But to quote Galadriel (Treebeard says it in the book)... "The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air."

It does seem like something is different here.

But I can't escape the feeling that the posturing of someone like Flake is just that.... posturing. I hope he has a found a core of integrity, but we'll see.

I think they are in for a surprise here because he is a proven liar.

He will resign by the weekend. No way is he is going to want to be confronted by Kamala Harris at the hearing on Monday.

Mazie Hirono.

the one that makes her seem like a kindly older lady but right behind that look is a badass woman ready to tear you a new one!

She recently said that the Democrats could keep retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat vacant for two years if need be should the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace him fail and should Democrats take the Senate in November.

and I certainly didn't do any such thing.

There's nothing to grill him about. There are no details because he says he wasn't at the party or doesn't remember the party, and didn't do it.

SHE is the one who will be raked over the coals, poor woman.

After a grilling, I just used to fold, as she always knew when I was lying

The one that says "don't even consider lying to me". That's one tough woman.

Link to tweet

whether there is anyone else that will testify or give a statement that BK was in a room at a party with Mrs Ford. If there is, he withdraws. If there isn't, he sticks to the story "I wasn't there. I'm sorry, but Mrs Ford has confused me with someone else" and he is confirmed. There's really nothing else the Senate can do.

who has way more credibility.
One more thing that should not matter but does - she is good looking and blonde. And another that does - she is just as preppie as the scumbag Kavanaugh and she's a trained psychologist. She will be no pushover.

If nobody can place him there, considering all other factors - he sticks to the "she's simply mistaken" story, there's nothing they can do but confirm him.

Hopefully, there are more damning stories that come out between now and next Monday which will for him to withdraw.

Strength in numbers. They've already found potential issues with the Judge he used to clerk for - where he should have known about the endemic sexual harassment going on and at least said something.

He might have been smart enough to get through law school, but he still strikes me as being the self-entitled sort of guy who would throw out common professional sense and indulge in the same risky behavior his boss is indulging in with impunity, even if he was planning on stabbing the guy in the back later for those crimes.
And from his comments and notes during the 90's, it's pretty obvious he had a bit of a nasty freak side when it came to sex.

Haele

He's not going to smell very good coming out of it.

Still long odds that the Democrats take the Senate.

Keep hope alive

to install their own judge.

Nah! Better to fight and lose than to just let them win without a fight.

or don't do

Democrats can’t fight to win?

Of course we can!

Today, we have no control over what Republicans might do, but we have control over what we do. If we don't fight, we're guaranteed to lose.

in whatever way they can.

They cant confirm this guy.

And once again, by choosing such a swampy nominee, Trump has exposed all Mr. Kavanaugh’s malfeasance, and left him in legal quicksand.

Sorry, not sorry.

Everything Trump touches dies.

Ever so true. No pets, no plants...it's a wonder he had kids.

Grassley whether Kavanaugh should do a polygraph....where are the Dem Politicians demanding the same ? It's an obvious ask now Dr Ford has done so.

what then?

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, that's why most states ban them as evidence in a criminal case.

It's more than a little curious that such a fact is not brought up more often and realized by those who have an opinion on this Kavanaugh issue.

About the only value polygraphs have in investigative work is that most people don't realize they are unreliable and so can be cowed in to taking one or pleading guilty beforehand because they think their lies will be revealed.

and, what happens if he passes it?

Hadn't thought of that.

I'll bet you're right.

If there’s someone else he tried to rape, or got weird and/or aggressive with, that would do it.

to go through another confirmation process before midterms?

The 2016 election made me gun-shy about celebrating victory with this pack of weasels. They have a way of slipping through the noose.

But he is taking a much harder pounding on this ugly issue than I originally figured.

Have you got 50 minutes to hear the complete catalog of woes? It all began when, at age 5...

Trump wouldn't end up nominating a sex offender?

there's this thing in the US criminal justice system called presumption of innocence, you might remember it from Civics class in school, also, there's also this thing called the right to face your accuser, another lesson learned in Civics class.

Fact is that no one on this board knows whether or not he's guilty of this allegation, and right now, that's all it is, an allegation.

I want to hear from both Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford before I make a judgment on guilt or innocence, that's the way it should work in our society.

Then why do I hear chants of 'lock her up when Hillary Clinton is guilty of not one fucking thing?
What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

and the right to face your accuser.

This should apply to EVERYONE in these United States of America.

