It was, according to the reports, a misdemeanor at the time in Maryland. And Kavanaugh was also a minor at the time.
Laws and standards change, but we should judge people according to the laws and standards at the time it allegedly happened.
No problem. I do participate in the UK political threads here, but there aren’t any that I’ve seen at the moment. And US politics affects the whole world, which is why I’m interested in it
I feel compelled to ask: What “great misgivings”?
You’re British? I’m given to understand that you don’t actually vote for Prime Minister, but rather you vote for your MP and it’s up to the majority (or coalition) party’s MPs to put forth their leader for the monarch to “request to form a government”. Not voting at all isn’t a way to effect change, though.
Guess I’ll be using the expression twice in one post: I’m given to understand that there was corroborating evidence, but the “investigation” and the Senate (both the committee and the full Senate) decided not to give credence to it.
Obviously only out for herself and, to a lesser extent, her family and party. Probably a criminal. Defended her rapist husband and attacked his accusers. Not proven herself to be a good politician, negotiator, or democrat (in the sense of international relations). Appears to have no actual policies or principles. Basically, all the things that are wrong with Trump, but to a *much *lesser degree.
She’s the second-worst mainstream presidential candidate I remember.
Yes, and you vote for electors who then choose a President, as well as local and state congresspeople who may or may not actually represent your views.
It’s often a balance between voting for the best individual as a local MP and voting for a party to make a point. At the last general election, I voted for the party most opposed to Brexit (the Liberal Democrats) as in my opinion that issue far outweighs anything else, local or national, as it will have effects for generations to come, and can’t easily be undone if it happens. I’d say it’s more equivalent to a constitutional amendment that a normal governmental election, in US terms.
As I understand it, no witness has said that they remember being at a party with her, Kavanaugh and Judge, and no-one has said (without retracting it) that Ford named Kavanaugh as an abuser before this decade. Those are things that I would look for as corroboration, personally.
In the linked piece, it would appear as though there is a mountain of corroborating evidence, as per the definition, but it all seems circumstantial. Enough to disqualify you for a job, but not enough to prosecute in a court setting.
What is lacking is direct evidence of the assault. We have corroboration, we have circumstantial, we don’t have direct evidence.
Re Post #84: What a load of rubbish.
Honestly I think that this is probably what happened.
Slightly Drunk, Kananaugh and his friend decide to have some fun with the uptight girl in the upstairs bedroom. He tackles her cops a feel and tries to take off her top, she’s resisting and screaming but that’s just for show, he’ll cover her mouth so she won’t disturb the other party goers. Was he wanting to rape her? Don’t know, maybe not, probably hadn’t thought that far ahead. His friend tries to join in the fun and they all end up on the floor laughing, then she runs out of the room. HA HA HA what a goof well lets go back to the party.
Although this memory haunted Ford for decades, it probably didn’t register a blip on Kavanaugh’s radar.
Calling it rubbish is unfair to actual rubbish.