She didn't name anyone at the time. This means less than squat.
So you're saying in the era of #MeToo and "Fuck Trump at any cost" it lends credibility to her arguments to come public with this? You being for real right now?
He's a federal judge who up until now (because of the Democrats in congress) has been a highly respected judge and HIS credibility is weaker? Fuck's sake.
Jesus Christ, you're already of the opinion that he's lying and you have the audacity to act like this is an impartial breakdown of the facts.
What other fucking evidence could possibly come to light now? She has already said there was only one other person in the room and from what I have heard the other person said it never happened. What else is there to investigate? Come on, answer a damn hard question for once.
Last edited by Methais; 09-17-2018 at 03:53 PM.
It's the logical consequence of your statement. You're dismissing the value of an investigation here because it's "just" a he said/she said with no video evidence (or equivalent- obviously you meant that to represent any form of concrete evidence).
But if we dismiss the value of investigations every time that happens, then the vast majority of victims of sexual assault have no recourse.
There are very good reasons to support moving forward with some form of investigation. It's not something to cast doubt on or to question the value/legitimacy of.
I happen to agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see a lot of additional evidence under the circumstances, but that doesn't mean this isn't worthy of the attention it's getting and the action steps currently being taken.
I WORK FOR ME!
No where did I say this shouldn't be looked at. I actually said she should testify and make her case before the senate, which I believe they are setting up. That is the only "court" she'll really ever get because there isn't really anyway to bring any charges and the FBI kicked it down to state.
Last edited by Gelston; 09-17-2018 at 03:55 PM.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
No one forced Kavanaugh to lie under oath during his last confirmation hearing. He shouldn't be removed from the process just because there was an accusation, but in a situation like this where it's likely to come down to the credibility of her testimony vs his- he's already set himself up to be the less credible of the two. And, yes, for that reason he should be removed and replaced.
Also please stop saying there's no supporting evidence. That is categorically false. There is supporting evidence. You may not like it, but it exists.
That line of hers is a real head scratcher.
People have gone to jail before for making up crimes and falsely accusing people. People's lives have been ruined by spending years in jail based on false accusations. And here she is saying this woman has nothing to gain from lying so clearly that points to her telling the truth.