The Kavanaugh debacle--the entire MeToo movement, in fact--is forcing us to examine people's statements and quantify them as either "things which are true" or "things which are provable". The latter is actually a subset of the former--there are plenty of things which are true yet not provable, just ask O. J. Simpson--and so we have to ask, "which is more important, that something is true or that something is provable?". Anyone can claim that something is true--my great-great aunt was Jesse James's niece--but without proof the claim means nothing. For me, I prefer to deal with things which are provable because "truth" can be subjective.
I believe Kavanaugh's accusers, but bellievability is insufficient--if they want to make a case against him they need to offer proof; sworn affidavits which claim "yes, I was there and I saw him do x" do not equate to proof. What if someone else signs a sworn affidavit which claims "I was there but I did not see Kavanaugh at any such party"--whose affidavit is true? No, I know that no one is in a court situation, which is usually where provability matters more than truth, but these days we are treating the Court of Public Opinion as if it *were* an actual court--that damage is subtle and it is going to last for a long time.
This is also why it so important that people come forward at the earliest opportunity if they are assaulted. Every day which passes while the attacker is not placed under scrutiny is another day they got away with it without consequence.
There is now apparently a 4th accuser. This one isn't from high school, and actually appears to coincide with when he was working for Ken Starr's Independent Council:
The Kavanaugh debacle--the entire MeToo movement, in fact--is forcing us to examine people's statements and quantify them as either "things which are true" or "things which are provable". The latter is actually a subset of the former--there are plenty of things which are true yet not provable, just ask O. J. Simpson--and so we have to ask, "which is more important, that something is true or that something is provable?". Anyone can claim that something is true--my great-great aunt was Jesse James's niece--but without proof the claim means nothing. For me, I prefer to deal with things which are provable because "truth" can be subjective.
I believe Kavanaugh's accusers, but bellievability is insufficient--if they want to make a case against him they need to offer proof; sworn affidavits which claim "yes, I was there and I saw him do x" do not equate to proof. What if someone else signs a sworn affidavit which claims "I was there but I did not see Kavanaugh at any such party"--whose affidavit is true? No, I know that no one is in a court situation, which is usually where provability matters more than truth, but these days we are treating the Court of Public Opinion as if it *were* an actual court--that damage is subtle and it is going to last for a long time.
This is also why it so important that people come forward at the earliest opportunity if they are assaulted. Every day which passes while the attacker is not placed under scrutiny is another day they got away with it without consequence.
Good points.
If person A claims X and person B claims the opposite you hope there corroborating evidence or get the best you can out of the most witnesses.
Going back to Kavanaugh, so far I've heard of affidavits supporting Ford and only Kavanaugh claiming he didn't do it. Judge is taking the line where he says he doesn't remember that exact incident - legally leaving it open as if it actually happened and he has convenient amnesia or if other assaults occurred since he's being specific to that one charge.
The 65 or whatever women that signed a letter saying Kavanaugh didn't rape them we've had at least two recant lol. Including one that Kavanaugh claims to have graduated from in his yearbook captit. As far as the 65 women number goes even bill Cosby could probably locate 65 women he didn't rape somewhere.
There are reports the Susan Collins is super concerned about the new set of allegations, as well as the absolutely obvious mistake of not subpoenaing Mark Judge to testify, since he's neck deep in all of this.
If she flips to a "No", it leaves the GOP with the barest minimum of potential "Yes"s to get to a confirmation. I suspect if she's wavering, so is Murkowski. Flake has seem moderately open to making a (relatively) impartial judgement.
My caveat is why continue to attend parties like this when you know shit like this is going down? Doesn’t mean I don’t believe her, but why put yourself in that type of danger?
That kinda sounds like what you were just saying..
And once again, this was over 30 years ago. Back when police gave the advice of "don't dress like that if you don't want to be raped," ...
giving an honest answer into her mindset at the time allows the story to take a better shape of he said/she said argument. "I went to these parties because..." "I felt safe and thought these horrible incidents would never happen to be because..." It wouldn't be to judge her, it would be to add insight on why things like this took place breaking the "I'm a choir boy" image Kavanaugh and Co are attempting to paint.
Right now it is an accusation that things like this happened and a denial that they didn't.
It isn't he said, she said anymore. It's he said, she said, she said, she said, she said. As I have mentioned many times, at most, 10% of sexual assault allegations are falsified. So, if there is a (roughly) 90% chance each of these women individually is telling the truth, what is the likelihood that ALL FOUR of them are lying?? I admit I am fairly bad at this particular brand of statistics.
