Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keyser says she believes Ford.

Interesting that the WaPo article did not give a direct quote from Keyser to back that up. Left hanging--did she say she believes Ford that something traumatic happened to her [at sometime]?

It says Keyser works for Bob Beckle. Is he conservative? Some people in this crowd can be really nasty and blackball your family and your kids and I think that’s why some people are not speaking out.

Established earlier: Beckle is a Dem. He is her ex. Doubt Keyser works for him.

I hate to think the worst but does she live in Chevy Chase or belong to Chevy Chase club? Some people in that crowd can be really really nasty and blackball her and her kids socially, as I’ve had friends that have been treated terribly by some of the people that belong to that club. Some even belong to the club and have been treated terribly. Others Just are in the same school community as a few of the members. Blackballing kids and families is very common at Chevy club. I don’t hear of people behaving that way anymore at other elite clubs like Congressional, Columbia, or Kenwood.

She appears to live off Bradley Rd west of Arlington Rd. Not sure why she would belong to the Chevy Chase Club or if that is relevant.

She may be a longtime friend of Ford's but consider what Ford is implying. She ran from a house without also pulling out her friend, leaving her alone with three older boys, two of whom she says attempted to rape her.

[Anonymous]

Genuinely don’t see this going well for him. He’s not particularly smooth, and the load of crazy that Whelen splattered, plus the all day coaching by Shine, aren’t going to give him the appearance of rectitude that Kavanaugh needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of the people dismissing the witness statements saying they do not recall and/or it never happened, please remember these are HER witnesses, not his. These are the people she chose to back her up, and they can’t.

If he pulled out 4 people that said he was not there, I’d understand the “who remembers a single party 30 years ago” argument. He didn’t, she did.

If your own alibi says you were not there, who do you believe?

They aren’t alibis in the way you’re suggesting. You and the other Kav stans are deliberately conflating a job interview that Brett is messing up with criminal prosecution.

His “job interview” was well over a week ago during the nomination hearings. This COULD have been a part of that, had Feinstein done what she should have done and brought these allegations forward when she received them.
This is, in essence, a trial.

+ 1 and a trial where the accuser is demanding that she go AFTER the accused defends himself (from specifics he hasn't had a chance to hear).

Ridicluous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keyser says she believes Ford.

Interesting that the WaPo article did not give a direct quote from Keyser to back that up. Left hanging--did she say she believes Ford that something traumatic happened to her [at sometime]?

It says Keyser works for Bob Beckle. Is he conservative? Some people in this crowd can be really nasty and blackball your family and your kids and I think that’s why some people are not speaking out.

Established earlier: Beckle is a Dem. He is her ex. Doubt Keyser works for him.

I hate to think the worst but does she live in Chevy Chase or belong to Chevy Chase club? Some people in that crowd can be really really nasty and blackball her and her kids socially, as I’ve had friends that have been treated terribly by some of the people that belong to that club. Some even belong to the club and have been treated terribly. Others Just are in the same school community as a few of the members. Blackballing kids and families is very common at Chevy club. I don’t hear of people behaving that way anymore at other elite clubs like Congressional, Columbia, or Kenwood.

She appears to live off Bradley Rd west of Arlington Rd. Not sure why she would belong to the Chevy Chase Club or if that is relevant.

She may be a longtime friend of Ford's but consider what Ford is implying. She ran from a house without also pulling out her friend, leaving her alone with three older boys, two of whom she says attempted to rape her.

Ford herself and Keyser have said nothing to imply your drama llama tale of abandonment. That’s all you, flunky. You’re here trying to see what sticks and gets traction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you noticed all her family here is keeping their distance? None of the Blaseys are speaking up for her. Just Holton alumni from other graduation years who don't know her.

False. Family members put out statements last week. Cited about 150 pages ago in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There is no den in the wide world to hide a rogue. Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass. Commit a crime, and it seems as if a coat of snow fell on the ground, such as reveals in the woods the track of every partridge, and fox, and squirrel."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Lovely. I love Emerson. Your point?

Kavanaugh is the hidden rogue who has committed a crime; he cowers in his den visible through the clear glass as his guilt leaves a trail in the snow.

He's committed a crime? Why? Because someone whose story is falling apart, has no witnesses, and can't remember much about the "crime" says it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you noticed all her family here is keeping their distance? None of the Blaseys are speaking up for her. Just Holton alumni from other graduation years who don't know her.

False. Family members put out statements last week. Cited about 150 pages ago in this thread.

