I did not assert that her plan in all of this was to get a book deal. I just questioned the notion that her life is "destroyed" considering she's probably going to get a handsome pay day in the near future. Not to mention, I'm not sure why you think the therapist in 2012 necessarily proves she didn't write Feinstein for publicity sake. Which obviously didn't happen until this summer.
Can you provide a reference where I have said that he's guilty? Let me ask you a question. Are you against the FBI asking her, her friends, and anyone questions about this? If so, why?
That is my point. Making an accusation means the accuser believes that something happened, but does not equal proof that something happened. Arguing that since she believes the accusation, it must be true and is proof something happened, is circular logic.
Yeah but Miss Swetnick claimed she saw this TEN times! We're supposed to believe Kavanaugh was a teenage, far worse version of:
Let's be straight here, for 45 Dems, there's no chance that he's getting their vote. If I were in the Senate, I'd be in that group. But there are some Dems who might vote for him. The FBI investigation is simply to make sure that nothing has been missed. It's better they find it now than when he's on SCOTUS.
I mean she basically told her story in front of the whole country. Not sure what this hypothetical mega $ book deal is going to cover. As an academic, she's probably already published in her field. Its kind of annoying that people are dramatically calling either of these individuals lives "ruined" - by all accounts they seem to be prospering and will likely continue to do so no matter what. Its just that one had some very really trauma as a girl that shes had to deal with all her life, and the other guy probably didn't even think about or remember what happened after that night.
You argued that since she is tearing apart her life, she should be able to tear apart his life. Which is a BS argument. If I accuse you of something I can’t prove, then why should your life be destroyed sans proof? Should I be allowed to go to your work/job interviews and character assassinate you without any proof? If I accuse you of something without any proof other than my word, where all the alleged witnesses that I present swear that they don’t remember anything happening like I claimed, you would be perfectly ok with me tearing apart your life as long as my life is torn apart too? I seriously doubt that.
Why would you expect that? There's more than enough reasons to vote against Kavanaugh without the sexual assault allegation. Kavanaugh has spent a good portion of his professional career as a Republican political operative, one who engaged in dirty political tricks (like the attempted questions for Clinton, or the stolen emails). Why would you expect Dems to vote for this guy under any circumstances? Then you add in his unhinged performance yesterday, and it's clear this guy is neither ethically fit to be an SC justice, nor temperamentally fit to be one as well.
Only way he doesn't get confirmed is if the fbi finds something not previously reported. Otherwise this is all for political cover.
So no one has never lied under oath, ever? Good to know. I guess we can do away with that pesky perjury thing that has never been used.
No, your interpretation is BS. Which is inadvertent, I'm sure. I questioned whether tearing apart her own life was worth tearing apart his life, if that's what she wanted to do. I can't imagine why she would want to do that, i.e. letting it be known that he tried to rape her, which would certainly disrupt his life and hers, unless that's what she remembers. Or maybe you're on the book deal band wagon, that's why she did it. Or it's a paid Clinton hit job, something like that. But maybe an outfit like the FBI could try to get to the bottom of what she claims, true or false, though I take it you're against that for reasons you haven't disclosed.
Proof that SHE believes it happened. And that must mean Kavanaugh’s testimony under oath denying her account is proof it didn’t happen, right? Or does a tie now go to the accuser? Or does the fact that no one else alleged to be at the party remembers it tip the scales to the accused? This circular logic stuff is crazy. Just because the accused testified under oath, her testimony must be true, even though her coroborating witnesses that she named, not Kavanaugh, refused to testify under oath that there even was ever a party, and the girl friend wouldn’t even testify that she ever attended a party with Kavanaugh. So the three we know of no such party testimonies must mean Kavanaugh is guilty, because she testified under oath. Ta dah.
I hear you. I know too many women vics and unfortunately too many male offenders from either HS or college. My mother--of all people--reminded me yesterday of a scandal at my hs where a female student was allegedly raped by four to six male student athletes. She didn't know the female's name or most of the males--but I did, two of which were fellow varsity wrestlers. The female was forced to leave school over the scandal, the boys went unpunished.
I’m betting that even if the FBI comes back and says that no additional information to provide on this issue, that will still not be enough for Democrats. I’m sure there will be something else that needs to be investigated by next week.
I'm sure that's probably right, but they don't need to convince Democrats. They just need to get Jeff Flake to stop listening to his buddies Chris Coons and Richard "I Lied About Serving In Vietnam For Years And Then Unironically Suggested That Someone Who Lies About Anything Should Be Disbelieved About Everything" Blumenthal sobbing in his ear.
