Posted on 09/17/2018 5:46:22 AM PDT by Lazamataz
American politics have been roiled in the last 48 hours by a last-minute attempt by Democrats and political operatives to sink Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the United States Supreme Court.
After all public and private hearings were over, Sen. Feinstein revealed a letter she had in her possession since July of this year, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of some teenage, high-school groping of a girl at a party. This girl, now a woman in her 50’s, has come forward and is willing to testify before the confirmation vote. Any reasonable person, not motivated by sheer partisan politics, might wonder about the following:
There is a reason that there are Statute of Limitation laws. Points of information are very hard to prove or disprove decades later, especially without report or recording of them. It is easy to convict (or exonerate) a person, if fuzzy facts from more than three decades ago are taken as Gospel.
Furthermore, this woman presumes to have only recently recalled these events. How odd! If it was such a debilitating blow, as she asserts, would not the event stand out clearly in her mind? Yet she cannot remember important data about it. She cannot remember with certainty the date, the location’s address, and has even changed the number of alleged ‘assailants’ from four to two.
Even if the facts are as she recites (which is highly questionable), Kavanaugh was a teenager at the time. Without question he was different then. All of us were. In fact, I defy anyone to say that they have not made foolish decisions as a teenager -- even in the sexual arena.
But is drunken teenage groping a crime? It is not. It is typical teenage behavior, especially in the 1980’s. However, the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, is making increasingly serious charges. She makes them, without proof of any nature and with very questionable facts and recollections.
She says that she felt Kavanaugh was trying to remove her clothing. Yet, she admits he did not. She says she felt that Kavanaugh was trying to have intercourse with her. Yet, she admits he did not. She says she felt that Kavanaugh was trying to hurt her. Yet, she admits he did not.
So what shall be the standard of ‘conviction’, with the subsequent revocation of his nomination? Shall the standard be the ‘feelings’ of a girl (who only remembered the event five years ago), or the facts she admits are true?
And how long into a person’s past should a person be investigated? Are we to now consider every event from Kindergarten and on? Do we need to bring forth charges of bullying when a person swings a fist at another on a third-grade playground? Are we to discard all nominees for their act of swiping a candy bar from a drug store at the age of 7? Do we need to hold Congressional Hearings every time we hear that little Sammy dunked little Suzy’s pigtails in the inkwell?
This new set of trends are very troubling. I suggest that, in the spirit of the #MeToo Movement, that a new hashtag emerge: #BeenSmearedToo.
Of course not. And neither will you receive any portion of ours. Unless you’re super nice and stop with all that “I’d hit that” folderol. :-) <3
Unsure about Whitehorse, but definitely concur re: Grassley and Graham.
Oops—Whitehouse.
All of us.
Is that reciprocated?
And what do you mean anyway?
You might not mind if some people never existed, and they might feel the same way about you.
Is it any more than that?
bttt
Okay, so, saw the ping list graphic, gotta say, a little jealous.
Even Laz wouldn't hit that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.