It strikes me that the arguments in this case have basically completely abandoned the idea that Professor Ford was lying. It seems that the defense of Kavanaugh is now just ignoring her altogether, and simply focused on this primal scream aggrievement narrative about "the left". Her testimony was too credible, so they are just pretending like it didn't happen.
Beyond that, how does anyone imagine a guy willing to declare before a Senate committee that "the Clintons" were out to get him will rule on ANY issue??
The arguments are the same as they ever were, and are completely on the side of Kavanaugh. There is no evidence and no witnesses corroborate the story. No new facts were introduced during testimony. That is the beginning and end of any relevant discussion on his innocence or guilt, and he lands squarely in the innocent camp. If you disagree, prove him guilty.
When Republicans didn't want a SC nominee, they didn't vote. When Democrats don't want a SC nominee, they falsely accuse him of gang rape and assault.
It is not a "both sides are the same thing". Democrats play fair.
Don't be naive--you are smarter than that.
The DNC worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton Campaign to make sure that Sanders was locked out.
So much more than that, really. Hidden transcripts were released detailing policies that were being kept secret, the revolving door between government and Clinton Foundation workers, sometimes at the same time, how the Foundation was used to personally enrich them, how the DNC had this conspiracy against Bernie planned long before the real election, this is where we learned the debates were rigged, etc.
But yeah Democrats are Saints who would never play dirty or destroy innocent lives or corrupt democracy for their own ends.
. That is the beginning and end of any relevant discussion on his innocence or guilt, and he lands squarely in the innocent camp. If you disagree, prove him guilty.
It is the end of the discussion only because the Republicans have rigged it to be the end. The Republicans refuse to allow a credible background investigation. The additional accusers are ignored. Kavanaugh's classmates say he's a goddamned liar - ignored. Mike Judge relevant character witness - ignored. Additional leads are being ignored and supressed.
This guy is a tainted piece of work. He will always be that. He showed his true colors yesterday - a blubbering, insane, partisan hack. A liar who perjured himself repeatedly.
It seems he will be confirmed anyway because Republicans are incredibly weak and follow the leader that's paying their checks.
So Bart will help take away your rights and hand them over to corporations. He'll help Republicans take away your voting rights. He'll help Trump escape justice and get away with probably being a traitor who colluded with a foreign power to steal an American election. He'll help Trump obstruct justice. Well done, you've broke America.
Congratulations Republicans you win this corporate loser. Was it worth destroying your last shred of dignity and destroying the country for however long he's on the bench? We all will pay the price.
When Republicans didn't want a SC nominee, they didn't vote. When Democrats don't want a SC nominee, they falsely accuse him of gang rape and assault.
Yep. Because that's what they did to Neil Gorsuch.
True. Democrats didn't fabricate sexual assault claims against Gorsuch. If Democrats throw out accusations at random regardless of their credibility, Gorsuch would have been targeted.
He was not. That's not an opinion; that's a fact--he wasn't. Ergo, Democrats don't throw out these accusations at random regardless of their credibility.
Only Kavanaugh was accused, and there was a specific reason--because Ford independently reached out with her accusation, unprompted by Democratic officials. There's still this bizarre theory that the Clintons are Illuminati-style shadowmasters who command everything behind the scenes (even Kavanaugh himself referenced this conspiracy theory), but the idea that Ford was a Democratic pawn is completely groundless.
For all their insistence on corroboration, the GOP just made that idea up out of thin air.
@WarChiefZeke: Republican senators didn't just "not vote" for Merrick Garland. They refused to even give him a hearing, and they made this decision before they even had Garland's name. Mitch McConnell explicitly said mere hours after Scalia's death that they would not even consider any of Obama's nominees, no matter who it was, and despite the GOP's insistence that they had to wait until after the 2016 election was over to determine the will of the people, John McCain said that they'd block any of Clinton's nominees even if she won the election. If (1) refusing to even consider a nominee (2) before his name is even known (3) without even bothering to hold a hearing isn't an act of bad faith, I don't know what is.
You're supposed to consider a nominee, hold a hearing, and then vote. Democrats did all three of these things. The GOP did none of these things.
