GhostofChenier wrote:Old dck never not suggest guilty no evicence!!!!!
(1) You need to consider what evidence actually means. Testimony and accusers ARE evidence. They might not be enough evidence to convict in a court of law on their own, but they are absolutely evidence.
(2) This is not a court of law. This is the selection process for a Supreme Court Judge. The court of law only indirectly relates to what actually happened. The evidence needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. A person can still have done the crime but owing to insufficient evidence are found not guilty, or could also be found guilty despite not having done the crime due to incorrect or misinterpreted evidence.
In this case, we have a person who has been accused multiple times with evidence that this is more than just something the person never mentioned to anyone prior to Kavanaugh's name being put up for appointment. Would it be enough to convict him in a criminal trial? Personally, I doubt it, but I doubt that kind of timeline is going to ever play out so it's entirely beside the point. What does matter is whether or not we have sufficient evidence to have concerns about how he would handle the powers associated with a seat on the supreme court. Frankly, I think the sexual harassment is only tangentially related to the biggest concern I have, which is Kavanaugh's clear willingness, at the very least, bend the truth to suit his preference. He isn't the only person who does that by any stretch, but it's concerning to me that in a hearing for an appointment to the supreme court we're hearing these kinds of allegations and dealing with a person who is willing to walk such a tight line with respect to borderline perjury. With those kinds of allegations, I'm not sure why anyone would think it best for everyone to make a decision without examining Kavanaugh's full record diligently.