(2) She is telling the truth (about her experience), but this is a terrible case of mistaken identity. (1) seems extraordinarily unlikely. As for (2), how common is it to misidentify an assailant who is *already known to you* (i.e. not a stranger)?
-
-
Show this thread
-
Conversely, assuming he's innocent, how likely is it that Kavanaugh would repeatedly decline to ask for a further FBI investigation (even though this made him look guilty)?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Willing to destroy her life? You can’t be serious... she’s probably going to get major book deals, get a nice job at some prestigious school... yeah, utterly destroyed
-
How cynical. What has she ever done in her life to suggest she is out to sell books or seek the spotlight.
-
Mmm. So the death threats and risking her professional reputation are negligible things that pale in comparison to these future benefits you assume she will have?
-
No, the fact she waited 30 years and has zero evidence, in fact doesn’t remember any detail, tells me she is lying. What she may gain I can only speculate on.
-
Doesn’t remember any details? That is a lie. Straight up. Come on man. Be best.
-
Yeah... like what day, who’s house... important things considering it was supposedly a very traumatic event
-
I'm not sure she doesn't remember whose house it was, but if that's the case she probably never knew it in the first place. For example someone only says: We're going to a friend's house. Secondly, you clearly know diddly squat about traumatic events.
-
Saying you don’t know diddly squat is always the sign of a good argument.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
For a short time their lives become a spectacle, but these women gain in the long run. Anita Hill didn't really lose anything, she went from OU to Berkeley to Heller. She now has more influence than she ever did.
-
But the bottom line is, there's no evidence, and we're setting a ridiculous precedent here that rocks the very foundations of justice. Why are we even entertaining this? If we're going to start acting on accusations without evidence, sell the gavels and invest in pitchforks
-
Right, how could we ever find a man who hasn’t assaulted a woman in his youth to be a Supreme Court judge?
-
At the current rate we'll find none, as women boldly and bravely accuse them of assault, (whatever that means these days), without viable evidence.
-
You forget the children mostly boys accusing priest. Those are the worst
-
It does not matter who it is. Blind justice means that every person is treated equal under the law, that man, woman, child, poor, rich be treated as equals, so that no person's feelings are more important than anothers. All claims require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Not investigating credible claims is unacceptable. In the PA foster system, 100% of credible sexual abuse allegations are required to be investigated BY LAW (outcomes vary of course). Should be same for all not just for children.
-
If I implied that there should be no investigation, I didn't mean to. In fact, that's what I would have preferred. But Ford never went to the police or the courts. To my knowledge, she first went to Diane Feinstein.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
3) they believe in due process and the presumption of innocence
-
This isn’t a sentencing hearing - it’s a job interview. She’s a reference.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.