J.C.MacSwell

I guess that should be "disqualifying".

1. I think we can agree that attempted rape would be disqualifying. 2. I think we can agree that openly condemning a single party is very troubling 3. I can't agree that the temperament shown Thursday is disqualifying under the circumstances. Look no further than who you Americans (I am assuming by your location) have elected President of the U.S. But I would hope you would not equate 1. and 3. I am surprised you can't agree with that.

I agree with the bold. In fact I think it is more of a concern, by a huge margin, than any temperament issue. But do you not agree that the alleged attempted rape was much worse if it was true?

I disagree. If the alleged assault is true, that is much worse.

I have been wondering if this latest bit with Kavanaugh isn't playing into the GOPs hands? Trumps latest mocking of Ford doesn't help there cause but to a great extent this has already been factored out...people are actually giving Trump credit when he simply acts like a civil human being...and otherwise expect the worst type of behaviour. I suspect the latest "proven guilty when accused" until otherwise proven innocent, even where that proof may not even be possible, and the denigrating of "white men" shouldn't sit well with fair minded people. They certainly don't reflect traditional liberal values. There are good reasons behind some of what they are voicing but they are overstating their case, and this worst of the "left" just feeds and justifies (in some minds at least) the worst on the "right".

I don't agree with that. Assuming he is innocent (which I am not) he shows no lack of integrity to fight this. i would like to think that something like this could not happen in Canada, but of course it would be possible (though different system). One thought though is that our third party would have a field day if the other two parties acted in the current manner of the Democrats and Republicans. I have also been appalled by the obvious biases of the press and media on both sides. It has been terrible. Where can you go to get reliable News from the U.S. these days?

first bolded: If she has proof that naming Kavanaugh predates his nomination that does lend credence (but not proof, of course) to her allegations but says nothing about how she is being used by the Democrats. Second: I agree. Credit to the (much too) few Republicans that have called Trump out on it. No problem. I didn't have it backwards but it did come from both sides, as INow's link makes clear.

Thanks. From your link: "Also on Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she didn’t know if the report should be made public" I had seen that somewhere else but did not understand the rationale. I think your link better explains it.

Whether that is true or not would you do the same if accused of sexual assault? Would you quickly bow out without a fight? Is that what you would advocate in every case? Even if Ford was 100% honest, and naive enough to claim she was not a pawn of the Democrats, there is significant evidence to show that she was being used by the Democrats, along with Ramirez and Swetnick. Whether this was an orchestrated conspiracy, and on what level, is much less clear. OTOH, why has Ford not yet been approached by the FBI? Is she ever going to be properly questioned? She agreed to cooperate and now instead she is being mocked by the President of the United States...she deserves to be properly vetted, not mocked publicly. I also noticed the Democrats are asking that the FBI results are not made public. Any ideas why?

Good thing for him he didn't claim that then...

LOL if you think he claimed he could legally drink at 17.

The prep school campus was a 10 minute drive from legal drinking in D.C. for any 18 tear old until 1985. From your link (bold by me): "But Kavanaugh was never a legal drinker in that state when he was a high schooler — he was still 17 when that state’s drinking age was increased to 21 on July 1, 1982. Anyone who turned 18 after that date, including Kavanaugh’s classmates, also would have been unable to drink legally in the state." Also note that it was incorrect. It did not change to 21 on July 1 1982, It changed to 18 years and one day, Again from the link: "With the law change in Maryland, where the students lived and where the offending house party presumably would have occurred, no one in Kavanaugh’s class was of legal age unless they were 21." This is also incorrect. So access to alcohol did not suddenly change. In any case 17 year old Kavanaugh and 15 year old Ford could not legally drink, but both admitted they did.

I believe this statement is false, but welcome you to find a direct quote...or barring that a quote that lead you to believe it.

Is it not possible that as Non Americans we don't fall in to the trap of the extremely polarized views that are all to prevalent in the U.S. right now? This is from the original post:

I think if there is anything that can be confirmed as untruthful it would likely have been on Jake Tappers list: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/fact-check-jake-tapper-brett-kavanaugh-denial-claims-orig.cnn There were 2 things Tapper included: 1. Kavanaugh claimed that the alleged witnesses denied the allegations. Tapper correctly points out that this was not strictly true, they denied knowledge of it, which is not the same thing. 2. Kavanaugh claimed the drinking age at the time was 18. Tapper points out that the drinking age was 18 in Maryland at the time of the incident, and would change to 21 in Maryland prior to Kavanaugh turning 18. #2 is incorrect. There was a grandfather clause such that those 18 at the time of the change were still allowed to legally drink. It would not fully change to 21 until June 30, 1985. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state This would not directly affect Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident as he was 17 at the time in any case. When he turned 18 he would have had to drive 10 minutes to D.C. to legally drink. But in any case there is nothing untruthful about what he claimed. It explains the easy access to alcohol for high schoolers at that time. (Let's not forget that as a 15 year old Ford admits to drinking at that time...she remembers it as 1 beer at the time of the incident, but was not questioned on it, or how much she tended to drink) For Jake Tapper, Swansont, and other fact checkers out there...You are entitled to your opinion...Not your facts... ( that's a takeoff on Tappers frequent closing line on CNN)

What exactly do you accept as contradicted? Is it because some disagree with the overall impression he gave of his drinking? Or do you have something specific? You have an opinion. It may be correct, or it may not. You have nothing close to a confirmation, I am sure you understand the difference.

He said that? Or something that would hold up in the context he was willing to answer in?

No. But you said you could confirm this was untruthful: His drinking; people who knew him in college have contradicted him

Good Lord yes. I wondered what you could confirm as untruthful. Thank you. I can almost guarantee none of what you wrote could be considered perjury. The only thing factually incorrect might be the wrt the drinking age.

What exactly can you confirm was untruthful? Ford was also allowed to leave out information if it was with regard to consultation with her Lawyers. Her lawyers stopped her a few times before she proceeded with that understanding. So they (though possibly not she) wanted to hide some information in spite of the fact she was not on trial.

Didn't two Democrats not vote in protest? Edit: Never mind. I see what you were referring to.

I think she did at least as well in the softball game as he did in the hardball one. They certainly were not on the same field. She ran circles around no one, much to her credit, but he wasn't even allowed in the room at her request. He certainly evaded some of the questions, many of which were loaded with implications. You can blame him for that...or not...depending on your bias.

I was thinking oneself... but more power to you if you damage blast the building...

Is this necessarily the case? Can you not suspend 100 % belief in either but allow Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt? You can answer to "should you do this?" but recognize that it is not the same question. If you eliminate everyone unwilling to be nominated by a narcissistic buffoon you will have no nominees...

With the (I believe) intended implication that at least some of it must be true, I would count that as grilling. Not that I would necessarily be against all "grilling" in the context I intended. Nor was I against the handling of Dr. Ford with kip gloves (at least at the outset, where she seemed particularly vulnerable to have a bad emotional experience, one that could do her harm), but I thought the questioning did a poor job of finding facts on how she knew Kavanaugh, especially up until that time. The questioning seemed more focussed on how she might have been being used by the Democrats (which was pretty apparently the case, willingly or otherwise) I agree. Wasn't one of his finer moments, though to some degree it may have been calculated. He was trying to break the connection between his drinking and having to try to prove a negative of the particular alleged event.