DC Tom

I think so too. And I blame completely the Democrats who decided to grossly mishandle the accusation

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Investigations.htm

In journalism's defense, the New Yorker was never journalism.

Which means he still isn't sure. Thirty years from now, Kavanaugh will be retired, and Flake will still be saying "Well, maybe..." Quoting Ramirez as being upset the FBI was unwilling to corroborate her claims? THAT IS NOT THE FBI'S JOB, GODDAMMIT! I wish Farrow would get a clue - any clue, anywhere, somehow.

Every time he posts "Of course I read!" I picture Kevin Kline with that dopey, snotty look on his face. And I keep wanting to tell him "Aristotle was not Belgian."

"Apes don't read philosophy!" "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"

Yeah, you joke...but this is serious. How can we ever expect him to issue an unbiased ruling on climate change when he has such a cavalier attitude towards ice?

If Kavanaugh's a beer drinker, what's he doing with ice cubes? Does the man put ice in his beer? How can a man who ices his beer be at all qualified for the Supreme Court? Except in Jeff Flake's eyes. He's still on the fence.

Gee, Ms. Feinstein...how on Earth would you know what should and should not be in a report you've only just seen?

And all the ice cubes that may have been there in the glass with it. And the ice in any other drink Kavanaugh has ever had.

Stupidest thing I've read today. You're an idiot.

Waiting for the Democrats' response... "Sham, coverup, need more time, serial rapist, war on women, what about all the silent victims, Spartacus..." Is there any evidence that Kavanaugh would act unprofessionally? That after decades of service to the law he will suddenly abandon impartial interpretation of the law in favor of revenge? Or are you just afraid he might throw ice at the Democrats?

I think it means he threw ice.

She doesn't have to court donors any more.

It's not an investigation, it's a background check. Ford's and Kavanaugh's statements and testimony are already part of it.

It's the "But there's consensus!" argument. Whatever is true isn't decided by the public's feelings. It definitely isn't decided by the public's manipulated feelings.

Snowden and Manning put many more lives at risk. The only argument you'd have here is that Senators' lives are more valuable than soldiers' or diplomats'. Which would be a thoroughly idiotic argument.

Can't wait to see the misguided articles granting him the same "hero" status as Bradley Manning and Snowden.

I can't believe people think "belief" is any sort of acceptable standard here.

For a witness to be dictating to a Senare committee like this, she has got to have committee members directing her. Which itsel would be a gross conflict of interest, as they'd be directly interfering with the investigation, not just holding a hearing.

Of course not. I found the video by googling "Charlie Steiner follow me to freedom."

Not nearly enough.

That's huge, in so many ways.

False Accusations Are Dangerous...if They're Against George Soros.