…Because they’re women, of course!
Leaving bigotry and politically-nurtured fantasy aside, however, we know, and even a lot of the people mouthing the “victims/survivors should be believed” lie know, that there are many, many reasons to doubt the motives and reliability of many accusers.
In the Federalist, an employment lawyer who defends people who have been accused lists his top ten reasons to doubt an accuser, like, just to take a wild, random example, Christine Blasey Ford.The lawyer, Adam Mill, begins,
I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.
(For some reason, you have to use words like “athwwrt” to be in The Federalist.)
Here are the ten; his commentary on them in his article are worth reading.
1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.
2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.
3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.
4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.
5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.
6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.
7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.
8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained..
9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.
10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.
Mill concludes,
It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations. These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.
The guy is obviously a fascist, sexist misogynist who gets his talking points from Fox News.
Ethics Alarms 
“(For some reason, you have to use words like “athwwrt” to be in The Federalist.)”
Well, we know why this won’t appear in the Federalist.
That’s a solid list. I can see at least 9 conditions met by Ford’s accusation.
Which one doesn’t it meet? I reckon she meets them all.
I presume #8 is the least shaky because I don’t doubt she actually knows the guy. Do you?
Oh, but, Michael, she can identify Kavanaugh as they knew each other, but she can’t remember the incident all that well. Her memories are hazy, contradictory, and confused.
jvb
”Her memories are hazy, contradictory, and confused.”
♫Mem’ries light the ♫corners of my mind♫
♫Misty water-colored mem’ries ♫of the way we were♫
I get it. But if #8 is contingent on the accuser being able to positively identify the accused at the moment of the incident, then it seems to me that the conditions for #8 to matter depend entirely on other items from the list ALREADY being affirming or denying conditions. Meaning that #8 is superfluous if it only applies to the incident in question. Or I misread what #8 is.
The way I read it, it’s hard to explain how her memories of the accused can be accurate, but her memory of the rest of it so… lacking in fullness. This requires explanation.
It’s easy to see how a memory might be incomplete about an event this old, but usually there are multiple points of reference remembered. What this suggests is that she has substituted Kavanaugh for someone else, or left the party thinking it was no big deal, and only came to the conclusion it was a big deal later in life.
We tend to remember events that have some kind of memorable nexus pretty well. For example, about 43 years ago, I was at a fraternity retreat and got spectacularly drunk to the point of unconsciousness. Despite that, I remember everything leading up to the event, and the subsequent ribbing and joking about it. I remember it well enough to remember a particular frat brother and I drinking beer directly from the keg spout shortly before things went… rather black. The rest of the details are too embarrassing to relate.
Ford was, according to her testimony, not inebriated at the time. How I could possibly remember more about my drunken episode which had exactly zero consequences for my mental health than she can remember about a younger memory that had allegedly manifest consequences needs to be explained. “Trying to forget” is no explanation, I have been trying to forget a couple of other embarrassing incidents all my life without success.
So unless her memory is substantially different in character than mine, and since we are both human beings I doubt it, there are many questions about how and why she remembers Judge and Kavanaugh but little else about the incident.
I don’t disagree with any of this.
I just don’t think I understand #8.
I now understand #8. Yes, Ford matches all 10.
Is there a link to the article? Or am I just daft?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/#disqus_thread
What’s going on here…
Progressives have weaponized the irrational logic of the brainwashed SJWC (Social Justice Warrior Cult) as the enforcement arm of the Progressive movement and they don’t give a damn about truth or real justice, their goal is to crush any opposition into absolute submission using propaganda based rhetorical fear tactics most of which are absolutely false accusations or smearing false innuendo. These SJWC idiots think correlation equals causation and accusations equate to guilt. The warriors in the SJWC are pawns in a movement towards Progressive totalitarianism. When the SJWC is trying to increase the power of Progressives using their “social justice” fear tactics it doesn’t matter one bit what they choose as their social target as long as fear tactics is their primary tool of choice, it’s all about spreading fear of the cult in the public so the public will consciously make choices that won’t oppose the cult to avoid the wrath of the cult.
