Does anyone have any knowledge as to why the accuser has not responded, for about a day and a half, to Sen. Grassley's attempts to schedule her for hearing?

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There is no objective truth here. Kavanaugh and Blasey are all we jurors need to issue a verdict..

---

I agree with Feinstein. You limit a trial to just the defendant and accuser? Hell no

---

This is more performance art and inquisition than truth finding. No verdict is going to be issued; what matters are the persuasiveness of the arguments and their political implications.

Kavanaugh has already played his role- Judge, family man, girl's basketball coach. He's going to continue to play that role- only now sexual assailant is added to that portfolio. His answers-indeed all his prurient questions about Clinton-now are cast in a different light.

The woman is the wild card. What really matters is her testimony. If she is credible, Kavanaugh is toast. The Senate Judiciary Committe has nothing to do with " the truth." It is a group of partisan politicians. We'll figure out the truth for ourselves.

---

She may be even more of wild card. Reuters saying she likely won't testify Monday.

Maybe. This could also be the GOP putting this out to pre-judge her as "scared.."- e.g. guilty. I suspect her lawyers are trying to ensure some rules. That said, nobody should have to endure this public humiliation. Kavanaugh is rewarded for it, not her.

Brett, please elaborate.

"Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination for the good of the Supreme Court and the country
I'm a Republican and support Trump's judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man."

"The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh's nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw."

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Brett, please elaborate.

---

Absolutely a horrible quote.
MSNBC should be running this nonstop.

Key witness tells senators he won't testify at Kavanaugh hearing https://politi.co/2QFH1dI via @politico

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

"Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination for the good of the Supreme Court and the country
I'm a Republican and support Trump's judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man."

"The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh's nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw."

---

This is surprising to me.
I think I might be inclined to give him a pass on that incident rather than persecute him 35 years later. He should just own it and say he was a stupid teen.

Still an open question whether Ford will accept the offer to attend the hastily scheduled chat with her and Kav. I'm sure lots on her mind. Maybe her plan all along was to parlay this into a reality show, involving her husband and kids. Death threats make for good tv.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-senate-hearing.html

"Dr. Blasey, thrust suddenly into a spotlight that she never sought, has been inundated with vulgar email and social media messages, and even death threats, according to a person close to her, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private matter. "From what I've heard you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime," one message said.

Dr. Blasey, who has two teenagers, has moved out of her house, is arranging for private security for herself and her family, and is effectively in hiding, the person said. But Dr. Blasey has also been buoyed by a flood of supportive messages from friends and strangers."

mikecohen said:

---

Does anyone have any knowledge as to why the accuser has not responded, for about a day and a half, to Sen. Grassley's attempts to schedule her for hearing?

---

Based on the following, the delay in her response may largely be at the direction of Democratic senators (I would presume Feinstein, most importantly).

@Susan_Hennessey: "McConnell is really trying to push this as something nefarious, but the normal assumption would be that Ford is communicating primarily/exclusively with the minority members with whom she has a preexisting relationship."

wifeisafurd said:

---

None of this proves that Prof Ford is or is not telling the truth, but it does suggest we should be skeptical of the notion that it is common for women to say they've been sexually abused when they haven't been. Almost always they are telling the truth. But as this author points out, we don't know what happened for sure in this situation.

---

IF you group sexual assaults into three groups, women who are raped and don't report it, even to their parents, women who are raped and report it to the authorities, and women who claim to have been raped but were not; I wonder what the distribution would be among the three choices. I know in my limited experience with women who were willing to confide in me, that the first choice covered all instances. For whatever reason, my generation did not report rape or make false claims; women were taught that it was their fault they were attacked. Some of that thinking still persists. This case is different in that these were not Baby Boomers, but their children. Values are generational.

The party school culture of Georgetown Prep is not helped by Judge K telling graduates "What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep." Or his senior year yearbook. Or his best friend and character witness and author of "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk".

Which lead to a question that no one has asked Judge K's supporters. Have you ever been around Judge K when he is drunk? Haven't we all known friends, acquaintances, co-workers who were "mean" drunks. A total personality, persona change when drunk. Sober behavior is not a predictor of drunk behavior. Knowing I was in the company of a mean drunk, kept my personal consumption to a controlled level so I would know when the hell to get out of Dodge. nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
A good friend, 38 years sober, thanks to AA, is adept at spotting alcoholics. This friend was particularly critical of Steve Bannon; his instinctive reaction was that Bannon was a drunk. Trump's sole redeeming trait is his dislike of drinking/drunks. Maybe that is keeping him from defending Judge K more aggressively.

