JAS61 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

Just another pr*ck in the wall.

Nothing worse than a grandstanding, self-loathing Republican.

---

Rockdoc said:

---

And he makes his statement under oath. He already has a witness that said it didn't happen.

---

BWD06 said:

---

General question--how is this the "eve" or "11th hour" of anything? The committee vote is Thursday, full vote will follow, and First Monday is weeks away. Also, what is the rush? Last time there was a vacancy it was no problem to have an 8 member Court for a year. Even if you want to confirm before the elections, that is several weeks away.

A serious charge has been made against the nominee. It is not "unsubstantiated" but there is little evidence to support the claim at this point. Isn't Sen. Graham right that the Committee should hear from the alleged victim of what would be at least an assault to assess her credibility and then make a judgment?

The fact that many of this board instantly reject the claims shows that they could care less and just want the win. I guess that is fine, but don't act like the "dems" are any more unprincipled than yourself.

(Maybe the other thread is where we can discuss what Sen. Feinstien should've done with the letter in July.)

---

BWD06 said:

---

Explain why not. Evidence information supporting a proposition or fact. The list above is information that supports the fact that the event occurred. The Judge's and the other man's denial is evidence that it didn't.

Evidence doesn't mean something the proves something to be true. Witness statements are used everyday in court as evidence. If she is willing to come in front of the committee and make her statements under oath, would that be any different?

---

Rockdoc said:

---

And he makes his statement under oath. He already has a witness that said it didn't happen.

---

BoerneGator said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

Explain why not. Evidence information supporting a proposition or fact. The list above is information that supports the fact that the event occurred. The Judge's and the other man's denial is evidence that it didn't.

Evidence doesn't mean something the proves something to be true. Witness statements are used everyday in court as evidence. If she is willing to come in front of the committee and make her statements under oath, would that be any different?

---

C'mon man, unless you're too young to remember Lawrence Thomas vs. Anita Hill, it would be that, Part II!

---

biobioprof said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

And he makes his statement under oath. He already has a witness that said it didn't happen.

---

We agree on this. Denials aren't under oath right now either.

Maybe you'll change your mind now that I've said that.

---

BWD06 said:

---

Explain why not. Evidence information supporting a proposition or fact. The list above is information that supports the fact that the event occurred. The Judge's and the other man's denial is evidence that it didn't.

Evidence doesn't mean something the proves something to be true. Witness statements are used everyday in court as evidence. If she is willing to come in front of the committee and make her statements under oath, would that be any different?

---

Rockdoc said:

---

biobioprof said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

And he makes his statement under oath. He already has a witness that said it didn't happen.

---

We agree on this. Denials aren't under oath right now either.

Maybe you'll change your mind now that I've said that.

---

Why should I change my mind?

---

BWD06 said:

---

The simple answeran assessment that of the credibility of those involved. That is how it is supposed to work.

---

biobioprof said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

Explain why not. Evidence information supporting a proposition or fact. The list above is information that supports the fact that the event occurred. The Judge's and the other man's denial is evidence that it didn't.

Evidence doesn't mean something the proves something to be true. Witness statements are used everyday in court as evidence. If she is willing to come in front of the committee and make her statements under oath, would that be any different?

---

C'mon man, unless you're too young to remember Lawrence Thomas vs. Anita Hill, it would be that, Part II!

---

I'm so old I remember Clarence Thomas.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

General question--how is this the "eve" or "11th hour" of anything? The committee vote is Thursday, full vote will follow, and First Monday is weeks away. Also, what is the rush? Last time there was a vacancy it was no problem to have an 8 member Court for a year. Even if you want to confirm before the elections, that is several weeks away.

A serious charge has been made against the nominee. It is not "unsubstantiated" but there is little evidence to support the claim at this point. Isn't Sen. Graham right that the Committee should hear from the alleged victim of what would be at least an assault to assess her credibility and then make a judgment?

The fact that many of this board instantly reject the claims shows that they could care less and just want the win. I guess that is fine, but don't act like the "dems" are any more unprincipled than yourself.

(Maybe the other thread is where we can discuss what Sen. Feinstien should've done with the letter in July.)

---

What will waiting do?

What kind of actual EVIDENCE (hint: not heresay) is going to come out if the vote is delayed?

According to her claims, there are only 2 other witnesses to this alleged act: Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Both of whom have unequivocally denied it happened.

So what the hell can come of waiting? She says it happened, they say it didn't. No one else was involved according to her, so no one else can come forward to corroborate it. There's no physical evidence according to her either.

---

BWD06 said:

---

The simple answeran assessment that of the credibility of those involved. That is how it is supposed to work.

---

BWD06 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence? There is zero.

---

1. Her attributed statement to the Washington Post is evidence
2. She took a polygraph
3. She told her spouse about a potentially similar incident 16 years ago
4. She spoke about it with her therapist and there are notes with some corroboration in 2012 but conflicting information

I said it was there was minimal proof, but it is wrong to say there is nothing.

---

BWD06 said:

---

The simple answeran assessment that of the credibility of those involved. That is how it is supposed to work.

---

BWD06 said:

---

A day ago it was the woman has no credibility because she is anonymous. Now she has come forward. Waiting will allow what there is of the full story to come out for the senate and people to make what they can of a judgment.

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

A day ago it was the woman has no credibility because she is anonymous. Now she has come forward. Waiting will allow what there is of the full story to come out for the senate and people to make what they can of a judgment.

---

I heard you murdered someone when you were 17.

Prove me wrong.

---

BWD06 said:

---

A day ago it was the woman has no credibility because she is anonymous. Now she has come forward. Waiting will allow what there is of the full story to come out for the senate and people to make what they can of a judgment.

---