[GOPJ]

The women ‘felt’ Kavanaugh wanted to take off her clothing.

KAVANAUGH DID NOT TAKE OFF HER CLOTHING.

The woman ‘felt’ Kavanaugh wanted to rape her.

KAVANAUGH DID NOT RAPE HER.

The woman ‘felt’ Kavanaugh wanted to hurt her.

KAVANAUGH DID NOT HURT HER.

Many women have sons, husbands, and brothers, grandsons... and they are NOT going to want men they love held to subjective standards that primarily exist within the mind of a woman ...

What if men who raped women used this defense?

A rapists says he ‘felt’ the woman was coming on to him because of the way she smiled.

The rapist ‘felt’ she ‘wanted it’ because she didn’t push him away fast enough.

The rapist ‘felt’ it was OK because all women say ‘no’.

NO ONE WOULD BUY THE RAPISTS BS... AND IT SHOULD BE THE SAME WITH THE WOMAN ACCUSING KAVANAUGH. What matters is ‘what happened’ not what she was ‘feeling’...

ACTIONS MATTER... INTERNAL ‘FEELINGS’ might or might not have anything to do with the reality of what happened.

[Red Badger]

ALL LIBERALS HAVE IS ‘FEELINGS’........WO-WO-WO FEEELINGS!..................

[IronJack]

There was never a legal case brought on this because it never happened. And even if it did, no prosecutor in his right mind would have taken it on. There's no evidence except this skank's "testimony" which can easily be impugned. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh claims he wasn't even at the party where it allegedly happened. I would assume he has witnesses to that effect.

Weighing the evidence (or lack thereof), there's no way this "charge" could stick. But that isn't the point, any more than Anita Hill's "pubic hair on a Coke can" charge was supposed to stick against Clarence Thomas. The purpose is simply character assassination by innuendo.

There is no reason this should delay the vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. But that would require that the RINOs have the guts to push the vote, which they don't.