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

None of this proves that Prof Ford is or is not telling the truth, but it does suggest we should be skeptical of the notion that it is common for women to say they've been sexually abused when they haven't been. Almost always they are telling the truth. But as this author points out, we don't know what happened for sure in this situation.

---

IF you group sexual assaults into three groups, women who are raped and don't report it, even to their parents, women who are raped and report it to the authorities, and women who claim to have been raped but were not; I wonder what the distribution would be among the three choices. I know in my limited experience with women who were willing to confide in me, that the first choice covered all instances. For whatever reason, my generation did not report rape or make false claims; women were taught that it was their fault they were attacked. Some of that thinking still persists. This case is different in that these were not Baby Boomers, but their children. Values are generational.

The party school culture of Georgetown Prep is not helped by Judge K telling graduates "What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep." Or his senior year yearbook. Or his best friend and character witness and author of "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk".

Which lead to a question that no one has asked Judge K's supporters. Have you ever been around Judge K when he is drunk? Haven't we all known friends, acquaintances, co-workers who were "mean" drunks. A total personality, persona change when drunk. Sober behavior is not a predictor of drunk behavior. Knowing I was in the company of a mean drunk, kept my personal consumption to a controlled level so I would know when the hell to get out of Dodge. I know third hand that one of Trump's White House staff attended AA meetings in the San Bernardino area, A good friend, 38 years sober, met her at meetings there. This AA member was particularly critical of Steve Bannon; his gut reaction was that Bannon was a drunk. Trump's sole redeeming trait is his dislike of drinking/drunks. Maybe that is keeping him from defending Judge K more aggressively.

---

The second a stands for anonymous. Please delete this and my post.

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

"Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination for the good of the Supreme Court and the country
I'm a Republican and support Trump's judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man."

"The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh's nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw."

---

This is surprising to me.
I think I might be inclined to give him a pass on that incident rather than persecute him 35 years later. He should just own it and say he was a stupid teen.

---

See that's the rub, he has issued a blanket denial, so any honesty now would make him a liar. That's been some of the op-ed main points - it's not about sexual assault, it' about if Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Something a SC justice should be able to do.

I don't think the GOP can't wiggle out of this one.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

Does anyone have any knowledge as to why the accuser has not responded, for about a day and a half, to Sen. Grassley's attempts to schedule her for hearing?

---

Based on the following, the delay in her response may largely be at the direction of Democratic senators (I would presume Feinstein, most importantly).

@Susan_Hennessey: "McConnell is really trying to push this as something nefarious, but the normal assumption would be that Ford is communicating primarily/exclusively with the minority members with whom she has a preexisting relationship."

---

Good McConnell is a tough, almost no-win situation and he isn't holding the cards. Sting turtle boy along, let him twist in the wind. The word out is if McConnell fails here, the GOP will be psssed off and in chaos. Couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of shttheads.

It seems the GOP's base plan was to get two SC picks and a tax cut and then cut Trump loose. Deny the appointment and the whole thing looks like a massive shtt show given the chaos and damage Trump has caused on the nation but specifically on the GOP.

Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/kavanaugh-allegations-trump-ivanka

According to sources, several factors are at play. White House advisers are worried that more damaging information about Kavanaugh could come out. Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford's account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously. People worry, without apparent evidence, of another Ronan Farrow bomb dropping. One source says Ivanka Trump has told her father to "cut bait" and drop Kavanaugh.

But the threat of losing the House and Senate seems to have helped convince Trump not to go scorched-earth on Ford. If Trump antagonizes women voters, it could increase the odds Republicans would lose both houses in Congress. "Trump knows the Senate is not looking good," an outside adviser said. "It's all about the impeachment, he knows it's coming."

Even before the Kavanaugh crisis, Trump has been worried about Republicans' declining fortunes, and he's been finding ways to shift the blame. Trump told a friend in the Oval Office last week that it would be Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan's fault if Republicans lost the House and the Senate, according to a person familiar with the conversation. Trump referred to his 2020 campaign as "the real election."

Now she is saying an FBI investigation should proceed first but that ain't going to happen on a decades old complaint. Hard to see what the plan is here.

