Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing

[Fenring]

I guess I never stopped to realize that being blackout drunk directly implies not blacking out. Go figure.

[D.W.]

While it's possible that the Devil's Triangle was a drinking game they made up.  If so I have little doubt that the inspiration for the name was the commonly used definition.  Maybe I just hung out with more pervs, but I knew what that one was well before google and urban dictionary was a thing... 

Had he said, "It's not what you are thinking, we named a drinking game that."  Or some variation of this excuse, I'd have been willing to roll my eyes and think, "OK, I suppose that's plausible."  To suggest it wasn't at least a nod towards the MMF threesome in the form of something unrelated stretches credulity. 

Though maybe I'm wrong and they told stories and took a shot for every friend, relative or second cousin who lost a yacht or private plane in the Bermuda Triangle...  Or maybe one of them tried to draw a pentagram and was stopped mid way when someone more sober pointed out that would be a star of David.  From then on it was a running joke about The Devil's Triangle, that the others would never let go...  Anything's possible... I guess...

 

[Pete at Home]

I’m working now as a DNC campaign canvasser for Stacey Abrams (D) for Georgia governor!) and in training today I used “blackout” to refer to how certain black majority neighborhoods in 2016 were prevented from going to the polls.

[TheDeamon]

While it's possible that the Devil's Triangle was a drinking game they made up.  If so I have little doubt that the inspiration for the name was the commonly used definition.  Maybe I just hung out with more pervs, but I knew what that one was well before google and urban dictionary was a thing...

My guess for a more innocent answer would be partaking in "three evil spirits" which would get you to their possible Devil's Triangle. Somehow I suspect the three in question were probably hard liquors, or some other combination that was likely to put the whammy on somebody if they weren't careful.

I know I heard plenty of stories about other sailors mixing Everclear and Mad Dog, and I know there are plenty of other options out there.

Or maybe it was simply a mix of three different kinds of beers, these were high school students after all. Without bothering to obtain context for the "Devil's Triangle" reference, hard to tell.

[TheDrake]

Ultimately any term could mean anything in a localized context. What will be interesting is if anyone comes forward within his circle and says that is absolutely not what they meant by those terms. Of course, that person will likely lean Democrat, and then get accused of being a paid political operative.

[Crunch]

While it's possible that the Devil's Triangle was a drinking game they made up.  If so I have little doubt that the inspiration for the name was the commonly used definition.  Maybe I just hung out with more pervs, but I knew what that one was well before google and urban dictionary was a thing... 

Had he said, "It's not what you are thinking, we named a drinking game that."  Or some variation of this excuse, I'd have been willing to roll my eyes and think, "OK, I suppose that's plausible."  To suggest it wasn't at least a nod towards the MMF threesome in the form of something unrelated stretches credulity. 

Though maybe I'm wrong and they told stories and took a shot for every friend, relative or second cousin who lost a yacht or private plane in the Bermuda Triangle...  Or maybe one of them tried to draw a pentagram and was stopped mid way when someone more sober pointed out that would be a star of David.  From then on it was a running joke about The Devil's Triangle, that the others would never let go...  Anything's possible... I guess...

 

I’ve been around the block a time or two and never heard the phrase “devil’s triangle” for a MMF threesome. In fact, your post is the first reference I’ve seen to it so calling it a common usage is not accurate unless it’s common among your peer group.. In the 1980’s, Devil’s Triangle typically referred to the Bermuda Triangle where ships and people were lost - something that could happen in a drinking game. The triangle was pretty popular back then.

[D.W.]

I like the "3 evil spirits" as in drinks theory.  Obviously the people I hung out with were less clever, less paranormally inclined,  and more amused by the puritanical/homophobic taboo...   

[TheDeamon]

I like the "3 evil spirits" as in drinks theory.  Obviously the people I hung out with were less clever, less paranormally inclined,  and more amused by the puritanical/homophobic taboo...   

Well, it could be both the "3 evil spirits"(liquors) and a Bermuda Triangle thing, as I understand people under the influence of certain combinations of mixed drinks can become "rather lost" if left to themselves. (as alluded to be the earlier "Whammy" reference)

[NobleHunter]

Would it be paranoid to think the GOP's next nominee for the SC (whether to replace Kavanaugh or to fill the next vacancy) is someone they know can be credibly accused of sexual misconduct? Just so they can make all such allegations sound like a Democrat excuse to reject a GOP nominee?

