If the Senate committee wanted the truth, why wasn’t Kavanaugh’s accessory (a guy named Judge?) subpoenaed to get the full picture on record?
I’m not trying to be political with this answer, but the fact is that the Republican leadership didn’t want any other people testifying at the hearing. The entire point was to make the issue a he said/she said.
Read the first word in your post and you’ll figure it out.
He gave a statement and as we heard over and over, under the threat of perjury. He is a recovering alcoholic and cancer survivor. They kept him under cover, IMO.
If the GOP side of the committee wanted the truth, an investigation into the allegations would have been completed. The fact that this was not done speaks volumes.
Agreed, but I’m not sure making it a he said+he said vs she said issue would have been any better for Ford. And compelling speech from people for a political process makes me a little queasy.
… said no Republican politician ever during the Benghazi “investigation.” 
Cite?
(To the “he gave a statement under threat of perjury” part, that is. I know we’ve heard it over and over.)
Judge didn’t give a statement under threat of perjury – his lawyer presented a statement signed by the lawyer. Judge faces no criminal penalty at all if he lied in that statement. Kavanaugh said that over and over again, but he lied (or was incompetent about the law and/or the facts).
I’m a cancer survivor. Does this set a precedent that I won’t be required to testify under similar circumstances?
Judge is a recovering alcoholic who suffers from anxiety and depression. He has already said that he has no memory of what was alleged to happen. What is the point of subjecting him to all that stress simply to say he doesn’t remember anything like that?
Because he should be subject to questioning, like any other witness would be. There’s a reason they have cross examination in court. It’s important to be able to judge the witness by what they can tell you, and judge whether they come off as telling the truth.
A whole lot of us have a history of anxiety and depression. A good portion of the country are recovering alcoholics. These are not valid excuses to avoid responsibilities. (Hell, the fact you said history means he’s not currently suffering the first two.)
And, finally, it makes the whole hearing seem biased for Kavinaugh. Keeping him out so he can’t be properly questioned sends the signal that the Republicans are trying to help him, when a hearing is supposed to be impartial.
If you want someone to seem innocent, you don’t pull out any stops. You make sure that you’ve given their opposition the best chance. Then, if and when they fail, they seem like they’re innocent.
When you instead pull stuff, it makes people think that they are likely guilty and the supposedly impartial people know they’re guilty.
My question is, when Kav gets confirmed, so what? Trump is dirty, Kav is dirty, let’s just say the whole cabinet is peopled entirely with criminals…so what? All we little people will ever do is stamp our feet and whine about it, and they’ll continue with their great home invasion robbery, each taking a turn at Lady Liberty when the whim strikes them before returning to lot the treasury. And we just stand outside all boo-hoo-y.
Well, there is this election coming up next month. Maybe do something then?
There’s no guilt or innocence to prove here. It’s not a criminal trial. And I’m not terribly fond of the idea of compelling speech from reluctant private citizens to satisfy a political process, particularly one as badly-marred-by-partisan-shenanigans as this one.
It’s a job interview. Lots of jobs require a background check. People whose friends refuse to provide background information will probably not get the job. Potential Supreme Court Justices shouldn’t be able to dodge this part of the interview process just because they’re wealthy & connected.
As it happens, though - Mark Judge has agreed to cooperate with any law enforcement agency that has questions for him.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/mark-judge-fbi-investigation-kavanaugh/index.html
There. Wasn’t that easy?
Mark Judge’s lawyer has said he will cooperate and answer questions. Here are the questions I’d like to see him answer, in addition to specific questions about Ford’s account:
How frequently did you drink to excess with Kavanaugh in and around the summer of '82?
Did you ever drink so much you blacked out? Did you ever discuss blacking out with Kavanaugh? Did he ever talk about blacking out, or ask what he did the night before?
Was “Bart O’Kavanaugh” in your book based on Brett Kavanaugh? Was the text about that character based on incidents with Kavanaugh?