tailgater wrote:Don't use quotation marks if you're going to paraphrase.
Let me be clear.
This isn't about rape. It really isn't.
It's about a teenage boy getting too frisky with a teenage girl. At a party. With booze. 36 years ago.
If we believe Ford 100%, then she got her boob grabbed and he covered her mouth.
The rest of it she doesn't even know.
4 guys or just 2?
If this happened yesterday we couldn't determine what MIGHT have happened. How the F*CK can we determine now after 36 years?
That's an honest question.
Because it's nothing more than a partisan time delay.
If I'm wrong I'd like to hear what you think can be gained from an FBI investigation.
I'd also like to hear your theory on why Ford will agree to testify only if Kavanaugh testifies first.
I mean, he's the defendant and he'll have to testify before hearing the full accusations?
Does that even make sense?
It's a partisan game pure and simple. The left, the liberals, the moon bats are just buying time in hopes that somebody else comes out to declare how Kavanaugh grabbed their boob also.
you are incorrect in that if we believe Ford 100%...cuz if we do believe then it was attempted rape as he covered her mouth, turned up the music, AND tried unsuccessfully to remove her clothes. You seem to know what happened, I don't.
if we believe her 100%, you are also incorrect to call any unwanted sexual advances getting too frisky, or boob grabs, or any other minimizing term. It's sexual assault...IF it happened. The women in my life believe the law is correct on this, when it happens.
You are incorrect, booze is not an excuse and does not lessen a person's guilt IF they are guilty, or even IF the victim is drunk, especially under the age of consent. Again, I don't know, don't know how you do either.
Which is why an investigation is called for...to try to determine IF guilty. Then we can both hope to know...
You don't believe her 100%. I have no reason to believe or not believe yet. And as is often the case, even after cases are settled, I'm not always sure the truth has been 100% uncovered.
I have no idea why she has been advised to testify first or last, but you are incorrect. He is not the defendant. This is not a trial in a court of law. He will not be convicted of anything during this.
If you have read other stuff I have written previously, I believe this will not amount to anything that will deter his appointment...so I guess short of a sudden emotional confession or damaging video, I don't believe her 100% either...but I want the process to happen so that a lifetime appointed judge is clearly not a grievous preventable error.
I have nothing to say about moonbats delaying, except it's the equal yet opposite of libs saying cons are very nervous someone just may step forward with compelling evidence or worse, more charges..
I am in neither camp. Interesting to read fear from polar views though.
Gotta be the third or fourth time over two threads I have reworded the same basic thoughts...also the last.
Unless in person. Writing hasn't worked yet.
Though MACS understood last night and he was drinking beers!