if you're asking why i don't believe that you are impartial it's because as soon as a woman discusses her memories of kav, you're all "actually, false memories are surprisingly common, ..." but you've not mentioned so much as a caveat as to the likelihood that a perpetually drunk man would recall any of his specific drunken escapades 30 years later and what that suggests regarding the credibility of kav's denials.
I'm a bit confused by this because it's equating a 30+ year old memory of something with a 30+ year old non-memory of something. Of course Kav could not remember details from that long ago because he was drunk. He also may just not have retained that information for any number of reasons. But if you're acting like that is an argument against his credibility, I don't get it. No matter what his reason for not remembering (drunk, head trauma, or the event never actually occurred), the denial would still be credible absent evidence to the contrary. That's why anyone who actually cares about discerning the truth here is going to be focused on the account of the person who alleges the event occurred.
and because when anyone mentions his frequent lies, you jump in with "actually, it's surprisingly difficult to convict of perjury, ..."
I never said anything about the high legal burden to prove perjury. I said if it takes a complicated explanation to explain how someone was lying, you've got a weak case for it.
and most of all because you argue that it is appropriate to prevent investigation of the women's allegations by nonpartisan, professional investigators.
Taking liberties with the word "preventing" there, but I'll let it slide. The WH may have to politically pay for their decision not to authorize further investigation, but no, I don't think there is anything unjust about it. The man already has a lifetime appointment to the Nation's second highest court. If you are accusing him of a crime, alert the proper authorities and press charges. On the other hand, if you are purely coming forward because you believe you have information that should be considered during the nomination process, you gotta bear some of the responsibility to make sure you bring that crap up with time left in the process.
I'll use Roy Moore as an example. It makes sense for the women to come out near the election with information they felt voters should be aware of, even though it may have been more effective to do so in the primary. But do I think the Governor was wrong not to postpone the election to further investigate and/or provide an opportunity to remove Moore from the ballot? Of course not.
