Kavanaugh admitted to drinking underage. Please show me from his testimony where he lied about the legal drinking age.
Kavanaugh's roommate (Roche) didn't witness anything. He said he believes Ramirez because that could have happened, but he didn't witness it. He has only an opinion.
The problem with Clinton/Lewinsky is that Clinton was serving as POTUS at the time their dalliance occurred. He wasn't a 17 year old minor when it happened. It happened in the White House. There was physical evidence and recordings to prove it. And he lied about it.
I get your point about political leanings by people on both sides prejudicing their respective bias, but there are some very significant distinctions between the facts of the Clinton/Lewinsky thing and the Kavanaugh accusations. They can't be equated, even remotely.
He clearly states repeatedly that it was legal for him to drink at the time as the drinking age was 18. The one time I remember he masked it by saying it was almost always 18 when he lived in Maryland which is a far way from saying I drunk illegally or underaged.
His whole testimony was extremely dodgy and he routinely refused to answer questions. He clearly lied about what terms meant, unless he spoke a different language from the rest of the country. The clearest way he came across had little to do with he actual accusations. He came across as someone attempting to reinvent his personal history to fit a mold that the base desired more snuggly.
There were many more accusations made than just Monica Lewinsky and it went back much farther in time than just her as well. My point was that she stuck because there was actually physical evidence. Also, you're right it is different because Monica wasn't sexually assaulted maybe sexually harassed, but if you actually read interviews with her, it comes off like she was upset he didn't keep his promises to her and was a liar, which made it easy for political operatives to take advantage of her. I would say it was similar in that neither side really cared about the fallout to the victims of the process, which is what I focused on anyway.
For instance, there is a woman(i can't remember her name, sorry) who accused Bill Clinton of sexually harassing her, rape, whatnot. The dems basically say "yeah, whatever", even though it has been PROVEN bill clinton is a rapist, during the time he was in office. So dems don't care about women, nor do they believe them. Kavanaugh's accuser is full of shit, she was "too afraid" to fly in to testify, yet she's perfectly fine going to maryland and hawaii? makes no fucking sense. And if you get raped, by all means, TELL THE FUCKING POLICE. Don't wait 40 years to tell someone. It's clear the dems plan is to stall Pres Trump from appointing another judge until after the midterms, where they hope to win.
Show me where it's settled that Bill Clinton was a rapist. Yes he was accused of by several people, notably not the person who had actual proof of a sexual relationship with the president, but by other woman.
By the logic shown in this thread by your fellows, we need cold hard physical proof that he raped someone or you are a false accuser. You are guilty of the very thing you're accusing other people of.
Also the Republican party and Bill Clinton both took advantage of a young woman, but only one did for it political purpose. Monica Lewinsky has never said that Bill Clinton raped her, she has played around with the idea of sexual assault which it probably won't as given the power dynamic at play. She very clearly thought he was telling the truth when he said he would leave Hilary and was crushed when he didn't, if you go by her own narrative. Other people planted the idea of testifying against him in the impeachment process. You would have to be willingly blind not to see the parallels between the two cases and how they were handled here, which most people in this thread seem to be, for political "points" for their side.
Mitch McConnell has stated that no matter what the FBI finds they will vote on his confirmation. That stinks of political expediency and it is clear that the Republican party is pushing his nomination for their base in time for midterms.
It blows my mind how much of the American process is basically sports. People routinely call out every team but their own and refuse to see anything wrong with their team even when the writing is clear on the wall.
No one in congress truly cares if this is true or not, no matter their party affiliation. They only care for the optics they can get. The Democrats play progressive, and the Republicans play the repressed white men under attack by harpies. The key thing to remember is that it is all political theater, and to massively simplify a form of political prostitution.
Edit: I'd also like to say that while polygraphs are unreliable and this is known fact, law enforcement and the justice system still regularly use them. If you would like that to change, I suggest you do something about it other than use it as an attempt to discredit one person.
Pain really messes with the test.
