Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing

[Bocefish]

I'm not up to date with all the info... but it sounds like a circus created by the left.

What say you?

 

[SMuser69]

Due process ignored for 'feelings' as evidence and TV levels of drama. Let's have a rape court case in two days and NOT in a courtroom. Didn't they have people cosplaying as handmaid's tale wives?

 

[JickyJuly]

He's not on trial. So, it's not a rape case. Same for due process. Let's not get hysterical, boys.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Not to discount what may or may not have happened in the past. But, these things are nothing more than one party trying to overthrow/block the other in terms of balance. This is why I hate the fact that we do not have a legitimate third party.


Now, how many are aware of the Keith Ellison domestic violence claims? These are much more recent, with doctor's letters, and she's much more vocal than Ford has been. This should be just as visible on the national level because he's in a senior position of the DNC.

 

[SMuser69]

Not to discount what may or may not have happened in the past. But, these things are nothing more than one party trying to overthrow/block the other in terms of balance. This is why I hate the fact that we do not have a legitimate third party.


Now, how many are aware of the Keith Ellison domestic violence claims? These are much more recent, with doctor's letters, and she's much more vocal than Ford has been. This should be just as visible on the national level because he's in a senior position of the DNC.

The same thing would happen if there was a 3rd party. All this is a byproduct the vast majority of voters being unaffiliated and not voting in primaries and are allowing only the most extreme left and right candidates to run. There were 17 republican candidates in 2016 and only 3 million people voted for any of them. It was even worse for the dems. This is the main problem. We'll never see a more middle or moderate candidate ever again unless more people participate in the primary processes. The most extreme voters have full control of the primary process. I doubt we be seeing politics so extremely partisan.

 

[THE MOLLIE MARIE]

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The same thing would happen if there was a 3rd party. All this is a byproduct the vast majority of voters being unaffiliated and not voting in primaries and are allowing only the most extreme left and right candidates to run. There were 17 republican candidates in 2016 and only 3 million people voted for any of them. It was even worse for the dems. This is the main problem. We'll never see a more middle or moderate candidate ever again unless more people participate in the primary processes. The most extreme voters have full control of the primary process. I doubt we be seeing politics so extremely partisan.

While I don't disagree about the lack of participation from eligible votes. What I'm referring to is within Gov't itself. The whole idea of the three legitimate parties is that it isn't a power struggle between two parties who more or less run rampant and do as they please (DNC told their members they can do as they wish without membership approval in '16). Why do you think it's more or less only Dem/Reps in debates? they control them. Same coin, two different sides.

George Washington warned us of political parties in his farewell address at the end of his Presidency.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."


The fact that there is such extreme partisanship, not just between the parties. But, also between the political divide of people has proven this to be the case. I wonder what he would say given our current political climate and how it's changed since.

 

[SMuser69]

While I don't disagree about the lack of participation from eligible votes. What I'm referring to is within Gov't itself. The whole idea of the three legitimate parties is that it isn't a power struggle between two parties who more or less run rampant and do as they please (DNC told their members they can do as they wish without membership approval in '16). Why do you think it's more or less only Dem/Reps in debates? they control them. Same coin, two different sides.

George Washington warned us of political parties in his farewell address at the end of his Presidency.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."


The fact that there is such extreme partisanship, not just between the parties. But, also between the political divide of people has proven this to be the case. I wonder what he would say given our current political climate and how it's changed since.

The math doesn't work on a 3 party system under US voting system. You can see that in England where MP can win with 15% of the vote sometimes because 15 people are running at the same time. The more parties you have the more you need a runoff system and there are very few runoff triggers in US politics nor would there be time with a single day to vote for everyone in some states. It would involve a constitutional overhaul to make a system that wouldn't dilute voting power even more than now. whether you like the two parties or not they still are generally representing at least 50% of the population at times if not more. You don't see that level of representation in England.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The math doesn't work on a 3 party system under US voting system. You can see that in England where MP can win with 15% of the vote sometimes because 15 people are running at the same time. The more parties you have the more you need a runoff system and there are very few runoff triggers in US politics nor would there be time with a single day to vote for everyone in some states. It would involve a constitutional overhaul to make a system that wouldn't dilute voting power even more than now. whether you like the two parties or not they still are generally representing at least 50% of the population at times if not more. You don't see that level of representation in England.

