No doubt. The discussion was more academic (it started with a thought that the statute of limitations is a good starting point for limiting discussion of sexual assault). But yeah, I see no way that this becomes a charge without some huge revelation, that I highly doubt is coming. BTW, you have advanced to stage 3 of the new PR denial of violence against women playbook, declaring the charge BS without any basis.
Let's be specific: who manufactured it? You are a step away from even accomplishing the "Brett McMurphy and that crazy lying woman are out to get Urban" stage of discrediting women's allegations against men.
a very fair article by the NR's David French... Please read the whole thing. I'll cut and paste for those who don't want to link. Brett Kavanaugh Accusations Are Serious but Not Solid | National Review Some excerpts.. Do not count me among those who would minimize this alleged assault. I went to a high school that had more than its share of drunken parties, and my classmates could do crazy and stupid things, but an act like this was beyond the pale. This isn’t “boys will be boys.” Actions have consequences, and it’s hardly unjust to tell a person that if he mistreated another human being like this — even a long time ago — he has to remain “merely” a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet unless all parties start telling the same story, there is no way to know for certain if this event occurred. We don’t need certainty, however, to make a decision on whether a man should sit on the Supreme Court. I have the same standard for Brett Kavanaugh as I did for Roy Moore, for Donald Trump, for Bill Clinton — or for any other politician who’s accused of misconduct. Is it more likely than not that the allegation is true? Given the totality of the evidence, I believe it is more likely than not that Bill Clinton committed rape and sexual harassment. I believe it is more likely than not that Donald Trump has committed sexual assault. I believe it is more likely than not that Roy Moore engaged in sexual misconduct with underage girls. But the evidence against Kavanaugh falls far short of the evidence arrayed against each of these men. So far at least it falls far short of the evidence against virtually any other politician or celebrity who has faced consequences during this #MeToo moment. Here’s why: First, one way to help test the veracity of old claims is to ask whether there is any contemporaneous corroboration. Did the accuser tell a friend or family member or anyone about the alleged assault when it occurred? With Clinton, Trump, Moore, and many other politicians and celebrities, there was ample contemporaneous corroboration. Here, there was not. According to the Washington Post, “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.”
Good luck getting Pryor through before the mid-terms or through period. Is that how you would judge a rape trial as a juror? Give the defendant's word as much credibility as the victim's? Oh great, the Bill Cosby defense.
Just having read the portion here: that seems fair as an assessment right now. I do think that she should be given the time to make her case, if she wants to do so. Part of the problem with these events in the modern environment is how averse people are to uncertainty and ambiguity. This has to be "BS" because if it isn't, then we are going to spend several weeks talking about it with a poor outcome possible at the end. Nobody is willing to just say that the situation is just ambiguous right now and we will see what we find out as it develops. We saw it with the Hillary Clinton investigation (my line over and over was that we would see what happened at the end of the investigation, a line that drove some people here insane). We saw it with the Roy Moore situation ("The Washington Post is paying off women" was an actual accusation made at the time). We saw it with the FSU and OSU football situations (to step out of the complicated in-group, out-group dynamics, at least on this site, where it was the NYT has it in for FSU and Brett McMurphy has it in for OSU and both women just want payouts). People need to learn to deal with ambiguity better.
Maybe she deleted social media to avoid the nastiness and threats that would follow her going public? Nah, that's far too logical and simple to be the answer.
I think she probably deleted her social media accounts to avoid the inevitable online outrage and bullying that was sure to accompany her coming forward. Don't you think that is a more logical reason. Most professionals have a somewhat boring presence on social media.
Why should one put more stock in one witness's statements over another at this point in the proceedings?
Feinstein and the Dems, of course. See no reason to believe this isn't a last minute Hail Mary attempt. Why didn't Feinstein question Kavanaugh about this during the hearings?
So you thank a prosecutor would go after a criminal conviction where both parties are under age and both drinking after 35 years
Sen. Feinstein kept letter in desk for over 30 days, went through the whole Senate questioning period without mentioning it. Not until Dems had no other way to slow or disrupt confirmation,she pulls it out... Kavanaugh's mother was sitting judge in accuser's parent's foreclosure case. Not favorable for her parents... Accuser can't remember details such as number of boys abusing her, one story was 2, the next it was 4... Kavanaugh was said to be be the one holding her down, ripping at her clothes while holding his hand over her mouth. Hard to do all three with only two hands...
Because one is being accused of criminal activity and the other is the victim of the alleged criminal activity.
Read the update: Brett Kavanaugh’s Mother Presided Over Foreclosure Hearing Involving Accuser’s Parents Case was dismissed, and they still own the property. Typical mudslinging.
No, follow along on the thread. Oklahoma posted: I simply pointed out that there is no statute of limitations for a felony sexual assault in Maryland, the jurisdiction in which this allegedly occurred.
Guilt is adjudicated in a court of law. This is a hearing into this judge's worthiness for the SCOTUS.
And how does this differ from an OSU fan accusing Brett McMurphy of making up everything? Does it? The woman in question hasn't said that Feinstein made it up. So what is your evidence that Feinstein made it up, exactly? You would have to ask her. Any number of potential reasons, but I have no clue which one or ones are true. Could be that she wanted to check out the story more herself. Could be that she held it back tactically. Could be that the woman didn't agree to make it public until recently. Who knows? Not you or me, that's for sure. Unfortunately, only one of us is willing to admit to not knowing while the other is pretending to know.
