We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But where are they from?

W era presidential records, from his presidential library.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

W era presidential records, from his presidential library.

To be fair, his e-mails with Hillary have also not been produced.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

With respect to Dr. Blasey, there is a reason for statutes of limitations. It is practically impossible to defend oneself against an allegation that allegedly occurred 36 years before, when the only other alleged witness wrote a book about he was a blacked out drunk at the time. (Whether Kavanaugh is lying about it is a different question.)

There is a reason for statutes of limitations, which is to protect people from criminal prosecution. Interestingly, there is apparently no statute on a charge of attempted Rape in Maryland.

But setting aside this, does anyone thing these charges won't be considered in determining whether he coaches girls' basketball next season? And, if so, should the standards for coaching basketball be lower than those for a Supreme Court justice?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

There should be righteous indignance from Senators Collins and Flake, but I want to see one of them (or other Senators) have the actual fortitude to walk into the Senate, a la John McCain, with a thumbs down because the process was flawed.

I want to see the "93%" withheld documents. Among other things, I want to see whether Kavanaugh knew he was using stolen documents when he was a Bush flunkie, because he denies it under oath.

With respect to Dr. Blasey, there is a reason for statutes of limitations. It is practically impossible to defend oneself against an allegation that allegedly occurred 36 years before, when the only other alleged witness wrote a book about he was a blacked out drunk at the time. (Whether Kavanaugh is lying about it is a different question.)

As an asshole attorney,I keep chastising friends who are either "I believe her" or [insert attack on her credibility here] because - on what basis? You don't know shit.. You haven't even hear her speak. Let alone possibly knowing any existing corroborating or exculpatory evidence.

One can say "why would she lie?" And I would respond that I believe her about what happened at a drunken Georgetown prep high school party. But I would also remind myself of Duke Lacrosse, Tawana Brawley, and this recent case - https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/...e-13177363.php

Fake sex assault accusations are only about 5-8% of all sex assault accusations, comparable to fake accusations of all other types of crime.

Given those stats, I don't see any reason for concern about false accusations. What I see as problematic here is the loose expansion of allegations, in several respects.

1. People used "rapist" before they had all of the facts. Some continue to do so to the present. We're all aware of the facts now, so the person on your FB feed calling him a rapist knows he or she is embellishing. I suspect a lot of these people don't care about that inaccuracy. Well, that is called lying. That's what Trump does. That one thinks himself or herself on the righteous side of this debate does not provide license to do what Trump does.

2. The allegation that Kavanaugh is somehow culpable for what his friends have done is chilling. This Judge fellow sounds like a serious loser with major psychological problems. That he claims to have gang raped someone and written bizarre religious gibberish about how "uncontrollable male lust" is a beautiful thing is not Kavanaugh's fault. The man is clearly demented, and not close with Kavanaugh anymore.

3. The indictment of Kavanaugh for having partied with wild suburban kids, some of whom were affluent (the media was quick to cite a dead Kennedy as a Kavanaugh pal) is unfair. There's nothing wrong with being part of a party scene. The broad brush attacks on kids behaving boorishly that've been going on strikes me a bit... puritan. And the assertion that libertines are kindred spirits with rapists is offensive. Many of us here are libertines. We've been to those keg parties. We've thrown them. And we did not - ever, under any circumstances - countenance sexual assault at such parties. Did people get wasted and hook up? Yes. Is it arguable some people felt regret at things they did at such parties, from sex, to falling through mom's wicker table on the deck, to throwing up all over the couch in the den? Sure. But being a reckless, drunk kid is not the same thing as being a predator. Having voted a guy out of a fraternity for merely threatening sexual assault on a female friend of ours, I believe it can and should be said that even the most libertine of us Know The Line. And assault, of any kind, is never tolerated. Judging any person for having reckless fun as a kid is disingenuous. Conflating a party scene with deviant criminal behavior is disingenuous, and smacks of puritan scolding. And the last thing this country needs right now is a resurgence of puritan values.

[Adder]

Divide it into discrete bits and dismiss each one. Okay.

What Judge has written about his high school years (perhaps arguably even later) and the scene in which Kavanaugh ran are context that tends to corroborate her story of a drunken "party" they both attended.

As for not judiciously including "attempted." The allegations are he held her down, covered her mouth to silence her and tried to get her clothes off. Meh.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Fake sex assault accusations are only about 5-8% of all sex assault accusations, comparable to fake accusations of all other types of crime.

