I don’t think the Democrats did themselves any favors by not surfacing this thing for the past couple of months. Now it smacks of a desperate last-minute play.
I think they should interview the accuser but I doubt anything said will do much to change the position of the Handmaids cosplay society. I’m not sure what anybody can do at this point to establish the truth of what happened all those years ago. People will simply default to their established positions and “believe” who they wish to.
You’re probably right. If a little bit of perjury didn’t derail his nomination surely a little bit of rape isn’t likely to do so either.
How sad that a little bit of due process and the presumption of innocence so often derails justice.Originally Posted by jp1
No sadder than trying to jam this guy through confirmation for a lifetime appointment without actually trying to vet him.
i heard that he called someone a poo poo head in grade school. The accuser doesn’t remember when or where, or the name of anyone else who was there, but without a dought it was him. They are going public with this the day before the vote.
Comsidering that there are medical records showing that she discussed this in couples therapy back in 2012 it seems unlikely that this is a total fabrication.
When I first heard about this, I thought it smacked of desperation, but I've changed my mind. If she's willing to put her reputation on the line in a public forum, she should be heard. The presumption of innocence does not apply here. Kavanaugh isn't on trial for holding up a liquor store; he's being vetted for one of the most powerful appointed positions in government.
Now that I've heard more details about the accusations, I'm inclined to believe them, simply, I'm afraid, because it's the kind of thing any drunk teenage boy might do under the right circumstances. If, after hearing what this woman has to say, senators want to vote to confirm him--as they likely will--they'll won't be able to plead ignorance. Of course, there are dozens of reasons to reject this guy that have nothing to do with him groping girls, just like Clarence Thomas, who was probably every bit as gross as Anita Hill said he was, should have been rejected on grounds of intellectual mediocrity alone.
In a crude political sense, I see this as a win-win for the Dems. After this woman testifies, if she's at all plausible, it could swing a few votes (Collins, McCaskill) and get him defeated. He might even withdraw. Neither is likely, but at best the Repubs will look like they're turning a blind eye to a possible groper.
I reject the confirmation process as a huge waste of the taxpayers dollars. It’s not like Trump doesn’t have a list a mile long of jurists who will provide the court with a conservative majority. Get on with it, and spare me the drama.
haha, yeah, and I am not even sure Donald J. Trump knows what “conservative” means.
It’s too big of a word for trump.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote