Posted 17 September 2018 - 06:13 AM
Brett Kavanaugh wasn't arrested and he's not on trial. So what I am saying is that the standard we hold courts to -- "innocent until proven guilty" -- isn't a balanced framework. Courts are ostensibly held to a very high standard -- as they should be -- because the consequence is a government putting a person inside a cage. That's not the standard -- especially given the vast ocean of evidence that suggests false accusations are rare -- that people should use when deciding to believe an accusation. It's not neutral, it's not objective, it's not remotely reasonable to start at 'he said / she said' and throw your hands up, because it is much much much more likely that she's telling the truth than that she isn't. So start there.
After that, of course, weigh what you know to be the case: her story isn't particularly vague imo, it hasn't changed over the years, and (just to be clear) the fact that Kavanaugh's name isn't in the notes is a matter of ethics on behalf of the therapist, not a matter of her not saying the name at the time. Her husband has stated (the 2012 session was couples therapy) that he recalls her naming Kavanaugh back then, not just in retrospect. I would also note that she took a polygraph test with an FBI agent and passed, which again wouldn't be admissible in court, but this isn't a court. On the other hand, Kavanaugh has perjured himself several times just during the past week, not to mention hearings of the past. We know, for a fact, that he is a liar even under oath.
While some Dems may have leaked it, they didn't exactly fish for it in the first place. She sent the letter of her own concern, and internally battled with its publication since. On the other hand, Kavanaugh produced a list *overnight* of 65 women dating back from high school in order to act as character recommendations. It means nothing to those who aren't already aiming to believe him, of course, but it's also kind of a weird thing to do in the first place and imo beggars belief that it really was gathered over one night. In what universe do you see a guy produce a "dozens of women I haven't assaulted" list he had handy and think -- yeah, that really clears up my suspicions?
Ultimately, though, I reject the notion all together that we shouldn't take her accusation at face value. She was there, she experienced it, she remembers the hand over her mouth when she tried to scream, and she described the event with all the eloquence and horror one could expect to hear. She's told her story, and it's either the truth or a lie. We already know that liars exist, and sometimes they lie about serious things. But this is one of those things people rarely lie about, especially in public against a powerful person they have little to no chance of affecting, especially when the outcome for themselves is going to be re-traumatizing from the attempted rape she survived, on top of the fresh hell of being raked over the coals by professional conservatives on every network and in every newspaper. So it's not 50/50. It's very, very, very unlikely that she is lying. You ask about the precedent of believing an accuser at face value as if the status quo isn't believing the denier at face value, even though -- as we've already both discussed several times over -- they're much more likely to be lying. So what precedent does your suspicion, your doubt, set? I guess none, since it's already the reality millions of women (and other victims) are already living.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.