From the confirmation hearings:

Kennedy (asking about high school in the tone of wanting to ask Kavanaugh to the prom but being too nervous) -- "Did you ever get in trouble? Were you more of John Boy Walton type or a Ferris Bueller type?"

Kavanaugh -- (I was into sports... yadda yadda.)

Kennedy (:50) -- "That's all I'm going to get out of you isn't it? I understand."

Kennedy (2:24) -- "Now you see, I was going to ask the judge if not him, but any of his underage running buddies, had ever tried to sneak a few beers past Jesus or something like that in high school. I'm not going to go there."

Senator Cornyn: "Well, I for one am grateful for the senator's restraint."

Caroline O: "With Dr. Christine Blasey Ford now calling for an FBI probe, here's some key context: Since the FBI will be doing a background investigation (not a criminal one) of a SCOTUS nominee, Trump has to request it before the FBI can proceed. Thus far he hasn't."

Seems like the clear preference of an untruthful person to ask that the FBI get involved.

Whoa...GOP circling the wagons...going to take a last stand. #IstandwithBrett.

Jesus Christ, you can't make this shtt up. The GOP are both tone deaf and blind. Who creates a "shield of women" for a rapist...and thinks it will work? This tells me Kavanaugh is done...but drag it out for as long as possible.

Whitehouse Preparing a Shield of Women to Protect Kavanaugh's Nomination

Quote:

---

The White House is launching a public relations campaign in the hopes of salvaging Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination and ushering in a new era of American conservatism on the high court.
CNN reports that the Trump White House is playing defense after a marathon strategy meeting with Kavanaugh that took place on Monday: Like Senate Republicans who had a letter prepared to defend Kavanaugh, they plan to counter Christine Blasey Ford's allegation of attempted rape with testimonials from women who knew Kavanaugh back in the day and think he's just swell.

The plan, anonymous officials told CNN, will rely heavily on women who will attest to Kavanaugh's good characterincluding from his teenage years, during which he is alleged to have sexually assaulted Ford. People inside the White House, like so many others, appear to be under the impression that one woman's allegations against a manin a grotesque kind of calculusare null and void if another woman did not have the same experience.

This, of course, is ludicrous, but it won't stop them from trying: Already, the White House has contacted many of the 65 women who knew Kavanaugh as teens and believed he "treated women with respect." Now, women who worked with Kavanaugh during the Bush administration are tweeting their support of their former colleague with the hashtag #IStandWithBrett.


From CNN:

Quote:

---

"I've known Judge Brett Kavanaugh for nearly 20 years," wrote Sara ***en, the former Bush White House political director. "I don't believe he would ever harm any person, let alone assault a woman. These eleventh hour allegations as he was about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court reflect the sad state of American politics today. He's a good man, a brilliant jurist, and he does not deserve to have his good name ruined because the base of the Democratic party doesn't want a conservative on the Supreme Court."

---

---

Fox starts things off nicely in the race to define Ford as crazy:

I hate to say it, but the furdie made a genius move by publically demanding an fbi investigation before testifying.

That really puts GOP senators in between a rock and a hard place. When the senate does refuse to do an fbi investigation (and they will) that's not going to help them once the midterms rolls around.

The only women who won't be offended by that is Sarah Huckabee-Slanders and that set. The other 85% will hate it and revolt.

ducky23 said:

---

That really puts GOP senators in between a rock and a hard place. When the senate does refuse to do an fbi investigation (and they will) that's not going to help them once the midterms rolls around. bad that isn't the law. The Senate can undertake its own investigation, but it can't ask the FBI.

---

Gee, what a great theory. Nor legally permissible, but why let facts get in the way. The Senate can do it's own investigation. I think that is what the Dems really want to hold things-up until past mid-terms, but they want the GOP to first say a FBI investigation can't be ordered by the Senate, and then respond. The President can order a FBI investigation - like that is going to happen.

WASHINGTON (AP) The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):
8:15 p.m.
The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.
The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."
The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Gee, what a great theory. Nor legally permissible, but why let facts get in the way. The Senate can do it's own investigation. I think that is what the Dems really want to hold things-up until past mid-terms, but they want the GOP to first say a FBI investigation can't be ordered by the Senate, and then respond. The President can order a FBI investigation - like that is going to happen.

WASHINGTON (AP) The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):
8:15 p.m.
The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.
The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."
The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

---

Yes the Dems want to slow things down but they also want a level playing field and set-up some rules so it's not another woman (like Anita Hill) getting dragged through shtt and pubic hairs on coke cans. My take, reasonably minded American agree and 85% of women agree.

