OK, what if no one is "lying" in the Supreme Court melodrama. This makes sense to me: Prof Ford is telling the truth about what happened to her. Judge K is telling his truth in denying it because HE CAN'T REMEMBER IT. We have from a variety of sources that he was a very, very heavy drinker, even for the environment at the time. A former college roommate says he'd come in so drunk he was incomprehensible, that he was reserved when sober and aggressive and mean when drunk. So he likely blacked out his behavior, it seems to me. He can't remember doing it, probably can't even imagine doing it. I had black outs in my drinking days and did things --fortunately not serious -- I would never do sober. It happens to heavy drinkers.
In the testimony, Democrats have to zero in on his younger drinking habits. Did he quit or go to treatment? Clearly he drank until he was out of control, a variety of sources reveal this. His personality changed, which is not unusual with drunks.
Everyone is telling "their truth." But hers is more rooted to a real world of facts than his. But in these times, do facts even matter?
In the testimony, Democrats have to zero in on his younger drinking habits. Did he quit or go to treatment? Clearly he drank until he was out of control, a variety of sources reveal this. His personality changed, which is not unusual with drunks.
Everyone is telling "their truth." But hers is more rooted to a real world of facts than his. But in these times, do facts even matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.