He provided his personal calendar of the alleged year of assault. The point I was making about the therapy sessions, is its all been her husband or close friend (one of which doesn't even remember Kavanaugh or seeing him at the party). The therapy notes do not mention his name which is again so far no physical evidence backs her story.
I said it was weird that one of your hypothetical conditions was knowing all the details of your partner's potentially most traumatic moment in their lives, and proceeded to explain why hypothetically a woman would be hesitant to share all that stuff in heavy detail with a man. If you take that to me accusing you of hypothetical idiocy, I apologize, but I don't see how it can be a straw man since we are arguing on totally general and hypothetical terms. Also hunting down an abuser and beating him up is just an extreme example of the kind of 'idiocy' that can take place. It could just be obsessive tracking the guys whereabouts out of a protective instinct, and that being a constant reminder of what happened. That is something you said you would do, hypothetically. Are you really being protective in that case, or are you making it about yourself? Like does your partner want you to do that stuff (hypothetically)? I imagine a lot of women don't want that, hypothetically.
My next question would be if Kavanaugh truly does have a history like this woman describes, where are all the girls he supposedly demeaned and grinded himself on? Surely, one of them would come forward. She's portray this sort of thing as par for the Kavanaugh course. So there has to be more accusers out there, right?
Yes this will go well....................................... Lawyer: Mr. Kavanaugh, regarding the incident that is alleged to have happened please tell us what happened that day when you attended that party? Kavanaugh: What party? Lawyer: I cannot give you that information because it is unknown. Kavanaugh: Umm ok well what day was that? Lawyer: I cannot give you that information as it is unknown. But you were there right? Kavanaugh: Where? What was the supposed location? Lawyer: I cannot give you that information as it is unknown. Kavanaugh: So you want me to prove that I was not at an unknown event on an unknown day at an unknown location?
And I never said this either. Maybe you'd do well to go back and re-read what I actually posted. I never said I needed to know "all the details". I never said I would press for "all the details". I would need a name though, to feel safe. But that is far from all the details. Supposedly, Ford told her husband she was assaulted when they got married. So, he already knew that. Providing a name of the perp isn't too much to ask for, if I'm going to marry you. That's me. But I never said anything about grilling her about every detail. That was a straw man you created out of thin air.
It's been one week, and three have already come forward. She filed an affidavit with the Judiciary Committee. How many women will it take for you to believe it?
I just found it interesting they can find a woman who saw it, but not one whom it actually happened to. And what about the 65 women who have stated Kavanaugh has always respected women and been a gentlemen? How many more of those will it take for you to believe Kavanaugh?
Yeah, and every affidavit is true because there is no concept in the U.S judicial system of "lying under oath" and thus it never happens.
If he was as big a sleaze bag as he's being portrayed here, I don't see 200+ people signing a letter overnight on behalf of his impeccable reputation. In any event, nobody has explained why I'm supposed to disbelieve those 200+ people, and only believe the people who are accusing Kavanaugh at the 11th hour.
Right. All these women are just liars. They're out to get Kavanaugh. They'll lie under oath and risk perjury to do it. Yeah, she has a number of security clearances and an impressive background, but she's obviously untrustworthy too.
It is not a job interview, that already happened. This is a pure allegation of a crime committed by Kavanaugh and if someone is alleging a crime has been committed, that requires meeting at least some standard of proof, let's go with the lowest standard, the preponderance of the evidence, needs to be met. Dr. Ford's claim cannot even met that standard. Democrats know that, hence why they are claiming this is a job interview not a criminal trial. Very convenient.
Julie looks pretty hot for a 55-year old. Oh, wait a minute, since she is two years older than Kavanaugh she must have been having sex with minors, which is a crime. Investigate her.
Has Kavanaugh been confirmed yet? No? Then, it's still part of the job interview. Also, preponderance of the evidence isn't the lowest burden of proof.
