Yet you guys said Hillary was unqualified because of whatever pipe dream conspiracy theory that week and didn't feel she needed to be proven guilty before castigating her. A bit of consistency goes a long way.
Nearly all of us have stated that Roy Moore should be disqualified due to the allegations regarding his behavior -- which have ample backing & evidence. In the same way Hillary Clinton should be disqualified due to the allegations regarding her behavior - which have ample backing and evidence.
Agreed. If the man is guilty, then that's fine. Get rid of him. My only issue is that anyone can say anything now and somehow that means it is true. People's whole lives can be destroyed by one person's personal smear campaign. If true, prove the case. Evidence is required. Someone signing a yearbook "Merry Christmas" is not evidence. Someone saying they didn't know that person and then the yearbook signature coming forth is sketchy. But I'm sure I signed yearbooks in the past, some 30 years ago of people whose name I wouldn't remember either.
Something that happened over 30 years ago and was never reported to the police is ridiculous to follow it up now. Why is it happening: because a gossip rag, the Washington Pos, wants readers.
Yes, I agree the Washington Post is nothing more than a smut rag now. Very sad. However the reality is that the size and number of these allegations has reached a level for Roy Moore where it is disqualifying to his Senate candidacy. He should drop out of the race.
Absolutely. Allegations of this nature need to be accompanied by actual evidence. It ain't like someone is saying he has unpaid parking tickets. When what a person claims can destroy a person professionally and personally, that claim needs to be supported by evidence.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the definition of evidence: ev·i·dence ˈevədəns/ noun 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination" synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"
I think your hair splitting is a sign of desperation, but we can play if you like. Typically, one can classify a statement as hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence using a three-step analysis. A statement will be considered hearsay if it is: An assertive statement Made by an out-of-court declarant Is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. Further, if a statement is being offered for its truth—meaning that its relevance depends upon the jury believing the substance of the statement—then it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. If a statement is relevant for any other purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted therein, then the statement will not be considered hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. IOW, in a court of law the statement of the person claiming to have been sexually assaulted would be admitted as a statement, but technically it's not actual evidence. Allowed in a courtroom testimony yes, evidence, no. But we're not in the court of law, now are we? How convenient? Leftist strategy is bring claims which cannot be taken to a court of law, and then try the case in the court of public opinion, with the assistance of a bias media. It's working. Congratulations. All good till the mob comes for you. The winds, they do change.