Opportunity for rebuttal is typically provided to the party going first.
And they would. But the FBI can probably take care of it within days, as they demonstrated with Anita Hill.
Hence the FBI. As I’ve pointed out, the Judiciary Committee has a great deal of leverage here if they want the White House to tell the FBI to investigate this.
Makes more sense to put him on the Supreme Court, and then resolve this matter, than take care of it first?
Ain’t enough rolleyes.
I don’t think this is typical. Kavanaugh gets to go last. No rebuttal.
My math degree doesn’t make me an expert in this.
But their investigation into Anita Hill’s allegations took two days.
Suppose this one takes two weeks instead of two days. The consequences are dreadful, I’ll admit - they won’t get that nice photo op with him and the other Justices a week from Monday. 
You didn’t understand why other people, in particular lawyers, considered this normal and unobjectionable in a criminal proceeding but complained about it in this context. Your implication was that there was some kind of double standard at work.
I explained to you why there isn’t a double standard and there are good reasons for treating judicial proceedings differently, which do not apply to a judicial nomination.
You’ve failed to address those reasons at all, instead focusing on whether I have incorrectly accused you of having been repeatedly told this is not a criminal proceeding. That’s fine. You’re obviously free to choose to argue over some meaningless point of personal pride instead of the merits of the issue. But I don’t really have much interest in that. I think my meaning was pretty clear, which was that you were improperly trying to analogize this to a criminal proceeding. I do not think you literally believe this is a criminal prosecution, and that over-literal reading of my comments is pretty silly.
Do you honestly think that “media types” of whatever stripe, should be required to divulge their sources under oath?
By what calculation is speed of confirmation important?
We are not dealing with any particular burden of proof. It is completely up to each Senator to apply whatever level of standard they wish. One Senator may wish to cast a no vote because there’s a 1% chance he did it. Another may cast a yes vote because there’s a 1% chance he didn’t do it. You may see me as the former, and I may see you as the latter, but there are surely other Senators who are somewhere in the middle (to say nothing of the American people at large) and they have a reasonable expectation to make an important decision based on something more than a “he said, she said” hearing and a handful of letters of support for either side.
If they promised confidentiality to their sources, they should feel free to say so. If not, then they should answer the questions honestly.
Nonsense. I repeatedly explained why those distinctions are not relevant here.
You’re trying to obscure the issue.
I’m well aware that you weren’t saying I literally believed it was a criminal prosecution, and that’s not what I’ve accused you of doing. Your point was of course that I was failing to appreciate the significance of the fact that it’s not a criminal proceeding. But where you went for the cheap snark was in implying that I had continually lost sight of this distinction, when in reality it’s just a disagreement about the significance in one particular instance.
Getting Kavanaugh into that first-Monday-in-October photo op is a matter of extreme national importance. Time is running out! 
I don’t think an FBI investigation would be a “slam dunk” for Kavenaugh or Ford either, and there were a hell of a lot more specifics in Hill’s accusations, which, btw, didn’t happen at unknown places/times/dates 30 years prior. I’ve already said that Ford’s claims are unfalsifiable due to their imprecision and that I sincerely hope she gets more precise if she really wants Kavenaugh to not be the next justice on the Supreme Courth by the end next week.
Rather curious then that Kamal Harris had him looking like a 4th grader who shit in his pants when asking about his conversations about Mueller. I’m thinking it will be very easy to make him squirm like that again.
I’m not seeing this as an argument against having an FBI investigation. I’m just seeing it as an argument for lowered expectations regarding whether they find anything dispositive.
That’s fine. If they investigate, and simply can’t shed much light on things, then again, that’s just how things shake out. But there’s still no reason to not have them investigate.
Do you honestly think that this is going to be anymore than a he said, she said?
The only other alleged witnesses have both said they don’t remember this event ever happening.
Judge says he has no memory of the alleged incident. Why not? That seems like a fair follow-up question.
Which, of course, begs the question.
Let’s put it this way: how can you be certain that Prof. Ford is neither mistaken or lying? Because if she is, then you can easily be accused of having attempted rape the exact same way: by someone lying about it, or having mistaken you for someone else.
Answer the question you were asked, rather than presuming the answer and using it to slough off the question. :dubious:
Why do you have no memory of there being an elephant in your kitchen this morning?
Well, unfortunately, that is not anyone’s call here to make. I think everyone agrees here that this is a political and not a criminal matter at this point. Obviously, if it was a criminal matter, we would not be so quick to dismiss burden of proof on the accuser. I am willing to let the politicians deal with the political calculus and fallout of having/not-having an FBI investigation.
If they don’t have the votes, they should go back to the drawing board, and I suspect I would be perfectly happy with someone like Amy Coney Barrett (who I suspect will not get torpedoed by a last minute #MeToo moment) in his place.
Anyone can be accused, but coming up with a false but credible allegation is much, much harder than it’s made out to be. That would mean years of preparation – identifying someone who went to school in the same area and of similar age, having them tell their therapist and spouse years in advance, pass a lie detector test, and (most importantly) continue to tell their story despite death threats and other life-disruptive events.
Because I don’t remember seeing an elephant in my kitchen this morning.
However, if I started drinking heavily and the last thing I remember is getting into a car with Kavanaugh, then the reason I don’t remember alleged things is because I was intoxicated - not because I can say they did or did not happen.