Dr. Ford gains absolutely nothing from doing this. She gave a credible testimony under oath. Fuck outta here thinking that believing her is politics.
And I'm asking you what makes her testimony "credible" .
And "X has nothing to gain from this" is a logical fallacy when used as an argument that subjective statements must be true.
Youre using credible to mean whatever I say wont count. She explained the trauma and explained under oath why she remembered what she remembered. She gains nothing from reliving any of that and being put in this fucking terrible spotlight, so I believe her over the drunk dude who didnt want to answer anything.
Watching those testimonies and pretending that siding with her is purely political is absolute bullshit.
I'm super confused why "having nothing to gain" lends any credence to why she should be believed. Her mental state is irrelevant in terms of proving things. Explaining away gaps in her memory still does not provide pertinent information needed to believe her statements. I feel like people are stuck on the emotions and not the actual facts needed to prove her accusations to a degree reasonable enough to declare this man guilty in the court of public opinion.
Oh yeah youre right she was definitely lying for no reason
I don't know for certain if she's lying, but I do know she has not proven her case. It's entirely possible she was never touched and has just developed a delusion. It is entirely possible she was assaulted by another person. I cannot say for sure, but what I can say is that no person should be believed with a flimsy story and no pertinent evidence. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to understand. No evidence = no crime, even if the crime happened. It's how our entire system works.
There is evidence.
There literally is not. She has offered no proof to her claims. ---
'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen