Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do not believe a word of this.

Why would she make it up? Maybe she just now found the courage to come forward. Why would she blow her life up for no reason?

$$$

That is a direct quote from this board defending Ford against Kavanough. There are pages after that defending Ford, yet you think it's different this time, why?

NP. I’m inclined to believe this accuser, just as I believed Ford. However, these are very, very different circumstances. The standard for convicting someone in a court of law is far higher than the standard for declining to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, as it should be. Also, Ford was taking a much bigger risk in coming forward than this accuser is.

Not saying Ford wasn't telling the truth, but there were definitely high political stakes by potentially taking down a republican nomination who will greatly affect the entire country for years to come.

I’m think it’s more appropriate to frame this as … there are high moral stakes by potentially allowing a morally bankrupt person become a Supreme Court Justice.

Never trust a Jew that changes their last name

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i do not believe a word of this.

Why would she make it up? Maybe she just now found the courage to come forward. Why would she blow her life up for no reason?

$$$

That is a direct quote from this board defending Ford against Kavanough. There are pages after that defending Ford, yet you think it's different this time, why?

NP. I’m inclined to believe this accuser, just as I believed Ford. However, these are very, very different circumstances. The standard for convicting someone in a court of law is far higher than the standard for declining to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, as it should be. Also, Ford was taking a much bigger risk in coming forward than this accuser is.

Not saying Ford wasn't telling the truth, but there were definitely high political stakes by potentially taking down a republican nomination who will greatly affect the entire country for years to come.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It the accuser was 12 and it happened 56 years ago she is now 68. I think there is a statue of limitations for a reason.

Np but why should there be? If he had murdered someone than they dont say " statue if limitations". They prosecute. Rape is a serious offense that should not have a " staue of limitations"

If there was a murder from 56 years ago they if he able to exhume a body or might have collected evidence that they could now test for dna. How do you defend against something that happened so long ago? Defendants have a right to a fair trial. Bob Dylan is a public figure whose travels are well documented so he might be able to prove he was in another place but most people don’t. After 50 years memories can fade and change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It the accuser was 12 and it happened 56 years ago she is now 68. I think there is a statue of limitations for a reason.

Np but why should there be? If he had murdered someone than they dont say " statue if limitations". They prosecute. Rape is a serious offense that should not have a " staue of limitations"

For murder, they also need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.