[D.W.]

Yes
That the Democrats would risk coordinating an entirely fabricated "hit" in the form of a (knowingly) false claim is dangerous.  To knowingly put forward a guilty party to bait the Democrats and have it come out would be catastrophic. 

I'm sure there are some shady people on both sides willing to exploit the issue of sexual harassment and assault for political gains but I don't see power brokers making this type of risk-reward assessments. 

[LetterRip]

Kavanaugh clearly lied repeatedly under oath.  His ass should be thrown in jail for perjury.  There is no way in hell he should hold any position as a judge, let alone as a Supreme Court Justice.

[Fenring]

Kavanaugh clearly lied repeatedly under oath.  His ass should be thrown in jail for perjury.  There is no way in hell he should hold any position as a judge, let alone as a Supreme Court Justice.

I'm not following the case very closely; what were the lies?

[Grant]

Protestor: Kavanaugh should take a polygraph!

Sen Lindsey Graham (R SC): Why don’t we dunk him in water and see if he floats?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Note: Beer is slightly heavier than water. If he floats, he doesn’t like beer, and has purjured himself.

Sent from my iPhone

[TheDrake]

Reports indicate no corroboration of ford's account, which we mostly knew would be the case without the useless FBI investigation.

[Seriati]

Kavanaugh clearly lied repeatedly under oath.  His ass should be thrown in jail for perjury.  There is no way in hell he should hold any position as a judge, let alone as a Supreme Court Justice.

I'm not following the case very closely; what were the lies?

I did follow this closely, and I second this request.  Let's be specific what the "lies" are.

[rightleft22]

I suspect he lied about his drinking and farting games - Oh and when he new about the allegations (that one might be provable)

The more I hear from Kavanaugh that more I feel he does not deserve the job.
I suspect that deep down most Republicans feel the same why only they don't care (the lies are only little lies) and will pretend they don't see any character flaws.
The only thing that mattes is that Kavanaugh will vote the party line and that is all the Republicans want from their man

[Seriati]

I suspect he lied about his drinking and farting games - Oh and when he new about the allegations (that one might be provable)

Suspect?  That's not the standard for claiming someone lied.

The more I hear from Kavanaugh that more I feel he does not deserve the job.
I suspect that deep down most Republicans feel the same why only they don't care (the lies are only little lies) and will pretend they don't see any character flaws.

Well no.  I'm not sure there is a more qualified judge.  His opinion history, including his record on other courts' relying on his opinions and analysis is really very good.  His reversal history is similarly very good.  It's beyond silly to even think he wouldn't be an excellent SC justice.

His history on the field of character is also phenomenal.  Absent these uncorroborated allegations he really has exemplary record of fairness, involvement, and compassion, as well as, a record of well above standard support to women in the legal profession (that's true not just as "Republican" judge, but with respect to all judges).

The Dem Senators were in full on destroy mode during the original part of his testimony with access to far more records than with respect to any prior candidate, and they uniformly failed to even slightly impugn him.
 
That's the real history here.  If you come to know "more" about Kavanaugh, you'd actually support him more.  If all you weigh is whether drinking in high school is relevant somehow to being a Supreme Court candidate decades letter then you might have reached a conclusion otherwise.

The only thing that mattes is that Kavanaugh will vote the party line and that is all the Republicans want from their man

Demonstrably false.   What Republicans hope is that Kavanaugh will vote, consistent with his history,  for to reduce the unilateral power of the courts as activists, to enforce the laws Congress has passed - as written, to reduce the deferral of discretion to unelected bureaucrats that have repeatedly exceeded their Congressional mandates, and ultimately to reign in the unilateral actions of the executive branch.

That's something that everyone should actually want.  It interferes with the Democratic plan to keep Justices acting as a "supra-legislature" that has final say on what the law will be.  It expressly limits their power to force change in non-Democratic manners by judicial fiat.

Honestly, the left should be embarrassed by the hypocrisy of claiming to want the people's voices to be heard, but in reality seeking to impose judicial kings to force their views on when they can't win an election.

[LetterRip]

See

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?utm_term=.cbfd17b27b46

and

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

and

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/03/kavanaugh-lied.html

For instance.

[Seriati]

In defense of your claims he lied, you're citing the work of others?  Does that mean you endorse every line, or have no opinion of your own?

