(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: (06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote: See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.
I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.
My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?
Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.
I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?
I did, in contradistinction to your defensive and rhetorical question.
Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.
The problem with her testimony wasnt the testimony -- it was that there was zero proof (either physical or testimonial) that corroborated her claim. To the point that her best friend's interview with Federal officials cut against her.
You want to destroy someone's life on a bald accusation with no background evidence, with zero corroboration, you have every right to do so. But funny, that seems pretty righteous to me. Kind of the definition of that term, wouldnt you say?
And, as #s noted, there were a decent amount of inconsistencies and holes in her timeline and story as well -- especially with the issue of 'I cant fly'. Which is pretty much a documented falsehood.
Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you?
Again, yes I did. Notwithstanding your seemingly now righteous and rhetorical question.
Quote:I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.
And the absolute inability for anyone to corroborate and the absolute lack of any tangible evidence corroborating Dr Ford's testimony obviously is okay for you to push you into the 'Dr Ford is obviously the truthful one here.'
As I noted before, I do not know what happened. But the absolute gist of it for me was that there is zero corroborating testimony for Dr Ford, even amongst the people specifically named *and* amongst any of the population that could have been in attendance. Without a scintilla of corroboration, all I can label Dr Ford's testimony is a bald allegation.
When the person that Dr Blasey Ford named as driving her there did not back her story of the events, nor did she even notice a change in demeanor at the named event, that is actually evidence tending to disprove her account. But yet that is given no weight in your move to judgement.
You are obviously far more comfortable than me in labeling Blasey's account 'fact', and Judge Kavanaugh a putative rapist.
And funny that 'inconsistencies' in Kavanaugh's testimony are jumped on as proof positive, but those same level of inconsistencies in that of Blasey Ford arent just glossed over, but totally not addressed in your calculus.
So no, even in light of the 'did you?' questions, I did. And the weight of what was proffered didnt meet the weight necessary for me to condemn someone. I guess if you take what Blasey Ford alleged as the unabashed truth (lock, stock, and two smoking beer shotguns) I might see Kavanaugh as 'righteous' in the way that progressives are gaining a notoriety for in various locales at the current time.
But, based on *all* the evidence, I dont. I see his 'righteousness' as indignation, perhaps even unabashed fury at a missile (actually a series of missiles when you stop and think about the *entire* episode) aimed at him in what was undoubtedly a Democratic hit job.
And yes, people from both parties should be enraged that people from one or more Democratic officeholder's staffs did leak this unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable in that sense) bald allegation into the circus that it grew to. But I am sure there is and will be justification for that (those) leak(s) as well from other quarters..... Kind of part and parcel of the Democratic style of leaking of the Steele memo to homegrow some 'verification' for its use in other quarters.