From my viewpoint; the social justice warriors cult is the modern day western society’s version of Pol Pot, Leninist’s, Stalinist’s, Nazi’s, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and al the other extreme totalitarian cults that try to barrel over everything in their path with social intimidation, fear and violence, the only difference so far is that this SJWC hasn’t yet picked up physical weapons to force submission with violence. The social justice warriors cult arm of the Progressive totalitarian movement are all currently propaganda terrorists and, if what we’ve seen in history repeats itself yet again, it won’t be long before the these imbeciles justify and encourage open physical violence and pick up guns and knives to force submission. We’ve already seen glimpses of this with some of the ginned up race riots and the violent enforcement fist of the hooded social justice warrior’s army that call themselves ANTIFA; which by the way, ANTIFA (anti-Fascists) is an oxymoron – with only a few differences they are the extreme totalitarians they profess to oppose.
Progressives, if you want to see the real evil that lurks in the abyss of political chaos, look in a mirror; I hope you’re proud of yourselves.
“There isn’t any difference in totalitarian states. I don’t care what you call them-you call them Nazi, Communist or Fascist, or Franco, or anything else–they are all alike” ~ Harry Truman, May 13, 1947
All of these hit the mark. Unfortunately, the political left in this country isn’t interested in looking at any of those factors, especially when a conservative is the target. As far as they are concerned an accusation of male on female abuse is as good as a conviction, unless your last name is Ellison or Booker or Biden or Clinton or Kennedy. Then anything you do gets buried deep.
You still get thrown under the bus if there’s photographic evidence (Franken) or if there’s evidence you frequented prostitutes that costs you the support of your own party (Spitzer), but it’s done grudgingly and with regret, after all, Franken was becoming a strong progressive voice in the Senate, and Spitzer was “a fucking steamroller” who could have rolled right on to become the first Jewish president and been a damn good one. Too bad Franken had to do something in a way he couldn’t later plausibly deny, and too bad those other fogeys in NY had to dig into something that should have stayed between him and his wife.
What’s more, the political left in this country isn’t going to accept the results here if they go against them, which they might, as the GOP senators conclude they are being jerked around and decide not to let their votes change by someone who jerks them around. They have openly said they are going to investigate the judge and attempt to bring him down later. This is not even a question of sore losers. This is a question of scorched-earth politics. In the wake of the 2008 election certain people called for the outlawing of the Republican party because they believed it had done so much damage to this country that, like the Nazi party in Germany and the Communist Party in Russia, it should be outlawed as a damaging force. I am beginning to believe that, in the event the Republican party is able to pull off keeping its majorities in this election, that they should seriously consider the outlawing of the democratic party due to its toxic practices and obvious intent only to hold on to power and not to do anything good for this country.
It’s fine, Chuck Shumer went full totalitarian earlier by declaring that there is no presumption of innocence.
When did he declare that?
When Paula Jones accused President Bill Clinton of indecent exposure?
It is a good article. However, it seems too tailor-made for the current situation.
Or maybe the opposite is the case. Perhaps the article accurately describes these cases in general, and this case fits the generalities to a T?
I considered that too, but Occam’s razor would suggest the former. It doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong or inaccurate. It might mean there are others that do not fit the situation that equally applies.
But you don’t understand. He’s a witch! And anyone who defends a witch is a witch too! And we keep going on like this in circles until everyone is dead and the next generation thinks we’re utter idiots and looks on us in shame!
I see no difference between #MeToo and the Salem Witch Trials or the Satanic Panic.
While this article addresses factors that suggest that an accuser is not being fully truthful seems perfectly logical and rational, it would have carried more weight in my mind had it been published before virtually all the listed behaviors were demonstrated by the Ford team and the anti-Kavanaugh forces.
Any objective person could have come to the same conclusions and that the fact that the article was written by an employment lawyer seems more as an appeal to authority while relying on our own biases to validate his conclusions.
No doubt it is getting harder for me to arrive at what is the truth in today’s political world. In fact, I don’t want to simply stand on the sidelines and jump up and down screaming at what is obviously a politically motivated action to derail a SCOTUS nominee; I want to do something but I don’t know what I can do. But, I do not want to dispense with critical thinking and join the conservative equivalent of Antifa movement that demonizes it opposition. However, every person has a breaking point in which ethics will be damned if one is pushed into a street fight against those where the ends justify the means.
