My standard is that someone who is innocent is unabashed in their desire do a thorough investigation rather than continually going around the question or going back to evidence you, yourself, provided (the calendars). Given that, his entitled attitude, and the real level of credibility shown by the victim, I think that I’m within my rights to believe the accusation against him.
I'm not convinced Kavanaugh was clearly wrong in anything he said, which is why I'm not bothered by what you call blatantly partisan rhetoric. If you want to discuss specific quotations, I can do that.
Go to 1:50 in the video. While the rest is an indignant defense of himself, which comes across like an entitled child, that is the important part. “Revenge on behalf of the Clintons”? Using the “George Soros” line? “Democratic members of this committee”? I can tell you right now that Obama would’ve pulled a nominee if they had behaved like that and said those things. Full stop.
Largely debatable. Again, he wasn’t even on the initial list of potential justices provided by the Federalist Society. He wasn’t stellar enough to get recognition on that level. So, again, why was Kavanaugh the hill that Republicans like Susan Collins were willing to die on? Because, especially given his recent dissent, it’s gonna be tough for her to explain what she did.His resume was actually rather impressive. He was widely considered a potential Supreme Court pick for Romney. A USA Today description said that on paper, he may have been the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in decades.
If Ford had a credibility problem and it got that far, why not just start from scratch? Or could it be because Ford was credible that we believed others as they came out?As for why Democrats didn't use these tactics against Gorsuch, the main difference is that there wasn't the initial allegation. Once the first allegation came out against Kavanaugh, more emerged that were patently BS.