I followed all 3 of your links and I honestly don't see why you linked to them.  They are just people claiming that things must be lies without offering any proof.  A few are just differences of opinion (e.g., it's not a "lie" that he said Ford's claims were refuted, when her witnesses failed to corroborate them, notwithstanding, that one could claim a refutation would need to say expressly it never happened - I mean, some did say that in fact).

Be specific this time, which do you think is a lie and what evidence are you putting forward that shows it.

[D.W.]

At least the WP link backed up the definition I knew for the Devil's Triangle.   

Then again I'd only very rarely heard the term "boffing" used.  I thought that was just slang for sex/screwing/f'ing used primarily in the UK.

[Fenring]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?utm_term=.cbfd17b27b46

I'll admit I sort of expected you to just list a few items as I don't have the fortitude to pour through several articles fact checking their claims. However I read through the first bunch of points in this specific article, and I've got to tell you that this seems beneath your usual standard for when you present facts here. The claims of his supposed lies in this one are hardly conclusive. Some of them seem to dance around the definitions of words; for instance was Kavanaugh "lying" when he said he'd never blacked out, when a friend of his claims to have definitely seen him extremely drunk and clearly incapable of controlling his actions or remembering them? Well I could imagine actually getting into an argument with a friend over a matter like this, about whether I 'really was' in control of my actions or not. I'm sure there's an issue of objectivity when someone is drunk and acting silly, about evaluating just how 'blacked out' they are. Maybe Kavanaugh was strictly claiming that he's never had missing memories or nights he can't remember, and so it wouldn't necessarily be a lie to find someone who saw him piss drunk. It sort of depends on how Kavanaugh handles liquor, right? I know people who can be too drunk to move but never miss a beat mentally (actually I am like that).

Another "lie" was that he claimed not to be a heavy drinker even though it was discovered that he was the "beach ralph club" champion or whatever. His answer to that is that he has a weak stomach and throws up easily, which would indeed make him the 'best at throwing up' even if he wasn't drinking nearly as much as others. Btw, I am also like that. I go right from slightly buzzed to sick with nothing in between, so I'd likely be a better 'ralpher' than someone who can drink into the wee hours of the night and never vomit or stop drinking.

Another "lie" was his claim that he had "refuted" some accusation, when the article author insists it was not refuted, and thus he lied. That one is just pathetic.

Now, maybe he did lie about stuff. Like I said I'm not following this closely. But that article was just looking to prove a point that it already knew it wanted to make, and that's weak in my book.

[D.W.]

As far as those articles go, trying to list "lies" they do more harm than good in making their case.  "Instances where his statements or answers strained credibility."  Sure.  It's (a little) subjective, but there is a huge line between "Lie" and "Almost Certainly BS".  At least half of them were on the wrong side of that line.

[Fenring]

As far as those articles go, trying to list "lies" they do more harm than good in making their case.  "Instances where his statements or answers strained credibility."  Sure.  It's (a little) subjective, but there is a huge line between "Lie" and "Almost Certainly BS".  At least half of them were on the wrong side of that line.

Maybe. But it was LR's claim that he should be in the slammo for perjury.

[D.W.]

Some of them were obviously false.  I'll leave it to the lawyery folk which of those reach the level of perjury. 

[Seriati]

Which ones were "obviously false"?

[Crunch]

Which ones were "obviously false"?

In this context, lies do not mean false statements. You’re using a definition for lie that is not the same as current usage. Lies means I don’t like you or your ideas. If someone claims Kavanaugh is lying, they merely mean they don’t like him and oppose his nomination. It’s a perjorative that’s in vogue right now, like calling someone racist.

For example, if I said my favorite food was pepperoni pizza, I would be accused of lying. The “proof” would be that I’m a liar. Further “proof” could be that I sometimes eat other pizza types and not pepperoni exclusively.

Whether or not pepperoni pizza is my favorite food is immaterial.

[Fenring]

In this context, lies do not mean false statements.

In any context lies =/= false statements. Lots of people make false statements all the time, but it doesn't mean they're liars. People in say things about themselves, their own experiences, and their own personalities, and I know are false but they definitely believe they're true. Self-delusion isn't the same thing as perjury if you think you're answering honestly. And incidentally, that would even be about matters that are 100% demonstrably true or false; whether a person was "blackout drunk" doesn't seem to me something empirically demonstrable, unless there is a direct record of the person failing to recollect things they should.

