I simply no longer care.

The actions of the Senate are beyond reprehensible at this point.  So are the actions of the USSC; Roberts and his Obamacare ruling, which was and remains blatantly unconstitutional (he re-wrote an unconstitutional fine into an unconstitutional direct tax, which nobody other than myself has pointed out for years despite it being black-letter in the Constitution!) should have been enough.

But I'm pretty tolerant, and had some hope.

I guess that's where this line came from..... it's real.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

But, at this point, we're there from my point of view.

No, I'm not reaching for a rifle.  It's worse than that actually, which is what in my view you ought to think about long and hard.

You see, it's not worth spending my life on this nation; what the Founders gave and spilled both blood and fortune for no longer exists.

The latest Kavanaugh fiasco is exactly what I'm talking about.  Avenetti (Stormy Daniels' lawyer) now is claiming that he has credible evidence that Kavanaugh and his buddies engaged in multiple, organized and premeditated gang rapes.  Actual rapes -- not "well, we both got drunk and slept together and then one of us didn't like it the next morning" sort of accusations (which are damnable claims to get to the bottom of when everyone's an adult and imbibed freely on their own -- and were all smashed) but actual premeditated gang-rape setups where the allegation is that Kavanaugh and his friends intentionally drugged or got women drunk and then attacked them serially.

That is the sort of thing you do 100 years for -- if it's true -- and you should do 100 years, after being castrated with a pair of tin snips.  And we're not talking about one event either; the claim is that there are multiple instances.

But here's the problem -- I'm supposed to believe the FBI did six background investigations of this guy during his career in public service over nearly 20 years and didn't find any evidence of any of this?

Bull****.

Either this is the most-damnable libel I've ever seen in public or it's true, the FBI "passed" him intentionally and he's been blackmailed since to do whatever certain people in the government want.

Either way this is the end of America.  If you can make this sort of claim and it's a lie, and by doing so derail someone's career, literally resulting in them being unemployable forever while doing irreparable damage to their family and children we no longer live in a nation that I respect nor does anyone have any duty to the rule of law ever, in any context, period -- as those who take such an action will ultimately wind up provoking a "since I'm ****ed through your outrageously false and malicious acts so are you, *******" type of response.  Maybe not this specific time, but you can bet on it happening -- and once that starts it won't stop.  Bosnia, here we come, and you don't need guns (not that the gang-bangers are short of them) -- a brick off the top of a 10 story building is more than enough.

If it's the truth then there are literally millions of Americans who have been screwed up the ass because Kavanaugh has ruled from the bench not on his beliefs, not on his analysis, but on the command of a corrupt government that has knowingly put him on the bench under blackmail.  In that case the United States has become no different than Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung-Un, Pol Pot or, for that matter, The Third Reich.

Yeah, it's that bad if in fact this allegation is true because if you believe this was one instance, that there's just one judge or official that the FBI has done this with you're dumber than a box of rocks.  It's all of them and, with certainty, virtually all of Congress and likely the White House too; Ellison anyone?  Feinstein and her "driver"?  Justice Roberts?  McConnell?  Grassley?  Schumer? Trump?  All of them folks.

ALL.

Either way this nation isn't worth dying for any longer.  In fact, it's not worth anything at all and it's we the people who have allowed it to happen.

I no longer care if we get nuked in the morning and no, if it happens, I won't fight against whoever did it.

There's nothing left to fight for and we not only let it happen we still, to this minute of this day refuse to get off our ass and put a stop to it.  One man writing a blog won't do a damn thing nor will one person playing "nutjob"; 10 or 100 million getting off their ass and demanding a stop to all of it now would, but the fact is that nobody cares.

We, collectively as a nation, deserve what's not just coming, it's here today -- and those screaming "MAGA!" are in fact the worst of the intentionally complicit as we now have hard proof that Trump simply wants this power for himself.

YOU'RE NEXT IN LINE FOR THE PLASTIC CHIPPER.

From just now....

If this is real then how did Kavanaugh pass six FBI background checks without finding any of it?

This is an allegation that Kavanaugh personally participated in and perpetrated multiple gang-rapes.  This is a direct allegation of serious felony conduct -- a claim that Kavanaugh is a violent, serial sexual predator worse than virtually any currently in prison for a similar offense.  In fact this makes Cosby's alleged 'lude game look like a damned Girl Scout picnic.

Folks, true or not this is the literal end of America.

EITHER THIS IS THE MOST-OUTRAGEOUS ACT OF LIBEL I'VE EVER  SEEN PERPETRATED AGAINST SOMEONE IN PUBLIC SERVICE OR OUR FBI IS UTTERLY ****ING WORTHLESS OR, QUITE POSSIBLY, EVEN WORSE AS THE ONLY OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS THAT THE FBI IS AND HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY PUTTING RAPISTS IN OUR COURTS AS JUDGES AND THEN USING THEIR PAST AS A CUDGEL TO COMPEL THEM TO **** PEOPLE LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER TO SUIT THEIR WILL BY BLACKMAILING THEM -- AND HAS BEEN DOING SO FOR LITERAL DECADES.

WHICH IS IT AND WHY ISN'T THE ENTIRE DAMN NATION IN THE STREETS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE TWO MUST BE TRUE.

Support the now-22 year old artist!  Mixed-media and quite interesting; a smaller piece that will fit nicely as an accent anywhere (10x8 in size).  Email kairia.rocks@gmail.com now to hang this on your wall tomorrow!

I've received my fair share of vulgar, profane and worse in response to my post on Kavanaugh which was mostly about the probability stack.  Of course (as is my usual practice) it was titled that way, on purpose, because that's what it was about.

I also received a bit of pushback from some people I know reasonably well -- and while I disagree, in that they tended to focus in one specific place (which is demonstrably incorrect when one writes an entire piece) it nonetheless is worthy of response.

So here it is, since this nonsense is still going on.

First, I want to dispel something right up front -- there are those who say that because a Supreme Court justice is appointed for life it is imperative that any investigation warranted on anything, ever in said person's past be complete before the vote is taken.

This is a damnable, intentional lie.

Supreme Court justices, like the President, can be impeached.  Article 2, Section 4 covers this and applies to all federal civil officers -- all federal judges, not just Supreme Court justices, are covered.  In regard to the Supreme Court it has only happened once in the nation's history, and the Justice was acquitted (Justice Samuel Chase, 1805); like impeachment of a President it is extremely rare.  Nonetheless there is a mechanism to remove a justice who has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors", the meaning of which is entirely political and up to the Senate to adjudicate just as is the case with an impeachment of the President.

Second, the animus against Kavanaugh appears to be largely motivated by the belief that he will vote to overturn Roe and if he did that would make abortion illegal nation-wide.  That too is a damnable, intentional lie. 

It is rather unlikely that Roe would be overturned en-masse.  The opinion itself, which I have read multiple times over the years, is a literal tour-de-force in terms of cataloging the history of abortion and the reaching of the conclusion found therein.

However, contrary to popular belief as put forward by the so-called "progressives", Roe did not provide for a blanket, unconditional right to an abortion.  Indeed the opinion only rendered the abortion decision fully private and between a physician and the woman in question during the first trimester.  It left to a balance of harms test the period of time from the first trimester to fetal viability and explicitly permitted the outright prohibition of abortion from the point of fetal viability onward.

Yet the left has never accepted this decision as actually written, and does not do so today.  Never mind that a women would have to miss at least two expected menstrual periods while taking no action to discover her pregnancy and that today tests for same are available at WalMart for about a buck each in the aisles of the store, along with dramatic advances in birth control options for women, many of which cost less than one coffee -- at a place like McDonalds', not Starbucks -- per day.  (As an aside the non-permanent birth control options for men remain pretty-much what they were in WWII -- condoms.  So much for "equlity.")  The screaming harpies on the left and their sycophants in government in fact claim that Roe authorizes a woman to procure an abortion during the actual delivery of a baby by puncturing its skull as its head emerges through the cervix, thus destroying the brain of the about-to-be-born child, never mind that the court in Roe explicitly found otherwise.

In other words the position of the left, those who wish to destroy Kavanaugh, is a series of flat-out and intentional lies.

Nevermind the other inconsistencies in the Roe decision and the operation of law today.  A woman has a right to privacy in her medical decisions during the first three months because the court found the fetus incapable of independent living and insufficient development to be considered a "person", at which point the fundamental, pre-government right to life would assert.  Ok, but several states will charge you with two murders if you kill a woman that is days, not months pregnant -- one for her and one for the fetus the Supreme Court said is not a person and thus is not entitled to life.

The left's head explodes when this is put forward, yet it is fact that the law is supposed to be neutral in this and all other regards.  If you can kill a fetus on a "balance of harms" basis until viability or simple preference under Roe, and you can, then there is no basis to charge anyone with killing said fetus since it does not have the protections afforded a person - period.  You can charge someone with assaulting the mother, but not the fetus; it is mere property prior to viability according to Roe and thus at worst you could charge such an assaulting individual with destruction of said property.

