OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[longknife]

Kavanaugh Testimony

I [painfully] watched the whole thing. Here are my impressions.

Ballsy Ford

The Dims went out of their way to turn her into some kind of martyr. The GOP caved, using the prosecutor to low ball their questioning. Not once did anyone ask about her political activity on behalf of Shrillary or her participation in anti-Trump acts and demonstrations. These would’ve clearly shown the political reasoning behind her accusations and the way the Dim members of te committee handled it.

The Left trumpets her bravery in testifying and the Repubs failed to show how her intentions were purely political.

Did I believe her? Not one bit.

Judge Kavanaugh

His opening statement was powerful and his presentation was that of one who has been put through hell and had to watch the torture of his family. He not only laid out a credible defense but cited stuff to back himself up. I was amazed by his calendar and it left no doubt in my mind that his accuser was clearly wrong. If anything, his emotionalism made me uncomfortable and I have to admit to wondering how this experience will shade his judgment as an associate justice.

The Dims quickly showed their agreed-to tactic of trying to find the judge guilty by using the FBI investigation tactic. As per the previous hearing, it showed the emptiness and political desperation of the Dims.

I cringed and silently begged him to respond to the Dims question about whether or not he thought Ford’s accusation was political. “Of course it is!” I wanted him to answer.

Using the same prosecutor to ask questions of the judge as she did Ford really riled me. I was amazed and pleased as hell when Lindsay Graham said to hell with it and spoke up. I applauded him and sighed with relief that the remainder of the Repubs on the committee took their five minutes.

Did I believe him? You better believe it! Especially in that final segment when Senator Kennedy asked him to look him in the eye and swear to God whether or not the accuser was right. Kavanaugh’s response left no doubts in my mind.

My heart went out to the judge and the members of his family who have been put through hell by DimocRATic tactics. I think it will rouse conservatives and independents to vote red in November.

 

[midcan5]

How about the ball-less republicans couldn't face a woman but turned cheerleaders for a lying spoiled rich boy. Kavanaugh was belligerent and didn't agree to a FBI investigation. His belligerence is the sign of any guilty person when caught, and his refusal for an FBI investigation is a sign he is a liar and knows it. The guilty always overact their innocence because they must also convince themselves as well as the other. Kavanaugh being the heartless bigot even dissented on the ACA and he lied about his position on Roe v Wade. Many people are easily fooled by dramatic exclamations of innocence, that he did well. Sad that Americans are so easily played. Ever been on a jury?

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread
.

 

[Windparadox]

[QUOTE="SassyIrishLass, post: 20875378, member: 18937"]She's never met a left loon thought, ideal, platform or sleaze campaign she hasn't embraced After yesterday my contempt for the left has risen dramatically. This is not how things are supposed to be done, it's wrong to destroy someone over unprovable allegations.Nearly every leftist on this forum joined in on the attack. Like a pack of vicious and rabid animals. Mob rule at it's most disgusting hour.[/QUOTE]
`
That's pretty sad. When I leave this site, I don't give it or anything said on it, a thought. I'm certainly not here to learn anything.

 

[OldLady]

The NY Times was forced to apologize and delete a tweet with a poll asking if Dr Ford's testimony was credible. "We're sorry for this tweet. In retrospect, a Twitter poll is insensitive in light of the gravity of this hearing. We've deleted it."

?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How about the ball-less republicans couldn't face a woman but turned cheerleaders for a lying spoiled rich boy. Kavanaugh was belligerent and didn't agree to a FBI investigation. His belligerence is the sign of any guilty person when caught, and his refusal for an FBI investigation is a sign he is a liar and knows it. The guilty always overact their innocence because they must also convince themselves as well as the other. Kavanaugh being the heartless bigot even dissented on the ACA and he lied about his position on Roe v Wade. Many people are easily fooled by dramatic exclamations of innocence, that he did well. Sad that Americans are so easily played.

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

You're another one who can't think for yourself and parrots the talking points

Another rabid and vicious member of a mob out to destroy a man and his family over a mere allegation.

I hope you're proud of yourself...your type dusgusts anyone that has watched this fiasco and knows exactly what the end game is

You're worthless and your opinions are old , stale and redundant. You have no cred

 

[forkup]

Please just answer my question I highlighted.

Because human memory is fallible. because witnesses die off and/or forget things as well.

Plus you add alcohol to the situation and things become even more muddled. Time doesn't help that.

Over time people have the ability to believe what they want to, and mold their memory to fit it.

Ah so you think someone will just pull out a name out of their ass in a case like this? Furthermore let me ask you this. I've watched these hearings. Not one GOP member said Ford was not credible. So why should Kavanaugh be appointed to the highest court in the country when there is a CREDIBLE accusation of sexual assault. This confirmation process is after all a job interview?

I'm sure she believes what she believes, I'm just not sure what she believes is reality.

Her accusation is NOT credible, she has no direct corroboration, and she can't even give an exact date and location so as to allow a proper defense of said accusation.

It's not just a job interview. If you really believe all this to be true, shouldn't he be Impeached from the DC Circuit, the 2nd highest court in the country?

Don't you think this would basically ruin him professionally if he is denied the nomination based on this?

She doesn't have to be lying in her own mind for her testimony not to be true. Time does that.

I think you are interchanging two terms. Credible and certain. You don't need corroboration to find something credible. You do need it to reach a level of certainty.
I find the whole argument that "yes I believe she believes she was sexually assaulted, but no I don't believe she was", pretty incredible. Since we are talking about what is credible and what isn't. Unless you have reason to believe she is delusional. Do you?
As to if he should lose his job altogether. I'm pretty sure there is a process for that. The thing is, he is interviewing for a new job. And it's that job we are talking about. I assert that if the standard you hold a supreme court justice too, is no higher then that you aren't sure that he committed sexual assault, you really need to reassess that standard.
Even from a political standpoint this seems self-destructive. The GOP has given a clear signal to all woman that they care about sexual assault only as far as it doesn't interfere with it's political agenda. I don't think that's a message you want out there.

Credible is an variable definition term, and it seems to slide to the more wishful thinking side the more progressive a person is, in this particular case (BK).

You don't have to be delusional to mold a memory or change it over 30+ years, delusional is more appropriate for bending reality on a shorter timescale.

How would you like to be denied a job based on an uncorroborated (at the time) accusation from 35+ years ago, that involves someone who can't even tell you when and where it happened? How would you like that to be part of the public record, that you were denied the job FOR THAT REASON, and probably professionally ruined?

Right now they are showing they care about the rule of law and due process. What Dems are showing is they will do ANYTHING to take and keep power.

-Somebody just molded their memory so it included Kavanaugh and Judge? Not anybody else, just those 2? Offering little details to corroborate the timescale. You know, I don't remember were I was 14 days ago at 4 pm. I do remember exactly were I was when my mother died, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the exact date on that. Were I was when the Twin Towers fell, I know the exact date on that because the public description of it has become a concept in itself. If you would ask me what I had for dinner that day, I wouldn't be able to tell you but I do remember bits and pieces from that day. That's how memory works. You might not remember all the details but you do remember the important stuff.
What you are suggesting is that someone INVENTED the most crucial detail about one of the most traumatic events of her life. On that unlikely scenario you are suggesting to promote somebody to the highest judicial position in the land.
-As to due process, I'll let slide that due process has often been the least of the GOP's concern. Due process in the case of something like this has always included the effort to establish the facts of these allegations. That's not the case here. At the very best Graham and the likes are contending that because the Democrats brought this up to late, they are exempt from having to follow due process. A dubious argument at best.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

[QUOTE="SassyIrishLass, post: 20875378, member: 18937"]She's never met a left loon thought, ideal, platform or sleaze campaign she hasn't embraced After yesterday my contempt for the left has risen dramatically. This is not how things are supposed to be done, it's wrong to destroy someone over unprovable allegations.Nearly every leftist on this forum joined in on the attack. Like a pack of vicious and rabid animals. Mob rule at it's most disgusting hour.

`
That's pretty sad. When I leave this site, I don't give it or anything said on it, a thought. I'm certainly not here to learn anything.[/QUOTE]

You're incapable of learning...you're an indoctrinated leftist sheeple

Sad really. You may have been something if not. Instead you're a member of a mob

 

[Penelope]

The only thing that fraud is a victim of is democrat shenanigans

A full day of hearings and still no proof. Waste of time

I've been playing catch up the last hour or so and I was astonished to find that not one allegation was supported in any way. The only one who really delved into the facts was Kavanaugh and he provided proof of his innocence.. Ford gave no witnesses and no corroborating evidence...