Given those stats, I don't see any reason for concern about false accusations. What I see as problematic here is the loose expansion of allegations, in several respects.

1. People used "rapist" before they had all of the facts. Some continue to do so to the present. We're all aware of the facts now, so the person on your FB feed calling him a rapist knows he or she is embellishing. I suspect a lot of these people don't care about that inaccuracy. Well, that is called lying. That's what Trump does. That one thinks himself or herself on the righteous side of this debate does not provide license to do what Trump does.

2. The allegation that Kavanaugh is somehow culpable for what his friends have done is chilling. This Judge fellow sounds like a serious loser with major psychological problems. That he claims to have gang raped someone and written bizarre religious gibberish about how "uncontrollable male lust" is a beautiful thing is not Kavanaugh's fault. The man is clearly demented, and not close with Kavanaugh anymore.

3. The indictment of Kavanaugh for having partied with wild suburban kids, some of whom were affluent (the media was quick to cite a dead Kennedy as a Kavanaugh pal) is unfair. There's nothing wrong with being part of a party scene. The broad brush attacks on kids behaving boorishly that've been going on strikes me a bit... puritan. And the assertion that libertines are kindred spirits with rapists is offensive. Many of us here are libertines. We've been to those keg parties. We've thrown them. And we did not - ever, under any circumstances - countenance sexual assault at such parties. Did people get wasted and hook up? Yes. Is it arguable some people felt regret at things they did at such parties, from sex, to falling through mom's wicker table on the deck, to throwing up all over the couch in the den? Sure. But being a reckless, drunk kid is not the same thing as being a predator. Having voted a guy out of a fraternity for merely threatening sexual assault on a female friend of ours, I believe it can and should be said that even the most libertine of us Know The Line. And assault, of any kind, is never tolerated. Judging any person for having reckless fun as a kid is disingenuous. Conflating a party scene with deviant criminal behavior is disingenuous, and smacks of puritan scolding. And the last thing this country needs right now is a resurgence of puritan values.

Are you agreed that being drunk or high, though, isn't an excuse for any action a person might take, and that no one gets to argue a passed out person consents?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Fake sex assault accusations are only about 5-8% of all sex assault accusations, comparable to fake accusations of all other types of crime.

Out of curiosity, where does that number come from?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

To be fair, his e-mails with Hillary have also not been produced.

I do think we should recognize the progress that has been made in this whole scandal. Which is that even when they went for the "someone else did it" defense, no one has yet blamed a black man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK Noel Francisco, your turn! C'mon down!

Hello

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Are you agreed that being drunk or high, though, isn't an excuse for any action a person might take, and that no one gets to argue a passed out person consents?

Of course. That one was inebriated is not a defense to an intentional and unquestionably deviant act. On the second point, how does one argue a passed out person consents? If you aren't awake, consent is impossible. Similarly, an utterly smashed person cannot consent. If you're out of your mind loaded, you don't have the necessary capacity. (I know this appears to contradict the previous statement that inebriation is not a defense to sexual assault allegations. I don't think that's the case. Doing something deviant and violent is always intentional, while acquiescing to sex while pasted is not necessarily intentional.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Out of curiosity, where does that number come from?

I heard it on a news broadcast. Wikipedia says it's 2-10% re: rape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I heard it on a news broadcast. Wikipedia says it's 2-10% re: rape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

If I edit the Wikipedia page to say it's .0000007%, will you just repeat that figure too?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I edit the Wikipedia page to say it's .0000007%, will you just repeat that figure too?

Yes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Of course. That one was inebriated is not a defense to an intentional and unquestionably deviant act. On the second point, how does one argue a passed out person consents? If you aren't awake, consent is impossible. Similarly, an utterly smashed person cannot consent. If you're out of your mind loaded, you don't have the necessary capacity. (I know this appears to contradict the previous statement that inebriation is not a defense to sexual assault allegations. I don't think that's the case. Doing something deviant and violent is always intentional, while acquiescing to sex while pasted is not necessarily intentional.)

I'm getting sick of this Kumbayah stuff here where we all agree.

Who wants to talk about third party voters?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes.

It seems odd to talk about those numbers without also acknowledging the problem of underreporting. Blasey Ford never made the sort of allegation that seems to form the denominator for those studies. Using the numbers from those studies to inform thinking about whether she is telling the truth is comparing apples to oranges, no?