Much easier not to put them there, I'd assume. Trump has ah... binders of judges. I'm sure he has someone more judicious than the guy we heard from today.

Dr. Ford sounded legit. Whether Pelosi sat on her information is another question. I'd need to see the time-line. Proportional response to the Garland move? It is a hardball play but proportional as long as Dr. Ford is for real.

"Dr. Ford sounded legit"

they both did ~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?

Definitely not. But if one side took a lie detector test and actively wants the FBI to investigate, while the other side is refusing to do either... I'm on the side that is in favor of more evidence-gathering.

It's not my opinion that both sounded legit. Kavanagh sounded evasive and butthurt.

Also.... If Ford is lying why doesn't Kavanaugh sue her for defamation?

Feinstein, not Pelosi.

But yes, even if the Democrats did try to pull a mini-Garland and delay the vote a week, that has no bearing on the veracity of Ford.


Ford answered every question directly and as the questioner intended the question to be interpreted, and is requesting further investigation, to gather more evidence. The opposite is true for Kavanaugh.



And the football team calling themselves the "alumni" of a girl means they were her pals? No. Just no. They were claiming they had sex with her. I expect they were lying then, but he was definitely lying in the hearing.

Lying?

Hahahaha.

Google Devil's Triangle and tell me how far down the search results you have to go to get to the "drinking game".

Whoopsie!

Turns out, there have been recent edits to The Internet to match Kavanagh's description.

Talk about fitting the data to the conclusion....

~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?

I mean I can't see high school broheim lingo is proof of anything worthwhile, other than you figure he might have gotten his buddies to beat us up in high school.

Personally I'm over that wretched time period, but are you guys ok?

Appreciate what is happening here. First, other Republicans were screaming that they would be punished in November if the hearings were not conducted with Senatorial courtesy.

Second, no committee Senator will be swayed. This entire presentation only targets some moderate Republican Senators.

Third, question is quite simple. Does behavior in high school and college have any relevance to qualification of a judge? This behavior was acceptable even some years ago. Harvey Weinstein changed that. So, is behavior that is unacceptable for adults today relevant to what someone did in high school and college? Does that behavior define core values of the man?

A few moderate Republican Senators will be the only ones answering that question. Only one is on the committee.

Definitely not enough for a legal proceeding. However, there is enough there for a more serious look if you're getting a lifetime appointment.

Temperament is an issue. Can this guy deal fairly with the political cases that come before the court? Throwing the Clinton red meat out there looks to me either politically calculated or paranoid. I want someone coolly looking at the law. Can this guy do that?

For the record I'm over high school but is the nominee?



https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...f-the-clintons

I would guess this makes him very attractive to the base, pretty repulsive to mainline Democrats, and a real problem for Joe Manchin.

SC justices can be impeached.

We could judge him on his body of work, on the 12 years on the second-highest court but... ah that is pretty irrelevant I guess. There's apparently nothing to see there (or we would have already gotten an earful about it)

Lying under oath multiple times yesterday, plus multiple times earlier in the process (see links in first paragraph). His body of work was discussed in that earlier process, during which he lied. This was a hearing specifically about the sexual assault, which is why it wasn't discussed there.

He sounded, appeared, tentative and timid. He had no fire in his belly.

She sounded, appeared, wounded and fragile. She had no fire in her belly.

Neither was credible, neither convincing.

As performance art: the whole event gets a half a star out of a possible ten stars.

As a means of sussin' out the truth: zero out of a possible ten.

We know not one goddamned thing more today than we did at the beginning of yesterday.

Led by the nose we are, not by beef but only by the promise of beef, to one of two troughs where we're expected to drink deep and shut the fuck up.

No, nope, forget that noise.

I say Trump should dump Kav and find a woman of comparabe experience...vet the hell out of her...have the vetting be public.

Then bring her before the committee and dare the bastids to wreck her...make them vote on 'her' and not on an accusation about her.

I'll buy the earlier in the process issues -- and it would be nice if the committee actually cared. But lying about high school yearbook terminology? Bill Clinton should *definitely* have been impeached, if that is the standard. I don't think he should have been impeached, do you?

The high school yearbook lies were just a few of the most obvious ones. He also repeatedly claimed that he was of a legal drinking age, even though he missed the cutoff when they raised it in Maryland.



And we seem to have slid from "Ford and Kavanaugh were both legit" to "Kavanaugh's most obvious lies were about trivial things".