And Lindsey Graham was one of the few to call out the democrat bullshit and improper actions of the democrats...

Kavanaugh provided no proof, actually his demeanor was very disturbing.

How do you provide proof nothing happened when there is no date nor location?
How do you suggest he PROVE he didn’t do something on an unknown date at an unknown place? Please be specific.

FBI and subpoenaed Judge and the other people in the home at the time and find out the home. There is a lot what could be done. He didn't want that and nor did the GOP. This is not going away. He is really a sick man. He was guilty as shit.

YOU are a really sick person. The FBI would have no more luck finding a date and location than anyone else has, becuase it didn’t happen and the set up omitted these specifics precisely because Kav might then have been able to provide an alibi.

I'm sure they would. They'd find the house, the date, interview Judge as well as the rest of the people that were in the house and tell them that Kav and Judge were drunken fools. If you can't spot a liar after Trump you have a problem.

 

[Penelope]

How about the ball-less republicans couldn't face a woman but turned cheerleaders for a lying spoiled rich boy. Kavanaugh was belligerent and didn't agree to a FBI investigation. His belligerence is the sign of any guilty person when caught, and his refusal for an FBI investigation is a sign he is a liar and knows it. The guilty always overact their innocence because they must also convince themselves as well as the other. Kavanaugh being the heartless bigot even dissented on the ACA and he lied about his position on Roe v Wade. Many people are easily fooled by dramatic exclamations of innocence, that he did well. Sad that Americans are so easily played. Ever been on a jury?

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread
.

Yes I noticed it as well, she was asking to many questions. Then Graham spoke and she was no more.

 

[Penelope]

Kavanaugh ruined his own name and is ruining it. He is a liar. One can tell. He is also an angry man.

You don’t think a man has a right to be angry when he’s accused of attacking someone, when the press publish all sorts of unverified filth and his family get death threats?

it was his extreme denial that I know he was lying, also the friend of Dr. Ford was in agreement, but then he didn't watch her testify, he was on the phone with the Potus and he said to give them hell. How much do you want to bet. Yes his life is ruined, due to the things he did in HS and now for being a liar, oh and he has a drinking problem.

 

[martybegan]

Because human memory is fallible. because witnesses die off and/or forget things as well.

Plus you add alcohol to the situation and things become even more muddled. Time doesn't help that.

Over time people have the ability to believe what they want to, and mold their memory to fit it.

Ah so you think someone will just pull out a name out of their ass in a case like this? Furthermore let me ask you this. I've watched these hearings. Not one GOP member said Ford was not credible. So why should Kavanaugh be appointed to the highest court in the country when there is a CREDIBLE accusation of sexual assault. This confirmation process is after all a job interview?

I'm sure she believes what she believes, I'm just not sure what she believes is reality.

Her accusation is NOT credible, she has no direct corroboration, and she can't even give an exact date and location so as to allow a proper defense of said accusation.

It's not just a job interview. If you really believe all this to be true, shouldn't he be Impeached from the DC Circuit, the 2nd highest court in the country?

Don't you think this would basically ruin him professionally if he is denied the nomination based on this?

She doesn't have to be lying in her own mind for her testimony not to be true. Time does that.

I think you are interchanging two terms. Credible and certain. You don't need corroboration to find something credible. You do need it to reach a level of certainty.
I find the whole argument that "yes I believe she believes she was sexually assaulted, but no I don't believe she was", pretty incredible. Since we are talking about what is credible and what isn't. Unless you have reason to believe she is delusional. Do you?
As to if he should lose his job altogether. I'm pretty sure there is a process for that. The thing is, he is interviewing for a new job. And it's that job we are talking about. I assert that if the standard you hold a supreme court justice too, is no higher then that you aren't sure that he committed sexual assault, you really need to reassess that standard.
Even from a political standpoint this seems self-destructive. The GOP has given a clear signal to all woman that they care about sexual assault only as far as it doesn't interfere with it's political agenda. I don't think that's a message you want out there.

Credible is an variable definition term, and it seems to slide to the more wishful thinking side the more progressive a person is, in this particular case (BK).

