Why don't you believe these women?

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Khaleesi

Yes. The problem is we need an investigation, and the "president" and his "congress" refuse to authorize one.
How are we supposed to find evidence and verify the allegations without an investigation?

And yet everybody keeps saying there is "NO evidence". No corroboration?

?

What's wrong with this picture?

How about the FBI not having jurisdiction? It isn't a Federal crime. How about the fact that it might not even be a crime at all? It may not meet the LEGAL definition for a crime where it happened. You can't tell me that there isn't somebody in the jurisdiction where the incident happened who would have started an investigation just to score Liberal brownie points.

Why stop at the FBI?

Why not call in the CIA, MIB, Monk and Magnum?

To political and there will not be enough evidence,ruins the entire case when it gets this political.Some people seem to be clueless the Supreme Court is ran like a dictatorship.There has never been extremely dangerous judges on the Supreme Court...It will eventually become so radicalized that dangerous Supreme Court leaders will be elected.That should frighten all Americans.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I neither believe them, nor disbelieve them.

I simply say there is ZERO proof and I have no way of saying.

Sexual assault is terrible,and those who commit it are truly the sickest individuals short of murderers.

Now, having said that....To ruin someone's life with this kind of accusation, you need proof. It should be obvious as to why.

Yet people on the left expect us to believe them, just because they says it's so. It doesn't work that way.

Now comes those who will say, but there isn't always proof! And this is why you say something immediately, and file charges. So that any evidence is fresh and no matter how small, at least IT'S THERE!

If a woman is assaulted and lets it go for 30 years, she did just that, she let it go. She put many reasons above her dignity, and let it go.

Once this much time has passed, there is only words. Her words, and his words. And barring any physical evidence, no proof. So you MUST assume innocence because we are innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: FyreByrd

I neither believe them, nor disbelieve them.

She says there were 2 boys involved and 2 other boys at the house, 4 boys involved, only 4 people at the party, 4 boys and a couple of girls at the party ... curious which statement should be believed more.

originally posted by: Athetos
Your in this thread talking to me, you sure we arnt free falling?
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Are you Pissing on my Leg , and Telling Me it's Just Raining ? ..............)

Here is the prepared statement that Christine Ford will read, to start tomorrow's hearing.

www.foxnews.com...

She freely attended a party of perverts/rapists/drunks, but didn't leave? Come on Christine.

I was talking to my cousin about this last night. My cousin is a retired State Police investigator. He made one comment that I find interesting. There is no Stature of Limitations on underage drinking. If she testifies under oath and admits to it, she can still be charged.

Also women are also human beings that can become political activist and LIE to destroy a mans career...They do it for feminism power which can become very corrupt.

a reply to: FyreByrd

1) I don't believe anything without a modicum of evidence. Those that do are gullible fools. I ESPECIALLY don't believe things without a modicum of evidence when political stakes are as high as they are.

2) No, I don't think that "MOST" woman would put themselves through hell to denigrate a man. I would, however, point out that your question implies that "MOST" woman are victims of sexual assault, which simply isn't true. I would also point out that even if "HALF", nay, "A FEW" of sexual assault claims are total BS, I think the men that those bogus sexual assault claims were levied against would be EXTREMELY grateful for a little due process, don't you?

Also, in this case, it isn't just about denigrating a man, as you put it. Do I think that "ONE" woman out of millions may put herself through hell if it meant keeping someone out of a lifetime appointment where he could turn the tide and help overturn Roe vs Wade? Yes. Yes I do.

a reply to: CaliMayh3m

Also, in this case, it isn't just about denigrating a man, as you put it. Do I think that "ONE" woman out of millions may put herself through hell if it meant keeping someone out of a lifetime appointment where he could turn the tide and help overturn Roe vs Wade? Yes. Yes I do.

