I just heard on the radio that Professor Ford is now requesting that she be able to testify in a separate room ahead of Judge Kavanaugh! Since it is a fundamental right of the accused to be able to respond to accusations from an accuser, Chairman Grassley should stop letting her play games and set a deadline for her to show up and testify, either publicly, or behind closed doors, in the presence of Kavanaugh. if she doesn't show up he should schedule the vote! I also think Senator Feinstein should be required to release the letter to the rest of the Judiciary Committee. Considering Feinstein's antics over the years, I think there might be something fishy about why she hasn"t!
I have no problem with her testifying in a separate room from Kavanaugh. It is not a court of law. BUT what is absurd is her wanting him to testify first without him even knowing the entirety of the accusations. He cannot form a proper defense or rebuttal without having the charges and details.
I question why you think it is "absurd" for Ford to request Kauvenaugh to go first? #!----Kauvenaugh knows what the accusation is #2---It puts on the record, under oath, what his response is-- And my argument for the rest of your post is, what is the hurry here, there is no deadline to confirm this Supreme Court nomination, if you in any way agree with Mitch McConnell waiting over a" year" by not putting forth Garland's nomination by OBAMA,surely you would agree to put on hold a vote on Kauvenaugh,right? What do you mean Feinstein's "antics",-----Feinstein has stated why she didn't say anything,I believe her, but to accuse her of doing something "fishy" is disingenuous,that's my opinion---
His response to what? He's already categorically denied, under penalty of felony conviction, that he's never done this to anyone, ever, in his entire life. The accuser always goes first. That's why it's absurd.
The Democrats only want to make this confirmation as difficult as possible, with the hopes of stopping it. No one believes otherwise.
I highly suspect there won't be much more details than what we already have. If she did have an ironclad case, she wouldn't be resorting to all of this nonsense. The only thing this thing is doing, is damaging the reputation of the US Senate. The higher chamber, is no longer so high.
The GOP crime syndicate is fabricating a bull-**** deadline and their lemmings seem to be convinced that there actually is a need for one. Funny how Merrick Garland was stalled until Gorsuch could be inserted...and now this. Could these corrupt POS be any more obvious? And their base of tools go along with and buy into the nonsense. And the elephant in the room is that there is concrete undeniable proof that Kavanaugh has lied to Congress multiple times and should be totally disqualified.
Nah... payback for Merrick would be...QUOTE: "it was just my second day of seventh grade, and we were on a field trip to the Court of appeals... I was nervous... you know, having never met a powerful man... He singled me out... and asked if I knew what judges wore under their robes..... " Dems. If you never thought that this couldn't be used against your nominees? Seriously? Finding someone who is willing to entertain the nation for a couple weeks likely isn't all that hard to do.
What do you mean it's not a court? He's being accused of sexually assaulting someone. He is innocent until she proves him guilty. He has categorically refuted doing this to anyone, ever. He has already refuted her only known accusation. In order for him to refute any other potential claim, she must speak first. He can't deny something he doesn't know exists. Ponder, for a moment, how you'd like to see your husband, brother, son or relative treated if THEY were accused of sexually assaulting someone. Would you have the same opinion about that as you do now? My opinion is consistent with someone I know vs a stranger. Is yours?
It still applies. Where did you get the idea it doesn't apply? Did somebody die and make you head of the rules committee? Your saying it doesn't apply means less than squat.
It's not a criminal investigation or trial so the terms of the format and proceedings can and are being negotiated.
There's no reason Ford cannot testify on Monday, other than she (coughDemocratscough) wants to hold up the process.
Your comment is one of the most ridiculous I have read in a very long time. I am sure you mean well but in this country let's Premise it this way. 1. The accused has the right to defend himself AFTER the charges are presented to him. In case you missed that fact here it is again, the accused has the right to defend himself AFTER the charges are presented to him. 2. There has been three months for a complete investigation of every part of Kavanaugh's life asked in private with each senator and publicly in front of a national audience and then once again privately, so stop with "what's the hurry" BS. 3. Garland is not the topic but just to let you know, had Hillary Clinton won the election, Garland would have been approved and on the bench before she was inaugurated. It would have been far too risky for the republicans to allow her make a choice which would have been far more liberal than Garland. McConnell the genius that he is, delayed everything on the slim chance Trump won the presidency. That way Garland can still be brought up at some later date. 4. Learn how to spell Kavanaugh correctly, he could be around for quite awhile. I do agree with your "under oath" comment. That applies to both sides of course.
