The big news, obviously, is all Kavanaugh, all the time. It's interesting that we're supposed to believe a woman who is sure what happened, but is not sure when or where or who was there.
I've been a sex crimes investigator,(and recently got in-serviced on sex crimes) and I generally want to believe a woman when she tells me that she has been abused. But, she has to help me build the case. In the context of Dr. Ford, I feel that she's a pawn of the Democrats, a convenient foil for their ambitions, which is despicable.
In this particular case it's been... ~35 years? I'm sure that no physical evidence is left, and so we're left with witness corroboration, which so far appears to be slim. 35 years is a long time to re-visit the crime scene, even if we knew where it was. So, we're left with the talking heads and endless speculation. I did watch one video that was pretty good,
Give it a watch. They bring up some good points. But, in the end, I'm left with the feeling that Dr. Ford is an unwilling pawn of the Democrats, which makes then especially despicable.
2 comments:
I hope that you are right - but I think that she is likely a willing pawn of the Democrats. She was a pretty prolific lefty on social media before July when she sent in the letter regarding her allegations. At the same time that she did that, she deleted most of her social media.
Her claims are possible, but given the way it is being handled - both Sen. Feinstein's last-minute revelation and her own maneuvering to avoid testifying and to draw the process out seem exceedingly unlikely.
And - given how they were described - the "sexual assault" she charges almost certainly wouldn't be illegal now (with today's political-charged redefinition of much of normal courtship behavior as "assault"), much less then.
Even if something occurred - which both other people supposedly in the room deny it did or there there was even the party she claims to have attended - it sounds as if the "assault" might be recast as "two tipsy teens at a party, he believed she was flirting and responded, but stopped when she said no."
But the behavior of both Professor Ford and her allies - her social media purge, the deliberate vagueness of the charges, the huge surge of support and moral posturing by those who - surprise - opposed Judge Kavanaugh's appointment (the more honest of whom admitted it's because he *doesn't* ignore black-letter law in favor of a "living constitution"). Well, if it's *not* a cynical political maneuver it bears all the hallmarks. Call him Judge Dreyfus.
Post a Comment