If Cosby is any indication, (or Harvey), simply forcing yourself on a woman doesnt automatically qualify as rape.
Oh, and Brock Turner.
I have to imagine if you attempted to rape someone, you'd certainly remember it 30+ years later. But I guess if you're constantly trying to rape people, they might just kinda smear into another one.
ok sounds good, what did he lie about? I find it hard to tell the truth, about something I did 36 years ago, I mean how the hell would I remember the facts, at a party? One party would just kinda smear into another one. that would be tough, I must admit.
ok sounds good, what did he lie about? I find it hard to tell the truth, about something I did 36 years ago, I mean how the hell would I remember the facts, at a party? One party would just kinda smear into another one. that would be tough, I must admit.
So what’s this I keep hearing about the report being completed and making its way to the WH/Judiciary Cmte in the next few hours? FBI already done?
Sure, why not? It was only a bit of follow up and clean up, supplementing his already having SIX freaking FBI background checks. That doesn't take long. Now either he's guilty, or confirmed. We'll see.
Rather than rehash what others have said, visit that Washington Post piece ch33zw1z linked earlier. It's not just about the circumstances around attempted rape, although he has certainly lied about that -- it's that he hasn't been honest about a number of subjects during the hearings. Do you want a Supreme Court Justice who can't even be honest about how he was drinking as a teenager?
Who do you work for?well im sure the FBI report will bust him then, we will find out in a few days.
And if the FBI report says they found nothing, are they liars also?
I have a feeling, they will not find anything that has not already been said, do you?
Lol, he can be guilty and confirmed. This isn't a criminal trial.
well im sure the FBI report will bust him then, we will find out in a few days.
And if the FBI report says they found nothing, are they liars also?
I have a feeling, they will not find anything that has not already been said, do you?
I feel the same way. I thought a week? but then I was watching a ex FBI guy on a news show saying we have over 2,000 agents and in reality they could do this investigation EASILY in days not weeks.If the FBI found nothing, I'd trust them. So long as they aren't being hindered in their investigation, of course. The agency can only do so much given the age of the case, so I wouldn't count on them finding much more... but that's part of what an investigation is for, seeing if there's more than what meets the eye.
If the FBI found nothing, I'd trust them. So long as they aren't being hindered in their investigation, of course. The agency can only do so much given the age of the case, so I wouldn't count on them finding much more... but that's part of what an investigation is for, seeing if there's more than what meets the eye.
If the FBI found nothing, I'd trust them. So long as they aren't being hindered in their investigation, of course. The agency can only do so much given the age of the case, so I wouldn't count on them finding much more... but that's part of what an investigation is for, seeing if there's more than what meets the eye.
Rather than rehash what others have said, visit that Washington Post piece ch33zw1z linked earlier. It's not just about the circumstances around attempted rape, although he has certainly lied about that -- it's that he hasn't been honest about a number of subjects during the hearings. Do you want a Supreme Court Justice who can't even be honest about how he was drinking as a teenager?
I'd like to ask you this question, I can't seem to find an answer.
I'm still wondering why these ladies didn't come forward when he was appointed a judge?
seems more like perfect timing to me, real fishy.
I mean if the ladies thought he was a rapist or that bad why did they not try to ruin him a long time ago?
Is it ok their eyes to have a judge that drugs and gang rapes or whatever?
I 'd like your opinion on this.
although she came out with this to her therapist a few years ago,
ok sounds good, what did he lie about? I find it hard to tell the truth, about something I did 36 years ago, I mean how the hell would I remember the facts, at a party? One party would just kinda smear into another one. that would be tough, I must admit.
I'd like to ask you this question, I can't seem to find an answer.
I'm still wondering why these ladies didn't come forward when he was appointed a judge?
seems more like perfect timing to me, real fishy.
I mean if the ladies thought he was a rapist or that bad why did they not try to ruin him a long time ago?
Is it ok their eyes to have a judge that drugs and gang rapes or whatever?
I 'd like your opinion on this.
Because coming forward isn't that simple.
We've just seen what women often experience when they do come forward: many men assume they're lying, they're asked to relive trauma, and they even get death threats (I still want to know why people see this as opportunism when Ford testified after having to evacuate her home). There's still a climate of sexism where protecting a man's reputation is considered more important than taking allegations seriously.
As examples: look at Brock Turner, who got a light sentence for rape because the judge was more concerned about preserving his future than the lifetime of trauma he inflicted on his victim. Or Bill Cosby, who admitted to drugging women but didn't lose his squeaky clean image until dozens of women came forward years later.
You see the problem here? It's easy to say "oh, she should have come forward much earlier" when you aren't the one facing a gauntlet of men who'll attack you and drag your name through the dirt. I don't think Ford was being opportunistic. Rather, it's that she realized that if she didn't say something now, her attacker would be virtually guaranteed to sit in the highest court of the land for the rest of his life.
Do you think your act here is original?I can understand not wanting to come out and say this in public NOW when it will be on every headline for WEEKS, and of coarse be facing the gauntlet of people, especially because of the timing of it, that would be tough, I understand that.
But back then, 6 years ago, when she told her therapist ,it might have barley made the front page. SO your telling me she felt so strongly about what he did but said nothing WHILE HE WAS A JUDGE FOR 6 YEARS!?
That's even more fishy. You are actually making it EASIER for me to think this is politically motivated.
I can understand not wanting to come out and say this in public NOW when it will be on every headline for WEEKS, and of coarse be facing the gauntlet of people, especially because of the timing of it, that would be tough, I understand that.
But back then, 6 years ago, when she told her therapist ,it might have barley made the front page. SO your telling me she felt so strongly about what he did but said nothing WHILE HE WAS A JUDGE FOR 6 YEARS!?
That's even more fishy. You are actually making it EASIER for me to think this is politically motivated.
I can understand not wanting to come out and say this in public NOW when it will be on every headline for WEEKS, and of coarse be facing the gauntlet of people, especially because of the timing of it, that would be tough, I understand that.
But back then, 6 years ago, when she told her therapist ,it might have barley made the front page. SO your telling me she felt so strongly about what he did but said nothing WHILE HE WAS A JUDGE FOR 6 YEARS!?
That's even more fishy.