Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser comes out of the shadows

[Chris]

Its a hard topic. I want to believe Ford but on the surface it just seems totally politically motivated.

They could well both be telling their true version of what they remember. But unless there's hard evidence there's nothing to go on. And we've seen none. He'll be seated.

[Private Pickle]

Its a hard topic. I want to believe Ford but on the surface it just seems totally politically motivated.

The truth needs to be represented by a jury of our peers. It's not whether we believe or disbelieve. It's whether our justice system has done it's job the way we as a citizenry have intended.

An individual is ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty. The accusation alone should not convict an individual either in court or in the eye of the public.

[Chloe]

They could well both be telling their true version of what they remember. But unless there's hard evidence there's nothing to go on. And we've seen none. He'll be seated.

And that’s the thing, right? There’s almost literally no way of knowing who is actually telling the truth even if they testify before the senate since it’s all he said she said and no physical evidence. So what’s to gain or lose? Hopeful gain for the Democrats = Kavanaugh has his name pulled, Hopeful gain for the Republicans = their nominee survives.

[Private Pickle]

The truth needs to be represented by a jury of our peers. It's not whether we believe or disbelieve. It's whether our justice system has done it's job the way we as a citizenry have intended.

An individual is ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty. The accusation alone should not convict an individual either in court or in the eye of the public.

I will add that there needs to be education combined with an enablement for victims of sexual assault to come forward at the time of the crime. That enablement does not include an entitlement. The education would need to include exactly what is sexual assault and what isn't.

Asking a woman for sexual favors is not a crime. Forcing or coercing a woman into sexual favors is...

[Private Pickle]

And that’s the thing, right? There’s almost literally no way of knowing who is actually telling the truth even if they testify before the senate since it’s all he said she said and no physical evidence. So what’s to gain or lose? Hopeful gain for the Democrats = Kavanaugh has his name pulled, Hopeful gain for the Republicans = their nominee survives.

Yet one is more devious than the other. The Republicans have only nominated. The Democrats are opposing that nomination via an accusation which has no evidence physical or otherwise. There is a distinction.

[Common Sense]

The truth needs to be represented by a jury of our peers. It's not whether we believe or disbelieve. It's whether our justice system has done it's job the way we as a citizenry have intended.

An individual is ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty. The accusation alone should not convict an individual either in court or in the eye of the public.

This will never be presented to a jury. Depending on the state it occurred in, the statute of limitations has probably expired.

The senate judiciary committee can listen to testimony and base their votes on what they glean from it. It's not about finding him guilty or innocent. It's about his suitability for the job based on what they hear.

[Chris]

And that’s the thing, right? There’s almost literally no way of knowing who is actually telling the truth even if they testify before the senate since it’s all he said she said and no physical evidence. So what’s to gain or lose? Hopeful gain for the Democrats = Kavanaugh has his name pulled, Hopeful gain for the Republicans = their nominee survives.

Nothing to be gained.

I hear though that next nominee in line will be a woman whom Democrats hate for her strong stances.

[Private Pickle]

This will never be presented to a jury. Depending on the state it occurred in, the statute of limitations has probably expired.

Isn't that convenient?

The senate judiciary committee can listen to testimony and base their votes on what they glean from it. It's not about finding him guilty or innocent. It's about his suitability for the job based on what they hear.

And all that is needed is a simple accusation of sexual assault from 40 years ago be enough for finding his "suitability" to be invalid. Lest we take into account his entire legal career, family life and the respectable manner in which he has lead his life to this point.

Doesn't anyone else see a major problem here or are we all too afraid to speak out against those who may be taking advantage of the current fad that is the #metoo movement?

[MMC]

And that’s the thing, right? There’s almost literally no way of knowing who is actually telling the truth even if they testify before the senate since it’s all he said she said and no physical evidence. So what’s to gain or lose? Hopeful gain for the Democrats = Kavanaugh has his name pulled, Hopeful gain for the Republicans = their nominee survives.

Well there is now.....she had 3 witnesses. Now all 3 have denied the event took place. So its 4 to 1 and just her word.

[Private Pickle]

Nothing to be gained.

I hear though that next nominee in line will be a woman whom Democrats hate for her strong stances.

She sexually assaulted me when I was 12. /nextcandidate