[Crunch]

Let’s look at this one:

Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed Ford’s accusation has been “refuted” by others who she said attended the party -- even though the other attendees have said no such thing. Kavanaugh seized on the word “refuted” when responding to Ford’s report, claiming in five instances that the three people who Ford says were at the party when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her had “refuted” her account. That’s an obvious misrepresentation of what those people have said. They have actually all said that they don’t recall the party in question -- a major difference from saying something didn’t happen. And Ford’s friend Leland Keyser has said that although she doesn’t remember the party in question, she believes Ford is telling the truth.

The lying accusation rests on the idea of narrowly defining “refuted”. When Ford says there was this party and all her “witnesses” will back her up that this party is real, yet not a single one knows what she’s talking about, any reasonable person could understand this as contradicting Ford. She says this party occurred, nobody remembers such a party. That does refute the allegation but by torturing the definition of refute quite a bit you can establish a belief that the party only one person remembers occured and nobody else does actually happened.

Imagine if I said there was a discussion thread on this forum where LR said something outrageous (I dunno what, but something really crazy that would truly stand out). I say you, DW, and Seriati all participated in it. I can’t link it, I can’t tell you when it happened,  nobody can find it no matter how hard they search, and you all 3 explicitly deny participating in such an outrageous thread. Would a reasonable person assume my claim must be true? None of you explicitly say that thread did not exist, the logic being applied in Kavanaugh’s case would say you did not explicitly refute my claim with the words “ that thread doesn’t exist” and the idea my claim is refuted is a lie.

[Seriati]

Fenring's touching on a good point.  Being wrong about a statement of fact is not the same thing as lying, and it's also not a legitimate basis for a perjury claim. 

For example, I don't believe Feinstein lying when she made this statement during in her questioning of Kavanaugh:  "In the 1950s and 60s, the two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute."   

She was grossly in error.  The actual number of deaths was between 200 and 300.  What she cited was an estimate for the total number of illegal abortions.

If she had made that statement under oath, it would not be perjury, provided she didn't have an intent to deceive. 

That's the whole complaint about perjury traps.  They're designed to criminalize legitimate error.

[Crunch]

Yeah but, in the current political climate, there is no allowance for legitimate error.  None. The definition of lie has been twisted so much that if you make an honest, legitimate, mistake, even though you 100% believed it was true, you will be branded a liar by your political opponents.

If you back up and admit you had it wrong, now you’re forever branded an admitted liar. Furthermore, from now on everything you say your opponents disagree with will be called a lie since you are, after all, an admitted liar. See Blumenthal’s statement to Kavanaugh about small lies for a recent example.

If I even change my mind, saying I now prefer sausage pizza and it’s my new favorite, my prior claim of pepperoni pizza being my favorite would be a lie or my new favorite would be the lie. Either way, I’d be branded a liar by political opponents.

[D.W.]

Given that assessment of the current climate, and the proficiency with witch he dodged questions, one would think it a trivial task to avoid making such mistakes...  Not like he risked looking even more like he had something to hide.   

Particularly for one aware of conspiracy of evil forces plotting against him.

[Crunch]

Given that assessment of the current climate, and the proficiency with witch he dodged questions, one would think it a trivial task to avoid making such mistakes...  Not like he risked looking even more like he had something to hide.   

With an army of lawyers arrayed against you to help formulate questions along with hours and hours of grilling by people experienced in laying traps like this and literally over a thousand written responses, it would be far from trivial to avoid such mistakes.

I would say the claim he dodged answering questions is not entirely accurate. He was more likely dodging traps designed to trip him up.

[Crunch]

How such traps work:

If I even change my mind, saying I now prefer sausage pizza and it’s my new favorite, my prior claim of pepperoni pizza being my favorite would be a lie or my new favorite would be the lie. Either way, I’d be branded a liar by political opponents.

But then, if I said I’d never had a sausage pizza before. In the 3 months since I claimed pepperoni my favorite, I finally had my first sausage pizza and realized I’d been missing out and it became my new favorite. The new claim would be that someone that had a type pizza as a favorite food not trying sausage pizza any time in the last 35 years must be lying, it defies logic. Was I lying then or am I lying now would be the catchphrase.

But if it’s accepted as true, then it’s likely the claim of sausage pizza as a favorite would be cast as a lie because there are millions of combinations of pizza and I could not have tried them all. If questioned about trying all possible combinations came at me, I wouldn’t want to admit that I hadn’t tried them all because I may, at any moment, try something new and change my favorite again! It cannot possibly be said that sausage pizza is my favorite since, by my own admission, I have not tried all pizzas and may try a new one any day that replaces sausage as my favorite. That’s the trap

[D.W.]

