On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:01:14 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:25:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2018 9:37 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:



No, why don't YOU get it straight? It doesn't make any real difference
if the intent is to prosecute for a crime that MAY have occurred or
whether it's to show a person's past transgressions with the hope of
ruining their career.

If you wish to do either you do so with proof.Â* Not with innuendo and
hearsay such as we see going on in this instance.Â* It such were the
case, there would likely not be a single soul in either the House or
Senate who would be fit to serve on the basis of stink alone.

Proof is not needed in the Court of Public Opinion, just a good story.
We now have to believe everything women say too. No matter the outcome,
there will always be a dark shadow.
Which is why he should DEMAND an FBI investigation to clear his name
if he is CERTAIN he's innocent.

Neither the FBI, nor anyone else, can clear anyone's name from something like
this. We have the statements, under criminal penalty, from all four people
Ford alleges were at that party. All say they know nothing about that party
or anything about K sexually assaulting anyone. If that isn't enough, nothing
will ever convince you. If someone walked into the local police station with
an accusation like Ford made against someone, the police would have gone no
further in any investigation, nor would the FBI in any background check.