A Simple Case of "She Said, He Lies"

[babylonsister]

Great read if you have a minute.

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2018/10/btrtn-simple-case-of-she-said-he-lies.html?m=1

Monday, October 1, 2018
BTRTN: A Simple Case of "She Said, He Lies"

snip//

In this case, it is literally impossible that both Kavanaugh and Ford are telling the truth. It is hypothetically plausible that both believe they are telling the truth, but that one is wrong, by virtue of a case of mistaken identity or a black-out drunk. While that is possible, neither party has allowed for even the slightest sliver of chance that their recall is anything other than absolute and beyond dispute.

In this matter of grave and consequential importance to the future of our nation, the Tinkerbell defense -- “how can we ever reach a fair conclusion?” – is at best a cowardly abdication, and at worst a disingenuous strategic tactic. In a “he said, she said” scenario, the failure to provide definitive proof of guilt is often trumpeted as proof of innocence. In a “he said, she said” confrontation, the contentions of the victim are dismissed in the name of due process. “Innocent until proven guilty!” they shout, which in sexual assault trials overwhelmingly means that the y chromosome wins.

If Republicans are allowed to frame the entire issue in this way, we may as well swear Kavanagh in this afternoon.

However, this is the wrong way to frame the issue.

First, do not let anyone tell you that the case against Brett Kavanaugh must be “proven” at all, let alone proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a criminal trial, and if the outcome goes against him he is not going to jail. This is where the self-righteous cries of “innocent until proven guilty” are so misleading. This is not a criminal trial, it is a job application. The standard here is simple: is he the best person we can find for one of the most important jobs in the United States of America? Employers do not have to prove that a job applicant is guilty of a crime in order to avoid offering him or her a job. They simply decide – for any reason -- that there is a better, more qualified candidate, and move on.

Second: do not conclude that sexual assault must be proven in order to establish disqualifying behavior on Kavanaugh’s part. Certainly we must try to address the question of whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford as a teenager. But the assessment of his fitness for the Supreme Court should be informed and can be decided every bit as much by a second, far more accessible question: how has Judge Kavanaugh handled this allegation today, as a grown man, and in the full, current knowledge that he is aspiring to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land?

It is in the hot glare of this second question that we will find the certainty and clarity that is unlikely to emerge from the mysteries of a Bethesda bedroom in the early 1980s.

In the past week, we have witnessed Kavanaugh -- under oath and on national television -- exhibit eight distinct behaviors which each raise grave doubt about whether we have found “the best candidate for the job.” A number of these actions are individually disqualifying. In aggregate, they provide a portrait of a grossly flawed candidate who does not belong on the Supreme Court.

snip//

But hey, maybe you still think that this should all come down to “he said, she said.”

Maybe you think if it was all just “he said, she said,” you’d still squeak through.

Brett, maybe not. She passed the lie detector test, and you lied under oath.

It is pretty simple, Brett.

It's just a simple case of "she said, and he lies."

[Doreen]

1. Unless you are Republican, then it is "she lies, he said."