Libs, so what is the bare minimum proof we should have to ruin Kavanaugh's and Ford's lives?
At this point we have a story from a politician, claiming that she heard a story from a constituent, about a possible situation from 35 years ago when everyone was a minor.
Is that the kind of proof you want in order to ruin lives, or do you just not care. Whatever it takes, that is what it takes. RESIST at all costs.
Credible allegations of sexual abuse deserve to be investigated. You're making this more complicated than necessary.
The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and there's only nine of them. There should be no shade at all. If that's your life's ambition, then live above reproach. Why would you settle for the minimum, and exactly how will his life be ruined if he isn't handed this very high honor?
Resist the investigation into a man who was not truthful in the past while under oath is scaring you. What's the hurry? If he has nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. On the other hand, since it's a lifetime appointment we need to KNOW the truth. And yes, there's collaborating evidence. Witnesses she has talked to through the years, her psychiatrist has notes (with his name) from visits dating back to 2012.
I just want to know, why are you in such a hurry?
She should tell her story before Congress. They can decide if she's credible or not. I seriously doubt Kavanaugh's life will be "ruined" over some drunken grovelling claims from 30 years ago.
Truth matters
Ford's story is not credible. She doesn't know when, she doesn't know who was there other than supposedly Kavanuagh and his friend, and she doesn't know where. She is clearly a liar.
Their say so is enough until one day it happens to them.
It's not the libs fault, by the way.
I want him to give a public mea culpa that would have been accepted by our Puritan forefathers
"My name is Brett Kavanaugh and I'm addicted to alcohol, gambling and sex"
- Who has the burden of proof? Ford or Kavanaugh? If this were a criminal trial the accuser would have the burden of proof… but this is no trial… this is a JOB INTERVIEW. Right? In job interviews, candidates are routinely disqualified for not being able to prove their innocence. they are routinely disqualified by a standard of "more likely than not" like it is in CIVIL court.
- What will take you to buy a all electric car. What minimum range would you like? I'm looking at the Detroit car show and gm and ford are really pushing electric and self driving cars. I'm wondering how most people will pay for one of these cars.
- What makes you think kavanaugh is guilty with no real proof? I mean everyone Ford claimed was with her denies any such event. Why would you ever believe her? Just because she's a women claiming to be victimized doesn't make her right… Or am I wrong?
- Does Brett Kavanaugh's win mean Ford now is a liar? And since most men elected, have dirty secrets, should this have been relevant? Sorry, not a political person, kindly fill in what you think I need to know rather than call me names.