I disagree, and think having legitimate third parties could be done no different than it is today. If people choose not to vote, that's on them. It is their right to decide to throw that chance away, and should rightfully SFTU when it comes to them disliking how things turn out. Want to go along for the free ride, then don't bitch when you wind up somewhere you didn't want to be.


Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent a vast majority of the people anymore. Between the swing to political extremes, misrepresentation, special interests, blind partisanship, etc. they have proven they no longer have the best interest of their constituents and the nation in mind.

 

[SMuser69]

I disagree, and think having legitimate third parties could be done no different than it is today. If people choose not to vote, that's on them. It is their right to decide to throw that chance away, and should rightfully SFTU when it comes to them disliking how things turn out. Want to go along for the free ride, then don't bitch when you wind up somewhere you didn't want to be.


Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent a vast majority of the people anymore. Between the swing to political extremes, misrepresentation, special interests, blind partisanship, etc. they have proven they no longer have the best interest of their constituents and the nation in mind.

For example let's say 30 million conservatives vote republican and in the same cycle 30 million liberals vote between democratic and a 3rd liberal party. Which side is going to always win? That's the problem with 3rd parties is you need a far more substantial over vote to overcome a single monolithic party. How you steer a party towards your believes is through the primary process. There are republican politicians that are pro-choice in places because their local conservative base believes in that. It's clear not all republicans voted for Trump but the didn't have the voting power inside the party to put someone more centrist. This requires more centrist entering the party. If the republican party suddenly got flooded with pro-choice agnostics that were budget conscious you'd see a change in the party because the extreme would lose voting control. The primary system serves as our main voting system and the general elections as our runoff system. If more people understood it that way maybe less people would register independent where they lose access to half the process.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

For example let's say 30 million conservatives vote republican and in the same cycle 30 million liberals vote between democratic and a 3rd liberal party. Which side is going to always win? That's the problem with 3rd parties is you need a far more substantial over vote to overcome a single monolithic party. How you steer a party towards your believes is through the primary process. There are republican politicians that are pro-choice in places because their local conservative base believes in that. It's clear not all republicans voted for Trump but the didn't have the voting power inside the party to put someone more centrist. This requires more centrist entering the party. If the republican party suddenly got flooded with pro-choice agnostics that were budget conscious you'd see a change in the party because the extreme would lose voting control. The primary system serves as our main voting system and the general elections as our runoff system. If more people understood it that way maybe less people would register independent where they lose access to half the process.

What you're discussing is no different than what's happened in the last few Presidential elections. Most notably when many felt the Republicans went too far right and people split off to create the original Tea Party (before it became the shit show it did from racists, etc joining in).


You will always have a numbers game. Personally, I'd rather do away with all political parties and make the candidates stand on their own.

 

[Yarrow]

I think Brett's behavior in public the past few days tells one all they need to know. I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican, if you believe Dr. Ford or if you believe she is lying... behaving in such a manor as a Judge and as a candidate for a huge, life long public servant position at the Federal level is extremely concerning and, in my opinion, disqualifying.

I can understand being very angry, especially if falsely accused, as he claims he has been. However, there is a lot to be said for a man of the law to know how to defend himself in a professional, unflustered, and firm manner. He has shown an inability to do this. I am sure there are many conservative judges worthy of being on the Supreme Court that would behave with far more grace in such a situation.

 

[JickyJuly]

Not to discount what may or may not have happened in the past. But, these things are nothing more than one party trying to overthrow/block the other in terms of balance. This is why I hate the fact that we do not have a legitimate third party.


Now, how many are aware of the Keith Ellison domestic violence claims? These are much more recent, with doctor's letters, and she's much more vocal than Ford has been. This should be just as visible on the national level because he's in a senior position of the DNC.

I don't think this is one party blocking another, but I do think the dems used Ford without care and agree that Keith Ellison is a valid point out. Politicians don't care about the safety of women because they don't have to in order to get votes. The dems pulled Ford into the spotlight. She told her story, a story that most of us have and don't want to be famous for, and what are they doing now? Walking out. Walking out to pretend their hands are clean. These politicians work within and create the system. They know the world is full of Dr. Fords. They know that my daughters and yours aren't safe whether they go to the police after they run into a Kavanaugh or not. They have the political power to change things. They don't do a damn thing. But, they want to walk out and pretend they care? Pfft. Shame on them. And shame on anyone who buys what they're selling. The republicans and the democrats are covered in blood when it comes to the rights of women. The dems go just far enough to get our vote, and that bar is set horrifyingly low.