You don't have to be delusional to mold a memory or change it over 30+ years, delusional is more appropriate for bending reality on a shorter timescale.

How would you like to be denied a job based on an uncorroborated (at the time) accusation from 35+ years ago, that involves someone who can't even tell you when and where it happened? How would you like that to be part of the public record, that you were denied the job FOR THAT REASON, and probably professionally ruined?

Right now they are showing they care about the rule of law and due process. What Dems are showing is they will do ANYTHING to take and keep power.

-Somebody just molded their memory so it included Kavanaugh and Judge? Not anybody else, just those 2? Offering little details to corroborate the timescale. You know, I don't remember were I was 14 days ago at 4 pm. I do remember exactly were I was when my mother died, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the exact date on that. Were I was when the Twin Towers fell, I know the exact date on that because the public description of it has become a concept in itself. If you would ask me what I had for dinner that day, I wouldn't be able to tell you but I do remember bits and pieces from that day. That's how memory works. You might not remember all the details but you do remember the important stuff.
What you are suggesting is that someone INVENTED the most crucial detail about one of the most traumatic events of her life. On that unlikely scenario you are suggesting to promote somebody to the highest judicial position in the land.
-As to due process, I'll let slide that due process has often been the least of the GOP's concern. Due process in the case of something like this has always included the effort to establish the facts of these allegations. That's not the case here. At the very best Graham and the likes are contending that because the Democrats brought this up to late, they are exempt from having to follow due process. A dubious argument at best.

The difference is you are not trying to use those memories to ruin someone's life. Once you try to do that you damn well better remember enough to allow them to defend themselves.

Show me where the GOP has been against due process.

 

[KissMy]

It's amazing how for 30 years Repubtards were beyond obsessed that Clinton may have harassed a couple women, yet now support a rapist who spews Clinton conspiracy theories. Republicans had FBI investigating Clinton while allowing 9/11 attacks, but refuse the FBI investigate repubtard political operative judges rape.

Clinton’s DNA was all over the place! Please produce Kavanaugh’s DNA.

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

 

[OldLady]

Yep, it's settled it for me when he said he was a Catholic, lol. My wife looked at me (we both were baptized Catholic and went to C school) and said we all know how it was.

Those Catholic school girls we always fought with in junior high were totally wild.

Beat ya to a pulp didn't they? Most certainly the Irish Catholic girls

I never actually joined in the fisticuffs, but yeah, they beat the snot out of us public school girls. Mean little shits, and like I said, WILD.

Kavanaugh Testimony

I [painfully] watched the whole thing. Here are my impressions.

Ballsy Ford

The Dims went out of their way to turn her into some kind of martyr. The GOP caved, using the prosecutor to low ball their questioning. Not once did anyone ask about her political activity on behalf of Shrillary or her participation in anti-Trump acts and demonstrations. These would’ve clearly shown the political reasoning behind her accusations and the way the Dim members of te committee handled it.

The Left trumpets her bravery in testifying and the Repubs failed to show how her intentions were purely political.

Did I believe her? Not one bit.

Judge Kavanaugh

His opening statement was powerful and his presentation was that of one who has been put through hell and had to watch the torture of his family. He not only laid out a credible defense but cited stuff to back himself up. I was amazed by his calendar and it left no doubt in my mind that his accuser was clearly wrong. If anything, his emotionalism made me uncomfortable and I have to admit to wondering how this experience will shade his judgment as an associate justice.

The Dims quickly showed their agreed-to tactic of trying to find the judge guilty by using the FBI investigation tactic. As per the previous hearing, it showed the emptiness and political desperation of the Dims.

I cringed and silently begged him to respond to the Dims question about whether or not he thought Ford’s accusation was political. “Of course it is!” I wanted him to answer.

Using the same prosecutor to ask questions of the judge as she did Ford really riled me. I was amazed and pleased as hell when Lindsay Graham said to hell with it and spoke up. I applauded him and sighed with relief that the remainder of the Repubs on the committee took their five minutes.

Did I believe him? You better believe it! Especially in that final segment when Senator Kennedy asked him to look him in the eye and swear to God whether or not the accuser was right. Kavanaugh’s response left no doubts in my mind.