Thank God they avoided asking him about his favorite beer then.   

[Seriati]

Thank God they avoided asking him about his favorite beer then.   

During Kavanaugh's testimony, I told my wife and daughter who were watching a fair chunk of the hearing with me that there is no way "I like beers" wasn't going to be a meme.

[Fenring]

I guess what I find dubious is this line of thinking:

Question: Did you sexually assault this person?
Kavanaugh: No.
Q: So you have no memory of doing anything like this?
K: Correct.
Q: Is it possible you did do something like this but have no memory of it?
K: Uh, no?
Q: But wait! You say it's literally impossible that you could lose memories of an event?
K: Well, uh...not exactly.
Q: So you're saying it is possible you sexually assaulted this person?
K: No!
Q: So now you admit that you either lied about it being impossible, or you're saying it's impossible to lack memory of an event?
K: What?
Q: Do you deny that a memory lapse is theoretically possible?
K: I suppose not.
Q: So we have proven that the accused cannot conclusively deny having committed sexual assault.
K: But I don't have memory loss, and certainly not about such an event.
Q: So you're saying you remember literally everything you've ever done?
K: Uh...not exactly.
Q: So what you're now saying is that you can't be sure what you remember and what you can't. Is that right?
K: No!
Q: It would appear that the accused is trying to avoid the issue of what he does and doesn't remember.
K: But I already said I'd remember something like this, and I have no memory of it.
Q: Which is basically admitting you've lost the memory of it, and also proving you lied before about never having memory loss.
K: I give up. Just put me away already so I can go to sleep.

My scene is a bit farcical but this is the sort of equivocation that can happen when reality is discarded in favor of winning arguments meant to make things look a certain way.

ETA - I always remember Hitchcock's greatest fear in life, being accused of something he never did and being unable to prove he was innocent.

[rightleft22]

Even if it could be proved that Kavanaugh lied  it will be labeled miss remembering and not a lie so not perjury.

What Ford allegations put forward was not to prove Kavanaugh guilty but to put in question his character.
Kavanaugh missed a opportunity all he needed to do was stay calm and answer questions clearly and concisely. He ought to have acted like a Judge.

By focusing on trying to prove the allegations in a he said she said, the left failed though they did get him to reveal his character. They failed again thinking that Character matters anymore.

Its all a joke.  Trump makes fun of Ford at a rally and then the WH claims he was only stating the facts a as if everyone doesn't know that is a lie. Everyone. But the base will pretend to believe it. of the 10 or so statements maybe one or two was kind of true so that makes it ok , truthful hyperbole at its best. The base will defend it, love it, until the time comes when the shoe is on the other foot the damage done.

The base is playing the fool and Trump despises them for being so stupid as to believe him   

[cherrypoptart]

What if Kavanaugh has never actually been in the same room as Ford? Never been in the same house, never at the same party, never even knew she existed? What if it's all made up?

Where does that leave any lies or inaccuracies in Kavanaugh's statements if none of it would have happened without the first lie from Ford? If she is the one lying should the Democrats who orchestrated this evil scheme based on lies be rewarded by their plot being effective and Kavanaugh not getting the Supreme Court seat?

Anyway, that's where the Republicans are coming from, assuming at this point that Ford is lying through her teeth. Or maybe not even assuming, at least in their minds, but wholly convinced of it. From that point of view, Trump isn't mocking a sexual assault survivor, he is calling out a person who bears false witness against their neighbor.

[Seriati]

I'm not sure Ford knowingly lied about being assaulted.  She could have changed an existing memory by convincing herself it was Kavanaugh after the fact.  On the other hand, based on her demeanor, I'm not sure she's all there either. 

I find it very, very troubling that the only public speaking I've seen of her is her testimony, in which she seemed a bit off.  Why have there been no additional interviews, or press  questions.  I suspect that she wouldn't hold up on repeated scrutiny and her lawyers know it (but that's just speculation).  Her lawyers are clearly playing games, they have not released any of the polygraph background (required to interpret it), they haven't released the medical records that she is citing as proof and corroboration, and they've pretty much tried to play every scenario for a delay of the hearing (not clear what that has to do with representing their clients' legal interests).