Ultimately, getting Kav in has nothing to do with abortion. He will protect the president. He will protect the perv senators (on both sides of the aisle) from the #MeToo movement. His conscience won't get the better of him because he's shown himself to be one of them and willing to lie under oath. I'm confident that many democrats want him in there as much as the other side does. They've been given more than enough ammunition to keep him out or fight him out afterwards if I'm wrong. Instead, they're walking out on their job. Protest is for people who haven't got any other power. Protest by those in power is just for show. They should all rot. Am I hysterical yet?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I don't think this is one party blocking another, but I do think the dems used Ford without care and agree that Keith Ellison is a valid point out. Politicians don't care about the safety of women because they don't have to in order to get votes. The dems pulled Ford into the spotlight. She told her story, a story that most of us have and don't want to be famous for, and what are they doing now? Walking out. Walking out to pretend their hands are clean. These politicians work within and create the system. They know the world is full of Dr. Fords. They know that my daughters and yours aren't safe whether they go to the police after they run into a Kavanaugh or not. They have the political power to change things. They don't do a damn thing. But, they want to walk out and pretend they care? Pfft. Shame on them. And shame on anyone who buys what they're selling. The republicans and the democrats are covered in blood when it comes to the rights of women. The dems go just far enough to get our vote, and that bar is set horrifyingly low.

Ultimately, getting Kav in has nothing to do with abortion. He will protect the president. He will protect the perv senators (on both sides of the aisle) from the #MeToo movement. His conscience won't get the better of him because he's shown himself to be one of them and willing to lie under oath. I'm confident that many democrats want him in there as much as the other side does. They've been given more than enough ammunition to keep him out or fight him out afterwards if I'm wrong. Instead, they're walking out on their job. Protest is for people who haven't got any other power. Protest by those in power is just for show. They should all rot. Am I hysterical yet?

I agree with you on everything, except for the blocking aspect. While I dislike Kavanaugh, and what he's supposedly done in the past, looking back at all the times a nominee comes up for the SC, one side or the other will do anything they can to prevent "the other side" from gaining a foothold on the bench and tipping from one side to the other. It seems nearly all of the last few Justices have been surrounded in controversy, and each side vehemently opposes the nomination simply because they are red or blue. Like you said, those politicians who are protesting are doing nothing but grandstanding.

While I don't think this is the case for Kavanaugh because of his actions. But, let's say he were to admit that he did those things back then? He realized what he did was wrong and was "dumb and stupid frat boy party BS" and he's truly remorseful for what happened? If there's never been an incident since then (including what happened in High School), and he's known for a long history of intolerance of these kinds of actions towards not just women but anyone, would people support him in being put on the bench? Or, is it that once you do something such as this no matter how far in the past they are as well as a very real change in who they are, you're done forever?

 

[JickyJuly]

I agree with you on everything, except for the blocking aspect. While I dislike Kavanaugh, and what he's supposedly done in the past, looking back at all the times a nominee comes up for the SC, one side or the other will do anything they can to prevent "the other side" from gaining a foothold on the bench and tipping from one side to the other. It seems nearly all of the last few Justices have been surrounded in controversy, and each side vehemently opposes the nomination simply because they are red or blue. Like you said, those politicians who are protesting are doing nothing but grandstanding.

While I don't think this is the case for Kavanaugh because of his actions. But, let's say he were to admit that he did those things back then? He realized what he did was wrong and was "dumb and stupid frat boy party BS" and he's truly remorseful for what happened? If there's never been an incident since then (including what happened in High School), and he's known for a long history of intolerance of these kinds of actions towards not just women but anyone, would people support him in being put on the bench? Or, is it that once you do something such as this no matter how far in the past they are as well as a very real change in who they are, you're done forever?

To me, as far as political power goes, it should be a disqualifying event forever. Let his wife, kids, mom, victim(s), pastor, God forgive him all they want. But, taxpayer money shouldn't pay him to judge anyone. What he's accused of isn't a grey area as far as consent goes. To put his hand over someone's mouth shows that he was ignoring a no and enjoying the power in that. That is a person who should never be given more power in his community than the citizen next to him. Learning from our mistakes includes accepting the consequence for them. Not sitting on the highest court available because you've been abusive seems like a reasonable consequence. If he were going for another political seat, like Keith Ellison, maybe he'd have a right to run and let voters decide I guess. I wouldn't vote for him, and I'd be horrified for those who do. SCOTUS should be above that entirely. I believe that most women have been raped, but I don't believe most men are rapists. Surely there are plenty of people without these skeletons in their closet to take the job.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

To me, as far as political power goes, it should be a disqualifying event forever. Let his wife, kids, mom, victim(s), pastor, God forgive him all they want. But, taxpayer money shouldn't pay him to judge anyone. What he's accused of isn't a grey area as far as consent goes. To put his hand over someone's mouth shows that he was ignoring a no and enjoying the power in that. That is a person who should never be given more power in his community than the citizen next to him. Learning from our mistakes includes accepting the consequence for them. Not sitting on the highest court available because you've been abusive seems like a reasonable consequence. If he were going for another political seat, like Keith Ellison, maybe he'd have a right to run and let voters decide I guess. I wouldn't vote for him, and I'd be horrified for those who do. SCOTUS should be above that entirely. I believe that most women have been raped, but I don't believe most men are rapists. Surely there are plenty of people without these skeletons in their closet to take the job.

Interesting view, thanks Jicky. I'm not disagreeing with you, as I think certain actions should disqualify someone from holding certain seats. But, I wanted to see if anyone was thinking that if a long history of actions showing they had changed, and not just because of an appointment or nomination, would grant them the ability to hold certain positions.

This is also why I have issues with the Ellison situation as well. While he's not going for Supreme Court, he is running for Attorney General for the state of MN. Which I believe is another that should be disqualified. Where I think Ellison's issues are much more severe is that they are much more current (2006, and again in 2016/17), and he's had more than one accuser as well showing a multi-year history of verbal/physical abuse. The other part is that his divorce records were sealed, whereas normally they are open for public access. So, like others have questioned Trump about his tax records, "what's he hiding"?

 

[SMuser69]

To me, as far as political power goes, it should be a disqualifying event forever. Let his wife, kids, mom, victim(s), pastor, God forgive him all they want. But, taxpayer money shouldn't pay him to judge anyone. What he's accused of isn't a grey area as far as consent goes. To put his hand over someone's mouth shows that he was ignoring a no and enjoying the power in that. That is a person who should never be given more power in his community than the citizen next to him. Learning from our mistakes includes accepting the consequence for them. Not sitting on the highest court available because you've been abusive seems like a reasonable consequence. If he were going for another political seat, like Keith Ellison, maybe he'd have a right to run and let voters decide I guess. I wouldn't vote for him, and I'd be horrified for those who do. SCOTUS should be above that entirely. I believe that most women have been raped, but I don't believe most men are rapists. Surely there are plenty of people without these skeletons in their closet to take the job.

What was PROVED? You're saying actions should be taken against him because of hearsay from 30 years ago. It would be like if your neighbor said you hurt your children and instead of any investigation or even talk with you, protection services should just come take them away from you. It ultimately costs an accusers NOTHING to make any accusation under the sun and that's a problem. For whatever threats she's getting now because she's won the oppression olympics she'll be a millionaire with a book deal and a movie by the end of the week and never work again.

There's nothing this event has proven about his character other than he's angry and emotional like someone that feel their voice isn't being heard or valued equally. If they can't prove anything then HE'S a victim. Due process means you have to weigh his story against hers or cancel them out. There's no smoking gun or even proof the party this happened at existed. What makes it worse is the other accusers have even worse stories devoid of any responsibility. The last accuser said she went to ten parties with him and every party they rape a woman in a room? Why did you go to TEN of those parties?

Then you have the FBI investigation which had TWO men interviewed that believe they are confusing Brett for them.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Well I don't know shit about Kavanaugh. Probably wasn't a good time to learn about him.