When a Democratic president nominated a Supreme Court justice, the GOP said "no" before the guy was even named, and refused to even hold hearings. When a Republican president nominated a Supreme Court justice, the Democrats held a hearing and questioned him.
@WarChiefZeke "The arguments are the same as they ever were, and are completely on the side of Kavanaugh. There is no evidence and no witnesses corroborate the story. No new facts were introduced during testimony. That is the beginning and end of any relevant discussion on his innocence or guilt, and he lands squarely in the innocent camp. If you disagree, prove him guilty."
Really? So, how exactly was this completely on the side of Kavanaugh? Everything I've seen says the opposite: The suppression of witnesses, not allowing other witnesses to testify, the shouting, perjury, evasive answers to questions, everything seems to indicate that Ford is the one in the right here. Not mention the staunch refusal of an investigation. You want us to prove Kavanaugh's guilt? Let us investigate him.
Well he is playing the victim card as well saying he is struggling with depression and anxiety that prevents him from publicly speaking. This is a letter that he sent after the testimony.
The key phrase is "I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford..." Certainty would have had him say "the events described by Dr. Ford did not happen with my involvement." He is choosing not to remember.
The American Bar Association made a statement late last night calling for an FBI investigation for the sake of transparency and trust. The GOP has already made clear that they oppose any further scrutiny of Kavanaugh.
This is what I keep seeing, whether it's the defense of Trump or the defense of Kavanaugh. It's not just "the allegations aren't true." It's "public scrutiny needs to stop." The first is debatable, but the second is indefensible.
The GOP complains that the Democrats are stalling until after the midterms, but you could delay the vote for three whole weeks and there'd still be more than two weeks left before the midterms. We have more than a month to make this decision. The GOP wants to hurry not because they're at risk of losing control of the nomination process, but because they know Kavanaugh is faltering under scrutiny and they want to rush him through before any FBI investigation can take place.
@WarChiefZeke "The arguments are the same as they ever were, and are completely on the side of Kavanaugh. There is no evidence and no witnesses corroborate the story. No new facts were introduced during testimony. That is the beginning and end of any relevant discussion on his innocence or guilt, and he lands squarely in the innocent camp. If you disagree, prove him guilty."
Really? So, how exactly was this completely on the side of Kavanaugh? Everything I've seen says the opposite: The suppression of witnesses, not allowing other witnesses to testify, the shouting, perjury, evasive answers to questions, everything seems to indicate that Ford is the one in the right here. Not mention the staunch refusal of an investigation. You want us to prove Kavanaugh's guilt? Let us investigate him.
It was completely on the side of Kavanaugh because all the evidence is on his side and none of it is against him. I know left leaning twitter is screenshotting pictures of him in angryface mode trying to make him look like some sort of "bad guy", but that's little more than propaganda and I place no stock in such emotional manipulation.
I'm sorry, i'm seeing many accusations but not one fact or even a hint of a fact that supports Kavanaugh's guilt.
Suppression of witnesses- Did any of them want to testify and were denied? I didn't hear of it and if it didn't happen no witness is being suppressed. Just because i didn't hear it doesn't mean it didnt happen though, source?
But since all of them were going to deny knowledge of the incident or even being there I can't see how this would have done anything but help him.
Shouting- irrelevant
Evasive answers- to vague a statement to make judgement on, perhaps clarify what statement was evasive and how it supports K's guilt?
FBI Investigation- I still don't know whether to believe Kavanaugh witch trial Democrats about FBI investigations or Clarence Thomas witch trial Democrats about FBI investigations because their beliefs have flipped 100%. It's almost like the truth is whatever affords them political advantage at the moment.
K said he welcomes any kind of investigation and when pushed further said he welcomes what the committee wants to do. At no point did it seem like he was attempting to block anything, despite democrats repeatedly and dishonestly attempting to pin that on him as can be seem here:
Shouting isn’t irrelevant and neither are evading questions.
Role reverse: if Ford evaded even one question, it would have been a “gotcha” moment that people would cling too regardless of anything else her testimony brought up. She would have been dismissed entirely.
