Can you blame the guy after the treatment he received? You want to believe Ford with no proof, but you wont believe BK when he said he doesnt take sides?
I agree... I was just saying, he shouldn't have led off his statement with such a direct parallel to how Thomas led off his... That's all... I'm just saying it detracts from the power of his own testimony...
Actually yeah, Supreme Court nominees by definition shouldn't be using political party talking points. It's one thing for them to have believed biases with their legal interpretations and written opinions, this guy may as well be running for political office.
I disagree......if he is being falsely accused and his family is suffering then he has the right to be mad and let that be known it's personal at this point
Lol, this is a guy who’s too partisan as he defends himself against horrendous unsubstantiated allegations fabricated by a hyper-partisan Democrat “destroy Kavanaugh at any cost” machine?
If you think you're being subjected to a political hatchet job, you cannot point out that it's disgusting? Seems . . . convenient.
I have a feeling I know who paid for the polygraph... She seems to be making a great effort in showing the Coca Cola label in her testimony... I kid... I kid....
Ford's testimony certainly went better than they probably would have hoped, but this statement is so far.
I am using your own words. And I see you didn’t even address the situation with Franken. So was he automatically guilty too even though he was accused by a conservative woman, or did you wait and condemn him once evidence was actually produced? I seem to remember you taking a wait and see approach with Franken, which differs from how you are addressing Kavanaugh. There is no way to prove it one way or another, because the threads have been pruned. You think Bill Clinton is a rapist, but that he didn’t rape Monica Lewinski. Doesn’t speak much to intellectual honesty here. I guess that means Harvey Weinstein didn’t rape most of those women who accused him, since it was “consensual” sex, after all.
I thought he was just sort of a dork and was a little worried based on his Kermit the Frog Fox interview. Not so here.
Where it goes from here is where it goes, but this is all I ever thought was appropriate, her getting a fair chance to speak about her claims. As I suspected she would, she came across as very credible (Chris Wallace called her testimony a disaster for republicans). But she is one witness with very little corroborating evidence. Wouldn’t want to be in the seat of someone like Lisa Murkowski though. How heavily do you weigh her claims, the claims of the others, against his denial? FWIW, Kasich called for a delay in the nomination to have her claims further investigated. Not that he has any power in the matter, but doesn’t help the momentum for a positive vote.
