Kavanaugh Hearing

Whether he assaulted this woman is an entirely separate issue from whether Feinstein played politics with it.

I have no doubt she waited until 4th down, clock running and no time outs left to bring it forth.

But that's an entirely different issue than whether the info is credible.

On that issue I don't have enough information other than to say it's very late in the game for this to come up, that it appears solely political and even if she is a true and unfortunate victim, by waiting this long she undercuts her credibility even if she was aggrieved (and I'm a very liberal person).

 

Only in the court of law. The court of public opinion has no such presumption.

 

Everyone on here defending Kavanaugh is using the exact same excuses as FSU fans who defended Jameis Winston.

 

Unverified accusations have no weight, plus hearings were over last week. This ain't nothing but a Hail Mary...

 

Seems like a woman came forward to make this claim from her memory. How is that an investigation?

 

Lacking physical evidence linking the defendant, yes I would. As this is nothing more than she said he said.

 

That's absolutely nuts.

 

30 years of non-action is a very legitimate basis.

 

I would say rational not emotional like you seem to be.

 

Please. Winston's victim went to the police right away and they dropped the ball.

Not even comparable.

 

Why did Sen. Feinstein sit on the letter till after the hearing were finished? That fact is donig more to tarnish accuser's claims...

 

What physical evidence do you suppose proves consent?

 

To be fair, she may have been hoping it wasn't necessary. The next few weeks are not going to be fun for her. People will be digging through every skeleton in her closet and every skeleton in every closet of everybody she knows (seeing it already on this thread). If this is true, I doubt that is something that she wanted to happen to what sounded like a fairly successful, quiet life.

 

First, glad that you are rejoining us, whoever you are. Second, Feinstein's actions have absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the claim. How about you take a bit of time, wait to make a judgment, and see what happens. Deal with the ambiguity now. Then, when we have more information, make a decision.

 

What evidence is there that this even happened at all? Except the admitted hazy memory of 30 years ago

 

Okay, let's look at it rationally. What does an alleged rape victim have to gain by lying? What does she gain by telling the truth? What does a person accused of rape gain by denying it? What does he lose if he admits it?

It's actually quite apparent to any logical person why you give the victim more credibility.

 

The eye witness, who has nothing to gain and a lot to lose, saying he attempted to rape her.

 

What a level-headed and fair-minded response.

I would also add that, EVEN FOR THE BEST PEOPLE, memories are really tricky things.
Even when the principals aren't drinking or teens. Those 2 factors don't aid in memories.
It's possible that she sincerely remembers it one way, but it didn't happen as she said.

We can convince ourselves of all sorts of things over the years. (Seinfeld's The Library Cop was a light-hearted look at this.)

Now I will add that it doesn't help that the accuser is a staunch Dem who contributed to Bernie Sanders, but it doesn't disqualify her either.

 

Tell that to Duke lacrosse or that HS FB that spent 7 years in jail only to have the victim can finally admit she lied.