a lot of questions like these really fail to apply the correct judicial standard. we're not talking about a criminal prosecution here, where the person alleging the assault has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (mathematically that's seen as a 99% standard, as in you need to prove your case so that a juror would be 99% convinced that it's true). we should be applying the preponderance of evidence standard, as would be applied in a civil case (mathematically that's seen as a 51% standard).Aglets wrote:Is there even one contemporary witness who was at ANY of these parties in question that has corroborated ANY of the allegations?
I'm trying to be open minded that I'm missing something here.
to other people at that party, nothing unusual happened. watch a movie produced in this era - 16 candles, revenge of the nerds, etc - and they portray clear sexual assault as silly misunderstandings or hilarious horseplay. so why would other partygoers have any memory of this specific party?
what we should be determining is, did she act in a way that's consistent with survivors of sexual assault? is her account consistent with what we know about fake rape accusers, or consistent with what we know about survivors of sexual assault? is her identification of kavanaugh believable and consistent with what we know about his activities during those years of his life?
one other minor detail that i've found noteworthy about this hearing: the format really doesn't seem to do the republicans any favors. the 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off interrupts the prosecutor's line of questioning, and gives democrats lots of opportunities to highlight the difference in treatment of the witness. that might somewhat flip though when kavanaugh is testifying, we'll see.