I am realistic about the fact that Kavanaugh has been wounded very badly by a political assassination attempt and may bleed to death as others stand by and watch. I do think though that the dragger-outers who are following a plan of delay need to be careful about surprises, because surprises on the Fake Accuser can come out along the way too. Just because she does a good Sgt. Shultz routine doesnt mean that there are not things in her past that can crop up too. Just based on her current game of destroying a man on the basis by only remembering the one deed that will destroy him and not remembering anything else, we know she is a flake. Flakes do flaky things. Some of them could surface. She is getting plenty of attention already and suddenly decided that she had the balls to knife kavanaugh in the back in an confidential letter to feinstein, and in an interview with the Washington Post, but has to think long and hard about responding to direct questioning in public unless she can define the rules. One of the rules seems to be that kavanaugh must go first and hope that he says something that responds to whatever charges she will come up with. Excuse but we fought a rather long revolution with the Brits to say no to that type of thing.
That might be a way for kavanaugh to get all those lefties off his back and to stop having to defend against being a rapist: Just tell them that he is an illegal hispanic and from El Salvador. Maybe get some gang tattoos. Not one of the lefties will have the balls to suggest that an illegal hispanic has or ever would rape anyone. Case closed.
Piehole, I was going to say, "astounding you posted that", since there is NO evidence, but then I remember we are talking about Piehole. I just read an interesting piece elsewhere on this site about Joseph Stiglitz. I think you may be just a bit dumber than him. But, reading it reminded me of how you process information and filter everything with your bias. The article is entitled "Continually Mistaken, Chronically Admired". Only the first part of the title seems to apply to you, though. I doubt you will ever be in danger of being chronically admired. You are the walking, talking epitome of the "educated fool". Here's the article... https://www.city-journal.org/joseph-stiglitz-venezuela-16181.html
"She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place. She isn't even certain about the year (although she reportedly thinks it may have been the summer around the end of her sophomore year when she was 15). She can't remember whose house she was in. She can't remember how she got there. She says she didn't tell anyone about it at the time, not even her closest friends — so there are no contemporaneous witnesses to back her claims." This is nothing more than a political smear campaign. If this is the new standard for blocking nominees with fabricated 35 year old nonsense -- I hope the Democrats are ready to have the same tactics applied to each & every one of their nominees for any position in the future at both the federal & state level.
I fully agree with at least one thing here. Regardless of the truth of Ms Ford's accusation, that shouldn't be the reason for blocking the Kavanaugh nomination. (Of course if it is shown that he is lying, then that's a different matter.) There are plenty of better reasons then the Ford accusation to block the Kavanaugh nomination, such as his Imperial Presidency narrative developed during his time in the Bush White House. Some are saying, "Well, that was his job." But really now, would you want to pay a lawyer to invent wholly new opinions with the faint hope of getting you off the hook? They should have fired him then and there. What the client wants is some shred of hope based on statute, constitutional, case, or international law; not some dreamed up new interpretation that is so far from established legal opinion it could get you laughed out of court. Kavanaugh would have stood a far better chance of convincing a court that simulated drowning isn't "torture" -- even if every now and then there is an "oops moment" -- than he would have of convincing a court, or anyone for that matter, that the President is free to choose which statutory laws he shall obey and which he shall ignore.