I would say the Repubs carried the day from my point of view (generally speaking). Dems looked like what they are; a bunch of transparent, slandering, manipulating frauds with a severe optics problem. Every bit as disgusting as the Moral Majority from years ago.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

He's not on trial. So, it's not a rape case.

Why not?

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

It ultimately costs an accusers NOTHING to make any accusation under the sun

Does she have nothing to lose? Do you really believe that her safety isn’t jeopardized by her coming forward? That she won’t get rape and death threats sent to her in every way possible? What about her professional life? What about her husband? Or their two teenage daughters? You honestly believe there is no risk in a woman standing up, putting her name & face out to the world while accusing a powerful man of assault?

Monica Lewinsky still gets asked questions about Bill Clinton. We hear references to her all the time in music, still! “This will follow Dr. Ford for the rest of her life. She sacrificed her life as she knew it to come forward.

 

[JickyJuly]

What was PROVED? You're saying actions should be taken against him because of hearsay from 30 years ago. It would be like if your neighbor said you hurt your children and instead of any investigation or even talk with you, protection services should just come take them away from you. It ultimately costs an accusers NOTHING to make any accusation under the sun and that's a problem. For whatever threats she's getting now because she's won the oppression olympics she'll be a millionaire with a book deal and a movie by the end of the week and never work again.

There's nothing this event has proven about his character other than he's angry and emotional like someone that feel their voice isn't being heard or valued equally. If they can't prove anything then HE'S a victim. Due process means you have to weigh his story against hers or cancel them out. There's no smoking gun or even proof the party this happened at existed. What makes it worse is the other accusers have even worse stories devoid of any responsibility. The last accuser said she went to ten parties with him and every party they rape a woman in a room? Why did you go to TEN of those parties?

Then you have the FBI investigation which had TWO men interviewed that believe they are confusing Brett for them.

Denying him an honorable position in public service is not taking something away from him. If you were interviewing to work at Taco Bell, and a woman poked her head in and said "SMUser tried to rip my clothes off at a party once!", you might not get the job. If 4 women poked their head in alleging your conduct was sexually violence, your dream of slinging chalupas to the masses would be over. Kav has 4 women now. He's not on trial, and he's not even just at a job interview. He's trying to be appointed to one of the highest positions available to an American. He should be held at least to the standard that a fast food worker would be.

Even if you don't think you should be morally opposed to him, the drama he's brought shows that he is a liability. A private company wouldn't take on someone that could get them sued for harassment or worse. The American tax payer shouldn't have to either. On top of that, the fact that he was unable to act without anger in front of a committee (I'm not willing to call it sadness. I didn't see a tear. My 5 year old has more believable outbursts.) or ask for an investigation himself, shows that he doesn't trust the justice system. Why should he get to sit on the SCOTUS if he doesn't trust the system to work in the event of accusations?

I'm not Dr. Ford. I can't say why she went to more parties. I can say that my parents warned me not to drink at parties with boys, and I did so as a teen. They also told me to call home if I got drunk , and I didn't do that. I saw the dude who raped me on two occasions afterward. He had shared friends with my BFF. One of the times he rode with us all in my car to Canada. Wasn't ready to yell that he had raped me in order to keep him out of my car I guess. After that, I learned to leave anytime people who knew him were showing up to something. But, if he were in Kav's shoes right now, he could easily say we went to Canada. Wouldn't be a lie. Doubt she needed the publicity of attaching rape victim to her name to be a millionaire when she's already a fufu doctor from a fancy pants socioeconomic level. IDK. I wouldn't talk about my rape on tv have it attached to my name, the one my children have, to be a millionaire. I'm not sure if I would come forward if I felt it was my civic duty to do so either tbh. Of course, if a Dr with a rich family is being dragged like this over it, I can't fathom really how I'd be received. Even those who've been victims of violent rape shouldn't really try to decide how others act about it. We can guess, but people process things differently. How someone processes an event doesn't make another party less responsible for their part.

 

[JickyJuly]

Why not?

Statute of limitations? Difficulty proving rape criminally? I mean, even violent rapes rarely end in a trip to jail. Like Kavanaugh would have had anything happen to him over holding a girl down, covering her mouth and laughing about it?

 

[SMuser69]

Statute of limitations? Difficulty proving rape criminally? I mean, even violent rapes rarely end in a trip to jail. Like Kavanaugh would have had anything happen to him over holding a girl down, covering her mouth and laughing about it?