Once again, this isn’t a trial, it’s a job interview. If the way Kavanugh acted is how you would like your federal judges to act (especially partisan), then go ahead and support him.
@WarChiefZeke All I can say is I found him unbelievable and he doesn't have the temperament to either be on the Supreme Court or to be a Federal Judge. Going from shouting to crying and back to shouting made me say "This guy doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court."
He stopped short of saying he wanted an FBi Investigation. "Whatever the committee wants to do," is not an answer. It's an evasion. Is he so wishy washy he can't stand up for himself and say, "I want an FBI investigation so I can clear my name."?
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford sent her letter before Cavanaugh was even announced. She sent her letter when his name was announced as being on the shortlist for Consideration for the Supreme Court Nominee. So her being some kind of plant to bring down Kavanaugh isn't held up- she sent the letter before he was announced so that the committee would know what kind of a person he was and hopefully, not pick him at all.
He said none of the witnesses support Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. That is simply not true. His college roommate remembers Kavanaugh coming back to the room drunk and combative. Julie Swetnick's testimony supports Dr. Ford's, and Deborah Ramirez's testimony shows that Kavanaugh acted pretty much the same in college as Dr. Ford said he did at the party. So no, it's not true that nobody supports her version of events. Plus, Dr. Ford has told people of her history on no less than three separate times in the past, dating back to at least 2012, long before the election of 2016. So claims of her testimony being "A reaction to Donald Trump and the election of 2016" is wrong.
Eventually, this is all going to fall apart around Kavanaugh. Someone will get to Mark Judge, someone else will come forward with important info, and the ridiculous house of cards the Republicans are building around him will collapse. People are not going to stop looking into this. They just want to make sure he is on the court when it happens so nothing can be done about it. And there is going to be hell to pay for all this sooner rather than later.
Edit: Flake may have been shamed into voting no. The vote was supposed to take place 15 minutes ago. They don't have them yet. Seems they may vote him out of committee and delay the floor vote.
I heard also that the reason why the Republicans got rid of the woman who asked questions of Dr. Ford was because the woman seemed to realize that Dr. Ford was telling the truth, and the Republicans felt she made Dr. Ford look too credible. So they dismissed her and decided to ask Kavanaugh questions themselves.
It sounds like Flake wants a 1-week delay to make time for an FBI investigation before they proceed. It might not change the result, but it could at least resolve some of the disagreement over him.
The negative reviews down at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. were far more blunt, with one administration official calling the hearing a “disaster” for Kavanaugh’s confirmation hopes. The official said Republican lawmakers made a mistake by hiring a woman out of fear of the optics of Ford being questioned by an unbroken line of old white men.
Trump allies who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed were concerned that Mitchell had not managed to poke any holes in Ford's account or character that would make her story less believable. But during the Judiciary Committee’s lunch break, they were still holding out hope that her lines of questions would lead to a breakthrough finale.
“Rachel Mitchell not only is not laying a glove on her, but, in my view, is actually helping her credibility by the gentility with which these questions are being asked and the open-ended answers that the witness is being permitted to give,” Trump ally and former Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox News. “The president cannot be happy with this.”
And later... Sen. Richard Blumenthal argued that “the prosecutor is bolstering her credibility.”
“They’re nitpicking,” the Connecticut Democrat asserted. “Why did she cry in one place and not another? Irrelevant!”
He added: “There’s an old saying. As an old prosecutor, I learned it well: Don’t ask a question if you don’t know the answer. And she has no idea what the answer will be.”
FBI Investigation- I still don't know whether to believe Kavanaugh witch trial Democrats about FBI investigations or Clarence Thomas witch trial Democrats about FBI investigations because their beliefs have flipped 100%. It's almost like the truth is whatever affords them political advantage at the moment.
K said he welcomes any kind of investigation and when pushed further said he welcomes what the committee wants to do.
