True. Ford couldn't remember details about where the "assault" occurred, who was present, etc. She had no corroboration such as supporting comments from friends that she told about the incident at the time. She is a liberal woman who presumably had a personal objection to another conservative on the Supreme Court. Reade remembers the specifics about what she alleges, has corroboration, and is a Democrat who doesn't want Trump to be reelected.
I'm not trying to make this about you, except perhaps to see if I can crack through your denial and get you to admit that maybe you might be just a touch hypocritical in your views. As I said at the start, it's pretty much a universal failing. And Mags is just as guilty of that as anyone.
So is your point that we should just drop the subject? Since there is no way he'll be proven guilty. Confused. barfo
What you consider a process might be different than mine, but many investigations start with the media reporting things and have even lead to trials and prosecutions, so yes, i consider it part of the process
Never said i was innocent of never being hypocritical but there are many levels and mags is in the upper level just in this thread alone. Deny it if you want, but i am very comfortable with my opinion.
Just pointing out that there hasn't ever been a standard around here or in the media of "innocent until proven guilty" so maybe it's not a valid point to try to tag on those who oppose your views. All I'm suggesting is there could be a little less discussion of the other side's "hypocrisy" and a little more on the subject itself.
Nope...actually, Ford did have corroboration. Also, Ford went to the FBI, Reade did not...Ford was sworn in under oath, Reade probably never will be. Not to mention that Ford was credible while there are multiple compelling holes in Reade's story. It's really no contest. Edited; (in order to make some people happy)
I am not saying that Reade wasn't made to feel uncomfortable, but I think her story has changed over time, as has her believability. The more it's been exposed (pardon the pun), it has become less stable of a story, and she becomes less of a credible witness for herself. It's similar to how Stormy Daniels attorney came off really flaky and about as believable as Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Obviously it's difficult to corroborate certain accusations, but I need something more than what she's done so far. Basically, she's telling us that "I told people, and I don't remember what words I used on a report I might or might not have made, so don't be surprised if it totally doesn't back up what I said. but remember, I have friends who I told this to, so that's what counts. Ignore that I made a different claim in the past, and now have made it more salacious." If he did it, he doesn't deserve to run. BUT the standard was already set that sexual assault allegations don't matter to people.
No, not unless you wanna compare a lawyers degree to someone who was a Stanford Professor, or unless you wanna assert that all degrees are as equally compelling.
Educated in what?...a common law degree?...yeah, nobody has one of those. I've known tons of people with "degrees" that were as dumb as dirt. My comment stands, Ford has has a "higher" education that Reade...and Reade's story is laughable. I do however find it funny that now 2 different people have concentrated on only one facet of my post instead of the actual crux of the whole of its meaning.
