D
dvdjs
Guest
So why the pretense that she did?Yes, she literally didn’t say “Catholics.”
So why the pretense that she did?Yes, she literally didn’t say “Catholics.”
Oh … gosh … so … it was Hillary … after all!Not just Podesta. Hillary Clinton also.
As the article linked in the OP states:the completely immoderate position of a “man is guilty until proven innocent and has no right to confront his accuser” is the position that is going to alienate “moderates”…
No one is saying “a man is guilty until proven innocent and has no right to confront his accuser”.There is a risk for Republicans if they appear to be insensitive to the accusations, especially among suburban women
Insensitive to the accusations - dismissing her voice because she reported too late, he was in high school, he was drunk, she was fast, she is a ™liberal, we are in a hurry to confirm, etc., etc.
What’s being called for is an “investigation”, not a “prosecution”, and there simply is no need for a rush to judgement or politicizing this. IOW, let’s wait & see before passing any judgment on either.They should be prosecuted at the time, not 3+ decades later.
Then she should go to the police in whatever town she thinks the event may have happened and make a statement there. The FBI does not have jurisdiction for this type of crime.Perhaps that is why the lady is asking for a real investigation.
Actually, that is precisely what Ford is saying in her terms. She wants Kavanaugh to appear first leaving no opportunity for him to actually address her allegations.No one is saying “a man is guilty until proven innocent and has no right to confront his accuser”.
No. “We believe her” means that we will not prioritize a political agenda over giving her a fair hearing hearing, untainted by the tweeted bias of Republicans with the committee. We will not dismiss her or accuse her. We will not say ignorant things like:The answer is that “we believe her” translates to “he is guilty”
Do you have a link - with faces and dates?There were six headshot photos on Facebook of women who accused Bill Clinton
Yes. Discussion here hand elswhere have talked of the jurisdiction, the laws including the possibility of trying people just shy of 18 as adults ande the lack of a stature of limitations for sexual assault. The reluctance of victims to come forward has also been discussed.Does anyone know in what state jurisdiction this supposed event took place …
Good example of the things to say to drive away moderates.oh yeah…it (supposedly) happened to me too…35 years ago”
Some place, county in Maryland.Does anyone know in what state jurisdiction this supposed event took place…what were the specific laws back in the 80’s…they were both minors…was she injured in any way during the supposed assault…or attempted rape…could it be 35 years later we now have the “Me Too” movement so…“oh yeah…it (supposedly) happened to me too…35 years ago”…who is to say her perception of events 35 years ago …if they happened…haven’t been embellished over time…so why didn’t she report this when he was appointed as a Circuit Court Judge…it does seem a little suspicious that now she is coming forward…especially as he is a Pro Life Catholic being nominated for the position of Justice of the Supreme Court…what’s that saying…“something is rotten in the State of Denmark”
An FBI investigation now would be far worse than a prosecution at the time it happened.What’s being called for is an “investigation”, not a “prosecution”, and there simply is no need for a rush to judgement or politicizing this. IOW, let’s wait & see before passing any judgment on either.
I do not have a way of transferring something from Facebook … but here are ten (10) accusations:There were six headshot photos on Facebook of women who accused Bill Clinton
Sports
Sports news, analysis, rumors, statistics, predictions and roster moves around the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and more.heavy.com