That’s not “all” she said.
You said “it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty or not”. Did you mean “it doesn’t matter if you think he might be guilty or you think he might not be”? Because what you said was a hypothetical, and not “this case”.
Would you like to argue about what the meaning of “if” or “is” is? 
Pee break! Lol
He has been an Appeals Court Judge for 12 years, on the most influential Circuit. Before that he worked in the WH. You think he does not have a thick skin?
I am pretty sure this is purposeful. The right wing seems to love it and he know that he need them not liberals. Or even neutrals.
Seconded. This was clearly bullshit. It makes zero sense.
Yea unfortunately she was awful. He completely put her on the back foot. His attempts at kill shots didn’t look good though.
Agreed. I had to turn it off. Wondering whether he’d announce he was withdrawing? I was afraid he was going to pull a Bud Dwyer moment.
I skipped ahead since the last time I posted. I will review the thread later. I have only cried twice since my father’s funeral:
- When I got married again,
- When Kavanaugh talked about his daughter praying for the “woman.”
He did not do this.
He repeated the disingenuous “seniors were legal” assertion regarding the drinking age. Please, please, please grill him on this, Dems.
But he does need “neutrals”. He needs three out of four of Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker. If we assume that after this no red state Democrat is on the table. If he loses 2 Republican “moderates”, then he’s not on the Supreme Court.
Or is your point that he realizes it’s game over, but he’s trying to make his loss into a base-rallying election issue?
Shit, I missed it. I heard most of his opening statement, but not that. What did he say?
John Mace, I’m not sure what you’re not understanding here. My point is that the mere existence of multiple allegations is sufficient reason to withdraw the nomination. If you’re certain he did it, you should vote against him. If you’re certain he didn’t do it, then in the absence of other reasons to vote against him, you should vote for him. If you can’t reach a certain conclusion one way or the other, you should vote against him. And I don’t see any way a reasonable person could feel certain one way or the other about this.
His public service record long tagged him as a partisan ideologue.
His performance today only confirms that he would ever be unable to set aside his animus against Democrats to rule in any impartial, fair manner.
He has vividly demonstrated he possesses entirely the wrong temperament for the job for which he is interviewing.
Barf.
You go on and on about how nothing he says can change the Dems’ minds. And your own mind is changed, how?
Has anyone asked Renate what her sexual history with those boys that included “Renate alumni” in their yearbook was?
His extreme partisanship is independently disqualifying. Talking about a conspiracy on the part of the Clintons to get revenge? C’mon. What a total hack thing to believe, much less say in this context. Putting him on the Court will truly cheapen it.
I think I understand why you would consider that relevant, and if I do, it’s a totally bullshit idea–but I don’t want to knock it down without understanding it first. So, why would you consider that a relevant question?
He came out attacking the Democrats and the Clintons? And this is a guy who wants to portray himself as a neutral judge?
I’m crying a little bit from laughter reading this.
Just as a complete aside, kudos to CNN for providing free access to live streaming since this morning for this. We cable-cutters really appreciate CNN doing their civic duty as a news organization! 