into the party and socialized for at least the time it takes to drink one beer - socializing with PJ, Kav, Judge, Leland and the host of the party (whose name she cannot remember no matter how hard she wracks her brain) -- then she goes upstairs to take a wiz, and Judge and Kav follow her, shove her into a room and attempt to rape her but she escapes and runs to the bathroom - never says another word to anyone - hears them talking together downstairs -- and then she "runs" through the living/family room past the partygoers who see her run out, and she never says another word about it and nobody ever says anything to her about it, including her good friend Leland -- it's possible nobody batted an eye about it - nobody remembers the party at all - well, they SAY they don't remember - they could be lying and Ford could be telling the- she ran into the street, was so relieved but terrified - and ended up getting home by means that totally escape her now.

That could be, of course, the truth. That's what she's saying happened.

To continue...

... But, again, that's a non sequitur. Ford's story falls on its own, and without any reference to Kavanaugh, and for the reasons I stated. And, I have not relied on public opinion or popularity - her story falls apart because her different versions can't be true.

Indeed, the incident, if it happened, happened in only one way - causally speaking - though surely, her and Mr Kavanaugh's under-oath testimony should be our primary focus? But while you don't provide much context for your comments about the inconsistencies in the timings you also fail to acknowledge that some of Mr Kavanaugh's statements to the committee are inconsistent within that context also - that his 'story' fails on it's own.

How so? Explain how his story falls on its own.

I don't provide much context? I've posted lengthy posts explaining the context. If I've left something out, discussion forums are built for others, like yourself, to add the missing context.

As I said, given the intervening 36 years an assessment of the matter lies at the intersection of both of their testimonies, and if one is going to oblige a party to recall certain details with pinpoint clarity then one must not excuse the other from that same obligation. This is why I asked if you though Mr Kavanaugh should get a free pass?

I've not given Kavanaugh a free pass.

What is stopping you from laying out the reasons why you think his story falls on its own? You keep explaining how you think I'm not doing that - you keep explaining how you think it's necessary to evaluate the case. But, you don't do it. So, I'll bite - explain how Kavanaugh's story falls on its own, and his denial of having sexually assaulted Ford falls of its own weight.

[Forty Two]

The details of such events, mine 45 years ago, can be tricky. Here, nothing happened that was any significance. Yet, I still remember it as the sole house party. These were all good kids as we say. But I can’t remember if the girl I was interested in was there. These were exactly the people she hung out with. I only ever got to talk to her at a class and occasionally in school. I think this was also because they had an exchange student in her family. And worst of all, her mom was my guidance counselor.

The problems of teens.

Indeed, and it sounds like if you said that at that party, John Smith sexually assaulted you in a bedroom off the upstairs bathroom, and you ran out the door terrified, into a street miles from your house, and got a ride home from someone you don't remember either - and you never told a soul about for many decades, and you now wanted to raise the allegations as relevant to his appointment to a high level position....folks might have a few questions for you, no?

It is not news to anyone that memories fade and change and become less reliable over decades. For some reason, this normal and long-understood feature of human memory which was once understood to mean that old allegations are less reliable, is now presented not as a reason to be skeptic, but as a reason to actually believe the allegations. It's understandable you don't remember the party from 45 years ago, sure. But, that's the very reason we can't really trust when you say that you're 100% sure that John Smith shoved you on the bed and tried to jump you at that party.

Your failure to remember is "consistent with" someone who was sexually assaulted at the party. And if your memory changes and you tell inconsistent stories, changing the location of the party, who was in attendance, how many were in attendance, and the layout of the house - that's "fully consistent" with old memories of having been sexually assaulted 45 years ago. However, it's also fully consistent with the fact that your memory is off, and that you are not telling an accurate story.

Far from explaining why it's reasonable to believe decades old allegations - you've precisely explained why such allegations are treated with rational skepticism.

[Forty Two]

Crazy that they expect the FBI to come up with much in that short a time. You'd think they'd need at least a few weeks to a month to do anything useful.

Not crazy. Deliberate.

---

Another one.

What statement(s) of Kavanaugh does this show are untrue?

[Forty Two]

Surely there's got to be enough doubt now about his denials that he shouldn't be appointed. I know the nutjob segment of the repubs (most of them) won't care. Will enough of the sane(ish) ones care enough to vote against him?

What did he say that you have doubt about, and why?

[Forty Two]

The real question is, would a person like Ford actually just make up this whole story for partisan purposes? Coming from the sane part of the world, I'd have to say "no way". But this is Merka, after all. Is it actually possible that a person of her status would make up a story to stop a SC appointment? What do the reasonable yanks say to this? I'm sure 42 thinks it's possible, but he's hyper-partisan and thinks someone's choice of breakfast cereal is a partisan decision...

Of course not. A very tiny fraction of rape allegations are false. This woman had everything to lose, and nothing to gain by coming forward. Bart O'Kavanaugh on the other hand, has proven to be a liar, as well as a right-wing conspiracy nut and full-blown partisan.

O.k., cite Kavanaugh's statement and the evidence or testimony that suggests he's wrong.

