Ford said her longtime friend was there
Right. At a party decades ago among how many parties?
so Ford was not telling the truth because her friend said she wasn't there.
Her friend didn't say that. Do you even know the name of that friend? Look back, I gave it to you. Her friend said she doesn't remember the party. Why would she? Can you remember every or even most of the parties you went to as a teenager?
I can think of a couple where the police showed up. And that's why I remember them. Otherwise...not so much.
Who do you believe, Ford or her long-time friend?
Her friend actually said that she believes Ford. You need a better command of the facts.
You are the one who throws your reason to the wind when you insist that the principle of "presumed innocence" only applies to the court of law.
What I've actually done is set out why the legal presumption of innocence doesn't and shouldn't apply to the Kavanaugh hearing. I've told you the why of that presumption at law, the purpose it serves and how that wouldn't fit with the Committee's role.
Say a woman makes a pass at a married man and is rebuked. Then several years later in order to get revenge on the man who spurned her she tells everyone who will listen that ten years earlier he tried to rape her. And even though none of the circumstances which she relates about the supposed event check out as being factual the man does not enjoy a presumption of innocence because the issue is not being decided in a court of law.
Or, you could just say, "Sometimes a woman might or will lie about sexual assault." Sure. It has happened. We had a fairly prominent example of it not that long ago. It's the sort of exception that shouldn't be confused with the rule AND it's why I have said and continue to say that we shouldn't go into any non-judicial hearing assuming that anyone is telling the truth, that we should consider everything and reach an informed conclusion.
The man must prove his innocence even though she cannot even give the time when it supposedly happened or the place.
I've spoken to memory. I've literally set out how you can be telling the plain truth, decades removed, and not have any number of things in your recollection that would be helpful to recall. I've noted prior that witnesses in close proximity to a traumatic event will get all sorts of things wrong. And to an extent, that's an argument for Ford's veracity, not against it. If she could set out every detail I'd suspect the narrative, absent a diary or some document she'd produced and used to refresh her memory.
And then since that is impossible those who heard the false charges believe her because the woman must be believed.
Not my proffer at all. Not a position I've ever supported. What I have said is that as a rule women come forward because they have, in fact, been sexually assaulted. And I've also said that rules tend to break down along the exceptions, so we have to look at individual cases without the presumption, but as a society understand they're mostly coming forward to tell a horrible truth and we should encourage them to feel safe enough to do that. We should divest ourselves of the tendency to ask questions like, "What were you wearing?" or "What were you doing at a bar alone that late at night?" that come with the insinuation of a shared guilt. That sort of thing.
As far as I can tell you would fall right in line with those who say that she must be believed because he does not enjoy the presumption of innocence!
Then as far as I can tell either your reason or your reading is compromised, because it not only doesn't, I've repeatedly told you that it doesn't. I've consistently called for an examination of both narratives and a reasoned conclusion.
