Dr Christine Blasey Ford I salute you

If he isn't confirmed, then an unsubstantiated report of sexual assault, with no witnesses, no one told at the time, all witnesses have no memory of it, no time, no date, no location, is enough to scupper a nominee. More is needed. It has to be.

If he is confirmed, based on known evidence, it wouldn't be as troubling.

The accusation is one of several, and she requested more than one witness. She was denied.

She requested an FBI check. He did not. Guilty people rarely ask that the FBI look into their behavior.

Mark Judge's book is a witness to his behavior and confirms Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker at a minimum.

His calendar shows a party for the 4th of July which fits her description. An FBI would confirm that or not. Cold cases are not rare. FBI background checks when thorough go back decades.

It's not a criminal case. It's a job interview, and a job interview which has been rushed and hasty.

It's not a precedent and circumstantially it looks very bad.

As pp have said on Twitter, if a woman had testified in the manner he did she would have been described as hysterical.

But surely the thing is the republicans are in the majority and are running it there way. The president won't put the fbi background investigation on it. So the potential witnesses are not being cross examined. They just make statements. Also the republican who essentially said that if a crime is committed you need to have people to corroborate it? Seriously?

It doesn't really matter what he says or how he comes across (angry and blowing his own trumpet) if the interrogation is conducted by republican majority.

As someone who comes from the uk it's such an anathema to have people high up in the legal system are political.

What rubbish the allegations are not vague at all. She gave a perfectly clear account of what happened in sharp contrast to the testeria outbreak from the sweaty little doughball.
It’s not about his liberty it’s about whether he gets one of the most important jobs in the us. His character is too doubtful. They need to find a clean candidate. Or the Supreme Court is dragged into the gutter

The issue is its unsubstantiated nature. Date vague, location unknown, attendees denied being there. Her friend doesn't know Kavanaugh. No one told at the time. Kavanaugh name only mentioned to a third party this year.

Anita Hill is of a different era. A different time.

I think the accusation is too vague.

Nauticant, maybe, but Clarence Thomas was approved after weeks of excruciating testimony.

The next year was the year when women were elected in record numbers.

And this year, the Ds have more women on the ballot than ever before. White men are not the majority for the first time ever.

What dangerous precedent?

The they found out I inhaled marijuana in college standard? The they found out I didn't pay social security for the undocumented nanny I hired standard?

There is no precedent, dangerous or otherwise. Disqualifying stuff turns up all the time.

It's not even a sexual misconduct precedent. Anita Hill was that, and yet there have been many justices approved since then.

I heard an interesting analysis of this the other day. The side which wins loses and the side which loses wins. If Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court this will enrage those who oppose Trump and will lead to a strong anti-Trump turn-out in the midterm elections. And if he's forced to withdraw from being nominated this will energise the pro-Trump camp.

Politics are so contrary and unpredictable these days, that wouldn't surprise me.

He has daughters? God. ☹️

To elaborate. I found them both credible. However, the details are scant and the witnesses don't back up her story, even her friend, which is important.

If he is not confirmed, I know the republicans will use a similar tactic in the future. This has become a political football in the worst way possible and resembles a banana Republic in the way it's been handled.

@whatnow123 he should be confirmed after that display of disrespect for the senators questions and for the process as a whole?

You must have low standards.

All I can think about is his daughters and how he might feel about what he did knowing he did it to a fifteen year old girl.

I believe Dr Ford. She is a hero and he is scum.

He should be confirmed. It will be a dangerous precedent if he is not

He needs to just fuck off. He’s had a good run, done much better than he deserved to. No, he’s not going to get all the sweeties in the shop and yes, he has been exposed as a gobshite. Not exactly the biggest injustice in the world is it.

She was brave and credible, careful to be clear and honest.
I believe her.

I really hope he isn't confirmed. The Republicans have behaved disgracefully throughout this process. They have failed to ensure this is investigated properly. They don't want to hear the truth, they don't want any corroborating evidence, they don't care as long as he is confirmed.

There is a very big distance between unfounded accusation, through balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. And I'd set the bar somewhere in the middle for this. Prison time carries a high burden. Lucrative job less so.

He is such a weaselling, belligerent, lying piece of shit. You only need to look at the way he is responding to questions compared to Dr Ford. This is just disgraceful all round. What an absolute farce.

His life isn’t wrecked. He has had a successful career, I’m sure he’s very comfortably off. He may not get to be a Supreme Court judge, but that’s not a right, it’s a privilege, and you only get it if your past life stands up to scrutiny.

Why is he entitled to a job?

Why is he entitled to a job without a full background check?

It's a job interview, and note that Neil Gorsuch got through without a single allegation of sexual assault even though his seat was the one the GOP stole from Obama.

This isn't a criminal case where the standard would be proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is a high bar to reach.

This is the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. In my view, when you are choosing someone to sit in judgement on others they do need to be held to a very high standard and if you have any kind of doubt that they are fit for that role then you cannot take the risk of appointing them.

I can’t agree Terry.

I can’t agree that “any possible assault, even with reasonable doubt, should be treated as a red line.”

I get why you feel that way (BELIEVE me) but surely anyone can wreck anyone’s life with a malicious allegation if we go down that road?

I say again though: in this case I believe her.

I work with youth and vulnerable people. My criminal record check includes cautions, charges and every police contact, not just convictions. It's understandable that in a system where most sexual assaults go unconvicted, any possible assault, even those with reasonable doubt, should be treated as a red line.

This is a lifetime position. It requires a higher standard.