Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I don't get it.
Are you breathing sarcasm or shock?
|
I am trying my best to be open.
1. If someone were lying they would be afraid of being caught in the lie and being convicted of the crime. As a result you would expect vague responses like they don't remember the party or the date. Sounds to me like they are laying the groundwork for reasonable doubt. Likewise if they say they were blackout drunk. Both of these accounts would be ripped to shreds in a court of law with a top notch attorney. It sounds utterly absurd to me to have a drunken orgy with Brett taking his pants off, this girl being blackout drunk, and then incredibly she comes to at the same time someone calls out his entire name "Brett Kavanaugh". The third accusation is one I have only just heard and haven't had time to examine. But it also sounds incredible. How could the FBI have missed this? Surely if this woman was raped there is a police record. If she was gang raped at a bar then one would think the police had collected a list of everyone there. Then what exactly is the accusation, no one is accusing him of rape, rather they are saying he got women drunk who were then raped by others. What does that mean? He was at a bar buying drinks for himself and women. Is that a crime? Also I am unclear if these other women will go on the record, if they won't, then I don't consider these to be anything that should be considered. I also wonder why someone who claims he was involved in a gang rape would keep that to themselves all these years? Did the FBI ever hear this in the 6 background checks they did? None of this makes sense. What about the last two months? Why is this being dropped at the last minute. It has the appearance of a desperate attempt to delay the vote.
2. Prior to the accusation of the gang rape my attitude was that Kavanaugh had not yet been accused of a crime. Rather some term about sexual behavior was being used by the media. But as you pointed out it wasn't an abuse of power, the accusation was that as a teenage drunk he was a jerk. Since then we have changed the drinking age from 18 to 21 for exactly this reason. So your "presumption of innocence" would only apply to the accusers since if they were lying that would be a crime. There is a biologic reason why we treat teenagers differently from adults. As a HS teacher the jerk comments you see from him on his yearbook are so common it would be absurd to make this a basis to deny approval of nominees.
3. The precedent here is horrifying. Instead of looking at this man's credentials, resume, and professional behavior he is being accused of getting drunk as a kid, being obnoxious when he is drunk, and OMG buying drinks for women at bars.
So, I am hopeful there is actually more to it than this and will come out today. But at the moment my impression of the Democrats has plummeted. Another great example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.