What I don't get is the automatic dismissal of someone's testimony based on the fact that she's unclear on certain details.
'false in one, false in all'
Is a legal principle
A person can be sure something happened in childhood and not remember the date/time.
Yeah, why dismiss on lack of evidence? /s
there needs to be corroborating witnesses and/or evidence. individual testimony is worth very little, even less if there is no specificity or if it's unfalsifiable.
witnesses deny it happened, even her friend
if you want to help women who have been victimized you need to start teaching young girls to immediately come forward when they have been victimized, and to go to the police. the police. not friends, not family, no teachers, or therapists. the police.
she didn't even do that
Why would the friend remember? She was downstairs.
and it's not victim blaming to tell young girls not to engage in demonstrably stupid and risky activities.
like underage drinking at a party where you don't know anyone.
Her friend said she never met brett.
and doesn't remember being at any event like the one described
met probably meaning being in the same place at one point in all their years
people claiming to be feminists are infantilizing women and removing their agency, and actually exacerbating the problems they're claiming to champion.
yeah, I hate this because it make credible claims look bad as well
credible = with more evidence
I expect more claims with no evidence or credibility until some people start looking at their own biases
You guys don't see the trap you're in.
I'll explain in a moment
Is the trap that I want evidence? (and we didn't get it in this case)
I'll check back in and try to respond when you post your thing. Got to do some work.
Lindsey Graham was right. Change my mind
So was McCain
So is Flake
So was Bush, so is Rubio
So, here's my premise.
I support Kavanaugh. I believe he's innocent until proven guilty. I believe the entire hearing was a farce
I believe one of the most telling moments in the hearing was Booker asking Kavanaugh if he would've preferred the accuser hadn't come forward.
That would be a sustainable objection at best and a disbarment at worst in an ACTUAL court of law.
The trap we fall in to, though, is hypocrisy.
That's because the only thing that differentiated this from a kangaroo court was the number of dems in seats lol
If we believe that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty of his charges
We can't make charges of perjury - and make no mistake that's what you're doing when you call her a liar - without evidence.
And the absence of evidence in one is not sustainable proof of the other.
If you dislike this court of public opinion, you have to step up and take the high road against it.
I think her claims can be ignored due to zero evidence. Whether or not I think she's a liar is irrelevant.
Not someone else, it has to start somewhere.
Both can be true though, she can not be lying and Kavanaugh can not be a sex offender