Your two statements contradict each other. If you believe her - he has to be guilty no?
I have heard the media reports, and I turned them off. They did call him guilty, rapist, etc. Then also went into stereotypes about powerful white men thinking they are entitled to this behavior. It was all over the place. I don't know how you could have missed it.
Once again - it was the way they went about moving towards an investigation. They could have done their due diligence to this poor woman behind the scenes, and the senate does have their investigative powers. They choose not to use those, and as far as I'm concerned traumatized this woman more so. They are responsible for that. That alone doesn't show care for her at all.
The FBI would be investigating the alleged crime in this case.
Remember they have already done a background check on him six times already. Chances are very good they have already spoken to Mark Judge - also other friends, family, teachers, religious leaders, etc. That is standard procedure of this background check.
The only thing that maybe knocked down is the many allegations - and speculation about Mark Judge that would have to be walked back. There have been some doozies floating around. Chances are many of the media outlets won't mention it if they have to - or it will be a side note. Then continue to use it in commentary later on. They have done this for years. It's pitiful. Remember this type of dynamic happened way before Trump - or this circumstance, etc.
Alleged facts are debunked and they keep repeating it anyway - the media dynamic in question.
The only one I have heard about is a past roommate from College. No doubt more have come out since then, because that is how this works in recent history. People love to join the bandwagon.
The college room mate that spoke out against him came up in the hearing, and Kaungaugh reminded them about the document they viewed behind the scenes - the Senate - and that pretty much stuck down the questioning about that. They stopped because it had information in it about that this person, and conflicts he had in college - and the Dems choose at that point to NOT air it.
Notice the media didn't choose to bring that point home?! Instead they keep bringing him up. That makes things confusing to say the least.
Choir boys - as the stereotype goes - don't admit things he did under oath. Just another item that isn't hammered home in the commentaries about this circumstance. They labeled him so they could tear their own stereotype down. They do this all the time with other circumstances too. That part has driven me crazy for years about the news media. It's irresponsible, but it hands them rating and money due to the competitive nature of their field.
Well, no offense the way they went about this made me question their motives. Again they could have done their due diligence for this woman - and choose not too. You also have wonder WHY that is. Yet, no one does. They just guess about people not caring instead. The individuals in this committee are the ones that didn't care. You notice they avoid that discussion.
The GOP also went out of their way to accommodate her, and we learned from the hearing that she had no idea that they offered to fly out to CA to do the interview if she felt more comfortable doing so. You notice her lawyers didn't even mention that to her - which is crazy since they are the ones that complained she didn't like flying. This came up during the hearing too. She was taken back, because she had no idea they made the offer.
That makes no sense to me at all. WHY would her lawyers force her to fly to a hearing when they didn't have too? You don't bring up a concern, and they blow off the solution for your client.
It's Feinstein - with an F. The problem is when no one that was allegedly there will change their stories? Remember NONE of them - including her friends - say they were at this party. I'm not sure how far they can go with it. I do believe something happened to her, but I also know that trauma can do funny things to you. It's not unusual that things to seem completely clear, and they end up not being so. The brain can do funny things when in protective mode. They can also remember things that you are surprised they remember in such detail. What I saw was a broken woman, and I do believe she believes what she is saying. No one in this hearing went into the dynamics of trauma, and they should have. It's not like this isn't well documented.
I also don't know what will happen to this country if this investigation comes back with nothing. That's a very good possibility, and no one goes there. Responsible journalism - would.
They keep bringing up Anita Hill, and yet her charges came back unfounded. That was after the FBI investigation. Her claims were a federal crime, because they allegedly happened on federal grounds - building, etc. Bad example! Notice they only bring up 1/2 that investigation, and tread lightly on the conclusions. To me that is highly irresponsible, because they are not mentioning the high possibility it could happen again. You and I both know people are going to go nutters if it does.
There are worse holes with the current stories in the media about additional women.
I think you are talking about Flake.
I read about half of that Hannah, and will read the rest of it later. Not to be disrespectful, just burned out on the whole thing right now.
My statements did not contradict. I believe her. You obviously believe him, so your point is somewhat null. I believe her, but have no way of knowing for sure. That is why further investigation is needed.
Anytime allegations are made, including new allegations, further investigation is needed.
A written statement is no where near the same as actually being questioned.
You did not answer my question. Why are they so eager to believe him and push this through? For political reasons, obviously, just as you ate accusing the Dems of, but bottom line is her testimony, not what the Dems did or did not do.
His testimony was not credible. He deflected the questions, went on attack...the best defense is a good offense.
Obviiously, you have made up your mind, completely, that he is innocent. So I have to ask myself why? Is it also for political reasons?
What if she is telling the truth?
Do you really not care that she was assaulted? You claim you do, but everything you are focusing on shows that you really don't.
The most important thing is God knows. And one day there will be justice, whether in this life or the next. The truth will be shouted from the mountain tops.
I get my news mainly from publically funded radio. I have found them to be the most credible news source throughout my life. That is why I did not hear anyone call him guilty until right after the last time I wtote. It was a rape advocate who said it, but typically, there is only a demand for further investigation. I agree this is needed.
If these accusations are true, does that even matter to you? Do you want a man who sexually assaults women on the supreme court?
If you voted for Trump, and continue to support him, which I suspect you do, since Trump admitted to sexual assault,
as a Christian, you should have a big problem with that. And you cannot rationally claim he didn't. Because no man of God would brag about grabbing women he just met and does not know, in the private parts. That is sexual assault, and that is the opposite of Christ, and yet you continue to support him don't you, for political reasons?
That is a rhetorical question.
You have already made it quite clear where you stand, and we will obviously never agree.
So, let us pray that the truth rise, and, and that the Lord's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
And yes, I know it is Feinstein, my auto correct on my phone does not want to recognize the name.
Can we please end this conversation now?
I am quite heartbroken over this whole thing, especially when I hear even women, automatically defend a man accused of sexual assault, and as I see it, not really caring what is actually true.
May our Lord Christ lead us into all truth,
God bless you Hannah,
Robin