In the converse after viability a mother who consumes drugs, alcohol, tobacco or otherwise takes any negligent action that harms said fetus through either intent or negligence is criminally liable for same, as such is at minimum an assault on a person -- or worse.  Procurement of an abortion post-viability, except where the mother's life hangs in the balance is thus, under Roe, manslaughter or even murder -- with the physician guilty of the offense and mom an accessory before the fact.  Again, the left's head explodes at this assertion and yet the decision itself is clear on this point.

None of this is in dispute from the text of the decision; go read it.  And no, it's not likely to be overturned en-masse, simply because, if you read the entire decision, you will find that it's well-reasoned and founded on a series of previous decisions and precedent as is usually the case for well-argued and fought Supreme Court cases.

But even if Roe were to be overturned doing so would return the issue to the States, not ban abortion nationally as the lunatic left claims.  It is true that there are several states that would likely almost-immediately pass legislation to ban abortion on a blanket basis (Alabama being one of them) but the landscape is very different today than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.  In the 1950s and 1960s air travel was extraordinarily expensive and flatly beyond the means of most Americans, and certainly beyond the means of poor Americans.  Today, with two weeks notice, you can fly damn near anywhere in this country for less than a week's wages at minimum wage which is less than the abortion itself costs.  You can also drive to a neighboring state and back for under $100 in virtually every case across the country, never mind Greyhound if you don't have a car, so the premise that repealing Roe would make abortion "inaccessible" or "illegal" on a national basis is a damnable lie.

In fact Roe is one of the salient problems with the destruction of Federalism.  The premise of Federalism is that there are and should be 50 state political laboratories; if you don't like the one you're in today you can freely move to a different one more-aligned with your political and social beliefs.  Over time this tends to propagate and make stronger the good ideas and destroy the bad ones.

It is only those who wish to demand that others live as they command, on both sides of the aisle, who want to see the remnants of that model destroyed -- and yet sticking the middle finger up in response to such demands was the very premise on which this nation was founded, on purpose, through the Constitution.

Finally, Roe itself was put forward as a lie.  The woman (Norma McCorvey) was not raped, as it was portrayed to the public at the time -- although you'll note that the actual decision contains no reference to same.  She was bisexual and generally preferred women, but did sleep with men -- voluntarily, although often drunk, and the technology of birth control at the time was a bad joke.  She had borne two previous children.  And then, when she got pregnant with a third child, she was sucked into a political game by people who had both money and power and were intent on reading into the Constitution a right that simply wasn't in the document -- or its Amendments, as the proponents of the position advanced by those who used Norma as a political pawn knew they couldn't get it passed via that mechanism.

In the 1990s Norma converted to Christianity voluntarily and disavowed both lesbianism and the decision that bore her pseudonym.  She died in 2017, convinced that the decision which she helped advance through a false narrative was not only wrong but deeply immoral -- and yet, during her life she wrote two autobiographies that were full of fictional fantasy interspersed with fact.  Whatever you make of her as the nominal plaintiff or the case in question this much is certain -- she was a deeply troubled woman for most of her life, a "corner case" if you will, and if there is one truth above all it is that corner cases nearly always make for bad law.

The problem in the instant case for the left is that Kavanaugh in fact actually reads opinions, and he looks at historical precedent and the text of the Constitution.  This is clear from surveying his previous opinions as-published.  I have not read them all (that would take far longer than time permits) but of those I have surveyed what I've yet to see is an outright dismissal of precedent or the text in either.  That doesn't mean I particularly like Kavanaugh; like all justice nominees from each side of the aisle from Marshal onward (at least) they all arrogate to the court powers it does not have.

Let me be clear here: The Supreme Court has no power to change the words in the Constitution, as amended -- and never has.  Period.  The people of this nation should have long ago told them to cut that crap out "or else", and when they didn't enforce same, as the Supreme's actions over the last several decades are exactly identical to those that gave rise to the American Revolution.  The Second Amendment, for example, does not say "except for military arms" or "except for machine guns" or "except for short-barreled rifles" or even "except for convicted felons who have served their sentences in full."  It says shall not be infringed.  Yet the court has repeatedly ruled that all those words captioned above but not present are in fact there.  In Miller it ruled that a short-barrel shotgun was "not a militia weapon" and thus properly able to be regulated; in point of fact the government lied in that not long before the case arose it had purchased short-barrel shotguns for military use in WWI.  Nonetheless nowhere does the Second Amendment condition the type or character of personal arms that may be purchased, owned and borne by ordinary civilians and the context of "well-regulated militia" was clear (by law it was and is, as this has never been overturned, all men between the ages of 16 and 60!)  The Roberts court ruled PPACA ("Obamacare") constitutional by re-writing a provision that they found unconstitutional (the "penalty") into a second form that is in fact directly prohibited in the Constitution (a non-capitated direct tax.)

So with that as the background on what we're really talking about here, including the now-blatant threats by Democrats to continue their "opposition" to Kavanaugh, including impeachment (which incidentally moots the hearing they are demanding, so let's have that vote Monday) I want to revisit the original issue.

Let's remember the following facts in the probability stack; assign them whatever probabilities you like and then multiply it out, because probabilities are multiplicative:

• The accuser has three times (at least) changed her story.  First there were two other people present when she was allegedly assaulted.  Then three.  Now four people, one of whom is a girl.  One person has refused to comment and the other three identified have said no such assault or any conduct of similar nature ever took place; they have nothing to testify to as they have claimed, at least two according to reports under penalty of perjury, that the incident as claimed never happened at all.  (Ed 9/23 0715: The fourth person, a girl who says she does not know and never met Kavanaugh but claims to be a lifelong friend of Ford's, now also says it never happened.)
  
  
• The assault, if it occurred, was almost-certainly a misdemeanor at the time given the most-aggressive read of the accuser's events -- and likely still is a misdemeanor even if it happened today.  There was no penetration of any sort or any attempted penetration, there was no injury (lasting or otherwise) and no clothes were actually removed or damaged.  In other words this assault, if it occurred, is approximately in the same category as a "grab-ass", "copping a feel" or "grab-tits" (through clothing.)  That it might have continued to something more-serious doesn't change what she actually claimed happened.
  
  
• Under a only slightly less-than-literal reading of the accusation there was no offense at all.  That is, if the accuser in fact found the accused attractive, they went into the room after some amount of flirting and then when he played "grab-ass" she objected and, as she reported, the event was broken off then there's not even a misdemeanor offense present.  That is, there was consent, at some point consent was withdrawn and when it was withdrawn the contact stopped.  Even in today's hyper-must-get-a-specific-yes world there is no assault of any sort present in that circumstance, sexual or otherwise.  All she's got there is that he was "aggressive" in his suggestion for further activity but as soon as a lack of consent was expressed the conduct stopped.  That's not a crime; indeed, that's exactly what you'd expect an honorable person to do -- drunk or not.
  
  
• The accuser is unable to identify the location of the alleged assault even to the level of the name of a street or the date of same, other than "summer" and a year.  The best she can do is state that the house has immediate proximity to a specific country club.  The problem with this is that none of the identified alleged people involved live in close proximity to same so how did they get access to said building, who owned it, and how did this happen as described if none of the people involved lived within a few miles of the alleged location?  Are you next going to tell me that they broke into the house -- yet no police report was filed on that by the owners when discovered?
  
  
• The accuser is unable to identify why she was there, how she got there or how she got home.  Yet she explicitly remembers wearing a one-piece bathing suit under her street clothes -- not ordinary underwear such as panties and a bra -- and which she alleges the accused tried to remove first, from under her clothing.  First, why would you be out in street clothes over a one-piece bathing suit yet not know why you were at said party or what its purpose was?  Second, being 15 (and not driving, obviously), how'd you get there and how did you get home?  "Someone drove me" would be a decent answer I suppose -- but "I don't remember" in answer to all of the above questions stretches credibility as to whether the alleged event and what she was wearing have any factual basis at all.  Finally, perhaps you can explain to someone (using a mannequin as your exhibit) exactly how you "attempt to remove" a one-piece bathing suit from under clothes in that the ordinary street clothes preclude removing your arms (and legs, unless the bottom was a skirt) from same without removing the corresponding piece of street clothing first.
  
  
• The accusation includes conduct consistent with someone who lived in the house where the alleged action took place.  Specifically she was allegedly "dragged" into a bedroom and groped/grinded/etc.  The person who did so, if it happened, apparently knew in advance of their action that such a room was immediately available and what was inside it.  Since it is alleged this was a small group (now five people total, including the accuser) and not a big "house party" again, the alleged activity appears to suggest the accused had at least moderate knowledge of the layout of said house and thus where to corral the accuser.  (e.g. The last thing you'd want to do is assault some random girl on the parent's bed as any sort of physical evidence you leave there, even something as petty as a "removed sock from a foot" is going to be big trouble, and fast!  If said girl turns out to be a virgin and its the parents' bed.....)  In other words the alleged series of events are far more-consistent with the person who committed the act, if it occurred at all, being a resident of the house, but remember -- Kavanaugh lived several miles away from the supposed country club at the time so it clearly wasn't his house, nor that of any of the other allegedly-present persons that have been identified.
  
