Kavanaugh Hearing

I would hope so. Pure political hit job.

 

And you know this how? What do you know about the Professor? Do you know anything about any of the people involved really? Not saying that it is or that it isn't, but how do you feel so comfortable making claims when you have no clue about the situation?

This is the type of thinking that led to FSU and OSU fans' behavior, btw. They wanted one thing to be true, so they shaped the world so that it could be. This is the first step down that path. Set up the preferred outcome as the real outcome. You are also getting a head start on step 2: make the situation about some external source that is out to get the in-group. "Brett McMurphy has always had it in for OSU." Third step is to call it discredited without explaining further. Fourth step is to redefine in-group and out-group based upon your position on this issue.

 

And if her verbal testimony is credible?

 

Come forward with an accusation against the wrong person and get laughed at, attacked, belittled, shamed, and publicly humiliated. It's like a broken record. And people wonder why there is such pent up anger on the subject.

 

Without proof it is no more credible than anyone else's.

She is a professionally trained phycologist I suspect she will give what would appear to be credible testimony.

 

With his ruling Kavanaugh supports the CIA continuing to withhold JFK files, over 50 years after the fact. There was a deadline for release, but Donald Trump waived it. The same Trump who has so little respect for the intelligence community. Why did he suddenly become craven? Let's face it, the intelligence community can make anyone pee in their pants.

A pox on both of them.

 

you simply don't know that at all.

 

"In Maryland, a civil sexual abuse case must be filed within:

• In childhood sexual abuse cases, seven years from the victim’s 18th birthday, and
• Three years from the event for adult cases.

Maryland Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Abuse | LegalMatch Law Library

 

If someone testifies under oath, those who are charged with making a determination about that testimony can decide whether it's credible or not. Often such testimony comes without concomitant physical evidence. The absence doesn't mean the testimony cannot or should not be treated as credible.

 

As some may be doing as regards Kavanaugh.

You should be able to admit that the allegation of improper sexual behavior almost 40 years ago comes at a very convenient time for the left. Even a mildly skeptical person will question the allegation …. and especially the timing thereof. And ….. how does Kavanaugh prove his innocence of this allegation?

 

I simply know I believe a well respected judge over a drunk 16 yo from 40 years ago who scrubbed her social media accounts to hide her left wing activism. You're free to believe whatever you want.

 

Civil. We were discussing criminal. Keep reading until the next section in your link.

 

Step 2: Outside accuser is the problem and has it out for the in-group. "Brett McMurphy is a hack that has always had it in for Urban Meyer."

BTW, Kavanaugh drank a bunch in high school too. You holding that against him or just the woman in this case?

 

So … as described in "the letter" I guess the allegation would be classified as

Sexual Offense - Fourth Degree – any of the following:

• Engaging in sexual contact without the other’s consent
• Engaging in a sexual act or vaginal sex with a 14 or 15 year old when the defendant is at least 4 years older
• Engaging in a sexual act, sexual contact, or vaginal sex with a child under 18 who at the time of the sexual activity was a student enrolled in a school where the person was in a position of authority (i.e. a principal, coach, teacher, or counselor who’s at least 21 years old, employed by the school, and was in a supervisory position over the student)

Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws - FindLaw

 

That's the million dollar question. And, I have no idea how he clears his name, regardless of whether he becomes a S. Ct. Justice.

 

You could probably argue it under 3rd degree (definitely if she was drunk, maybe if you claim that he threatened/kidnapped her).

 

That's sadly part of the process. Same kind of stuff was said about Paula Jones and Katherine Willey. My question though would be if she didn't want to deal with the publicity and the process for 35 years, why come forward at this point when it will be 100x worse? Not even an anonymous letter when he was getting appointed to the federal bench. I guess that alone would make me wonder, but we will see what else comes out I guess. The GOP is forced to I think, and should, defer the vote until the matter is investigated.

 

It comes down to the votes. There are only a few people that might potentially flip and that's unlikely because voting for a conservative justice will go a long way to solidify their conservative support in November. Unless there is something outrageous about the guy, I don't see them not voting him in. The typical stuff the Democrats pulled in the hearings about hating women and gays isn't going to stop it.

 

There is zero chance of them prosecuting this bs claim at this point. Zero

 

The Left shoves down our throats they are the defenders of women victimization yet they shamelessly manufacture a crisis of if for their political gain.