The article is very clear on the points that Kavanaugh perjured himself. Are you going to actually refute any of them or just declare the whole thing a shame and continue strawmanning us?
The article makes nothing clear, how can it be refuted, it's a collection of picked phrases which are then
interpreted and then alleged to be false. The interpreted part has a lot to take issue with.
If you want to comment partisan pieces, please comment this from the "
other side":
Ford has no corroborating witnesses, and even the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all. She doesn’t know who invited her to the party, where it took place, how she got there, or how she got home after, by her account, Kavanaugh attacked her. But the problems go beyond gaps in memory. She has offered substantially different accounts about when the attack occurred (she’s previously said it happened in the “mid Eighties,” in her “late teens,” and in the “Eighties.” Now she’s saying it happened in 1982, when she was 15) and how it occurred (her therapist’s notes conflict with her story of the attack, and she has offered different accounts about who attended the party).
"the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all", True of false?
"She doesn’t know who invited her to the party, where it took place, how she got there, or how she got home after, by her account, Kavanaugh attacked her." True or false?
" She has offered substantially different accounts about when the attack occurred (she’s previously said it happened in the “mid Eighties,” in her “late teens,” and in the “Eighties.”" True or false?
"her therapist’s notes conflict with her story of the attack" True or false?
"she has offered different accounts about who attended the party" True or false?
Ford's claims are plainly false. The likeliness of such a claim to sexual assault going back 30 years being false has been my issue with this from moment zero. It just couln't be proven (this is a feature) and came too conveniently on time.
Saying "you must believe the victim" leads to
things such as this. Contradictory and unsupported accusations
must be disbelieved.
In any decent
society, society not just court, the burden of proof rests on the accuser, else arbitrary repression by the powerful will be enabled. They'd just have to get someone to accuse their target of some odious crime and it would be fair game to unload on the target.
Assange was done in in that way. Iraq, and then Libya, were destroyed in that way. Have you learned? Obviously not. You still believe that the ends justify any means.