Maybe we need a new thread now that the hearing has been definitely scheduled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all of the people dismissing the witness statements saying they do not recall and/or it never happened, please remember these are HER witnesses, not his. These are the people she chose to back her up, and they can’t.

If he pulled out 4 people that said he was not there, I’d understand the “who remembers a single party 30 years ago” argument. He didn’t, she did.

If your own alibi says you were not there, who do you believe?

Mark Judge is refusing to testify. What his lawyer sent as a statement is immaterial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keyser says she believes Ford.

Interesting that the WaPo article did not give a direct quote from Keyser to back that up. Left hanging--did she say she believes Ford that something traumatic happened to her [at sometime]?

It says Keyser works for Bob Beckle. Is he conservative? Some people in this crowd can be really nasty and blackball your family and your kids and I think that’s why some people are not speaking out.

Established earlier: Beckle is a Dem. He is her ex. Doubt Keyser works for him.

I hate to think the worst but does she live in Chevy Chase or belong to Chevy Chase club? Some people in that crowd can be really really nasty and blackball her and her kids socially, as I’ve had friends that have been treated terribly by some of the people that belong to that club. Some even belong to the club and have been treated terribly. Others Just are in the same school community as a few of the members. Blackballing kids and families is very common at Chevy club. I don’t hear of people behaving that way anymore at other elite clubs like Congressional, Columbia, or Kenwood.

She appears to live off Bradley Rd west of Arlington Rd. Not sure why she would belong to the Chevy Chase Club or if that is relevant.

She may be a longtime friend of Ford's but consider what Ford is implying. She ran from a house without also pulling out her friend, leaving her alone with three older boys, two of whom she says attempted to rape her.

Ford herself and Keyser have said nothing to imply your drama llama tale of abandonment. That’s all you, flunky. You’re here trying to see what sticks and gets traction.

Ford's story implies that: She says there were three boys and one girl, Keyser at the party. Following the alleged assault, she fled the house. That leaves one girl at the party with the three boys.

Unless, of course, Keyser was there briefly and then left and Ford for some reason did not go with her, leaving her alone with the three boys. Maybe that is the reason she said she doubted Keyser would remember anything?

Still wouldn't explain why Keyser says she does not know Kavanaugh at all even though they would have had overlapping social circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you noticed all her family here is keeping their distance? None of the Blaseys are speaking up for her. Just Holton alumni from other graduation years who don't know her.

False. Family members put out statements last week. Cited about 150 pages ago in this thread.

DP. You are wrong. Those are from her in-laws only. None of the Blaseys are supporting her publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of the people dismissing the witness statements saying they do not recall and/or it never happened, please remember these are HER witnesses, not his. These are the people she chose to back her up, and they can’t.

If he pulled out 4 people that said he was not there, I’d understand the “who remembers a single party 30 years ago” argument. He didn’t, she did.

If your own alibi says you were not there, who do you believe?

Mark Judge is refusing to testify. What his lawyer sent as a statement is immaterial.

Nope. His statement holds the same weight as a statement under oath.

Senator Hatch Office
?
Verified account

@senorrinhatch
Following Following @senorrinhatch
More
Senator Hatch Office Retweeted Shannon Bream
These official letters from the 4 named by Dr Ford—denying any knowledge of what Dr Ford has alleged— serve the same purpose as sworn testimony.

We remain hopeful we’ll hear sworn testimony from the 5th, Dr. Ford herself


Senator Hatch Office
?
Verified account

@senorrinhatch
Following Following @senorrinhatch
More
Additionally, every letter/statement/interview made to @SenJudiciary carries a legal consequence for not telling the truth, just like with sworn testimony. (18 USC 1001)

Letters like Mark Judge’s fulfill same need as sworn testimony or an FBI interview

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Citation for your assertion? The only people who seem to doubt her credibility are die-hard partisan hacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Yes we do. Do you know why PP brought up statistics - and since this isn’t a criminal trial, they sure as heck can count and should, too - because 100% of women have been groped, propositioned, leered at, sexually assaulted or raped. I’m assuming you’re a woman. Maybe you only got the first three, like I did. But I can rattle off a dozen women I know who have been sexually assaulted including one friend who was 15 years old, running on a forested trail, got punched flat and raped by a stranger. She never reported it because she thought she wouldn’t be believed, that her dad would be mad at her for having gone running alone.

We find her credible because we’ve been there. Maybe you have, too. Maybe you have to make it her failing that she brought this forward when secretly you wish you could name your accuser, too. Maybe you blocked it out and it only comes up in bits and pieces when you smell a certain smell or the air feels a certain way. But we come from a place of believing her because women are pretty much never believed.