This is not a criminal trial.

This man is seeking one of the highest offices in the land. If there's a decent chance he raped or intended to rape someone he is not worth the risk to the nation.

Period.

nobody here, on this board, knows whether or not he is guilty or innocent of this allegation, period.

Besides, there are plenty of other reasons for his confirmation to be rejected, lying under oath is a pretty big one.

Best not to conflate.

it's an allegation of criminal wrongdoing and there is a presumption of innocence, as it should be, and, again, no one here knows if he's guilty or innocent of this allegation.

This is a very, very different situation.

the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct in our society.

Do you know for certain if he did it?

If so, how do you know beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it?

This is not a criminal issue. (Statute of limitations is up anyway.)

He's claiming to be qualified for the highest court in the United States. If there are doubts about him being a sexual predator now or in the past, HE ISN'T QUALIFIED. Just on the doubts. This does not involve a criminal reasonable doubt standard. At all.

Since when?

Again, he's being accused of a very serious crime by Dr. Ford, he should be afforded the presumption of innocence, period..


We can go on and on without changing each others mind, so I'll say enough and have a great afternoon and evening.

The statute of limitations is up anyway.

This is about whether he is fit to sit the US Supreme Court.

It's an entirely different standard.

By all means I want him to face her and I want her to face him.

As for his innocence? If she gets the benefit of the doubt in the same measure he does from that group of desiccated old white men who already speak of her in terms of being
“Mixed up”, then, and only then is there equal presumption for both of them.

My main complaint with some here is that they've already tried and convicted him of rape and are labeling him a racist before we have even heard what they both have to say under oath, that, to me, is wrongheaded.

Just my 2 cents worth.

My chihuahua and I have to head to the store for some supplies for din din tonight.

You have a very good and peaceful evening and night.

Gee, I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out to me.

I still stand by my statement.

appointment in the highest court in the land...not 'justice'. I think he is not.

his lying to congress under oath is enough to DQ him.

All I'm saying is that those that are already calling him a rapist are lying, there was no rape, and, until it's proven, he's still innocent of the allegation.

A kavanaugh supporter is now talking 'rough horseplay'...I think we shall see more before this is over.

I get not to say "alleged". First Amendment and all.

Also, this is not a criminal case. Reasonable doubt should go to the accuser. He's trying to get on the friggin' Supreme Court.

And damn the details. Yet another sad salute to his ceaseless “I’ll have the best people” mantra.

Given the collection of absolute freaks that populate this administration, I wouldn’t be surprised to find several more sex offenders in that pack of weirdos.

But it's gonna get ugly as it crashes

Good effin' grief

But for the rapist it was just horseplay that shouldn't inconvenience his career.

The therapist did not independently confirm that the alleged incident took place. It's still a case of "He said...She said'.

"evidence which strengthens, adds to, or confirms already existing evidence."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corroborating+evidence

is considered corroboration because it’s clear that she didn’t just make this up to stop his nomination. She told her therapist in 2012. That was 6 years ago and therapists keep notes. And if she told anyone else about it before his nomination that is also corroboration. It isn’t as strong as having a witness, but it is strong.

That it's corroboration can be disputed.

It IS a factor that she first has it on record decades after it happened, giving others the legitimate claim that she is "confused."

Corroboration is most often thought of as telling someone at about the time an event happens. She says she didn't tell anyone.

as legitimate corroboration.

Corroboration is telling someone, or writing something, at about the same time as an event happened. She did not do that. She didn't tell anyone, or write it down in a diary....nothing.

25 years later she discusses it in therapy. But that is so long after the fact, that it makes it easy to say her memory was wrong. She remembers the incident, but she's "confused" as to who it was. That's why evidence at about the time of the event is considered corrobative, but not telling someone decades later. A person's memory is best at about the time of an event.

The therapy notes mean that she didn't make this up for the purpose of the S.Ct. nomination. But it doesn't mean she is remembering it correctly. That's the devil's advocate argument.

When you're talking about blaming someone for something like that, most don't take the word of someone decades later, because it's almost impossible to defend against it, if there are no witnesses, no corroborating evidence, or the like.

But it does put a cloud over Kavanaugh's head. Maybe they'll nominate someone else, like some thing they will. I don't think they will, because the same thing could happen again. Men don't walk around confessing to molesting women (except for Trump).

along with every Dem including the Red state Dems.

And soon

Over the weekend? Next week? Before a vote occurs?