Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[John V]

We have the witnesses in this case and can examine them.  We don't in the case of your Lord.  If you're trying to say that we have no credible evidence for the stories about Jesus, I think you're right.

LOL - it's the same when you want, different when you want.

And for the umpteenth time, we've already gotten testimony from the other witnesses, and they all deny that it happened, or at best can't recall it.

[Aroura]

Shall we discuss credibility?

Kavanagh appears to have given misleading testimony, though perhaps short of perjury, about his knowledge of stolen documents when he was in the Bush White House and about his involvement in judicial nominations.

Likewise, when Kavanaugh was asked about his yearbook claim to be a “Renate Alumnius,” referring to a girl of that name, he pretended that there was no sexual insinuation. Anyone who was ever in high-school can assure you that this was a sexual boast. On that, clearly Kavanaugh was lying.

Kavanaugh also flatly lied about the drinking age, saying that he was legally allowed to drink beer as a high school senior. In fact, when he was 17 the drinking age was raised to 21.

IMHO these lies, coupled with his temperament and drinking issues alone disqualify him.

After my dinner, I'll address things in support of Ford's story, which comes down to more than 2 equally believable testimonies, despite what others are desperately trying to claim with their own appeals to emotion.

[Joods]

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

So you don't need evidence and reasons for you belief then?

Does that standard only apply to a criminal case?

edit:   This seems like a principle that may bite you in the ass later (on an atheists forum).

I'm telling you right now - if you are even considering adopting diaperboy's tactics of quote mining, I will make sure that everyone on this forum knows to block your stupid ass. It's bad enough we have one pathetic member who does that shit with the express intent to hurt others. We don't need another.

[Pat Mustard]

On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

I don't think his account of his memory of events is at all credible.  He may justifiably be angry, but not necessarily because he's innocent.

He's angry because a) he's been found out over his life of debauchery and sexual assaults and is shitting himself over the possibility of facing the consequences and b) he still thinks as a rich white boy that he's above the law and is outraged that anybody is trying to bring him to account. It's about a 50/50 mix of pants browning fear and apoplectic rage over loss of unearned privilege.

[John V]

I will make sure that everyone on this forum knows to block your stupid ass.

LMAO

[LadyForCamus]

We have the witnesses in this case and can examine them.  We don't in the case of your Lord.  If you're trying to say that we have no credible evidence for the stories about Jesus, I think you're right.

LOL - it's the same when you want, different when you want.

And for the umpteenth time, we've already gotten testimony from the other witnesses, and they all deny that it happened, or at best can't recall it.

Perhaps...there is corroborating documentation of this gathering, despite the fact that Kavanaugh flat out denied (lied) that any entry in his calendar could even remotely fit the gathering described by Dr. Ford. 

[Divinity]

Republicans are so anti-woman that it's fucking ridiculous. They'll automatically believe the man in most situations unless of course, it's politically convenient for them.

Compare this to what happened with Al Franken, and Republicans don't get to EVER call themselves the moral party ever again. Not to mention they love pedop0hile Roy Moore. Apparently when they warned us that gay marriage would lead to pedophilia becoming acceptable, they meant that they already accepted pedophiles and were warning us about what THEY were about to do.

[Amarok]

LOL - it's the same when you want, different when you want.

Nope it's different  by the fact it's remotely the same i get your need for projecting your flaws onto others but does not change the fact that it's all your doing Beta Fail

And for the umpteenth time, we've already gotten testimony from the other witnesses, and they all deny that it happened, or at best can't recall it.

An this claim has been addressed i get that you biased or dense to get it but that does not change that fact

[Brian37]

This is how credible the sane thought he was lying about "Skis" and "alumni" and "ralf". This is what the dumbass looked like to the sane trying to say, "We all did it".

[Joods]

We have the witnesses in this case and can examine them.  We don't in the case of your Lord.  If you're trying to say that we have no credible evidence for the stories about Jesus, I think you're right.

LOL - it's the same when you want, different when you want.

And for the umpteenth time, we've already gotten testimony from the other witnesses, and they all deny that it happened, or at best can't recall it.

Mark Judge didn't provide testimony because he wasn't there to do so. Neither were any other witnesses present to offer testimony. You know this. So quit trying to move your fucking goal posts. Mark Judge didn't give anything but a very weak, six sentence letter (NOT performed UNDER OATH) which hardly speaks for his credibility. Get him in front of people who can ask him questions. Give him a polygraph test. Have him SWEAR to tell the truth. That's called testimony. 

Anyone can write something and include a statement of "under penalty of perjury" and then sign it. But when you swear under oath, in a hearing, you are actually providing testimony.