@WarChiefZeke Kavanaugh was offered the opportunity several times to say that he supported an FBI investigation. If he had said that it would have been pretty much impossible for the Committee to confirm him without asking for an investigation (which of course was the reason the Democrats raised the issue). Kavanaugh consistently evaded the question. Saying he would welcome what the committee wants to do is not the same thing at all: - Kavanaugh knows there is a Republican majority on the Committee and believes they will not support an investigation unless he calls for it. - The Republicans know that Kavanaugh will not call for an investigation.
As has been said a number of times there are multiple leads to be followed up by an investigation. Location of house, driver for Ford, names of other people at the party, potential contemporaneous verbal or written statements about what happened at the party, witnesses to the event itself, other similar behavior by Kavanaugh, investigation of whether his calendar really did record all his movements and lots more. While such an investigation may not prove wrongdoing to a criminal standard, that's not the appropriate standard in this situation. An investigation could certainly provide vital evidence as to whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to be appointed to this job.
In any situation I'm likely to find the party that welcomes investigation of their claims more credible than the party that doesn't. In this case the claims relate to a potential appointment to the highest court in the land - I find it amazing that anyone is still considering offering this type of legal post to someone whose idea of appropriate due process is not to investigate claims.
You know what I also found troubling? Kavanaugh couldn't clearly articulate how many beers are "too many". "Whatever the chart says." makes it sound like he doesn't know how many is too many. 2 beers? 3 beers? 4? More? He can't say, "My personal limit is 2, 3 or however many?"
My limit for drinks is 2. At that point, I am relaxed, but nowhere near intoxicated. A bit more giggly, but that's about it. And I probably weigh more than Kavanaugh.
You know what I also found troubling? Kavanaugh couldn't clearly articulate how many beers are "too many". "Whatever the chart says." makes it sound like he doesn't know how many is too many. 2 beers? 3 beers? 4? More? He can't say, "My personal limit is 2, 3 or however many?"
My limit for drinks is 2. At that point, I am relaxed, but nowhere near intoxicated. A bit more giggly, but that's about it. And I probably weigh more than Kavanaugh.
Too many for what? Before a person is intoxicated? The answer is one. Until he is unable to drive home? The answer maybe more than one, but probably less than 4 depending on the amount of time that passed.
There are a lot of other factors involved in mood changes when it comes to intoxicating substances. Some people have a switch (third beer, Mike is fine and coherent, fourth beer he is black out drunk) but most people do not.
And I personally can’t give you a limit for myself. Last night I met my roommate at a bar, had 3 beers and a shot and felt “lubercated.” Two weeks ago, I drank2 beers, roughly 300ml of Gin, 2 full alcoholic cocktails and 5 shots and was just tipsy and coherent enough to “babysit” other drunks. I have no idea what my limit is, it changes everyday.
The news that Flake wont vote for confirmation without an investigation is heartening.
Responding to others - I really kind of hate the tribalism we have in the country, and just as much in each party. Seriously. Even in this thread there are people who spend as much time criticizing sitting senators from other states (I'm assuming, correct me if anyone here lives in West Virginia or Maine) for the party they clearly support because he or she isnt "liberal" or "conservative" enough for them.
Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are the two most moderate senators in the senate today. They both represent states with complex ideologies. The political system isnt just two points: "Liberal" and "Conservative". It's a spectrum, and they fit their state's on that spectrum pretty damn well.
Manchin and Collins, despite being affiliated with different parties, are two of the most important reasons why something like the ACA isnt dead already. With the built in institutional bias that the Senate has to be more conservative than the nation as a whole, if the left starts trying to kill off moderates from historically conservative states, then the left is going to be stuck in a near perpetual minority in congress.
To put it another way: As a progressive - please give me 24 years of a person who votes with liberals only 60% of the time rather than a progressive firebrand who votes with liberals 90% of the time for 6 years and is replaced by a republican who votes with conservatives 90% of the time for the other 18.
Comments
The DNC worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton Campaign to make sure that Sanders was locked out.
When Republicans didn't want a SC nominee, they didn't vote. When Democrats don't want a SC nominee, they falsely accuse him of gang rape and assault.
But yeah Democrats are Saints who would never play dirty or destroy innocent lives or corrupt democracy for their own ends.
https://medium.com/mtracey/russian-hackers-provided-vital-information-to-american-voters-d7fb0f9ec50b
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/jeff-flake-protesters-kavanaugh-vote/index.html
I love this, though it may cause GRA gait:
https://www.facebook.com/FeelTheLiberty/photos/a.1573271502965514/1968378096788184/?type=3&__xts__[0]=68.ARBTiQRCQGn1sqGhybTALyRzqGa7gn_QssK-FhrqEM6MzEkZEZMhs1Gb0REyKIvMMu1iU-d7n5HfLqxnScg-w_Bc7G0bxSOtsyhuzDnENMuyKn-dk23tDp5Ar6z1RUetoKyCZ1npAXhoFZvio4BkBudNAv8o1e_h2VAmi1uOE7UoWziRW-KPK4TXf4TioM_UY51l70vdyHM4lxnNG0mIaezehRf9rYuES3k-k_YGrw&__tn__=EEHH-R
And someone else saw this:
https://www.facebook.com/politicalhumor/photos/a.188100032345/10156667454517346/?type=3&__xts__[0]=68.ARCqKC2lOkW2D6NXFZc6biRrVtRCKspuV4NKvjds0en4_jxJ7hl5ck2cQWOcSbP_WffH5s-MZwmtEnR53lpIpJDBJkpLA9c3jlX-PDT7mkXbV63qqCRUInVC-8at6QiiFSpRXPFnyL_d3VszxGmGqvREz1bI7AnmoZhxCB0CwGKTL55PzJ3OzVeM9C8zlwrJCrttr_H-G5pix7mKIXEfdWE3Nr26_WzVcBpvhNbPhg&__tn__=EEHH-R
From Five Thiry Eight.com
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-7-senators-who-will-decide-kavanaughs-fate/
And what happened to Rachel Mitchell, who questioned D. Chrstine Blasey Ford?
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/27/gop-senators-outside-ford-questioner-mistake-849246
The Catholic/Jesuit Review is now against Kavanaugh, based on his testimony Thursday
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/27/1799464/-Catholic-Jesuit-Review-withdraws-Kavanaugh-endorsement?detail=emaildksc
Doug Jones weighed in on Twitter:
I don't think I would have mentioned The Catholic-Jesuit-Review in regards to supporting a sexual assault victim. Just saying...
Also, from MSNBC
This guy is a tainted piece of work. He will always be that. He showed his true colors yesterday - a blubbering, insane, partisan hack. A liar who perjured himself repeatedly.
It seems he will be confirmed anyway because Republicans are incredibly weak and follow the leader that's paying their checks.
So Bart will help take away your rights and hand them over to corporations. He'll help Republicans take away your voting rights. He'll help Trump escape justice and get away with probably being a traitor who colluded with a foreign power to steal an American election. He'll help Trump obstruct justice. Well done, you've broke America.
Congratulations Republicans you win this corporate loser. Was it worth destroying your last shred of dignity and destroying the country for however long he's on the bench? We all will pay the price.
He was not. That's not an opinion; that's a fact--he wasn't. Ergo, Democrats don't throw out these accusations at random regardless of their credibility.
Only Kavanaugh was accused, and there was a specific reason--because Ford independently reached out with her accusation, unprompted by Democratic officials. There's still this bizarre theory that the Clintons are Illuminati-style shadowmasters who command everything behind the scenes (even Kavanaugh himself referenced this conspiracy theory), but the idea that Ford was a Democratic pawn is completely groundless.
For all their insistence on corroboration, the GOP just made that idea up out of thin air.
@WarChiefZeke: Republican senators didn't just "not vote" for Merrick Garland. They refused to even give him a hearing, and they made this decision before they even had Garland's name. Mitch McConnell explicitly said mere hours after Scalia's death that they would not even consider any of Obama's nominees, no matter who it was, and despite the GOP's insistence that they had to wait until after the 2016 election was over to determine the will of the people, John McCain said that they'd block any of Clinton's nominees even if she won the election. If (1) refusing to even consider a nominee (2) before his name is even known (3) without even bothering to hold a hearing isn't an act of bad faith, I don't know what is.
