I didn't follow the whole chain the in argument here, but yeah pretty much all of them would be backed by evidence, if only the claim of the alleged victim. Evidence though doesn't necessarily make your argument stronger if it's contradicted by other evidence or theories. For example I could counter your testimony by showing a photo of Kamala's bookshelf full of hippie vegetarian cookbooks. That weakens your testimony. In this case the term might not be as relevant because it applies mainly to criminal proceedings and this is a political proceeding. People are still weighing the "evidence" though to determine whether they believe Ford or Kavanaugh, not only at the committee level but in public. The final decision on this one won't just be about the political objectives of the party but take into account the level of public sympathy for Ford that could affect the coming elections.
I’ll take that as a no... you’re no more a trier of facts than I am... So... your opinion doesn’t matter... Sorry, dude...
You know what doesn't pass the smell test? The idea that someone lying about their accusation is requesting an FBI investigation. Who does that? I mean, besides trump (I never capitalize his name, lol).
So, if the therapists notes are wrong, then it is possible that Dr. Ford was assaulted in 1997 by an Asian female in a basement in a hacienda in Cancun and not in the early 1980s by some white dude in suburban DC.
I'm not sure I would want you representing me if that's what you call credible. Being thoroughly vetted numerous times & nothing but good things to say from the girls with whom he was involved with in high school counts for nothing?
Good point about the affidavits. I know some here think or seem to be only able to see this as politically motivated...after all she's a dem supporting "liberal" academic. This was late in coming to the public etc...but to me one of the other sides of this whole thing is why? Why would someone want to subject themselves to the attacks on their own character, doxxing, and even death threats etc...that comes with alleging criminality against a powerful figure if they were lying? Even before the more cynical political machinations projected onto her, she clearly understood the costs with speaking out. And unless for some crazy, irrational reason, she would want to risk putting herself in a position of possibly getting into trouble by making sh*t up, I just don't see any plausible reason for this other than that (at a minimum) she truly believes what happened, and that this belief/the incident occuring is credible.
FWIW, unless and until Cole and Kavanaugh and ANY OTHER witnesses are put under oath to testify before the committee, we ALL have NO IDEA who is testifying to what facts. Everyone here seems to be picking pieces of testimony from here, there and everywhere (all of which has neither been sworn to nor subject to cross-examination). Let's let the hearing play out before we assign guilt or innocence to ANYONE.
Correct. It counts for nothing with me. Treating other women well is not a defense to sexual assault. It was a clear yes. Try reading what I said next time. The Senators are supposed to represent us. Thus, every voter's voice matters. All of us are the triers of fact in the court of public opinion. Just in case you get confused again, THIS IS A YES.
I think that's part of the reason folks are becoming more willing to buy into the "it's political" theory. There's a seemingly never ending stream of reasons for why, despite really wanting to, she cannot actually speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee or investigators employed by it. Which at some point starts to look a bit like trying to walk this allegation as close to the line of "at real risk of getting into trouble for false statements" as they can while hopefully not actually crossing it.
If Mother Teresa were still alive and murdered someone, does she deserve to be exempt from consequences because she was otherwise a saint?
If Mother Teresa worked for Planned Parenthood, she would be untouchable. See the Ginsberg hearing before she became a USSC justice.
I don't blame her for the actions she's taken so far (i.e. special requests, demands, etc.); I'd do the same in today's political climate with trump's royal guard holding the keys to the committees.
Yet just another little twist to the deal folks are just supposed to accept. Ya know ….. there's a pretty clear difference between two and four …. and it's quite probable a qualified professional would not get that wrong. It's a bit difficult to embrace the argument that … folks are supposed to believe Ford can recall precisely what happened 36 years ago …… yet her therapist doesn't know the difference between two and four … when spoken. Then throw in all of the political and financial motivations Ford has to make this assertion from which she can step back at any time and her supporters would forgive her … still believing Kavanaugh is guilty of something that cannot be proven in any fashion. This has reached the point of absurdity. The babel from the left is now laughable.
See, that's just wrong thinking. These guys aren't going to fall on the sword for Trump. They want to keep their jobs and are in a dangerous position politically dealing with this thing. Steamrolling the woman in the hearings or confirming when the public sentiment is on her side will just lose votes. Then they lose control or worse, they are out on their ass individually. The senate could go either way based on what poll you look at and that's their primary concern, not Trump or Kavanaugh's reputation or whatever.