But just in case this is the correct way, I entered the numbers into a drop rate calculator for World of Warcraft. In this case, the women telling the truth has a 90% drop chance in one run. That could easily turn up as a non-drop, or be a lie. But if you turn the calculator to FOUR runs at a 90% drop rate for the item?? The percentage goes up to.......99.9%.
Even if we double the chance all these women are lying, and put the chance they are telling the truth at 80%, the end result still ends up at.....99.84%. If you take it all the way down to 60% chance, the likelihood that at least ONE of the women is telling the truth still sits at an astoundingly high 97.4%. And even if we go as low as I am possibly willing to entertain, which is that there is a 50/50 chance these women are telling the truth, there is still a 93.75% chance that at least one of them is.
@jjstraka34: If you do assume that each allegation has a 90% chance of being true, then the probability of all of them being false would be equal to 0.1^4, or 0.01%.
Honestly, though, I wouldn't like the odds if they were completely flipped (a 90% chance of not being a criminal isn't great), and again, we already have several completely unrelated reasons not to confirm him: (1) Kavanaugh's already committed perjury before, (2) he has a record of supporting corporate interests over people, (3) he tried to stop a legal court order allowing a woman to have an abortion, and (4) we still need to know his position on the limits of the presidential pardon (i.e., if Trump can pardon himself). That's not even touching the Roe v. Wade issue.
well that is impossible to support isn't it. How can something be both secret and open at the same time?
You are correct. There is no way to support it, and it doesn't even pass the common sense test, but that is what you must believe if you take her claims at face value.
And once again, this was over 30 years ago. Back when police gave the advice of "don't dress like that if you don't want to be raped," and "if you were intoxicated, how do you know it happened exactly like that?" to anyone who did come forward.
Yeah, nobody was getting convicted for rape in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Never happened.
There is now apparently a 4th accuser. This one isn't from high school, and actually appears to coincide with when he was working for Ken Starr's Independent Council:
I am not sure if this is the same one you are talking about @WarChiefZeke, but this is on MSNBC now. So. Cory Gardner's office received a letter from a mother about an incident dating from 1998. Kavanaugh and some friends/work colleagues were out drinking in a bar. When they left the bar, Kavanaugh grabbed a woman and pushed her up against the wall "in a sexual way" and made everyone uncomfortable.
The Republicans already talked to this woman via the phone, but several Democratic colleagues listening to the call felt Republican questioning was cursory on the incident and thought the questioning should go deeper.
This is the fake fourth accusation. The fact that the media was willing to put this on air and write articles about it with no vetting process says everything about why trial by media or guilt by accusation does more harm then good.
So I didn't watch Trump's 2nd free press conference he has ever given but hearing the "highlights". Hearing there was puhlenty of the usual rambling incoherent speech about "me, me,me!" crap and alternative reality offered.
By "me, me, me" everything is spun to be how i, Donald Trump, did the greatest thing or else it's someone else is terrible to me, Donald Trump.
This is the fake fourth accusation. The fact that the media was willing to put this on air and write articles about it with no vetting process says everything about why trial by media or guilt by accusation does more harm then good.
I see this now. Where is it fake? I'm not disputing that it's stupidly thin on detail. It's not particularly credible. Where do we have that it's specifically been identified to be fake or a hoax?
For the record - compare that note to Ford's recollection and the fact that she's put herself in a position to commit perjury if she lies (as well as getting sworn affidavits that would result in perjury for her husband). The difference is night and day. I see conservative sources that try to make it sound like the Ford allegations are as credible as the anonymous letter. They are nothing alike.
I would at this point be skeptical of the 4th anonymous accusation, simply because there was also briefly a fifth one making the rounds on social media that sounded fairly ridiculous. My bet is that sometime this afternoon Republicans started flooding the zone with false allegations to cast doubt on the first 3. I would no longer include it in the list until a name comes forward. I don't like the way the letter to Corey Gardner's office looks. It seems like a purposeful plant. Reading more on this in the last few minutes, I am even more convinced this is the case.
We have 3 women on the record, 2 of whom are now under the penalty of perjury if they aren't telling the truth. Given this development, that is all we are able to go on. Because apparently Senate Republicans also have so-called "information" that includes two men who called in claiming that they, not Kavanaugh, are the ones who committed the assaults. What?? So we have anonymous men confessing to felonies??
Yeah, nobody was getting convicted for rape in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Never happened.
Well, there has indeed been a big change over time in attitudes to rape and the extent to which that is recorded and prosecuted. Data in this article from the National Crime Victimization Survey show an 80% drop in the incidence of rape in the US between 1973 and 2003. By contrast, this report from the US Department of Justice shows the incidence of recorded rapes increasing by nearly 50% between 1976 and 1995.