Also, a very tiny fraction of all criminal or wrongdoing allegations are false. That's always been the case. The police generally don't arrest innocent people, and the overwhelming vast majority of people don't accuse people of things they don't honestly believe occcurred.

Also, one - she did have things to gain, as we have previously discussed, and she has gained significantly. And, it doesn't take a motive of gain in order to be wrong, to misremember after 35 years (as Tero so aptly described - it's easy to be completely wrong about decades old events), and there are motives other than personal gain that people have for doing things. People have made false allegations with nothing apparent to gain.

The fact that most people don't make false allegations is not a reason to credit allegations that don't make rational sense and evolve in inconsistent ways. Even though very few people make false allegations - even an allegation of embezzlement from a charity or something wouldn't be accepted uncritically. We would want to know who, what, where, when etc., so that the allegations can be corroborated. If someone said that Brett Kavanaugh had his hand in the cookie jar in 1988 and took the Homecoming Parade money, if the story shifted and changed, key details were missing, it was unverifiable and unfalsifiable, and the few witnesses we did have either didn't remembver or said it didn't happen -- there would be some legitimate doubt, woudn't there?

Surely there's got to be enough doubt now about his denials that he shouldn't be appointed. I know the nutjob segment of the repubs (most of them) won't care. Will enough of the sane(ish) ones care enough to vote against him?

My guess is that they'll ram him through. When Republicans are involved, assume the worst. There's really no telling though.

Sadly, yes. I oppose, his nonimation on judicial philosophy grounds. But, the conduct of the Democrats and this kind of wild circus cannot be what prevents a SCOTUS justice from sitting. If it does, you are going to get the Republicans doing the same shit next time around.....

This is A Man for All Seasons -- I would give the Devil the benefit of the law. What would you do, Roper? Would you cut a great road through the law to get at the Devil? Roper would say "I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" And Thomas More retorts - "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

The Republican devils will turn rund on you - where will you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

If due process, reason, logic, and normal epistemological approaches to evaluating truth claims don't apply, then they will not apply next time either. Who will stand upright when the winds blow in the other direction?

Yes, yes - I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

[Forty Two]

Yep, McConnell has made his move to wrap it up by the weekend, according to Politico. My guess he has the votes, and the FBI will report nothing big, so unless the media breaks a big story the advocacy groups will count their money and wait for the next scandal they can fund raise off of.

Of course he has the votes - Blasey Ford's allegations wouldn't even justify probable cause for a warrant, and the easy, kid-gloves questioning at last week's hearing exposed her story as not believable.

Ramirez made an allegation that she later says she's not sure about.

Swetnick flat out says in her most recent version of events that all she saw was Kavanaugh, 3 years younger than her, drinking out of plastic cups at a party and standing around.

The whole charade is pure, unadulterated bullshit. They have to confirm him for the sake of reason and logic.

[Forty Two]

dupe

[Galaxian]

The real question is, would a person like Ford actually just make up this whole story for partisan purposes? Coming from the sane part of the world, I'd have to say "no way". But this is Merka, after all. Is it actually possible that a person of her status would make up a story to stop a SC appointment? What do the reasonable yanks say to this? I'm sure 42 thinks it's possible, but he's hyper-partisan and thinks someone's choice of breakfast cereal is a partisan decision...

Of course not. A very tiny fraction of rape allegations are false. This woman had everything to lose, and nothing to gain by coming forward. Bart O'Kavanaugh on the other hand, has proven to be a liar, as well as a right-wing conspiracy nut and full-blown partisan.

That's not so. Upwards of 50% of 'rape' allegations are false, for one reason or another.

Also, the idea of what 'rape' is differs from one person to another. They're now talking of making 'consent' a continuous thing. That has already been prosecuted for...'withdrawal of consent' (look it up). So, is that rape? Are we rapidly reaching the stage where there must be video surveillance in every bedroom, so that each party has evidence whether consent was continuous or withdrawn?

What about changing her mind the next day? "I was 'seduced", or, "I had too much to drink", so the consent was 'unfair'" Basically we have a generation of snowflakes here, where a minor fuck is a major imposition. And when does "No" mean "Yes", and these days, "Yes" mean "No"... Perhaps 36 years later? And don't tell me that "No" never means "Yes". I've seen it with my own eyes; the coquette, the flirt, the teaser, the hard-to-get type. And I've seen how the persistent 'bully' got his girl. There's even proverbs about it; "Faint heart never won fair maiden!", and "All is fair in love & war" and cultural ritual, such as the 'striptease'. But the man-hating feminists would deny that, and assert that it is just another example of male domination & perversion.

And it goes on. The entire arena of dating has become fraught with huge risks for males (females are exempt). Hence "Sexodus". The agenda is driven by mainly 2 forces: Radical Feminism, of those misandrists who despise men with a vengeance. And the pyramid peak controller misanthropists who despise people in general and see this as yet another means for AI to take over, as Galaxian predicts in the next 17 years or so. So, why would she make it up, or be supine to orders to do this? Perhaps she actually HATES men.