(September 18, 2018 at 9:18 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:(September 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Too bad Feinstein had an apparent case of Catholicitis and sat on it for months.
She should have made it public before the woman who trusted her with the information agreed to it?
(September 17, 2018 at 11:17 am)alpha male Wrote: Yeah, I think the logical inference from the timing is that they couldn't substantiate it, so they saved it for last-minute emotional effect.
The timing of the 65 women who vouch that the man didn't rape THEM would indicate that the administration was aware that someone might accuse Kavenaugh of rape.
(September 17, 2018 at 11:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence. For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.
Anonymous hearsay is meaningless, until it is no longer anonymous, and no longer hearsay. You have gotten your wish, it seems on that account. More details have been presented as well. It's likely his accuser will be cross-examined, and other witnesses secured.
You really believed it would stop at 'Feinstein says someone said something'?
(September 17, 2018 at 11:39 am)alpha male Wrote: Correct, it shouldn't be considered evidence.
No one has called it evidence but RR. An accusation does warrant investigation. And Kavanaugh is not facing jail over this, the evidence does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt for it to quite rightly derail his nomination. I don't have to have enough evidence to convict when choosing not to select a potential employee if I have merely sufficient reason to think they've committed a crime that would lead me to think they are not a good fit for my team. No one has a right to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Not to mention it's what, 50 days before the midterms? I believe a precedent has been set that we should 'wait for the people to speak' before trying to rush through a Supreme Court nomination.
(September 17, 2018 at 12:13 pm)alpha male Wrote: Why do you think the Dems waited until now, after hearings have been conducted, to release it?
Feinstein waited for the accuser's permission to go forward with it. She clearly would rather not have had to put herself out to the public if she didn't feel it was absolutely necessary to check Kavenaugh's appointment. She's already paying the predictable price for it.
Victim is 15. Seems to be the very definition of Catholicitis to me in regards to Feinstein.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
