The buzzphrase of the week seems to be "credibly accused." The Left says that Brett Kavanaugh has been "credibly accused" of sexual assault. The term is littered all over Twitter, where liberals have unanimously declared Christine Ford's story "credible."
Far be it for me to credibly accuse them of calling accusations credible for purely political reasons, but I'm not sure how else they could have arrived at that conclusion. When I look at the situation, I see a politically partisan accuser who never told anyone her story for 30 years and only went public after the accused was nominated for the Supreme Court. She doesn't remember the date of the alleged crime, or even the exact year. She doesn't remember exactly where it happened or how she ended up there. She says that she and the accused were both kids at the time and both drinking alcohol. Her story has changed at least once, and significantly, between the first time she brought it up in 2012 and now. This seems like a rather low bar for "credible."
But where should we set the bar? Well, I think it could be helpful to consider, by way of example, an actually credible rape accusation. I am not looking to play the "what about" game here. I just think it's important that we have some standard for calling an accusation credible. After all, a man has already been convicted in the court of public opinion the moment the word "credible" is tacked onto an accusation. It is important that we don't throw the word around carelessly.Read the rest from Matt Walsh HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
2 comments:
You want to talk credibility. Um, did you see what Kavanaugh and Whelen cooked up yesterday. Of course you did.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Apparently, ol Brett ain't that smart. Or honest.
Oh man, it doesn't get any better than this. Kind of gives new meaning to the phrase "jumped the shark". I'm almost feeling sorry for you now.
This thing is over.
-Martha
There's so much to this story that is fishy. 100 things,but here's one. How did Whelen even FIND Chris Garrett to be the fall guy, if not from Kavanugh?
Kavenaugh himself is the one who started the "must be someone else" line of defense. He is GOOD FRIENDS with Whelen. Hatch knew about this days ago. This, it seems more than likely, was COOKED UP by Kavanaugh and Whelen, though now Ed is saying, oh no, they didn't know about it. BUNK.
The R's are playing this just as badly a the D's.
WE CAN'T DEPEND ON ANY OF THEM. THEY ARE ALL ROTTEN TO THE CORE.
We are supposed to ignore that the indisputable evidence that Brett was a heavy drinker/vomiter/passer-outer in HS. He called himself the Keg King. As such, his memory is unreliable, plus, he has not been the least bit modest or humble in the whole debacle. He is too sure of his own innocence, when no one who is a drunk every weekend can be, especially someone who passes out while drunk.
And Ford. Why isn't he being forced to testify. He IS THE ONLY OTHER PERSON with info. He hasn't exactly denied it happened, either, as so many news reports say. He said HE HAS NO RECOLLECTION of it. Far different.If she is LYING, why would she place another witness, A FRIEND, in the room
None of the facts add up to Ford being the liar. I think we have a very good indication who's lying.
So McConnell, is going to ram this through. Even before he's heard a word of testimony that Kavanaugh might indeed be guilty. HE DOESN'T CARE. NONE of the R's care.
This is a private citizen coming forward. She's not a senator. She's not coordinating with democrats. She's simply going to tell her story. They should stop treating her like the enemy.
In the end, R's are going to live to regret their dismissal and repudiation of her.
-Martha
Post a Comment