Personally, that's a result I can live with for the foreseeable future.  That's how angry I am about the state of power in America.  Is that fair?  No, certainly not.  But I've never seen America be fair before so I wouldn't know what that looks like anyway.

The GOP loves to play dirty and underhanded until it happens to them. Karma MFers, karma.

1.  "Ralph Club" - Claims it's because he's known for throwing up for to his "weak stomach", which could be for to beer or spicy food.  Unless he hangs out with a similar sensitivity to spicy food, this is clearly a reference to throwing up after drinking excessively.  But he wouldn't even admit this.

2.  "Renate Alumnius" - clearly some kind of reference to a sexual conquest, whether real or false boasting.  Not some innocent, friendly reference as he claimed.

3.  "Devil's Triangle" - not a drinking game - or even close.

4.  "Boofing" - not flatulence.

 And, there are not many human resource people in any reputable company/corporation/academic institution that would hire someone like Kavanaugh for a responsible position (and maybe any position) with a list of allegations of sexual assault outstanding.  Get them cleared up and come back, is the likely outcome of the job interview.

 As bad as the allegations are, and as credible as the testimony of Dr. Ford, the only accuser given an opportunity to be heard,was:  the confirmability of Kavanaugh needs to take into account the whole: the cumulative information that was available to assess the fitness for elevation to the Supreme Court.  

As a 53-year old nominee for a life-long appointment on the Supreme Court--a judicial institution that has responsibility and authority way beyond that which Kavanaugh already has as a federal appellate judge,--his decisions will impact generations of Americans.  

His ideology is that what can be expected from the president who nominated him.  However, what should also be expected is a Justice with a judicial temperament and demeanor.

 Kavanaugh's very long opening statement was a polemic delivered at a decibel level that exceeded the pain threshold of the ear. The louder, the more truthful, was the reed supporting his tirade. And, the content might have been drafted by a junior Brietbart staffer plus lifting aspects of Clarence Thomas's defiant testimony, 27 years ago.

 Ranting against Democratic senators in front of him, the 2016 election (a bad omen for anything that might come before him if confirmed), and Clintons. No less of a disaster, but criticized for not have the desired belligerent tone, was the unprecedented interview on FOX News. Not re-assuring for someone or a group coming before him who is a Democrat or who has Democratic ties.

In addition, and critically, is Kavanaugh's credibility--a character flaw all too evident for over the past ten or more years.  It took him three years to get confirmed to the circuit court, and his credibility has been a factor at that time and glaringly apparent throughout the SC confirmation. He has been accused of being a liar and a thief; and documents have been withheld from senator's review.  

During Q&A yesterday, Kavanaugh gave misleading/inaccurate/no answers to questions by Democratic senators. On matters large and small. Indeed, he was contemptuous of them and flaunted it.  The rude and insensitive question to Senator Klobuchar was revelatory. He was fortunate that the senator was so gracious in accepting his apology offered after the break, and did not, at least, remind him of the Grassley's admonition (which he, himself, did not adhere to) for civility.

Dr. Ford testified that she came forward to provide information about the nominee (actually, and credibly, before the nomination) about Kavanaugh and her awful experience.  It was information given for the Committee to take into account and to consider.

Further examination was required, and even Kavanaugh came close to acknowledging this, when he smart-mouthed that if we wanted to know if Mark Judge's Bart O'Kavanaugh was a Roman a clef for him, he responded: you would have to ask him. Next to how much he like beer, then and now, that was the best idea I heard from him. And when the hapless "female assistant" started to probe the July 1, 1982 calendar date, a weekday in which he named boys planned on "skiss", she was whisked away, without explanation.

Much was made by Ford's lawyers about how being in DC would be a burden for Ford because of her fear of flying and the hearing would have to be delayed.  Yet under questioning it seems she was in DC for some time before the hearing and arrived in DC on an aeroplane.

I am not a fan of polygraph test; in great part because they are not admissible in court.  But the testimony yesterday about the one Ford took raises real questions.  A lot of details about it were not produced; with the comment by her lawyers that the reason was because the FBI guy who administered the test needed to testify.  What we do know is that Ford could not answer several questions about the test.  She did not know if it was video taped.  She did not know who paid for it; or even if it was paid for.  She did testify that she was on a tight schedule (to get on an aeroplane and fly, even with her fear of flying) and the test was the day, or day after her grandmother's funeral.  What does seem clear is that being rushed, having a death in the family, and knowing you would have to fly with a fear of flying combine to make the timing of the polygraph test not idea.

Just this AM read an article about Los Angeles by a local LA writer who, when watching Fast Times as a teen, recognized the HS in the movie her actual HS.

Then, recently, in doing fact-checking for the article, found out the movie was actually not shot in her HS.

September 12 - Feinstein sends unredacted letter to FBI

September 20 - Feinstein sends unredacted letter to Chairman Grassley, asking that it will still be kept in confidence.

Link

I'll try to explain this to you, But I'm not a lawyer and my information comes from research on the issue.

Now you want to confirm for life a man who compares assault rifles to a category of speech solely because Avenatti's abrasive style rubs you the wrong way.

What happened to the "touching" tears of the families ripped apart by mass shootings?