First, let us consider the adjectives that might correctly be applied to the Ford accusations:
Uncorroborated.
Contradicted (by her designated witnesses).
Incredible (literally, given K's professional and personal reputation).
Unlikely (remove a bathing suit under street clothes?).
Variously prevaricated (not wanting this to get out, fear of flying, never coached others for polygraph, etc).
Unsupported (by her OWN FAMILY, who would have seen some indication in her of the attack).
Conveniently DETAILED where defamatory, and lacking any DETAIL that might allow proof or refutation.
Contrived (her meek, little girl voice and presentation).
In fact, the only thing giving it any credibility at all is the SUPPOSITION that reporting of such incidents is often delayed and often truthful, even though delayed. But why this particular allegation was delayed for more than 35 years, and why a "strong, professional woman" would been intimidated into silence by...what, exactly?
So, the kindest thing that might be said about the whole thing is that her account COULD BE TRUE. While it is an unlikely tale, and, unquestionably, NO PROSECUTOR IN THE WORLD WOULD EVEN CONSIDER ATTEMPTING TO GET AN INDICTMENT on such flimsy "evidence," no outside observer can say, categorically, that she was lying. And on the other hand, she cannot even begin to prove that ANY ELEMENT OF HER TALE IS TRUE. None of it. That there was a party, that the people she identified were there, that the events described actually happened. None of it.
But THE ENTIRE LEFT POLITICAL WORLD treats this as though her tale is absolutely, demonstrably, and obviously true.
Reasonable people can differ on this issue. On the right, we must concede that her account could be true, but its presentation is SO SUSPICIOUS, SO CONVENIENT, SO TOTALLY UNPROVABLE, that one must treat it as - to quote the odious late Senator Specter - "unproven." And it violates every principle of fairness and rational governance to DESTROY a man and his reputation on the basis of a single flimsy, unsupported accusation.
But look at the reactions on college campuses, look at the entertainment world, look at the behavior of what should be reasonable or normal people in Leftist Mecca's like Washington, New York, San Fran, and L.A. It is ridiculous, unsupportable, and if were not so vile, it would be funny.
So are leftists too stupid to analyze this rationally, and/or too oblivious to the mountain of KNOWN facts, circumstances and details that cast doubt on this accusation? Are they blindly partisan and following the lead of the hacks in the Senate? Or are the merely evil, and pretending to be outraged at this accusation, but truly trembling in fear because the Holy Rite of Abortion hangs by a thread if Judge K ascends to the USSC?
I ask this because it is INCONCEIVABLE that anyone, looking at the facts before us and considering them rationally, would be utterly convinced of the truth of these accusations.
Uncorroborated.
Contradicted (by her designated witnesses).
Incredible (literally, given K's professional and personal reputation).
Unlikely (remove a bathing suit under street clothes?).
Variously prevaricated (not wanting this to get out, fear of flying, never coached others for polygraph, etc).
Unsupported (by her OWN FAMILY, who would have seen some indication in her of the attack).
Conveniently DETAILED where defamatory, and lacking any DETAIL that might allow proof or refutation.
Contrived (her meek, little girl voice and presentation).
In fact, the only thing giving it any credibility at all is the SUPPOSITION that reporting of such incidents is often delayed and often truthful, even though delayed. But why this particular allegation was delayed for more than 35 years, and why a "strong, professional woman" would been intimidated into silence by...what, exactly?
So, the kindest thing that might be said about the whole thing is that her account COULD BE TRUE. While it is an unlikely tale, and, unquestionably, NO PROSECUTOR IN THE WORLD WOULD EVEN CONSIDER ATTEMPTING TO GET AN INDICTMENT on such flimsy "evidence," no outside observer can say, categorically, that she was lying. And on the other hand, she cannot even begin to prove that ANY ELEMENT OF HER TALE IS TRUE. None of it. That there was a party, that the people she identified were there, that the events described actually happened. None of it.
But THE ENTIRE LEFT POLITICAL WORLD treats this as though her tale is absolutely, demonstrably, and obviously true.
Reasonable people can differ on this issue. On the right, we must concede that her account could be true, but its presentation is SO SUSPICIOUS, SO CONVENIENT, SO TOTALLY UNPROVABLE, that one must treat it as - to quote the odious late Senator Specter - "unproven." And it violates every principle of fairness and rational governance to DESTROY a man and his reputation on the basis of a single flimsy, unsupported accusation.
But look at the reactions on college campuses, look at the entertainment world, look at the behavior of what should be reasonable or normal people in Leftist Mecca's like Washington, New York, San Fran, and L.A. It is ridiculous, unsupportable, and if were not so vile, it would be funny.
So are leftists too stupid to analyze this rationally, and/or too oblivious to the mountain of KNOWN facts, circumstances and details that cast doubt on this accusation? Are they blindly partisan and following the lead of the hacks in the Senate? Or are the merely evil, and pretending to be outraged at this accusation, but truly trembling in fear because the Holy Rite of Abortion hangs by a thread if Judge K ascends to the USSC?
I ask this because it is INCONCEIVABLE that anyone, looking at the facts before us and considering them rationally, would be utterly convinced of the truth of these accusations.