You're supposed to consider a nominee, hold a hearing, and then vote. Democrats did all three of these things. The GOP did none of these things.
When a Democratic president nominated a Supreme Court justice, the GOP said "no" before the guy was even named, and refused to even hold hearings. When a Republican president nominated a Supreme Court justice, the Democrats held a hearing and questioned him.
Really? So, how exactly was this completely on the side of Kavanaugh? Everything I've seen says the opposite: The suppression of witnesses, not allowing other witnesses to testify, the shouting, perjury, evasive answers to questions, everything seems to indicate that Ford is the one in the right here. Not mention the staunch refusal of an investigation. You want us to prove Kavanaugh's guilt? Let us investigate him.
Well he is playing the victim card as well saying he is struggling with depression and anxiety that prevents him from publicly speaking.
This is a letter that he sent after the testimony.
The key phrase is "I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford..." Certainty would have had him say "the events described by Dr. Ford did not happen with my involvement." He is choosing not to remember.
This is what I keep seeing, whether it's the defense of Trump or the defense of Kavanaugh. It's not just "the allegations aren't true." It's "public scrutiny needs to stop." The first is debatable, but the second is indefensible.
The GOP complains that the Democrats are stalling until after the midterms, but you could delay the vote for three whole weeks and there'd still be more than two weeks left before the midterms. We have more than a month to make this decision. The GOP wants to hurry not because they're at risk of losing control of the nomination process, but because they know Kavanaugh is faltering under scrutiny and they want to rush him through before any FBI investigation can take place.
I'm sorry, i'm seeing many accusations but not one fact or even a hint of a fact that supports Kavanaugh's guilt.
Suppression of witnesses- Did any of them want to testify and were denied? I didn't hear of it and if it didn't happen no witness is being suppressed. Just because i didn't hear it doesn't mean it didnt happen though, source?
But since all of them were going to deny knowledge of the incident or even being there I can't see how this would have done anything but help him.
Shouting- irrelevant
Evasive answers- to vague a statement to make judgement on, perhaps clarify what statement was evasive and how it supports K's guilt?
FBI Investigation- I still don't know whether to believe Kavanaugh witch trial Democrats about FBI investigations or Clarence Thomas witch trial Democrats about FBI investigations because their beliefs have flipped 100%. It's almost like the truth is whatever affords them political advantage at the moment.
K said he welcomes any kind of investigation and when pushed further said he welcomes what the committee wants to do. At no point did it seem like he was attempting to block anything, despite democrats repeatedly and dishonestly attempting to pin that on him as can be seem here:
Role reverse: if Ford evaded even one question, it would have been a “gotcha” moment that people would cling too regardless of anything else her testimony brought up. She would have been dismissed entirely.
Once again, this isn’t a trial, it’s a job interview. If the way Kavanugh acted is how you would like your federal judges to act (especially partisan), then go ahead and support him.
He stopped short of saying he wanted an FBi Investigation. "Whatever the committee wants to do," is not an answer. It's an evasion. Is he so wishy washy he can't stand up for himself and say, "I want an FBI investigation so I can clear my name."?
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford sent her letter before Cavanaugh was even announced. She sent her letter when his name was announced as being on the shortlist for Consideration for the Supreme Court Nominee. So her being some kind of plant to bring down Kavanaugh isn't held up- she sent the letter before he was announced so that the committee would know what kind of a person he was and hopefully, not pick him at all.
He said none of the witnesses support Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. That is simply not true. His college roommate remembers Kavanaugh coming back to the room drunk and combative. Julie Swetnick's testimony supports Dr. Ford's, and Deborah Ramirez's testimony shows that Kavanaugh acted pretty much the same in college as Dr. Ford said he did at the party. So no, it's not true that nobody supports her version of events. Plus, Dr. Ford has told people of her history on no less than three separate times in the past, dating back to at least 2012, long before the election of 2016. So claims of her testimony being "A reaction to Donald Trump and the election of 2016" is wrong.
Edit: Flake may have been shamed into voting no. The vote was supposed to take place 15 minutes ago. They don't have them yet. Seems they may vote him out of committee and delay the floor vote.