Yes, I know I have biases and I try to keep them in line. But I think of a co-worker virtually every time the issue of false accusation is raised. I can attest to this statement in the article, ” Some of the falsely accused commit suicide.” It is my understanding that this happened at Hagerstown Community College in August of 2008. The facts of the case are based on information provided to me by those who worked directly with him and others with whom I worked. The accused was nice but nebbish guy with a 20+ year exemplary record. The accuser was a student. The accused was tried and convicted based only on the accusation in the Kangaroo court of that college president’s administration. For the accused the college was his whole life. He was to be fired but on Aug 29, 2008 he put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. The student later recanted his allegation. No one concerns themselves with the victims of false accusations they are simply road kill for cowards, bigots, and opportunists. They do get a memorial garden. No penalty for the accuser.
I am surprised the man’s family did not seek revenge against the accuser.
The accused had no family. He was an only child and his parents had passed away.
Also, these are personnel issues that are sealed but I learned of the accusation and student recantation from his supervisor and the suicide was immediately known.
Attention World: Meet Julie Swetnick.
Now Kavanaugh is a serial drugger and gang rapist of incapacitated women. Man, high school sure turned into “Lord of the Flies” in the twenty or so years after I graduated. “Lord of the Flies” was just a book on our summer reading list, not reality. Whew! How did any women in high school during the early ’80s come out of it alive?
Does Julie Swetnick have a blue stained dress?
“If there is no sperm, you must confirm!”
Thanks for the laugh, slickwilly! I could die right now, and be happy. No one could take the smile off of my face after that comment!
Of course, it’s just another trap by the left: “So…confirm a WOMAN!”
Did someone on the Judiciary committee leak the information contained in Kavanuagh’s calendar to Avennetti? It looks like the deposition took place after Kavanaugh provided his documentation.
I want an FBI investigation of the Democrats on the Judiciary committee on who may have given what was to be exculpatory information to the committee days before to the NYT and Avannetti for the purpose of constructing the affidavit dated 9/25/18. The challenge to the original accuser was that times and dates or any specifics were unknowns or vague. Having Kavanaugh’s date book could allow the Avanetti’s client construct details that support an otherwise unsupportable claim.
Like I said originally about the referenced article, supposedly informational details to support an argument that come out after the fact are questionable.
11. The accuser can presume that he or she would be believed, because he or she can assert belonging to a group currently in favor.
That’s an excellent addition. I wish I could think of an example…
Here is an example: Black man accused of some sexual affront of a white racist women in the past. How many black men were lynched based on mere accusation from a white woman.
Can we say Emmett Till: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-death-of-emmett-till
This is what happens when the rule of law is supplanted by bigoted accusations supported by ignorant public opinion and allowed to be corrupted by vigilantism.
Avanetti and the Democrats at this point are no better than Milam/Bryant and the biased jurors. #metoo #MilamBryant
Who were probably all Democrats to start with.
I have a question:
Isn’t there anything that Kavanaugh can do within the legal system to the individuals that he claims are falsely accusing him or does he have to wait until they literally destroy his whole life which I think they’ve already done?
I think the Democrats have already succeeded in the destruction of Kavanaugh’s character in the minds of a huge swath of the public and it’s all based one unsubstantiated accusation after another and none of them can ever be proven. If he doesn’t get confirmed to the Supreme Court how can he possibly go back to any bench with the attack dogs from hell snarling at his heals and dogging his every move and every word; if he does get confirmed the same attack dogs from hell will be snarling at his heals
and dogging his every move and every word. I can see absolutely no win for Kavanaugh and I think that’s exactly what the Democrats planned.
I can’t verbally express my anger about how the Democrats have flushed all ethics and morals in their efforts to personally destroy Kavanaugh using unsubstantiated accusations all because they hate Trump and want to subvert anything that Trump does. I think the Democrats are knowingly and actively engaging in subversion. The precedence the Democrats are setting with their actions right now are radioactively toxic to the freedom and justice fabric of the United States of America. The Democrats are actively dismantling the phrase innocent until proven guilty; we now have guilty by accusation, there is no need for the political left to use the legal system when they can destroy their perceived opposition using the court of public opinion and set up their attacks so the accused cannot legally defending themselves from accusations. The fallout after-life from the Democrats toxic actions since November 2016, and more specifically over the last few weeks in these confirmation hearings/process, will be far and wide.
