Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that they are taking this seriously, and are going to hear this woman out. I’ve also heard, that the Democrats object (what’s new) and won’t be attending. This information was sat on for some time, and I don’t see that it should disrupt the schedule at the last minute.  It should be taken seriously, and any investigation deemed appropriate should continue. I don’t see it going very far. Democrats have been actively trying to disrupt this democratic process in some pretty shady ways already. With some of the crazy protestors childishly disrupting the hearing being shown receiving money just before the confirmation proceedings.  But it doesn’t appear so far that Democrats have been taking the high road, and there is the possibility, that this is another part of that.

---

I just see a disrepency in reasoning from other encounters, and wonder which one is true this time. It seems applicable to the conversation.   Is testimony about an event from 40 years ago evidence or not?      Do we launch a scientific investigation into the matter, before we can believe it?  All applicable to this topic.

There is already more evidence than just 40 year old hearsay.
The accusation was made at least 6 years ago.  It's not like it just now came out of nowhere.

You also mischaracterize "sitting on it".  They held back because the woman did not want her life ruined by getting involved in such a big political mess.  She was forced to come forward when a someone leaked the existence of the letter to the press.
Feinstein held the information because the accuser requested it.

The accuser, Ford, is risking everything.  She's not some paid protester.  She has a career and is a respected person.  Just making the accusation could ruin her, because of how our society tends to view female accusers as either liars or whores.  Or just dimsmissing that sort of behavior as  "boys will be boys". As you have so aptly demonstrated.

Naturally we should look into it. What do you think of the existing evidence, that She talked about it years ago with her future husband and later a therapist, among others, and has passed an FBI-administered lie detector test?

I never dismissed it as "boys will be boys".  And she still could have chosen to remain anonymous.   I do doubt that her career is at risk or her reputation, unless it comes out that she is lying.   Although if it took her many years to tell anyone, then it is obviously difficult for her.  Basically, it's going to be her word, against the two (or four) others.  So I don't see much coming from it.   And a lie detector isn't as solid as people once thought.  The details seem to be sketchy, and there is no cooroboration, so I don't think that there will be much to investigate.

---

---

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Anonymous hearsay is meaningless, until it is no longer anonymous, and no longer hearsay. You have gotten your wish, it seems on that account. More details have been presented as well. It's likely his accuser will be cross-examined, and other witnesses secured.

You really believed it would stop at 'Feinstein says someone said something'?

Yes, the person is now known.   Which is good, if this is going to proceed.   However that's not where it started.   Especially when I have made arguments to absurdity, that have gotten pretty absurd, and people here still says that witness testimony is not evidence.  Which the inconsistency was the point of this.  That the same arguments used to say that the testimony of scripture is not evidence, seem to think otherwise here.