(10-03-2019 08:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Do any of the pro-Kavanaugh posters actually believe he was truthful when testifying about his drinking habits, particularly when Senator Klobuchar asked him if he ever drank the point where he didn’t remember what happened? You all keep falling back on “I don’t think he sexually assaulted anyone” without addressing what I think were pretty obvious misleading (at best) efforts to minimize his drinking and partying. Was his performance really something that left you with a warm, fuzzy feeling for a lifetime appointee, knowing there were a couple handful of other similarly qualified individuals who would have ruled basically the same on cases and without toeing the line of perjury on any topic?

No worse than 12 effectively lifetime appointees trying tovtag and equate such drinking to forcible sexual assault and attempted rape.

Maybe we should have an eqivalent 'defame with ancillary crap' bar to serving as a US Senator. Ot add 'interview with nothing more than loaded innuendo'.

At least in a trial we both know that most likely each attorney coaches their witnesses to tell the truth. And in a yrial setting *each side* gets a chance at the innuendo crap the Demsctossed at Kavanaugh. So your guidance as to the usefulness of trial / deposition prep is not really on point simply because of the inherent duality.

There is zero such duality in the confirmation hearing. You dont like the evasiveness and I dont like the trial by innuendo.