Why did he decide to remain anonymous btw? "6 year relationship from 1992 to 1998" like come on, the info is gonna be out in a few days.
Of course, the original source is Fox's John Roberts, a man known for not really factually reporting shit.
If it's true, then dam that sucks big time, but ultimately irrelevant, since we already know that Kavanaugh perjured himself in the hearing.
Is this literally just "she's a slut and never said anything about rape to me, I don't buy her story", but packaged as evidence? How the hell do you provide an opinion under penalty of perjury?
Honestly, credibility of this story is zilch because 1. It’s from good ole’ John Roberts of Fox, which is totally known for factual, quality reporting and, 2. Anonymity doesn’t really help if you can just fudge it without being as to fact check them.
Sarah Sanders just went on a rant about the Democrats and Kavanaugh during the Daily WH Press briefing. Looks like they're trying to misrepresent what happened to make him look good.
Kav being rejected would really hurt Democrat's chances for the Senate and Barrett will be fast tracked in by December. He's an unqualified asshole but establishment Democrats might bank on retaliation from
Kav being confirmed and impeach him after a House investigation for improper conduct in 2021.
Out of curiosity, what happens if both the accuser and the accused are found to have committed perjury?
Simple. They're both charged with perjury.
Brett is the least popular SC candidate in decades. Why would him being rejected hurt Dem chances?
This whole debacle is making Republicans a lot more eager to vote as well as Democrats, new polls show North Dakota all but lost to Kevin Cramer, the guy who wondered if the allegations should disqualify him
even if they're true.
The theory is that is could drive Republican turnout in order to hold onto the majority in the Senate since Republican voters seem to be motivated more by Supreme Court nominees than Democratic voters. Though, it is possible that it could motivate Democrats more which would have the opposite effect.
The thing is that while Trump's base is getting fired up, a lot of the Republican Mainstays are already backing out like churches and etc.
Essentially, they may get a boost just needed but its going to make it even harder for them to prove they can keep control.
I wonder if we'll see signs to impeach Kavanaugh like Earl Warren after schools were desegregated. Could even be part of the platform for future Democratic campaigns.
Just in, Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) is voting no. Not necessarily decisive, but could be a good sign.
Was that really a surprise? She's the one who is at risk of losing her seat because she's in a Red state or something right? She's down by double digits so voting Yes would be futile for her seat, anyway.
Polling is unreliable in North Dakota because of peculiar voting laws, she has a 1/3 chance of keeping the seat and was the slight favorite until two days ago.
How is is a good sign that a democrat is voting no? The whole issue from the beginning is that the vote is almost certainly going to be right down the party lines. We're not out of the danger zone as long as there's no sign any Republican is going to flip.
The fact that Heidi Heitkamp represents a deep red state, and is therefore under tremendous pressure to vote in favor of Kavanaugh, could have implications regarding Murkowski and Collins, who are both in similar positions.
Christine Ford/Brett Kavanaugh Senate testimony live thread
