Hilarious visual.
I am a lawyer. This is false.
Moreover, one of the affiants has already explained that your interpretation is false.
It’s probably too late for that, since they’d look like they’re caving. A lame-duck confirmation is more likely.
The Heritage Foundation / Federalist Society list Trump is working from had a couple dozen names on it, and he’s only used 2 so far. A likely possibility for the substitute nominee is Amy Barrett, who might as well be nicknamed The Handmaid based on her views.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
He has told a bunch of lies. Like a lot.
So it’s a reasonable assumption that he is lying when he says that the, “Swetnick thing is a joke.”
Leland Ingham Keyser doesn’t remember the party or the incident but believes Dr. Ford. Patrick J. Smyth was also identified by Ford at being at the party but has no memory of the party and no knowledge about incident but believes in Kavanaugh’s integrity and his conduct towards women. Neither are saying definitively it didn’t happen.
The FBI might not be able to nail down anything specific about that party, but hopefully they can gather more info and establish patterns of behavior.
The FBI sure is good about getting people to cooperate, aren’t they? 
The nice words from the GOP about them are refreshing. But expect Trump to go back to bashing them when this episode is over and they turn their attention back to his own shenanigans.
I have already said clearly I’m in favor of an FBI investigation. I’m in favor of the FBI talking to all those that Ford named as witnesses. I predict the result will be repetition of what we already know: zero witnesses confirming her story and zero evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty. After that, I expect he will be confirmed. And then Democrats will spend the next forty years ignoring what the FBI found and saying that Kavanaugh is a proven rapist, as they are already doing.
Maybe I’m wrong. We shall see.
You’re wrong about a lot of the currently available information and about how lawyers interact with their clients and legal matters in general. That’s a pretty good indication that you might be wrong about this too.
There’s no need for spin. A person can be absolutely certain they remember something, which is in fact false. It’s happened in sexual assault and abuse cases before and has lead to innocent people being sent to prison. Disbelieving someone is not the same thing as saying that they lied. I’m sure you’re smart enough to be aware of this and you don’t really need me to explain it to you.
In the legal system, people are consider innocent until proven guilty. There’s no requirement do to the same in a Senate confirmation hearing, but obviously everyone should do so. In this case, there’s no proof that Kavanaugh is guilty, nor any evidence which suggests that he is. Therefore the Senate should treat him as innocent.
Asking why the accuser is lying does not in any way change the presumption of innocence.
Why the “Jackie” at UVA tell a false story about getting gang raped?
Why did Scott Brunton tell a false story?
Who knows?
I don’t disagree. To me, it’s about the process regardless of the outcome. Giving the FBI one week is a more fair process than not having the FBI look into it at all.
We could very well be in the same place we are in a week from now, but it will have been absolutely worth it since the process to get to that place is a fairer process.
In the criminal justice system, not the legal system.
Not obvious at all. In fact, it’s obvious that the opposite is true.
No proof, but there is evidence. Testimony is evidence.
When all the arguments leading up to “therefore” are demonstrably false, it is safe to discard the conclusion.
Kavanaugh was not Trump’s first choice, Amy Barrett always was. He has been the GOP’s establishments choice. The only reason Gorsuch was chosen back in 2017 was since Kavanaugh was needed on the D.C. Circuit.
Barrett was the first choice of the “adults”, not Trump. Trump went for the most fuck-you option instead.
No, other way round. The “adults” wanted Kavanaugh, he has been groomed as a potential SC Justice for many years, he was one of the guys who was cited as a hypothetical Romney pick. Barrett had a pretty bruising (for an Appeals Court judge post filibuster) confirmation just 9 months ago. Plus, Kavanaugh, despite the rhetoric is unlikely to totally strike down abortion, mostly probably expand Casey and its framework. Someone like Barrett, all bets are off, she is this close to the idea of a constitutionally protected fetal personhood.
This.
His “peers” do not. An old college roommate from his freshman year does.
In a job interview, the applicant is not considered qualified unless proven unqualified. It is up to the applicant to prove their qualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the hiring board to prove their disqualification.
Worst case scenario is that he gets to keep being a judge on the circuit, I suppose that if his daughter’s teammates parents know him well enough to consider these allegations credible, they may decide that they don’t want him coaching their girls anymore either, though I think that would have to do with the alcoholism as much as the sexual assault.
I mean, really, if he is worried that this process would cause people to know him to mistrust him, the people that know him must not think too highly of him to begin with.
Confirmed, but I’m not anywhere near certain about that. I’d give it 60-40 in favor of confirmation.
You’re predicting he’ll be nominated? That’s pretty bold! 
Did you mean confirmed? And when you refer to him lying about drinking, do you mean about having black-outs due to drinking?
Turns out, they aren’t allowed to investigate his drinking. I think that actually lowers his chances, since it increases the odds that Flake et al. will remain unsatisfied by the process.
I’d say it is 60-40 confirm now.
Can he get pulled over and submit to a breathalyzer, or would a field sobriety test due to suspicion of DWI not be allowed?