JamishT wrote:The timing is just so perfect. And the indefensible nature of them is suspect to me (it's nearly impossible to establish an airtight alibi for a rich teenager in the 80's). It just seems so convenient.
Absentia wrote:JamishT wrote:The timing is just so perfect. And the indefensible nature of them is suspect to me (it's nearly impossible to establish an airtight alibi for a rich teenager in the 80's). It just seems so convenient.
I keep hearing this argument and I want to address it, laying aside the question of whether any of this is "convenient" for Dr. Ford. She says she wanted to avoid airing this dirty laundry in public (understandable), but when she saw that the guy who assaulted her was about to get placed on the Supreme Court, she felt she had to come forward (also understandable). Is that not a believable story? Is it necessary to infer a conspiracy to explain her actions?
Absentia wrote:I keep hearing this argument and I want to address it, laying aside the question of whether any of this is "convenient" for Dr. Ford. She says she wanted to avoid airing this dirty laundry in public (understandable), but when she saw that the guy who assaulted her was about to get placed on the Supreme Court, she felt she had to come forward (also understandable). Is that not a believable story? Is it necessary to infer a conspiracy to explain her actions?
In other words, the fact that she came out with her story when she did makes sense if she's telling the truth and if she's lying, which means it's not really indicative of one conclusion or the other.
For the record, my biggest conclusion from yesterday is that I find Kavanaugh's testimony about his drinking habits to be very shaky, based on the evidence from his yearbook and what his peers say about him. I think he drank a lot more than he admits, and I think his testimony that he never experienced any kind of memory impairment from drinking is a lie. And I'd like to think that in spite of all the murky questions surrounding this situation, we could all at least agree that lying under oath ought to disqualify someone from sitting on the Supreme Court.
Crimson847 wrote:It's also not just that he displayed an underlying contempt for the Democratic Party as sellers mentioned--he did, and I didn't much like it, but I'm under no illusions about SCOTUS being a nonpartisan, apolitical body, nor about career partisan operatives holding the opposing party in high esteem.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests