looks like ford has hired the attorney who represented anita hill....that not a crime but it's a indication of what's going to happen next. It's so obvious what is going on here and everyone knows it...except for a few. It's like you know the answer before they ask the question.
What’s obvious? Spell it out for me. Obvious she is lying? Obvious this is all a sham? Or Obvious that the Dems delayed disclosing this in an attempt to delay a vote? Or all of it?
As I said, it is clear that the Dems are engaging in chicanery and delay.
They are sadly using this woman even if she is telling the truth.
I have personal family experience with victims of sexual assault. I have professional experience with them as well.
People declaring definitively she is lying and they know it....people who believe that it is obvious what is going on here and everyone knows it (when talking about the truthfulness of falsity of the underlying allegations) are full of shit....as are those certain that she is telling the truth because she supposedly passed a polygraph.
There are two main issues here and a couple of secondary ones.
Main ones:
1. Are the Democrats engaging in dirty politics with the late disclosure? Sure.
2. Are the allegations of sexual assault true? Who knows? I do know that there are completely rational and reasonable explanations for why it wasn’t reported to police at the time....for lack of specificity as to exact time, etc....and for other things that people claim make it obvious she isn’t telling the truth.
Secondary ones:
1. If it happened as claim, is it even a crime? If true, hell yeah...crime then, crime now....though the statute of limitations has almost surely run (don’t practice where it allegedly happened so can’t say definitively). I’ve seen people suggest that even if the allegations are true, that’s just what 17 year old boys do....just trying to get a little action...that’s life. That makes me really sad.
2. If true, should it disqualify Kavanaugh? If proven conclusively true, I’d say for sure.
3. The toughest question for me is what is the appropriate level of proof sufficient to disqualify him as a Supreme Court Justice? Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or reasonable doubt? That’s up to each individual senator. I’m not sure what my own answer would be if I had a vote.
As I said previously, this really boils down to four Republican Senators. This whole sordid thing is to try to get two of the to change their vote.