Asia Argento has admitted to statutory rape(no statute of limitations) and even the California DA is sitting on it for some reason. So you have a case of women with mountains of proof and confirmation of criminal acts having nothing done. At the same time you're taking the word of ONE person's account when TWO other people even the victim says were there say that never happened. What makes her story worth more than the other two? What about the 65 women in his life that came to his character defense?

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

What about the 65 women in his life that came to his character defense?

Surely you understand that someone not attacking 100 women doesn’t mean they didn’t attack any women.

 

[SMuser69]

Surely you understand that someone not attacking 100 women doesn’t mean they didn’t attack any women.

If there's no risk to accuse how hard is it to find 100 accusers? One woman how first confirmed Dr. Ford's story recanted her story saying she said more than she knew because she felt, 'empowered', so basically was going to lie for Dr. Ford and she didn't get charged at all.

 

[JickyJuly]

Asia Argento has admitted to statutory rape(no statute of limitations) and even the California DA is sitting on it for some reason. So you have a case of women with mountains of proof and confirmation of criminal acts having nothing done. At the same time you're taking the word of ONE person's account when TWO other people even the victim says were there say that never happened. What makes her story worth more than the other two? What about the 65 women in his life that came to his character defense?

Asia Argento groomed and preyed upon someone. I'm not sure why the DA is sitting on it. Maybe because statutory rape is not taken quite as seriously as it could be? Maybe because her victim was a boy and male victims are not taken seriously? Either way, she's trash, and if Trump were nominating her for SCOTUS, I'd be here saying the same things I have to say about Kav. The 65 women defense was a stupid move, imo. Everyone has plenty of folks who see them as normal whether they are or not. When you're being accused of treating a woman like an object, hitting up other women specifically to say you're nice looks weird. It doesn't add weight to the victim's story, really. But, it doesn't do anything good for either side. Just odd. I'm not a juror. He's not facing a jury. I believe his accuser. The fact that he didn't ask the one witness to be at the hearing on his behalf seems telling. No lie detector. That witness is currently talking to a lawyer. I mean... not looking clean.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

If there's no risk to accuse how hard is it to find 100 accusers? One woman how first confirmed Dr. Ford's story recanted her story saying she said more than she knew because she felt, 'empowered', so basically was going to lie for Dr. Ford and she didn't get charged at all.

Care to site a credible source for that claim? And again, there’s plenty of risk involved with accusing, even if you don’t want to believe that’s the case.

 

[dilligaf0]

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The fact that he didn't ask the one witness to be at the hearing on his behalf seems telling. No lie detector. That witness is currently talking to a lawyer. I mean... not looking clean.

There's many things that makes me wonder why he wouldn't request an inquiry. Perhaps the allegations are true. Perhaps there's more than just the ones we know of. Maybe the rumours of his drinking, debts, and other things are true? Who knows.

It's also a gamble when asking for an investigation. Franken absolutely denied the allegations, then changed his story to "I don't recall it like that" when he asked to be investigated before being slaughtered by his own party. Ellison has requested an investigation as well. Supposedly it's already done.

Either way, I don't think neither Kavanaugh or Ellison should be granted the seats they are after. The problem is that there is nothing preventing them from claiming them at this time from a legal standpoint other than the judiciary committe (Kavanaugh) or voters (Ellison).

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Care to site a credible source for that claim? And again, there’s plenty of risk involved with accusing, even if you don’t want to believe that’s the case.

I think he's referring to legal risk. Meaning, someone could falsely accuse another of rape. Then, the accused's life is thrown into a shitstorm. Court of public appeal with make them guilty, they'll be dragged through the mud, financially ruined due to accusations, having to defend themselves, job loss, etc. Whereas, the accuser faces little or no legal repercussions to false claims. They may get a slap on the wrist, and a fine. But, they do not face the same scrutiny and devastating life changes the accused does. I'm not getting into the threats, etc the accuser may get. I'm only referring to from a legal standpoint.

The Duke University lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape, and the woman who accused them, is probably the most notable of this happening. While extremely rare, anyone who falsely accuses another of a crime should face must more severe consequences than the minimal sentencing they get.