3 ms·

I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.

by influx 3y ago

slg 3y ago
Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?
- jandrese 3y ago
  I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
  - adamc 3y ago
    We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
  - slg 3y ago
    >I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Anyone who knows anything about sexual assault would dismiss this as a serious threat to the credibility of the accusation. There was no reason for her to publicly make the accusation earlier. There is documentation of her privately making the accusation years before Kavanaugh's nomination. >Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      > The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations. Society yes, Congress no. Many of the same people are still in there.
- lliamander 3y ago
  - The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details - There were no corroborating witnesses - Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
  - slg 3y ago
    >- The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years. >- There were no corroborating witnesses What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination. >- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
    - lliamander 3y ago
      > No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years. Indeed! Which is one of the reasons why we should question her accusation! How can we be sure she even accurately remembers who committed the assault? It might very well have been that she was assaulted, but by someone else. It could also be that it was Kavanaugh, but the interaction played out differently that she remembers. > What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination. She named witnesses to the actual event (or at least the party at which it took place) and none of them corroborated her story. They wouldn't have even been implicating themselves in the assault. As I recall, she did talk about the incident years after it happened (long enough for details to have become muddled) but as I recall she didn't name Kavanaugh until after his nomination. > A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior. Kavanaugh kept a fairly detailed social calendar. In conjunction with the fact that none of the other supposed attendees to this party remembers it happening, significantly undermines credibility of the accusation.

I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.

by influx 3y ago

I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.

slg 3y ago

Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?

jandrese 3y ago
I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
- adamc 3y ago
  We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
- slg 3y ago
  >I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Anyone who knows anything about sexual assault would dismiss this as a serious threat to the credibility of the accusation. There was no reason for her to publicly make the accusation earlier. There is documentation of her privately making the accusation years before Kavanaugh's nomination. >Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    > The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations. Society yes, Congress no. Many of the same people are still in there.
lliamander 3y ago
- The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details - There were no corroborating witnesses - Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
- slg 3y ago
  >- The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years. >- There were no corroborating witnesses What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination. >- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
  - lliamander 3y ago
    > No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years. Indeed! Which is one of the reasons why we should question her accusation! How can we be sure she even accurately remembers who committed the assault? It might very well have been that she was assaulted, but by someone else. It could also be that it was Kavanaugh, but the interaction played out differently that she remembers. > What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination. She named witnesses to the actual event (or at least the party at which it took place) and none of them corroborated her story. They wouldn't have even been implicating themselves in the assault. As I recall, she did talk about the incident years after it happened (long enough for details to have become muddled) but as I recall she didn't name Kavanaugh until after his nomination. > A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior. Kavanaugh kept a fairly detailed social calendar. In conjunction with the fact that none of the other supposed attendees to this party remembers it happening, significantly undermines credibility of the accusation.