Not all toddlers have temper tantrums and hissy fits. Those who do usually outgrow them. Adults who hissy fit tantrum are wired wacky. WHY?

You aren't being considered for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  Surely you aren't equating whatever your job would be with a Supreme Court Justice's job.

 :):):)

If you are going to believe an accusation there should be evidence. Which there was none. If fact there is evidence of the accusers being inaccurate...to put mildly. 

Christopher Wray admitted before a Senate Committee today that Trump abbreviated the investigation.  They had 40 witnesses that wanted to testify.  It is conceivable that one or more of them could have corroborated Ford's allegations, but when you don't really want to know the truth, you investigate with both eyes and ears closed.

Heresay does not count.
Everyone who Ford claims was at this party says they were not at any party with both Ford and Kavanaugh in attendance. 

Those were four people she recalled.  Why would they refuse to hear the 40 others unless they were afraid of what they might actually discover?

Over 20 were related to another party where a lady claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself. There is evidence that she had recently told classmates she was unsure if it actually was Kavanaugh or not. There is one guy having a fit because he was not interviewed about his hearing about it days after the party....again heresay is not allowed. Also I believe someone actually confessed to this. 

The one tied to the porn lawyer is crazy...the one saying Kav was a gang rape ring leader. She even walked her claim back in an interview on CNN. So that was a no need to bother with that.

No, those were not the only people she recalled. Those are the attendees at the party. Herself and her best friend (Leland Ingham) and 4 boys (Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and another she did not know)

There were four boys I remember being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall," Ford said in her prepared remarks. "I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending."

Nowhere does she say there were more attendees but she did not know who or how many.  The FBI interviewed all of those attendees whom the Senate did not publicly interview. And the fourth boy who Ford could not identify.

You keep saying that hearsay is not admissible.  This was not a trial.  It was supposed to be an investigation to determine if there was anything credible.  The investigation was severely limited, so they didn't speak to those who may have had something to say.  But, there's no point in trying to convince you that when you don't want to hear something, you don't investigate fully because you are convinced, even though you wee not there, that Kavanaugh did nothing wrong.  So, this discussion is ended because you don't have an open mind and nothing I can say will make you want to hear something other than your own thoughts.

She can product zero witnesses who say they attended this party. The female friend says she never attended a party with Kavanaugh at all. 

She said she afraid to fly....she is a frequent flyer.
She said she cannot live in a small space and needs two doors....she lived in a 500 sq ft apartment with 1 door.
Says she had to explain this to her husband in 2012
Because of a remodel of their home.....the remodel was in 2008. 
Those are verifiable facts. That she lied about. 

Now if she or any one can come up with facts....fine lets hear them. And IF Kavanaugh is guilty...impeach him. Otherwise, I agree not much point to a discussion. Facts count and there is a reason heresay does not count. This post was edited by my2cents at October 11, 2018 6:49 AM MDT

Amid all this he said/she said I would like to point out two things.  First timing.  If we have been abused are we so clever and cunning as to keep it under our hat saving it for a day when we will be able to swoop into a political situation at the last minute years later?   Is that not somewhat suspect? 

Also it seems the only people who are accused are public figures.  Poor "Joe-six-pack" never gets accused because seems we don't want to admit to anyone we had anything to do with him at all.  But the rich and famous and notable we are willing to link ourselves with perhaps because we can go for our five minutes of fame?  Can you imagine our mothers telling us - in a variation of what used to be common advice - now OK if you are going to be assaulted try to be so by someone who is wealthy or really going places.  As if that should be our intention!  

Men want to be with us and will often use whatever means at their disposal to do so.  Now if it is against our will and we simply file it away for future reference aren't we quite making light of what is a very unfortunate and often traumatic very personal experience for us - by broadcasting our shame far and wide as though it were somehow a great achievement for us?  Which only accomplishes arousing prurient interest.  If we want to publicly air our pain then why not choose vehicles and venues dedicated to just that?   Instead of relegating our pain to only being an accessory to celebrity.

