To be fair I don't think I could put a date to certain traumatic events that happened to me even though the memories are pretty clear in my mind. Although I think I could add some details to which an investigator may be able to pin it down.
Printable View
This is just a terrible situation. How do you prove or disprove something thats he said/she saidfrom 35 years ago? I don't really care if he gets confirmed and I don't think Feinstein would have leaked it while it was anonymous. I don't agree with her on much but she has never struck me as that type. She was also not the first person in Congress to get this accusation.
Regardless, you will probably have to pick between maybe taking down an innocent man or possibly ignoring a victim, without being able to prove it either way.
if this were a judicial proceeding the presumption of innocence would carry the day for Kavanaugh
but a confirmation hearing is a different matter...it is worth keeping in mind there are lots of highly qualified people out there
I could imagine the Dems acting worse with the Pubs did this when confirming Garland.
Trust me, they would act way worse. By acting like babies now.....I shudder at the thought because they are so naive and immature.
Hillary lost.....tantrum
Trump calling them names.....tantrum
Russian so called interference....tantrum
Putin.....tantrum
Garland not confirmed......tantrum
Sessions elected......tantrum
Kavanaugh selected.......big tantrum
All this tells me is that Dems are immature and can't handle things if they don't go their way in any matter. All they know is like a little baby that you steal their candy, they throw tantrums. I can't trust really trust people who first thought is throwing tantrums and not acting like an adult. Yes we have a big baby in office who is unfit, that is not my fault but the Dems not having someone more qualified and likeable.
I think Sturg's point is that we would then see a never ending line of unsubstantiated accusations against every nominee.
You can't just toss him out on her word alone, there has to be some kind of believable corroboration. Well, we are talking about the likes of Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, so I shouldn't say "can't", but wow what a terrible precedent that would be.
well...we have had a lot of supreme court nominations over the years...and I believe those kinds of accusations have only come up twice (Thomas and Kavanaugh)...i think the senators have to listen carefully to the two witnesses on Monday and make the best judgment they can make...that's all anyone can ask for...it might also be a good idea to call Mark Judge and anyone else who might help them evaluate the credibility of the two witnesses
Maybe someone will produce a doctored yearbook to serve as a smoking gun.
that's not my position...i think you have to look at the credibility of the accuser...see if there is any corroborating or supporting evidence...weigh it against the credibility of the denials
i think the hearings on Monday might yield some details that can be useful to the senators trying to approach it with an open mind...one line of questioning that I would pursue would be to ask Kavanaugh if he socialized with students from Ford's school...from Ford I would try to get information on how she got to the house where the attack supposedly took place...who drove her (she was 15 at the time and presumably could not drive herself)...who drove her away...i know a lot of time has passed and some of those details may be lost to memory, but the way the two answer those kinds of questions might be illuminating
I am at the point where I just assume any bible thumper is a pedophile, rapist, or is some other kind of monster. Specifically the ones who say "if you dont believe in Jesus then how do I know you wont go around kiling amd raping people". Anyone that needs religion to tell them that is a dangerous person.