I'm not sure anything could be more ridiculous than the calendars, but the idea that not one, but TWO people have stepped forward admitting to sexually assaulting Professor Ford manages to leap over that hurdle. For one thing, by default it means that one of them is CERTAINLY lying. Secondly, if they think this is so credible and exculpatory, I would assume the Republicans would be able to produce them for the hearing. And lastly, this is all the more reason force Mark Judge to testify.
Seriously? o.O I wonder how much these two were bribed to do this.... I am assuming bribe because 2 different guys. Do they both look like Brett Kavanaugh? (or did they, way back when...) Inquiring minds want to know...
So we have two republicans doing what they accuse the dems of doing - creating fake allegations. Interesting play mitch lets see how it plays out for them.
This is the fake fourth accusation. The fact that the media was willing to put this on air and write articles about it with no vetting process says everything about why trial by media or guilt by accusation does more harm then good.
So we have two republicans doing what they accuse the dems of doing - creating fake allegations. Interesting play mitch lets see how it plays out for them.
We can also go on about their anti-homosexuality crusade, then being caught in gay sex clubs, and you could have split up having affairs AND having their mistresses get abortions.
I'd also go on to antipatriotic things like draft dodging while exhorting for war for the national good.
It will be interesting what happens here with Kavanaugh. Republican echo chambers have it to either confirm Kavanaugh and own teh libs or you lose. The truth doesn't matter the victims don't matter. It's all about winning and losing. Sad.
McConnell says things like "we're going to win" and Tucker Carlson claiming if Senators don't confirm Kavanaugh regardless of anything then they aren't representing "the people". Wut.
A lot of people have made this us vs them, a zero sum game. Thats what Trump has pushed too - your with me you love me or you're horrible. I don't think Kavanaugh deserves to be confirmed for a number of reasons with his decisions. The sexual assaults should be investigated as well to get to the truth. Unfortunately neither his horrible positions, nor a lack of transparency of his records, nor a lack of investigations into these credible allegations is likely to stop this clown show. Why? Because it's us vs them and they'd rather confirm a terrible guy than "lose".
From what it sounds like, there were three people who could testify as to whether or not this is true. But given what people are already saying about the other three accusers, I don't blame this person for wanting to remain unnamed.
My 0.02$. I was sceptical about Cosby at first because I liked him. He was the first comedian I discovered when I was still in grade school and my parents didn't mind me listening to him because he was not raunchy at all. He was hilarious! I watched Fat Albert and the Cosby Show when they were in their prime and liked those too. However, when the floodgates started to open I realized what a fake he was. It's too bad but humans can definitely be two different people. They're complicated like that. I can still think Cosby is funny and enjoy Pablo Picasso's work even though they were both reprehensible human beings, however.
I don't even like Kavanaugh. He seems like the prototypical pretty-boy that was groomed for this job from an early age due to the fact that his family had money and ties. It doesn't make him guilty, but it does make him a bad choice for a supposedly progressive president...
but it does make him a bad choice for a supposedly progressive president...
Trump's been called populist - never progressive. Progressive would not be correct term because progressives go for progress like heading towards a Star trek like Utopia of equal rights and post capitalism society type of things. Progress. A brotherhood of humanity. Science fiction as of today.
Trump's thing is "make murica great again" as in go backwards in time. As in he thinks we're too advanced and need to go back to the past.
Definitely not a progressive. He wants to regress, he's a regressive. He wants to take away rights. Consider the stupid war on Christmas stuff like he thinks it's better when people said Merry Christmas instead of including and acknowledging other faiths and beliefs with happy holidays. Happy holidays - progress, merry Christmas - regress.
but it does make him a bad choice for a supposedly progressive president...
Trump's been called populist - never progressive. Progressive would not be correct term because progressives go for progress like heading towards a Star trek like Utopia of equal rights and post capitalism society type of things. Progress. A brotherhood of humanity. Science fiction as of today.
Trump's thing is "make murica great again" as in go backwards in time. As in he thinks we're too advanced and need to go back to the past.
Definitely not a progressive. He wants to regress, he's a regressive. He wants to take away rights. Consider the stupid war on Christmas stuff like he thinks it's better when people said Merry Christmas instead of including and acknowledging other faiths and beliefs with happy holidays. Happy holidays - progress, merry Christmas - regress.
You're right, populist then. Anyway, Kavanaugh was supposed to be his olive branch to the 'establishment' Republicans. So far it's going swimmingly...
Under state law in Texas, students are expected to stand as it is recited at start of each day. Texas students must stand for the pledge of allegiance (with it's 'one nation under god' and all that). One kid didn't multiple times and has been expelled and targeted for punishment because of this and is now bringing a lawsuit against the state because that the school violated her constitutional protections of free speech, due process and equal protection.