The GOP are going to ram this through...and it's going to blow up in their faces. #Metoo says so.

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

That really puts GOP senators in between a rock and a hard place. When the senate does refuse to do an fbi investigation (and they will) that's not going to help them once the midterms rolls around. bad that isn't the law. The Senate can undertake its own investigation, but it can't ask the FBI.

---

Gee, what a great theory. Nor legally permissible, but why let facts get in the way. The Senate can do it's own investigation. I think that is what the Dems really want to hold things-up until past mid-terms, but they want the GOP to first say a FBI investigation can't be ordered by the Senate, and then respond. The President can order a FBI investigation - like that is going to happen.

WASHINGTON (AP) The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):
8:15 p.m.
The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.
The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."
The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

---

Sorry I should have been more clear. If the senate really wanted to they could get the president to get an fbi investigation. All they would have to say is, look we ain't confirming this guy until you order an investigation.

Obviously that won't happen. Which allows the dems to paint the Republicans as not wanting to fully investigate a woman's credible claims.

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

That really puts GOP senators in between a rock and a hard place. When the senate does refuse to do an fbi investigation (and they will) that's not going to help them once the midterms rolls around. bad that isn't the law. The Senate can undertake its own investigation, but it can't ask the FBI.

---

Gee, what a great theory. Nor legally permissible, but why let facts get in the way. The Senate can do it's own investigation. I think that is what the Dems really want to hold things-up until past mid-terms, but they want the GOP to first say a FBI investigation can't be ordered by the Senate, and then respond. The President can order a FBI investigation - like that is going to happen.

WASHINGTON (AP) The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):
8:15 p.m.
The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.
The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."
The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

---

Sorry I should have been more clear. If the senate really wanted to they could get the president to get an fbi investigation. All they would have to say is, look we ain't confirming this guy until you order an investigation.

Obviously that won't happen. Which allows the dems to paint the Republicans as not wanting to fully investigate a woman's credible claims.

---

I have no idea what happens on Monday. 4 WAGs:

1) Kav is voted in, after no hearing
2) Grassly and Feinstein meet to hammer out a compromise for a hearing (the concept of only 2 witnesses is a denial of even the appearance of due process), but there is not a chance in hell that Justice is going to allow itself to get dragged into this.
3) There is hearing at which the Senators shout at each other, and Kav is then voted in.
4) Kav takes his ball and goes home, and the next nominee is Trump's sister.

okaydo said:

---

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

That really puts GOP senators in between a rock and a hard place. When the senate does refuse to do an fbi investigation (and they will) that's not going to help them once the midterms rolls around. bad that isn't the law. The Senate can undertake its own investigation, but it can't ask the FBI.

---

Gee, what a great theory. Nor legally permissible, but why let facts get in the way. The Senate can do it's own investigation. I think that is what the Dems really want to hold things-up until past mid-terms, but they want the GOP to first say a FBI investigation can't be ordered by the Senate, and then respond. The President can order a FBI investigation - like that is going to happen.

WASHINGTON (AP) The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):
8:15 p.m.
The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.
The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."
The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

---

Sorry I should have been more clear. If the senate really wanted to they could get the president to get an fbi investigation. All they would have to say is, look we ain't confirming this guy until you order an investigation.

Obviously that won't happen. Which allows the dems to paint the Republicans as not wanting to fully investigate a woman's credible claims.

---

I have no idea what happens on Monday. 4 WAGs:

1) Kav is voted in, after no hearing
2) Grassly and Feinstein meet to hammer out a compromise for a hearing (the concept of only 2 witnesses is a denial of even the appearance of due process), but there is not a chance in hell that Justice is going to allow itself to get dragged into this.
3) There is hearing at which the Senators shout at each other, and Kav is then voted in.
4) Kav takes his ball and goes home, and the next nominee is Trump's sister.

---

I mostly agree with yout possible scenarios.

To be clear, the fbi does have the jurisdiction to investigate this since they investigated Anita hill's claims. Obviously whether the fbi is eventually ordered to do so is another question.

But This is why the gop is in a tight spot.

I don't think there's any way they want the fbi to get involved cause they don't want witnesses to have to be interviewed by the fbi (under penalty of perjury). And who knows what the fbi will dig up when looking into kavanugh's high school days. I mean, mark judge wrote a book titled "wasted" for God's sakes.

