Look Son

Incorrect. She reported it in July.
Not that that makes a difference, as the party propaganda amply shows.

Yes, she reported to two Democrat politicians who withheld that information until after the sub-committee had finished their questioning. One of those Democrats sat though the entire sub-committee session when Kavanaugh was questioned knowing about Ford and did not ask one question about it. It does make a difference. If that information had been provided to the sub-committee in July, time could have been arranged then for her to testify during session that did occur to question Kavanaugh. Ford still has the option of reporting this to the police department where she says this occurs and still has not done so. If the Democrats truly wanted the truth to come out, why wait? Or was the reason for their delay something other than a search for the truth?

Ford first contacted The Washington Post and her Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, in early July. From her office she sent a letter to Senator Feinstein in later July. She had not wanted her name to be revealed out of safety concerns.

They way it has all played out is short of what the McConnel Rule called for, but hopefully all will ultimately in effect be keeping with the spirit of its intent.

It actually would of made a huge difference, because they wouldn't of been postponing his seat, they would have ample time to go through this case, this is not what they want.

What's the worry, the McConnell Rule might get invoked in the few days delay?
Isn't it preferable his name be cleared rather than this albatross apended to his name?

They still talk smack about Judge Thomas, and there was nothing to see there either, just someone coming forward to make unfalsifiable and unverifiable claims.

However it turns out, whatever the truth is, the rep will forever follow him tho.

So what if she told it in July? What difference does it make? It's still 35 years too late. If she were going to tell some bullshit, she could have at least done it three decades ago.

But like I said, until I see actual proof of anything actually happening, I don't believe it. Call me crazy.

Safe to assume you don't believe the second woman either? How bout his roommate who described Kavanaugh as a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk"? Drunk doesn't = assault, but its not a good look.
If I got assaulted i probably wouldn't want to talk about it either.. but if 35 yrs later i heard that the perp was being nominated to be on supreme court and/or that someone else had stepped forward, what better time would ever arise?? Seems civic duty (as well as revenge) would be pretty motivating. Also it seems a full grown woman would have to have some major guts to make up a story like that knowing it's going to be all over the news.

If those words were from him stating it, then I'll retract my statement that he may not have drank. But that being said...

Him drinking has nothing to do with him being guilty or not. I see it as quite obvious he did not assault women. At least not these women. Way too fishy to accuse someone of wrong doing with no real evidence. It's sad there are people that are saying he's guilty based off the word of some woman.

"Safe to assume you don't believe the second woman either?"

Why would I? She sounds less credible than the first woman. She doesn't remember any details about the so-called incident. All she claims is he whipped out his p**is while they sat in a circle. Yeah, that happened...pffft.

"How bout his roommate who described Kavanaugh as a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk"? Drunk doesn't = assault, but its not a good look."

I just have to shake my head on this one.First of all, like you said, heavy drinking isn't a guilty plea to assault. Secondly, there is no evidence that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, or even a drinker at all. One guy claims he drank heavily and suddenly we all should believe this garbage? I would say the same thing if all this was being said about Obama or Palosi, or insert any left wing nut. There is a bunch of he said-she said bull in this circle-jerk of accusations and no one seems to know much of anything.

"Also it seems a full grown woman would have to have some major guts to make up a story like that knowing it's going to be all over the news."

Or a huge wad of cash. People do all kinds of crazy things for money. And everyone has their price. She's being paid to say these things and that doesn't take guts at all. It takes no sense of morality, that's for sure. These women are scum, just like the left that is paying them to "come forward."

So to recap: you don't believe the 2 women or the dude who said he got pretty drunk in college as a whole.. yet you easily believe that the left is paying them.. with literally zero evidence. No one has even claimed to have seen that.

Pretty much yes, but not so simple and cut and dry as that.

no evidence he was even a drinker at all..

"Yes, there were parties," Kavanaugh told Fox host Martha MacCallum. "And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school - I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit."