I’ve explained this too many times this morning. He was cagey and dishonest about remembering his friend who was 17 and having no recollection whether they dated. If you were 32 and had a 17 year old “friend” for several months, YOU KNOW DAMN WELL whether you felt romantic toward her and kissed her or not. What do platonic friendships between a 32 year old man who has NO ROMANTIC INTEREST in her and a teen high school girl look like? He DOES remember. That is the lie.
And why lie? Even she says they only dated chastely for a few months, some kissing. It wasn’t illegal. Why not admit it? A judge who lies when the truth would benefit him, and his state, bothers me.
Another butt hurt Mo Brooks supporter?
I probably didn't date 25 girls before marrying 40-plus years ago.
I can tell you with gas-tight certainty I can't remember some of their names, faces, or what street they lived on.
Your opinion is that the Judge was “cagey and dishonest.” That is your opinion - and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. But you don't seem to have any real data.
Something else you don't have is the “woman's” first hand account - only the disoriented telling of the disoriented story by the Washington Post's reporter.
But you have options: you can vote for a Democrat to go to Washington and represent Alabama because Democrats always have pure motives, always vote for the Constitution, and always tell the truth.