But I also think it'll be very difficult for the gop senate to ram this confirmation thru without hearing from the accuser. They will definitely take a hit with the women's vote in the midterms.

Making matter more difficult is mark judge's refusal to testify under oath. That fact gives the dems even more leverage as they can say a key witness is refusing to testify under oath so an fbi investigation is necessary.

Honestly I have no idea what the gop senate is going to do. Any decision will be a bad one.

Which is why this was so genius by the accuser. Plus it allows her to only testify under her terms so she can avoid another Anita hill situation.

okaydo said:

---

---

Mark judge's yearbook quote was "certain women should be struck regularly like gongs "

My yearbook quote was starkey's call of "the play"

We obviously had very different high school experiences

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

"Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination for the good of the Supreme Court and the country
I'm a Republican and support Trump's judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man."

"The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh's nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw."

---

This is surprising to me.
I think I might be inclined to give him a pass on that incident rather than persecute him 35 years later. He should just own it and say he was a stupid teen.

---

See that's the rub, he has issued a blanket denial, so any honesty now would make him a liar. That's been some of the op-ed main points - it's not about sexual assault, it' about if Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Something a SC justice should be able to do.

I don't think the GOP can't wiggle out of this one.

---

Unless the GOP has lost its nerve for playing dirty (which I never expect to happen): The correct GOP move would be just to Clarence Thomas it, and force Kavanaugh through. Having a lock on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years beats an election cycle loss -- Their big-money troops should be able to blunt the effect of that, easy.

mikecohen said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

"Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination for the good of the Supreme Court and the country
I'm a Republican and support Trump's judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man."

"The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh's nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw."

---

This is surprising to me.
I think I might be inclined to give him a pass on that incident rather than persecute him 35 years later. He should just own it and say he was a stupid teen.

---

See that's the rub, he has issued a blanket denial, so any honesty now would make him a liar. That's been some of the op-ed main points - it's not about sexual assault, it' about if Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Something a SC justice should be able to do.

I don't think the GOP can't wiggle out of this one.

---

Unless the GOP has lost its nerve for playing dirty (which I never expect to happen): The correct GOP move would be just to Clarence Thomas it, and force Kavanaugh through. Having a lock on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years beats an election cycle loss -- Their big-money troops should be able to blunt the effect of that, easy.

---

If it were me, I'd cut my losses and nominate someone else (something trump won't do cause he needs Kavanaugh to protect him from indictment). I believe There's still time to ram a different (safer) nominee thru, even if the senate flips after midterms. To me, you take the bird in hand.

Because the worst case scenario for the gop (and I'm sure they realize this) is if there's an investigation and it shows Kavanaugh did all sorts of bad stuff. Then you no longer have time to nominate someone else cause of the delay from the investigation. Every women votes D because they are disgusted by the republicans. The senate flips. And the dems pull a reverse merrick garland until the great Stanfurd TE Cory booker is elected president.

The difference since Thomas is of course #metoo. The world has changed. Also I'll be frank, without the issue of race, like with Thomas and Anita Hill, it's also a different dynamic. I'm not sure how it plays out but white woman tears could slay Kavanaugh.

Maybe the GOP can force it through, but there will be a price both short term (midterm elections) and long term with an exodus of women from the GOP. The analysis says suburban women will abandon the GOP. A core 30% without women seems like a dead party to me, especially as the Dems put up record number of women candidates and will continue to do so for a long time. Meanwhile, the GOP will become mostly men, i.e., the Dude Ranch Party or the Sausage Party. It's creepy enough as it is and that will make it intolerable.

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Seems to me the reason why the GOP want to limit it to Kavanaugh and Ford is so Brett's wingman, Mark Judge, won't speak. His published accounts of prep school drunkenness includes the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh". If Judge testifies, it will become a full 3 ring circus with the finale being the public flogging of Brett Kavanaugh.

---

Okay, that would be more evidentiary and I get your point here. It would add up and paint a poor image of him.
Ironic thing is, acting like a jackass is less of a crime than what the palo alto doctor accuses.
That would be funny.

Sounds like the GOP is going to hustle is thru, and flake et al will likely vote accordingly.

Even if Kavanaugh gets the boot, I don't see how Dems can stall a new appointee for 2'years.

McConnell is a real honest to goodness assss.

---

How did republicans stall Merrick Garland for a year?