Honestly, the longer she speaks through her lawyers and the more she plays to obstruct the less credible I find her testimony.  Wouldn't a victim already have released the background to the polygraph if it really helped her case?  The only other options are it doesn't help, or it's being "held" as a tactic - but the only benefits to such a tactic are political delays not any justice.

I'll even be more specific.  MD has flat out said they'd investigate if she filed charges.  She still has not done so.  Why not?

[Grant]

OK. Here we are. 7 days later.

Have we found someone who says they drove Ford to or from the party/gathering?
Have we found Timmy’s house?  Does it match discrptions given by Ford?
Did anybody infiltrate the dealers or find the suppliers?

No?

Know where u goin?

Nowheah.

[rightleft22]

From that point of view, Trump isn't mocking a sexual assault survivor, he is calling out a person who bears false witness against their neighbor.

I have to call BS on that. Trump could have made his point without the mocking tone, exaggeration or hyperbola. Instead he went on a ramble where most of his statements were false - (Ford did recount details that trump insinuated that she couldn't remember.) It was nothing but a performance calculated to energize his base and get them out to vote. It was ugly and his followers should demand better. 

Kavanaugh showed his character in his response to the allegations.

[TheDrake]

It was nothing but a performance calculated to energize his base and get them out to vote. It was ugly and his followers should demand better. 

I call BS. Trump doesn't do this stuff out of calculation. He just reacts and rants involuntarily. Kind of like the Incredible Hulk, he gets mad and it just sort of happens.

[Seriati]

Kavanaugh showed his character in his response to the allegations.

Kavanaugh showed his character by decades of public service and good citizenship.

Getting angry at a room full of politicians that are impugning your character as a tactic is a reasonable and good thing.  Are you really implying that outrage at a false accusation is bad "character"?

[TheDrake]

I believe the normal response for people whose character is under attack in hearings is somewhere between humble apology and eyeroll smirk, not angry badger.

[rightleft22]

It is a normal response, however as a judge I would have thought he was smarter then that and assume he has had a lot of practice at appearing natural even when hearing difficult things. 

[rightleft22]

I call BS. Trump doesn't do this stuff out of calculation

Trump repeats what works, he knows exactly how to fire up his base. Not to realize this and hold him accountable accordingly is the Lefts biggest mistake in finding a way to counter him

[Seriati]

It is a normal response, however as a judge I would have thought he was smarter then that and assume he has had a lot of practice at appearing natural even when hearing difficult things.

And if he had done so, instead of hearing people question his character, they'd be going around claiming his demeanor and lack of passion proved he did it.  You know, cause any normal person would have been outraged.

I really can't find it in me, to criticize someone for defending themselves, against people who were acting horridly (ie the Senators sitting in the room).  I mean, do you think Corey Booker comported himself with the dignity due the office of a Senator?  He deliberately quoted emails in misleading ways to try and create negative spin, he deliberately quoted things that were not in the public record and tried to imply they  were worse than they were, and then he deliberately tried to violate Senate rules and release confidential documents.  He was frequently belligerent as well.  We all know there will be no consequences to him, or to any of the other poorly behaved Dems.

[rightleft22]

the whole situation is absurd and all the senators from both parties should be ashamed. The process is absurd. Why even have a confirmation hearings when you have the WH and Senate.

Maybe your right and it was a no win with regards to how Kavanaugh resounded... so he might as wel have l responded in less... odd, manner. Just my opinion. He had time to prepare and that was what he came up with?
The end was always insured so he could have decided to maintain his dignity. Those facial expressions and comments about beer will follow him forever.

I know, unproven accusations, odd facial expressions and drinking to much as in collage does not disqualify him for the job so it was all about nothing.

[cherrypoptart]

If Ford should be believed then why not Swetnick too? There's no way we should have a person on the Supreme Court who said nothing while under-aged girls were drugged and gang raped. From all the protests we see by women, women are to be believed when they accuse men of sexual assault but I notice they don't seem to be making a big case out of the Setnick situation.  I wonder why is that? There's as much evidence for one as the other as Swetnick has signed an affidavit detailing what happened under penalty of perjury.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as-julie-swetnick.html

Could it be that was just a bridge too far? That almost makes it seem like the Ford allegations were contrived to be more believable by not being quite so over the top. However, women must be believed so we have to believe them both. Or... maybe neither. Of course it could be one but not the other even if that's not quite the policy of the Democrats right now.

[Crunch]

I’d like to give credit to Harry Reid and the Democrats for making today possible.