  
• Is there another person, perhaps another attendee of Kavanaugh's school or a similar one in the area, that lived right near that country club and who might have held said small party?  There are unverified reports around the Internet that indeed there was.  So what if there was a small drinking party one summer day, there was an accosting (either starting with consensual flirting or not) but Kavanaugh and his friends were not the people who were there and thus their denial that anything of the sort took place by all three of them is accurate?
  
  
• The accuser did not name Kavanaugh in either of her psych "reveals" starting in 2012 as neither psychologist's notes have a name associated with same.  The only person who claims to have heard a name associated with the incident from 2012 until very recently is her husband.
  
  
• The accusation came from allegedly-repressed memories that showed up in 2012.  The psychology profession itself is strongly skeptical of the veracity of allegedly repressed memories being factual, not only to specifics but even to the basic substance of same, especially when these alleged memories arise in the context of counseling rather than being the initiating factor for it.  These accusations allegedly arose during marital therapy for the first time.
  
  
• The accuser has displayed known and severe animus toward conservative positions, conservatives personally and is a liberal activist.  She took great pains to conceal this immediately prior to making her accusation by scrubbing her social media accounts.  This is hard evidence of scienter -- that is, a guilty mind, in that she knew her personal animus would become an issue and attempted to hide it from the public.
  
  
• She now apparently claims to be afraid to fly, which is cited as the reason to not testify Monday, yet she apparently studied and surfed in Hawaii and announced an intent to move to.... New Zealand!  Let me guess -- she swam to Hawaii and intended to swim to New Zealand?  Or did she..... fly?  Exactly how many lies do you get to tell Ms. Ford and if you lie once and get blatantly caught how many other statements should we consider to be lies?
  
  
• The only person who has said there was some contemporary knowledge of this event right after the fact has now recanted.  That claim was a potential bombshell when it surfaced in that contemporary corroboration would pre-date any potential political animus and thus strongly support the accusation as to form and substance -- but not necessarily the identity of the person who committed the act.  However the woman who claimed she "knew about it" a day or so later retracted that claim when holes in her story surfaced.  That is, the sole person who claims to have been a material witness to immediate "after the event" reports has now retracted her claim.  So much for that; now we apparently have two liars, not one.
  
  
• The school yearbook for the accuser's years, which was formerly available online, has been removed.    Sadly for those who think they actually "removed" it from view nothing ever disappears from the Internet, and it's been found in various archive services.  Assuming those caches are real (I have not verified them personally in detail) the yearbooks from those years contain utterly-shocking content for a High School yearbook, including overt racism along with both pictures and text condoning and celebrating outrageous levels of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity.  If those really are the school yearbooks, and not doctored copies, Animal House had nothing on this "school."  I went to a private, boarding high school and there was never any such content in any yearbook there. Yeah, there was plenty of drinking that went on (and still does) in High School (including mine) but to have such in a yearbook boggles the mind.  Exactly what sort of inmates were running the asylum at this tony, exclusive and expensive "educational institution", may I ask and exactly how did both the administration and parents who were paying for it explicitly solicit, pay for and approve such content?  While this does not go to the accuser individually it sure does go to the culture of the "educational environment" in question and those in the surrounding area at the time of the alleged event and whether anyone who attended can realistically remember anything with accuracy -- whether it be Ford or anyone else!
  
  
• Kavanaugh has a wide variety of women, many of whom have known him for decades going back to High School, who say he never engaged in any such conduct with anyone during the entire time they have known him.  Those men who are sexually aggressive are almost always serially-so.  It is extraordinarily rare for someone to do this once, and only once, at any time in their life.  These are not just people who have known him since he has been a judge or any such thing; their personal experience with him, including women who he dated, have said he has never been anything other than a gentleman going all the way back to his High School years.  While this doesn't prove he never did a bad thing I remind you that it is nearly impossible to actually prove a negative.  This sort of testimonial support is about as close as you can get.

My conclusion: Ford is lying; it may have been a mistake originally but faced with every one of the people she claims were there refuting that any such thing occurred all by itself, when none of them have a personal stake in the outcome (other than the accused) I say she's full of crap.  Now add on the rest of the above and it's even more-clear.