They are being suppressed. Literally.
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/27/gop-senators-outside-ford-questioner-mistake-849246
The negative reviews down at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. were far more blunt, with one administration official calling the hearing a “disaster” for Kavanaugh’s confirmation hopes. The official said Republican lawmakers made a mistake by hiring a woman out of fear of the optics of Ford being questioned by an unbroken line of old white men.
Trump allies who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed were concerned that Mitchell had not managed to poke any holes in Ford's account or character that would make her story less believable. But during the Judiciary Committee’s lunch break, they were still holding out hope that her lines of questions would lead to a breakthrough finale.
“Rachel Mitchell not only is not laying a glove on her, but, in my view, is actually helping her credibility by the gentility with which these questions are being asked and the open-ended answers that the witness is being permitted to give,” Trump ally and former Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox News. “The president cannot be happy with this.”
And later...
Sen. Richard Blumenthal argued that “the prosecutor is bolstering her credibility.”
“They’re nitpicking,” the Connecticut Democrat asserted. “Why did she cry in one place and not another? Irrelevant!”
He added: “There’s an old saying. As an old prosecutor, I learned it well: Don’t ask a question if you don’t know the answer. And she has no idea what the answer will be.”
- Kavanaugh knows there is a Republican majority on the Committee and believes they will not support an investigation unless he calls for it.
- The Republicans know that Kavanaugh will not call for an investigation.
As has been said a number of times there are multiple leads to be followed up by an investigation. Location of house, driver for Ford, names of other people at the party, potential contemporaneous verbal or written statements about what happened at the party, witnesses to the event itself, other similar behavior by Kavanaugh, investigation of whether his calendar really did record all his movements and lots more. While such an investigation may not prove wrongdoing to a criminal standard, that's not the appropriate standard in this situation. An investigation could certainly provide vital evidence as to whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to be appointed to this job.
In any situation I'm likely to find the party that welcomes investigation of their claims more credible than the party that doesn't. In this case the claims relate to a potential appointment to the highest court in the land - I find it amazing that anyone is still considering offering this type of legal post to someone whose idea of appropriate due process is not to investigate claims.
My limit for drinks is 2. At that point, I am relaxed, but nowhere near intoxicated. A bit more giggly, but that's about it. And I probably weigh more than Kavanaugh.
Before a person is intoxicated? The answer is one.
Until he is unable to drive home? The answer maybe more than one, but probably less than 4 depending on the amount of time that passed.
There are a lot of other factors involved in mood changes when it comes to intoxicating substances. Some people have a switch (third beer, Mike is fine and coherent, fourth beer he is black out drunk) but most people do not.
And I personally can’t give you a limit for myself. Last night I met my roommate at a bar, had 3 beers and a shot and felt “lubercated.” Two weeks ago, I drank2 beers, roughly 300ml of Gin, 2 full alcoholic cocktails and 5 shots and was just tipsy and coherent enough to “babysit” other drunks. I have no idea what my limit is, it changes everyday.
Responding to others - I really kind of hate the tribalism we have in the country, and just as much in each party. Seriously. Even in this thread there are people who spend as much time criticizing sitting senators from other states (I'm assuming, correct me if anyone here lives in West Virginia or Maine) for the party they clearly support because he or she isnt "liberal" or "conservative" enough for them.
Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are the two most moderate senators in the senate today. They both represent states with complex ideologies. The political system isnt just two points: "Liberal" and "Conservative". It's a spectrum, and they fit their state's on that spectrum pretty damn well.
Manchin and Collins, despite being affiliated with different parties, are two of the most important reasons why something like the ACA isnt dead already. With the built in institutional bias that the Senate has to be more conservative than the nation as a whole, if the left starts trying to kill off moderates from historically conservative states, then the left is going to be stuck in a near perpetual minority in congress.
To put it another way: As a progressive - please give me 24 years of a person who votes with liberals only 60% of the time rather than a progressive firebrand who votes with liberals 90% of the time for 6 years and is replaced by a republican who votes with conservatives 90% of the time for the other 18.