BeginnersMind

Mitchell has thrown the door WIDE OPEN to further investigation with forensic interview line of questions.

I agree that nothing heard today would make me vote against him. But I would not vote until there's an investigation. At least they must hear from Judge. The guy is alleged to be IN THE ROOM. How can you have this hearing and not hear from him FFS? The Rs think her complaint is valid enough for a hearing, but leave off the person who breaks the he said-she said testimony. Let alone the other people at the party. It doesn't have to take long. It should be done quickly.

But Mitchell can't make any headway--she makes a little progress seemingly and then STOP. How the letter got leaked is probably a dead end but Mitchell has to root around in there. The format is a disaster for the Rs.

You can't do an effective cross in this format. She's in a terrible position.

She's an idiot BUT a bunch of people here were just saying they want Mitchell to ask about the actual event too. I don't think she's going to do it. I thought she said during her first 5 minutes that she would not be returning to it. My guess is that Michell has been told not to because she will just get a broken down crying witness that will elicit sympathy. Mark Judge was in the room, according to her. Might be a good witness to hear from, no?

Let's hear from the possible eyewitness, eh? Is it that hard to spare him 2 hours?

When it's just he said, she said, I agree. But there is some minimal credibility here...and...wait for it...there was someone else, an eye-friggin-witness in the room! How are we not hearing from him? It's not that hard to subpoena him.

Thank you. He is OUR president, and by owning it, we need to listen to him, and the voice he represents.

Tin foil hats!

Who questions Kavanaugh for the Rs? Mitchell or the Rs?

This format is a debacle for everyone. If I was Mitchell, I'd punch whoever agreed to that. At one point, Ford reviewed a document for over a minute (which was smart).

How can they have this hearing when the other guy in the room is not being called? It's a he said-she said thing without him. And no investigation, even one for 10 days, is bad optics. Didn't Mitchell say early on that she wasn't going to ask about the incident? She has to ask about that. Right now, she's got flying, therapist note, and driving. Not much. Is Mitchell going to question Kavanaugh too, or will the Rs on the committee take up that?

Theres no agreement that is global, so I discussed something real. And in any event, Trump does not support multilateral agreements. He hates them, even as his advisors (DS no doubt, right?) advise him not to.

I don’t see it as simple as that. Multilateral agreements often make sense, especially multinational trade and defense pacts, or agreements to tackle large scale issues that have broader implications. Bilateralism makes sense when the multilateral agreements aren’t working. Neither single one is an answer. Both make sense at times.

Swetnick’s declaration is Swiss cheese and I wouldn’t use it for a basis to subpoena Judge. Still, they should subpoena Judge as a witness. The Rs hid him away in Delaware this week and I’d be happy to hear from him. This seems believable based on my admittedly anecdotal high school party experience. If nominated for the SC, I will not accept.

This “source” looks as credible as the guy who started the Gorsuch letter rumor, ie, some guy on Twitter. And also as credible as most of the accusers who have come forward. Ford has had the slightest corroboration, albeit nearly negligible. I’ll listen to her with a highly skeptical ear. If things finish as they stand, he should be approved. Harris and Trump would be delightful fiddle players.

Trump just said tomorrow's hearing may change his mind. He is endlessly entertaining.

You seem not to get my point. The president of the US sends a terrible message by attacking a woman’s credibility “because she didn’t report it.” Many women don’t report sexual assault because—especially then—it was a crime with a lot of shame associated. That is not a basis to question her credibility. Plenty of other reasons to question her, and I assume they will be clear at the hearing. If the story ends as it currently stands, he should be approved.

Women are more likely to let the attack go unpunished than to report it after 36 years. Of that, there is no doubt. But for Trump to attack her credibility because she didn’t report it 36 years ago is abhorrent. Apple News is an echo chamber. I’d get out of it. The story is a top one at the WSJ and most outlets.

You can disbelieve the accuser (or not find evidence worthy of doubting his fitness) and also think Trump is off base here. Women often don't report sexual assault, even more so 36 years ago, and Trump is a boorish man to take this particular tack.

It’s almost like he’s a 20 year old rookie. Who’d have thought it will take some time for him to adjust?

That was a plane. It was the other buildings that were demolished with the explosives. Keep up with the conspiracy man!

He says he was joking. Probably get a few of those posts this week. That's fine: The bandwagon expands and contracts with the wins and losses.

We all love to be this kind of wrong. And either way, it's too early to judge any of them. Allen is going to have some real bad games this season. It's guaranteed. There's a 9-24 122 yards, 3INT 1 fumble game coming. I love the kid but he's a rookie. It ain't all going to be roses. I just like what I'm seeing. Needs work but it's more hopeful than it's been at QB in a long time.

Half the Bills D was 1 year or less experience today: - Dirty Harry - Edmunds - Johnson (not sure if he or Lewis started) - White - Milano - Lewis Shaq was out but he'd be in there too. With that much youth, I expect up and down play but that's a good sign.