definitely doesn't help her case in terms of optics, but I don't know how you can say just because her demands are pretty specific, doesn't automatically mean she's a liar or fabricating the whole thing. But yeah, this is not a great look for her/the dems.

Mark Judge testifying seems fair to me. Security seems fair. a few extra days seems fair. Not sure why she won't allow Kavanaugh a response, that seems kind of unfair to me.

and the republicans are thankful for it

now they can say "we tried but look at what they are wanting"

they don't want her up there either as it's an optics nightmare scenario for them

This post was edited by Beowulf on Sep 21 2018 10:28am

yep this is true as well.

ridiculous demands = not in good faith =/= lying

its possible to tell the truth with an agenda in mind that subverts the motivation of telling the truth.

he's on the record saying didn't happened never happened and he wasn't there

pretty much just even a connection between the 2 and a party is a loss for Kav

they want her lawyers demands to be as ridiculous as possible

he may have never touched her in the way claimed but I wouldn't make any bets that they weren't at that party together which is all she would really need to show to make him look like a liar

and he's already had the perjury related stuff from earlier

you should unblock me, you're mirroring my post #1008

thats probably the craziest precedent from a civil rights standpoint, at least they can argue there's no due process in a senate hearing to excuse no rebuttal but the very concept of demanding that the senate use a subpoena to compel a private citizen to testify under penalty of law is insane. If Mark Judge refused to testify, they could hold him in contempt of congress and imprison him. I'm not even sure that's constitutionally possible, because via Wilkinson v. United States, there's a 3 pronged test that the committee's investigation must be within a broad subject area authorized by the senate, that the investigation must pertain to a 'valid legislative purpose' and must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation. Its really a stretch to claim that the lone allegation of a woman with no evidence in regards to the background of a judicial nominee could justify a subpoena of someone only tangentially related to the claim. Can we really pull a 'valid legislative purpose' out of that? Screw fishing expeditions, that's deep sea diving to walk on the ocean floor

could they really do that? if so, you have a good point. But Mark Judge was an accused witness, if he was a witness he should testify. Hell, he should voluntary testify if he and his former friend Bart O'Kavanugh are truly innocent and he wants to see his former friend in the SC, that's why I think something is fishy. On both sides.

If the WH ordered an FBI investigation, this mess could've all been avoided. that's why I call trump a liar when he says he's pro-transparency.

whats what a subpoena is.

That's* and i wasn't sure because this isn't a criminal case.