The timing certainly makes it suspect as well. 

It is also interesting that she first mentioned Kav in 2012....that is when Mitt Romney was running and Kav was in Romney's short list for SCOTUS. 
Timing is interesting....no proof of course. 

"Now if she or any one can come up with facts....fine lets hear them."  Your own statement says it all - we didn't hear the facts because the FBI's investigation was limited.  She lied about flying, the size of her room, how many doors she has?  No reason to have done that, but it doesn't disprove her allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh.  His responses to questions about his drinking were evasive as were the non-answers to other questions, some of which may relate directly to his qualifications for the Supreme Court.  She isn't being interviewed for that position - he is so if he lied to the committee, I take that as a greater offense than her lies about irrelevant things.XX

No the FBI talked everyone identifiable at the party, with the exception of Ford and Kavanuagh whom the Senate interviewed. Who else were they supposed to interview....according to her...she told NO ONE. Interview the people she told 30 years later...they know nothing other than what she told them. (Hearsay is not evidence)

Her lies were under oath. And were supposed to back up her alleged abuse, they prove she is a liar. She even refused to give the supposed therapist's notes from 2012 and the Lie detector results. Why do you supposed she did that?



We should not have heard any of this stuff. Feinstien should have submitted this allegation to the Senate in July. And then the FBI should have looked into it. But she did not why is that? She wanted to use this woman. And then she leaked the info to press to force this woman into the public. Then even threw Ford under the bus afterwards....says Ford outed herself.  The attorney (also recommended by Feinstein) did not even inform Ford that the committee was willing to meet with her in private if that is what she preferred. Feinstein should be censured for her conduct. 

He said he liked to drink and said he drank too much at times.  He evaded the Dems trying to get him to say he wanted yet another FBI investigation....because it is what it is, a delay tactic.   There is not proven lie he said under oath. If there were you would have mentioned it. 

Yes there were 40 possible witnesses. Over 20 from the gang rape accuser. (Debunked...herself so no need), Kav and Ford already interviewed, Ford attorneys say they provided 12 witnesses (Again hearsay witnesses), That accounts for over 30 of the 40.  

There was a letter claiming to witness an aggressive push against the bar wall and kiss from Kav to a girlfriend in a bar. They talked to the then girlfriend who said it was BS. 

I read somewhere that the limited scope was to the first to allegations, Dr Ford and the one who claimed exposure. No more were allowed ( I cannot find that article at the moment).  They could and would go on forever if allowed and people believed the stalling was working.  

As I commented - your statement "Now if she or any one can come up with facts....fine lets hear them" says it all.  XX

I guess you think the police and law enforcement waste their money paying profilers.

Skill Requirements and Education. There are numerous professions in the field of forensic psychology, criminal profiling is just one of them. A profiler must undergo extensive training and meet particular educational requirements. 

I mentioned nothing about profiling. So take that strawman somewhere else.

I don't know about that.  What is wrong with managing an office, coordinating efforts of various departments of a corporation, writing reports and writing and editing business letters?  Supreme Court justices could not do it.  Just as I would not presume to do their job.  They have their job, I have mine.  I don't bow down to them and they don't bow down to me.  I can't see that mine is any less important. Unless you see law as more important than business. 

There's nothing wrong with the duties you mention, but they are limited to a small number of people.  You aren't making decisions that affect the entire country.  I would think that a person who is being considered to be a justice on the highest court in the land would be held to a higher standard than someone working in an office.  I work in an office, so I'm not denigrating what we do, but I certainly don't consider my job as important or wide-ranging as justice on the Supreme Court.

If she were trying to be a SCOTUS member, I'd expect her to act professionally.

If she didn't act professionally, I wouldn't confirm her.

I doubt you would vote to confirm anyone nominated by a Republican president. You might just find one reason or another.