She's not credible. There's no reason to believe EITHER of her testimonies at this point. And right now her entire case against Dr. Luke consists of her testimony. Therefore, it's a lot harder to find her credible in THIS case, because she's shown herself to be untruthful at some point no matter what.

I did a poor job of making this clear earlier - I don't believe her prior testimony constitutes any kind of rock-solid proof of anything. What I WILL say, as loudly as I can, is that I've now seen far more evidence of her being dishonest than I have of Dr. Luke doing anything incorrectly.

I guess? That's another one of those things where I'd need to see some kind of evidence supporting it before I'd argue they're acting in bad faith. It could also be a little of both at the same time, y'know.

They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the AV Club purports to be a legitimate unbiased news source in ANY comparable way to how Fox News does.

I'm not saying her prior testimony is conclusive proof of anything, let's get that straight right now. What I AM saying is that her prior testimony is credible evidence against what she is now claiming. And that's far more proof than I've seen Kesha now produce to support her claim.

Even the barest understanding of how any legal proceeding works anywhere tells us that if the person in question swore under oath that no sexual assault occurred, that is strong evidence that no sexual assault occurred.

Who said testifying truthfully in court is required to be "easy"? It IS required to be truthful. There's a reason perjurers don't regularly get let off with a "Okay, I know you promised to tell the truth, but that's HARD…"

Couldn't disagree more. Adding "assuming what she is saying is true" is all this article needed to be a good piece of reporting. Journalists are allowed to have opinions. Whoever inserted that edit is NOT saying "You must assume what Kesha is saying is true". They are saying "If WE assume what Kesha is saying is…

That's a good point, the legal system IS slanted towards the

I don't want to give the "Kesha is a lying bitch" contingent too

Oof. That's not just a little niggling loose end, that makes it more or less impossible to take her word for anything at this point.. That Kesha denied ever sleeping with him before will get buried/ignored as aggressively as possible by the folks determined to believe she was raped no matter what, but what the heck…

You realize she's been off the radar for some time due to this very case, right? She can't very just keep making music with Sony while this case drags on. She is in the prime years of her life as a musical artist, and her career is being badly damaged by this.

I don't really agree, "She did this to herself" is a shitty, victim blaming argument to make. She is making a really serious claim and is going through legal channels to fix the situation, that's what she's SUPPOSED to do.

Two things:

Bah, obviously the edit was still a work in progress, because I see the "assuming what she says is true" qualifier now, which is the same as "allegedly".

Same response to you as Saramis down there: If you're seriously going to be so obtuse your takeaway for why Kesha might theoretically fabricate a rape claim is "reasons", you're not engaging in a good faith discussion. You've already made up your mind regardless of any evidence or lack thereof, and you've done the…

It's pretty clear what would be in it for Kesha to fabricate her claims: she would get out of her contract. If she wanted to breach the contract without a massive financial penalty, this is one way she could do it.

Well, not sure I agree there, I think the victim blaming comment is pretty merited. Dr. Luke saying it's her own fault that she filed the lawsuit in the first place is kind of a definitive example of victim blaming.

"So, in other words, they’re telling Kesha that it’s her fault that her career is being ruined, because she chose to sue Dr. Luke for abusing her."

He still appears to be white (hot) while he's on fire. Dammit racists, can't you accept a compromise here?