My heart went out to the judge and the members of his family who have been put through hell by DimocRATic tactics. I think it will rouse conservatives and independents to vote red in November.

I have to admit to wondering how this experience will shade his judgment as an associate justice
Agree.
That and his self-pitying, cry baby opening statement together with his sometimes flippant and even downright rude replies to Democratic questions, tell me what I needed to know about his character.
I do not stand behind his nomination, based on his character, regardless of whether he manhandled girls as a drunken teenager.

 

[forkup]

How about the ball-less republicans couldn't face a woman but turned cheerleaders for a lying spoiled rich boy. Kavanaugh was belligerent and didn't agree to a FBI investigation. His belligerence is the sign of any guilty person when caught, and his refusal for an FBI investigation is a sign he is a liar and knows it. The guilty always overact their innocence because they must also convince themselves as well as the other. Kavanaugh being the heartless bigot even dissented on the ACA and he lied about his position on Roe v Wade. Many people are easily fooled by dramatic exclamations of innocence, that he did well. Sad that Americans are so easily played. Ever been on a jury?

'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser

OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread
.

Yes I noticed it as well, she was asking to many questions. Then Graham spoke and she was no more.

Pretty ironic really. He both was lambasting Democrats for making this a political circus, while at the same time changing the flow of the hearing from both sides asking questions of Kavanaugh, to Republican members making political speeches against the Democrats, while the Democrats were questioning Kavanaugh.

 

[Mindful]

Where were the parents while all these parties were going on?

 

[Penelope]

Dr. Ford, though nervous, was surprisingly well prepared, and did a good job of reciting the facts as she remembered them in a logical and respectful manner. Judge Kavanaugh, by comparison was angry, loud, disrespectful, and at times went off message to attack those who dared question him. His lashing out at Democrats and partisan rantings won't score many points with the general public,

Yeah...surprisingly well prepared, surprisingly composed
for someone who is so traumatized, still 37 years later,
and is being called a liar!

Her initial version of events didn't make sense,
and her edited version of events, is still full of inconsistencies!

She remembers what has traumatized her all these years,
but, not where the trauma took place...yeah, right

She says she went to use the bathroom,
which was up on the second floor...
How would she know where the bathroom was,
unless she already knew or had to ask someone

She stated the stairway was narrow, leading up to the washroom,
and after she locked herself in the washroom,
she heard them leave the bedroom,
heard them pin balling off the walls going down the stairs,
and when she didn't hear them come back up the stairs,
she left the bathroom, ran down the stairs,
through the living room and out the door

She heard them leave the bedroom,
she heard them bouncing off the walls,
going down the stairs, listened to see,
if they'd come back up the stairs....

Well, in order for either of them
to push her into the bedroom,
and since she claims both were together,
when she was pushed into the bedroom,

means, they both had to be right behind her
as she was walking up the stairs, to the washroom...
she did not hear them directly behind her?

She claims 4 boys were there...
3 she named, 1 she did not, none whom she called a friend
The 1 girl she named, claimed was there, and said was her friend,
wouldn't remember her running through the living room,
out the door...wouldn't wonder what happened...
wouldn't call her to ask her why she ran out of the house?

How does jumping on a bed
cause people to tumble off the bed?

How does someone who was so drunk,
he was bouncing off the walls on the staircase,
become capable of jumping onto a bed, not once, twice?
He can't walk but, he can jump...yeah, ok

How was she able to break free and run out of the room,
if the door was locked, without first unlocking the door?

What happened to him pinning her down,
and trying to take her clothes off, from the inside out?

Oh yeah, doesn't make sense
since people only have 2 hands, not 4

First she said she didn't tell anyone,
but, did mention it to her husband,
though, not in detail...

The details came out in couples counseling,
her husband remembers her mentioning Brett's name,
but, his name is never mentioned in the therapists notes

Brett had ever right to be angry and loud.
I don't blame him for lashing out at Democrats

I was cheering him on
and was happy to see him defend himself,
in the manner in which he did

For someone who has been so traumatized,
been called a liar, had her family uprooted,
she should have been angry, loud, distraught,
and wanted to face Brett, one on one

She will get hers

which is why the FBI should of found these things out, but he refused a long with the GOP men.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's amazing how for 30 years Repubtards were beyond obsessed that Clinton may have harassed a couple women, yet now support a rapist who spews Clinton conspiracy theories. Republicans had FBI investigating Clinton while allowing 9/11 attacks, but refuse the FBI investigate repubtard political operative judges rape.