I agree. Yes, those woman are putting themselves in Hell by supporting Roe vs Wade.

you ask a very simple question. "Why don't you believe these women?".

so here is the simple answer. why should we automatically believe a person making accusations?

i am sorry for answering a question with a question. but it is a very important question that needs to be answered to answer your question. and here is a bit of a kicker. why should we even be asked to or be involved in believing the accuser? and this is where that argument of the question "Why don't you believe these women?", that is getting very tiring to hear, is actually a big part of the problem. in fact that very question is at the tip of creating things like lynch mobs. which in reality is what this whole political farce is. in fact believing the accuser, especially without any real evidence to support it, is exactly how we ended up with things like the Salem Witch Trials. in fact i can see in the future that this whole "metoo movement", and "accusation of sexual misconduct" culture we have will be listed right along with similar travesties of justice like the Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy hearings. in fact if such situations were dealt with properly, we wouldn't need to have an opinion about who is telling the truth. since we would have had a proper police investigation into the allegations. and if there is enough evidence of a crime being committed then passed to a court of law/jury to listen to ALL the evidence and be in a much better position to determine who is telling the truth. and who is guilty of what. unlike in this currant kangaroo court of public opinion. and one that is not at all based upon any facts. but instead based upon a person's word, and media reporting and conjecture.


in fact one thing this case piled upon so many cases of false claims of sexual misconduct has shown is that these types of accusations should be completely disregarded. such public accusations, not only diminish the believability of any other such claims, but actually make actual justice almost impossible due to the effect of everyone having their minds made up before any investigation by duly appointed law enforcement has even occurred. i would go so far as to say anyone who makes such a complaint publicly. or even to management of a company, or faculty of a school, should themselves be criminally charged. and that is regardless of after a full and proper investigation, has caused a court of law to find the accused guilty. quite frankly if you believe you have been sexually assaulted, then you should bring the matter to the duly appointed law enforcement officials of the area it happened, so that the alleged crime can be properly investigated. after such an investigation, if there is enough evidence to support the claim, then the due process of the courts of law take over. and a fair and impartial trial determines the guilt of the accused, and even the accuser if it is found that they are not being truthful in their claims. it is not at all a public matter. in fact from what everyone keeps saying about reasons why actual victims do not come forward. things like shame, humiliation, loss of reputation etc. if we in fact enforced what i have suggested, i have to wonder how many more actual, real victims, would feel safe and better about coming out in the first place. knowing full well that no one other than law enforcement and those involved in such a trial would know about the situation. at least until the accused has been found guilty or not guilty. in fact we could even add that such trials be treated as they treat minors in trials, not releasing any information about those involved so that it does not effect them for the rest of their lives. no taint against a person who has not been found guilty, especially in cases where the accuser is found guilty of their crime. nor would an actual victim where the accused has been found guilty of crimes suffer such public disclosure of what happened to them. in this way EVERYONE would be protected. and i suspect more people with actual valid claims would be far more willing to come forward.

Without evidence tie goes to the accused, its the way its always supposed to have worked and I am not quite sure when that changed but it needs to go back to that way.

Why don't you believe these women?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Without evidence tie goes to the accused, its the way its always supposed to have worked and I am not quite sure when that changed but it needs to go back to that way.

Without evidence there is no tie. The most we can say is something happened to her, and it's very unlikely Kavanaugh was involved.

The whole point is to show us that evidence isn't even needed anymore. Someone can destroy the life of a supreme court judge nominee, and his entire family, forever, simply by making an unsupported accusation. It doesn't matter if it's true, or not true. The result is all that matters, and it always works the same way - guilty, either with, or without, any proof.

In actual cases in courts of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. It doesn't even go to court if there's no evidence, or not enough valid evidence, to go forward into a trial. The defendant has a lawyer, who speaks on his behalf. The defendant says nothing, usually, in court.

And that's how it works for AVERAGE citizens. It usually never goes to court if you're a bigwig - until lately, that is.

You are guilty at once, now. No court needed, no evidence needed, no lawyer speaks on your behalf.


Some sicko world we now are living in..... and it's not even close to the absolute hell, which is yet to come.

a reply to: turbonium1

And them changing their story 5 times and having their own friend they name as a witness not back them up doesn't matter.