So all the Conservatives that were all for allowing a Christian baker to not bake cakes for gay people, where do they stand on this one? It's the same thing right? Free speech. Refusing to do something. I wonder if that gay baker guy supports this. Haha I have a feeling he doesn't.
At any rate the Texas AG is joining the lawsuit to defend the school and state and whatnot.
Early into the hearing with Blasey Ford and it's already painfully obvious she's struggled to avoid the spotlight the entire time.
This testimony is a death-blow to any near-term Republican prospects for winning women voters. If they proceed forward with this nomination the gender gap is going to be a chasm. She is obviously telling the truth and the Republicans have made utter fools of themselves in every aspect. Now the outside council is breaking out maps of country clubs. This is so unbelievably tone deaf. They thought they could intimidate her into not testifying. They were afraid of it. Easy to see why.
Under state law in Texas, students are expected to stand as it is recited at start of each day. Texas students must stand for the pledge of allegiance (with it's 'one nation under god' and all that). One kid didn't multiple times and has been expelled and targeted for punishment because of this and is now bringing a lawsuit against the state because that the school violated her constitutional protections of free speech, due process and equal protection.
So all the Conservatives that were all for allowing a Christian baker to not bake cakes for gay people, where do they stand on this one? It's the same thing right? Free speech. Refusing to do something. I wonder if that gay baker guy supports this. Haha I have a feeling he doesn't.
At any rate the Texas AG is joining the lawsuit to defend the school and state and whatnot.
Already heard that the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this.
Comments
I believe Kavanaugh's accusers, but bellievability is insufficient--if they want to make a case against him they need to offer proof; sworn affidavits which claim "yes, I was there and I saw him do x" do not equate to proof. What if someone else signs a sworn affidavit which claims "I was there but I did not see Kavanaugh at any such party"--whose affidavit is true? No, I know that no one is in a court situation, which is usually where provability matters more than truth, but these days we are treating the Court of Public Opinion as if it *were* an actual court--that damage is subtle and it is going to last for a long time.
This is also why it so important that people come forward at the earliest opportunity if they are assaulted. Every day which passes while the attacker is not placed under scrutiny is another day they got away with it without consequence.
If person A claims X and person B claims the opposite you hope there corroborating evidence or get the best you can out of the most witnesses.
Going back to Kavanaugh, so far I've heard of affidavits supporting Ford and only Kavanaugh claiming he didn't do it. Judge is taking the line where he says he doesn't remember that exact incident - legally leaving it open as if it actually happened and he has convenient amnesia or if other assaults occurred since he's being specific to that one charge.
The 65 or whatever women that signed a letter saying Kavanaugh didn't rape them we've had at least two recant lol. Including one that Kavanaugh claims to have graduated from in his yearbook captit. As far as the 65 women number goes even bill Cosby could probably locate 65 women he didn't rape somewhere.
If she flips to a "No", it leaves the GOP with the barest minimum of potential "Yes"s to get to a confirmation. I suspect if she's wavering, so is Murkowski. Flake has seem moderately open to making a (relatively) impartial judgement.
Lindsey Graham... not so much.
Right now it is an accusation that things like this happened and a denial that they didn't.
But just in case this is the correct way, I entered the numbers into a drop rate calculator for World of Warcraft. In this case, the women telling the truth has a 90% drop chance in one run. That could easily turn up as a non-drop, or be a lie. But if you turn the calculator to FOUR runs at a 90% drop rate for the item?? The percentage goes up to.......99.9%.
Even if we double the chance all these women are lying, and put the chance they are telling the truth at 80%, the end result still ends up at.....99.84%. If you take it all the way down to 60% chance, the likelihood that at least ONE of the women is telling the truth still sits at an astoundingly high 97.4%. And even if we go as low as I am possibly willing to entertain, which is that there is a 50/50 chance these women are telling the truth, there is still a 93.75% chance that at least one of them is.
Honestly, though, I wouldn't like the odds if they were completely flipped (a 90% chance of not being a criminal isn't great), and again, we already have several completely unrelated reasons not to confirm him: (1) Kavanaugh's already committed perjury before, (2) he has a record of supporting corporate interests over people, (3) he tried to stop a legal court order allowing a woman to have an abortion, and (4) we still need to know his position on the limits of the presidential pardon (i.e., if Trump can pardon himself). That's not even touching the Roe v. Wade issue.
The Republicans already talked to this woman via the phone, but several Democratic colleagues listening to the call felt Republican questioning was cursory on the incident and thought the questioning should go deeper.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1045102898651295744
By "me, me, me" everything is spun to be how i, Donald Trump, did the greatest thing or else it's someone else is terrible to me, Donald Trump.
For the record - compare that note to Ford's recollection and the fact that she's put herself in a position to commit perjury if she lies (as well as getting sworn affidavits that would result in perjury for her husband). The difference is night and day. I see conservative sources that try to make it sound like the Ford allegations are as credible as the anonymous letter. They are nothing alike.
We have 3 women on the record, 2 of whom are now under the penalty of perjury if they aren't telling the truth. Given this development, that is all we are able to go on. Because apparently Senate Republicans also have so-called "information" that includes two men who called in claiming that they, not Kavanaugh, are the ones who committed the assaults. What?? So we have anonymous men confessing to felonies??
I'm not sure anything could be more ridiculous than the calendars, but the idea that not one, but TWO people have stepped forward admitting to sexually assaulting Professor Ford manages to leap over that hurdle. For one thing, by default it means that one of them is CERTAINLY lying. Secondly, if they think this is so credible and exculpatory, I would assume the Republicans would be able to produce them for the hearing. And lastly, this is all the more reason force Mark Judge to testify.
Seems bound to happen like it does with other things with Republican politicians. Republicans railing against voter fraud? Republicans getting caught for voter fraud. Or Republicans railing against abortion - then republicans getting caught after having affairs and having their mistresses get abortions. Republicans upset about a Presidential affair when it's Clinton? Republicans have no problem with multiple affairs of Trump including with Stormy Daniels a couple months after Barron is born.
I'd also go on to antipatriotic things like draft dodging while exhorting for war for the national good.
McConnell says things like "we're going to win" and Tucker Carlson claiming if Senators don't confirm Kavanaugh regardless of anything then they aren't representing "the people". Wut.
A lot of people have made this us vs them, a zero sum game. Thats what Trump has pushed too - your with me you love me or you're horrible. I don't think Kavanaugh deserves to be confirmed for a number of reasons with his decisions. The sexual assaults should be investigated as well to get to the truth. Unfortunately neither his horrible positions, nor a lack of transparency of his records, nor a lack of investigations into these credible allegations is likely to stop this clown show. Why? Because it's us vs them and they'd rather confirm a terrible guy than "lose".
Progressive Christians Call Out Blatant Hypocrisy of Dismissing Kavanaugh's Accusers
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/progressive-christians-call-out-blatant-hypocrisy-of-dismissing-kavanaughs-accusers_us_5babe4f7e4b082030e77b712?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&utm_medium=facebook§ion=politics&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=politics_fb
From what it sounds like, there were three people who could testify as to whether or not this is true. But given what people are already saying about the other three accusers, I don't blame this person for wanting to remain unnamed.
I was sceptical about Cosby at first because I liked him. He was the first comedian I discovered when I was still in grade school and my parents didn't mind me listening to him because he was not raunchy at all. He was hilarious! I watched Fat Albert and the Cosby Show when they were in their prime and liked those too. However, when the floodgates started to open I realized what a fake he was. It's too bad but humans can definitely be two different people. They're complicated like that. I can still think Cosby is funny and enjoy Pablo Picasso's work even though they were both reprehensible human beings, however.
I don't even like Kavanaugh. He seems like the prototypical pretty-boy that was groomed for this job from an early age due to the fact that his family had money and ties. It doesn't make him guilty, but it does make him a bad choice for a supposedly progressive president...
Science fiction as of today.
Trump's thing is "make murica great again" as in go backwards in time. As in he thinks we're too advanced and need to go back to the past.
Definitely not a progressive. He wants to regress, he's a regressive. He wants to take away rights. Consider the stupid war on Christmas stuff like he thinks it's better when people said Merry Christmas instead of including and acknowledging other faiths and beliefs with happy holidays. Happy holidays - progress, merry Christmas - regress.
TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKES ON BLACK TEENAGER EXPELLED FOR SITTING DURING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Under state law in Texas, students are expected to stand as it is recited at start of each day. Texas students must stand for the pledge of allegiance (with it's 'one nation under god' and all that). One kid didn't multiple times and has been expelled and targeted for punishment because of this and is now bringing a lawsuit against the state because that the school violated her constitutional protections of free speech, due process and equal protection.
So all the Conservatives that were all for allowing a Christian baker to not bake cakes for gay people, where do they stand on this one? It's the same thing right? Free speech. Refusing to do something. I wonder if that gay baker guy supports this. Haha I have a feeling he doesn't.
At any rate the Texas AG is joining the lawsuit to defend the school and state and whatnot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
Oh look, they did.