The Democrats are piling on the straw with throw balers running at an uncontrollable speed across an endless field of straw. I think we are so close to that last straw that I this might actually be that straw.
I still think he will be confirmed, Z. But if he does not, he’ll go back to D.C. Circuit and stay there as long as he wants. It’s a life time appointment and not a bad gig. If he is confirmed, yes, he will be smeared for the rest of his life in the same manner Justice Thomas continues to be.
Rats, there is a carriage return after “snarling at his heals” that wasn’t supposed to be there.
I am in your camp Z
If Kavanagh is confirmed, the better hope Kavanagh has loads of integrity. I’m sure he’d be tempted to issue payback, with Thomas clearly on his side.
Man – these Kavanaugh accusations are getting wild:
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/sexual-assault-suspicions-after-woman-discovers-dead-turtle-in-her-vagina-37345804.html
Many are claiming this deposition is absolutely truthful because it contains many lurid details. So too are many romance novels. However the deposition – specifically items 13 & 14 – leaves out specific details in which she claims she told two people of her rape? Who are they and why were they excluded from the deposition. Who are those that told her about “Beach Week” as stated in the deposition.
Real details that can substantiate the claims, specifically names of corroborating witnesses, photos that took place during Beach Week and the names of the other witnesses that will attest to the truthfulness of the claims made are uncomfortably absent. Name them now and not later.
This was deposition taken by an attorney with a known animus to all things Trump and the witness was not subject to any questions that challenge her statements.
For all those that claim the women making the allegations have nothing to gain I say there could be great financial, professional and historical value in becoming the heroine that saved Roe v Wade.
A deposition? This woman is involved in a pending lawsuit? Can someone unilaterally place one’s self “under penalty of perjury?” What court has jurisdiction? Was she speaking to the FBI?
This woman was gang raped by these guys but went to ten house parties with them?
I love the way newspaper writers refer to her affidavit as “evidence.” Hah! Have they ever heard of the term “allegations?”
Did they treat Paula Jones’s mere word as evidence?
And neglected to share her horrifying experience with the Gendarmerie!
Her statement says she knew girls were being drugged and gang raped and she said nothing, did nothing and continued to attend before and after it happened to her. By her statement, there should be at least 2 dozen supporting witnesses…this would not be knowledge that only she could have. I’ll wait while they turn up….
Tim, that would make her a co conspirator, would it not?
Definitely. Her affidavit is weird in that it says very mutually exclusive things but the conflation of facts makes it seem like she’s saying Brett Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes without actually anywhere saying that Brett Kavanaugh raped anyone or even herself. Heck – one point is that he was grinding and fondling girls while dancing, and the presumption is that it was unwelcome – but she stips short of saying how she knew this conduct to be unwelcome because it didn’t happen to her. I mean, the whole thing reads like a “OMG, they’re a bunch of sexually awakened heathens! Y’all MFers need Jesus!”
The latest new anonymous complaint from Denver is that in 1998 the daughter of someone he was social with saw him push her mom’s friend against a wall “in a sexual way”. Can someone tell me the different ways one can push someone against a wall and what qualifies as a sexual way?
All of the allegations are bullshit. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
The manner in which they have been held and how they are revealed are the smoking gun.
Pissed beyond belief.
All the years we worked to take back our country using the legitimate means, one vote at a time, and the left changes the rules to make sure they win, like they always do.
Not this time. This cannot stand.
My error I should have said affidavit instead of deposition.
Not your fault, CM. This Avenetti guy is a menace who cloaks these people’s allegations in faux legal formats. He’s really awful. And hearing him talk, he doesn’t really sound all that bright. Belligerent as hell, but not bright.
Jack,
I also find it telling that the most recent accuser provides no new witness names or evidence which one can easily substantiate. Her “sworn statement” mentions Kavanaugh and Judge (who is already under fire himself), but no one else who would have first-hand accounts.
Furthermore, this incident ALSO involves drinking, making the memories of anyone involved suspect AND conveniently explains a ready explanation for any gaps or inconsistencies in the story.
Excellent point, Neil.
She does not reveal the location where these alleged parties took place.