So you're saying that, unless the accuser has undeniable proof that the event happened, he/she should keep his mouth shut and pretend it didn't happen? Is that the alternative?
Undeniable evidence? How about ANY evidence?
There's nothing here that could be credibly investigated. If she swears out a statement either to the Senate or to the MD police, we'd have her claims. Even then, there's no evidence of intent to rape, which flat out means the statute of limitations has expired.
I never said it would be possible to absolutely prove an event didn't happen.
Sure you did, you just called in "prove your innocence."
Since you want to claim that we haven't looked at all the evidence, list it out.
The "witness" has been contacted, said it didn't happen.
The "accused" has been contacted, said it didn't happen.
The "victim" has said it happened, but can't give a location, a date (not even a year) or really anything else, and her own corroborating account doesn't mention Kavanaugh and is factually inconsistent with her claim.
Do you have an address? A date? Something else?
Are you suggesting we look for rumors from 35 years ago? If any of her friends came forward it would mean one of 2 things, either she lied about telling someone, or they are lying about what they know.
Where is this other "evidence" coming from? Fact is you have no idea, all you want is an open ended "digging expedition." That has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with fairness.
Kavanaugh has a stellar record that he can be reviewed on, including in his personal life. In your view we should discount that when we weigh his credibility? Why? What actual basis is there to believe he is lying?
You seem to think that if there isn't the amount of proof that would get someone convicted in a court of law, that means there is no proof and the whole thing should be ignored.
No. There is no proof here.
There is an accusation.
I believe that an accusation without proof is worthless on this matter.
There are no "extremely strong suspicions" of a crime, there is innuendo and a lot of political wishing it to be true.
Why are you so intent on making sure they don't have all the information now?
When did you stop beating your wife?
The standard is what evidence has the accuser brought forward. The answer is none.
The accuser hasn't made a claim that can be investigated and hasn't gone on record. They have all the actual information.
You think I'm worried about Republicans investigating leaders?
No, I think you're hypocritical that an unproven accusation that a teenage boy groped a teenage girl where there is no evidence and its contrary to his entire public life is enough to stop a nomination, but that plenty of existing politicians have worse accusations in their backgrounds and you don't have a problem with it.
Should we disallow anyone from public office that has been accused of any crime? Is that the new standard?
Where I'm drawing the line is in not investigating what sounds like a credible accusation,
Walk me through it. What exactly makes this "sound" credible?
As far as I can tell all that makes it sound credible is that a woman said it.