Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In any case, this is the court of public opinion we're talking about. Not a court of law.
Or did you miss that part of the conversation?
Yep. This is not the same world that refused to allow women to testify against Clarence Thomas. The world has evolved since then. Only the old men of the GOP seem not to realize it.
Tell you what. Instead of sexual assault, let's say it was an allegation of any other crime. The alleged act took place 35 years ago. The alleged victim can't identify key details such as where the incident took place. The alleged victim told no one. The alleged victim didn't file a police report. If it weren't sexual assault, you'd likely say, "it's one person's word against another."
The problem here is that this is a last-minute accusation coming out of left field when the confirmation seemed to be a lock. Is this legitimate or a desperate Hail Mary pass? The timing to me is suspicious, and I don't even want Kavanaugh confirmed.
I didn't vote for Trump. I wouldn't do it with a gun to my head. But I have a serious problem with the complete lack of corroborating evidence in this situation.
There are seldom witnesses to sexual assaults. Of course. They aren't going to do it in public. That's why women don't report, they have no evidence. And based on many posts here, we are back at square one, some people will just never get it.
I suspect he will withdraw his name before the testimony starts next Monday.
A reporter tried to track down those 65 women who swore Kavenaugh treated them respectfully in high school.
Only two still stand by him. Only two.
The rest have either declined to comment, or declined to return phone calls.
Or refused to speak to a reporter, or refused to speak to someone from THAT publication. So in YOUR mind that means they're not standing by what they said? It seems to me they said what they mean by signing on to begin with.
I wouldn't speak to some reporter either, what's to be gained other than harassment.
There are seldom witnesses to sexual assaults. Of course. They aren't going to do it in public. That's why women don't report, they have no evidence. And based on many posts here, we are back at square one, some people will just never get it.
There are consequences to not reporting it
Now 36 years later there is absolutely nothing to work with
At the end of the day it is a 35 year old "he said, she said". You're never going to get anything more from this other than both of them saying under oath that it did or did not happen which I assume they both stick to their guns. That being said, it will not appease the Dems other than political gains which was the whole point of the release, especially it's timing.
There are seldom witnesses to sexual assaults. Of course. They aren't going to do it in public. That's why women don't report, they have no evidence. And based on many posts here, we are back at square one, some people will just never get it.
There are countries where you are guilty until proven innocent. North Korea, Sudan, and Syria, to name a few.
Got to love the pearl clutching over false accusation.
Oh, the horror.
Imagine if someone falsely accused the President of being born in Kenya instead of the U.S.?
Or accused the President of wiretapping Trump?
Or accused a Senator of ordering assassinations or running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor?
Or accused the FBI/DOJ of being a deep state conspiracy cabal run by Democrats?
...
I mean this could get out of hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.