Clinton’s DNA was all over the place! Please produce Kavanaugh’s DNA.

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

Yes she lied.

Now scram with your redundant BS.

 

[Mindful]

"What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020."

Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted the Democrats opposing Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate testimony.

 

[forkup]

Ah so you think someone will just pull out a name out of their ass in a case like this? Furthermore let me ask you this. I've watched these hearings. Not one GOP member said Ford was not credible. So why should Kavanaugh be appointed to the highest court in the country when there is a CREDIBLE accusation of sexual assault. This confirmation process is after all a job interview?

I'm sure she believes what she believes, I'm just not sure what she believes is reality.

Her accusation is NOT credible, she has no direct corroboration, and she can't even give an exact date and location so as to allow a proper defense of said accusation.

It's not just a job interview. If you really believe all this to be true, shouldn't he be Impeached from the DC Circuit, the 2nd highest court in the country?

Don't you think this would basically ruin him professionally if he is denied the nomination based on this?

She doesn't have to be lying in her own mind for her testimony not to be true. Time does that.

I think you are interchanging two terms. Credible and certain. You don't need corroboration to find something credible. You do need it to reach a level of certainty.
I find the whole argument that "yes I believe she believes she was sexually assaulted, but no I don't believe she was", pretty incredible. Since we are talking about what is credible and what isn't. Unless you have reason to believe she is delusional. Do you?
As to if he should lose his job altogether. I'm pretty sure there is a process for that. The thing is, he is interviewing for a new job. And it's that job we are talking about. I assert that if the standard you hold a supreme court justice too, is no higher then that you aren't sure that he committed sexual assault, you really need to reassess that standard.
Even from a political standpoint this seems self-destructive. The GOP has given a clear signal to all woman that they care about sexual assault only as far as it doesn't interfere with it's political agenda. I don't think that's a message you want out there.

Credible is an variable definition term, and it seems to slide to the more wishful thinking side the more progressive a person is, in this particular case (BK).

You don't have to be delusional to mold a memory or change it over 30+ years, delusional is more appropriate for bending reality on a shorter timescale.

How would you like to be denied a job based on an uncorroborated (at the time) accusation from 35+ years ago, that involves someone who can't even tell you when and where it happened? How would you like that to be part of the public record, that you were denied the job FOR THAT REASON, and probably professionally ruined?

Right now they are showing they care about the rule of law and due process. What Dems are showing is they will do ANYTHING to take and keep power.

-Somebody just molded their memory so it included Kavanaugh and Judge? Not anybody else, just those 2? Offering little details to corroborate the timescale. You know, I don't remember were I was 14 days ago at 4 pm. I do remember exactly were I was when my mother died, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the exact date on that. Were I was when the Twin Towers fell, I know the exact date on that because the public description of it has become a concept in itself. If you would ask me what I had for dinner that day, I wouldn't be able to tell you but I do remember bits and pieces from that day. That's how memory works. You might not remember all the details but you do remember the important stuff.
What you are suggesting is that someone INVENTED the most crucial detail about one of the most traumatic events of her life. On that unlikely scenario you are suggesting to promote somebody to the highest judicial position in the land.
-As to due process, I'll let slide that due process has often been the least of the GOP's concern. Due process in the case of something like this has always included the effort to establish the facts of these allegations. That's not the case here. At the very best Graham and the likes are contending that because the Democrats brought this up to late, they are exempt from having to follow due process. A dubious argument at best.

The difference is you are not trying to use those memories to ruin someone's life. Once you try to do that you damn well better remember enough to allow them to defend themselves.

Show me where the GOP has been against due process.

-I'm sorry, but are you now again suggesting that because Ford remembers her assault, this somehow makes it unfair to Kavanaugh to bring her sexual assault up? Again this guy is up for SCOTUS, not a dog catcher.
-They have refused to call up Mark Judge, Ramires or Swetnick. They have refused to ask the President to reopen the FBI background check. They have refused actually ANY witness except Ford or Kavanaugh.

 

[Mindful]

So the fracture in US politics grows ever deeper?