Finally, let's assume Kavanaugh did play "grab-ass and grind" once, in High School, never did it again and, most-importantly, stopped when challenged (that is, when consent was clearly withdrawn) -- whether by a friend playing "make a pile" or otherwise.  In other words let's assume he did a creepy thing, one time, which was at worst a misdemeanor offense while he was a 17 year old High School student.  Are you willing to subject everyone who enters public service or is appointed for any public office, anywhere, to that standard?  How about all corporate CEOs and board members?  School teachers?  How about college professors -- like Ford?  More to the point do you meet that standard?  Did you ever push a bit too hard in personal relationships in High School?  Ever go to a High School party or dance and put the make on someone?  Ever grab someone by the ass in the hallway between classes?  Ever grab a guy's crotch?  Give a hug that was a bit creepy and suggestive (e.g. with a "grind" to it with your upper or lower body)?  Get drunk at a party and cop a feel or two on a clothed person?  There are extraordinarily sexually-aggressive girls along with boys in High Schools all over the country -- both then and now.  Many of them drink on the weekends (or more-often) and get even more aggressive when they do.  Does doing any of those sorts of things one time in a person's life as a High School student give rise to someone being able, decades later, to use such an incident to destroy that person's ability to earn a living, to raise a family and to have an ordinary life?  We are not talking about a******which is clearly both felonious and outrageous; at worst this was a misdemeanor assault and that assumes that every single element of the accusation is true.  If any element is false, whether intentionally misrepresented or simply "misremembered" then either there was no assault at all or Kavanaugh wasn't the person who committed it!

Here's the basic issue folks -- there is a Statute of Limitations for a very good reason.

People are presumed innocent for a very good reason.

You require probable cause to bring a criminal case for a very good reason.

Perhaps it is true that Ford did suffer a misdemeanor assault as a 15 year old girl.  If so that's a terrible thing.

But if she was not assaulted by Mr. Kavanaugh specifically then she has done immense, permanent and in fact more harm to Mr. Kavanaugh, his wife and children than she allegedly suffered herself through the leveling of this false allegation.  She had no right to do that, she has no right to continue down that road and neither do Senators have the right to pile on in this regard.

It does not matter if the allegation was made with explicit evil intent or if it is merely a concoction of her imagination of events that either wasn't really an assault at all or someone else committed it yet she "assigned" it to Kavanaugh through political animus, conscious or not -- or simple expedience.

Sexual assault is serious.  But so are false allegations of assault.  The McMartin Preschool Trial destroyed the businesses and personal lives of many people on the basis of coerced claims of sexual assault of children, including people who could not make bail before trial and were incarcerated despite not being guilty.  The Duke LaCrosse case destroyed the lives of a number of young men, professionally, personally and financially.  The vast majority of these false allegations never make the papers.  You never hear of them but they are not isolated incidents -- they happen all the time and whether it's 2%, 10% or some other percentage if the allegation is false then it is and the harm remains real.  Even when there is no conviction and the accused is exonerated as was the case with the Duke team when one of the alleged accused persons was recorded on an ATM video surveillance camera withdrawing cash at the time of the alleged assault, definitively proving he was not there, the personal, reputational, psychological and financial damage is permanent.

This specific instance is one where the alleged conduct was at worst of a misdemeanor character, if it occurred it happened decades ago, there are no other reports of similar conduct over the space of decades and in fact multiple personal female associates and even girlfriends of the accused say he has never done any such thing or treated any of them in any abusive manner whatsoever stretching all the way back to the time of alleged incident.  The accuser only claims to know two of the basics inherent in reporting any incident -- who, what, when, where and why -- and points at Kavanaugh.  Her own story has been revised twice as to the number of person allegedly present.  The allegation is decades old and lacks any form of factual verification, the cultural environment she was in was one where clear recollection of events is questionable at best (being drunk will do that) and she has a personal political animus toward the GOP in general and specifically Kavanaugh as a potential member of the Supreme Court.  Finally, she knows, because Kavanaugh is a public figure, that she can make this sort of allegation with impunity as he cannot sue her for defamation and libel -- which, were Kavanaugh an ordinary private citizen rather than a Judge, he would both can and would almost-certainly do and win even on a simple preponderance of the evidence standard, ruining her financially for the rest of her life.

I rest my case.

Take your pick; there's a lot to choose from.....

This piece is one I particularly like...

But whatever it is that tickles your fancy just email kairia.rocks@gmail.com and it's yours!