Fair enough... I'd say just because something is rare or less likely, doesn't mean you shouldn't necessarily worry about it... Especially when there's no defense from it... apart from never being alone with a woman at any point in time...
Judge has already told us what he remembers. Just wish the Crats would at least be honest about that simple fact.
We have to wait and see... hearing's not over yet... I'll be incredibly disappointed if none of the prosecutor's questions are on the event, itself...
Based on the stats I saw, the percentage of false reports of sexual assault are in line with other crimes. However, people don't show the same fear towards a false allegation of assault or theft. There isn't a presumption of disbelief with those crimes.
Because there are manners of your own control to make those crimes, less likely to be successful or less likely to happen... Apart from never being alone with a woman, there's nothing you can do to prevent a false accusation of rape or sexual assault...
You're not helpless, dude. If it's made up, odds are that you can disprove it. Sometimes, innocent people get convicted, but that's true of any other crime. It's a flaw in the system.
You liked my line so much you flipped it on me twice, thanks. So did Ford and Kavanaugh. Yet here they are. He should be giving live testimony, not hiding in a hotel room in Delaware.
Judge has volunteered what he cares to remember. What he might say under oath subsequent to an FBI investigation might be very different.
Not sure if I understand your question... No I don't think it's particularly persuasive... but it's simply true... If Kavanaugh were investigated for sexual assault 36 years ago... the attack of, "she's a political operative" obviously wouldn't be there...
You're saying women need to come forward earlier. I'm saying that when you attack women who came forward, you discourage others from doing that. If she had accused Kavanaugh back then, would it have even been taken seriously? The 1980s are quite different from now.
I think she's moved on from the event itself. Seems she's now trying to determine whether she's been unduly influenced-who's paying your lawyer, who paid for the polygraphs, your security, etc.. Have you seen questions in advance, etc.? Who recommended your lawyer, etc.
I'm sure and I'm sure if the "Pubs" granted an FBI investigation, that when the FBI came back with "inconclusive" or worse "he didn't do it", the Democrats would accept that as the gospel and stand down... you know... just like they did for that certain FBI investigation in 1991. I'm sure that's how it would play out.
She's accusing (without and substantiating evidence or corroborating testimony) a conservative nominee to the supreme court which will shift the ideological balance of the court.....
In other words, you’ve made a determination that these three women are liberal democrats and have decided that the statistical probability of that happening by random chance is so mall that it is more likely that all of these women are lying. What's interesting about this hypothesis is that it simultaneously argues that: (1) one's political affiliation is so strong a driving force that one is willing to disrupt their entire life to be demonized by the other side for a small chance at changing a single supreme court nomination in their party's favor (2) however, one's political affiliation is not strong enough a driving force that one is willing to avoid disrupting their entire life by reliving a traumatic event in front of the world and be demonized by their own side for a small chance at changing a single supreme court nomination in their favor.
