You're arguing against perspectives not present

She was basically allowed to go before the nation and destroy a man's reputation regardless of her credibility

and you admitted she was not based on things we knew before she testified

Why do we put people on trial if they can just be found not guilty?

You're arguing against an irrational position.

We didn't get any new information

She provided it all by letter she did manage to stall the vote

The dems saw this worked and "new" allegation just started popping up demanding their own day at the hearing with more demands

As kavanaugh pointed out, she asked for anonymity.

It was a political operation that exposed her.

She was lawyering up in august almost a month before the allegation came forward

This isn’t a trial this is a witch hunt

An anonymous accusation would have been worse

this is common is dem playbook see: trump, herman cain, clarence thomas. difference is the #metoo movement

in past we would not have allowed the circus without real evidence

in the mean time keith ellison wins elections

@Faticati I agree if they would have allowed it to remain anonymous it would have been worse

we have a right to face our accusers.

What I do not understand is why you want to destroy the accuser when you don't have to to make your case?

Apparently, we do because believe all women.

It's about as self destructive as saying 'boys will be boys' to dismiss the accusations

If Judge Kavanaugh doesn't get the nomination what job can he get?

Also why do we have to destroy the accuser?

I agree with you to an extent but that is a separate issue

regardless of whether he's put on scotus democrats are going to try to impeach him.

If the Dems weren't playing politics they would have investigated and nothing would have happened because she hasn't provided evidence.

Your stance is to burn the protection that burden of proof applies

what protection?

Lying to Congress is a crime

they crafted the accusation vague enough so she couldn't be jailed.

And you are convicting her in the court of public opinion

You're no better than them in that regard

There's a cultural issue plaguing both sides.

This is extremely simple NO EVIDENCE NO BELIEF

I am saying this never should have gotten this far.

Right now outside they're saying believe all women.

all smiles

What I don't get is the automatic dismissal of someone's testimony based on the fact that she's unclear on certain details.

'false in one, false in all'

Is a legal principle

A person can be sure something happened in childhood and not remember the date/time.