If they're both yes, the only drama for tomorrow should be whether Manchin will go ahead and cast the 50th vote or if he will make the Senate hold the vote open until Senator Daines gets back from his daughter's wedding to cast #50 and then have Manchin jump on as 51.
At the very least, it's all ironical...and stuff...no self awareness. But yeah, pretty much what you said.
The Priest was already interviewed. Yale grad. Princeton theological professor. I don't think there should be much doubt he's telling the truth as to what he heard. The guy he heard it from should be interviewed. By the FBI.
Therapy notes that were REFUSED to be provided to the committee, so the only information made public from those therapy notes are information that support Ford’s story. Even though those therapy notes allegedly contained contradictions as to the number of men involved in the assault and the number and gender of attendees to the party. So there is Ford’s word, unsupported by any of the three witnesses she named, where the one witness that says she believes Ford issued that statement of support to the Washington Post after a third party approached her and told her that Republicans were using her statement to allege his innocence, and she needed to clarify her statement. So spare me your political BS about Republicans shafting women for political expediency.
The good news is that John Roberts is the swing vote, not Kavanaugh. Roberts is obsessed with the legitimacy of his Court. The stank surrounding Kavanaugh might force Roberts to be more of an O'Connor.
This is the disgrace and national embarrassment, not the Democrats. What Most Disqualifies Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court?
I had to turn off Collins' speech. I don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted. I don't think the rest of America does either. Both Republicans and Democrats know his record. We don't need to be lied to about it. He's not David Souter.
LOL - Collins up there all but saying "Okay all you Democrats who are furious about how I am going to vote, you can blame that moron Michael Avenatti for it."
Try opening your mind and get opinions elsewhere than from Fox news. I read everything I can get my hands on. I doubt you do.
So exactly what I said above is true, that her “witnesses” can only spout hearsay evidence to muddy the water without any ability to confirm the event actually occurred. Unless they were at the party, all they can testify to is rumors/gossip. Priest or not, he wasn’t there at the incident. So all he can testify to is gossip with no corroboration. Does the priest know for sure the person who told him he witnessed it was at the party? So what is the point of his testimony? That he heard something about the incident? If the priest was so intent on the truth getting out, present the name of the person who actually attended party to the FBI/accuser, instead of grandstanding and saying interview me, interview me, when he has no relevant testimony about the incident being investigated.
