@Bwag Well, you can keep calling it uncorroborated or unsupported, or you can say the earth is flat a thousand times, but repetition doesn't make what you say true.
Polygraph showing no deception, many witnesses to Kavanaugh being an out-of-control drunk, book by Mark Judge about "Bart" Kavanaugh's wild behavior, Kavanaugh's own letter (signed "Bart") describing his group as loud obnoxious drunks, the calendar, the yearbook, his false testimony about those....Hmmm, he has always upheld polygraphs as a law enforcement tool. Wanna bet he would refuse to take one?
Incidentally, Dems have always wanted more time, more documents, and a more thorough investigation. The Republicans withheld over 40,000 pages of documents and dumped the rest on Senators the night before the originally scheduled vote. Dems have without success provided dozens of names of people to be interviewed, only to run into the Republican brick wall.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee to the Court, knows a little something about what qualifies a judge to be a Justice and, after watching Kavanaugh become unhinged in a prepared sworn statement, says Senators should reject him (after initially believing the opposite) due to his partisan and intemperate performance. 2,400 law professors and even the National Council of Churches have said the same. Dems didn't move the goalposts--Kavanaugh went racing the other direction, almost frothing at the mouth while spouting conspiracy theories and evincing a horrifying disrespect for members of another branch of government, for anyone of a different political bent, and for anyone daring to have criticized or even questioned him.
But all that being said, you might be surprised that I would admit that I do not necessarily believe Dr Ford's allegation that it was him, or if the details tracked her recollection even if she believed him. There is a fundamental problem in trying to resurrect information about an event almost 4 decades old. That is why statutes of limitations set limits on when claims can be raised--witnesses die, memories fade or get confused, documents get lost (I thought my calendars I have kept since 1984 were crazy!)...it is just impossible to prove guilt or innocence so we don't try in civil or criminal law. An exception is for murder--and arguably a Supreme Court appointment warrants that higher level of scrutiny.
My personal bottom line from my own experience as a criminal lawyer, as an appellate lawyer who argued in US Courts of Appeals in Florida and D.C., and as a judge for 19 years: I have never before seen someone who is raising falsified claims repeatedly ask--make that literally beg--for a thorough police investigation or pass a polygraph exam given by a former FBI examiner. Fun fact: none of my >400 convicted criminal appeals clients asked us to arrange a polygraph regardless of how vociferously they contended other people had set them up. And, conversely, I have never seen anyone who was innocent refuse to agree to a more extensive investigation, however long it would take, to prove their lack of complicity. Innocent people welcome investigation. I think she believed her testimony, but I do not know without an honest inquiry whether her testimony was in fact accurate.
Still, to me the issue is not whether he did or didn't do it. The issue is whether his record, his conduct, and his testimony demonstated his status as someone whose integrity and temperament should elevate him to the highest judicial rank in the land. To me, the burden was on Kavanaugh throughout the process, just as it is on anyone seeking such a role. He did not carry that burden, and demeaned himself in the process. All things considered, the country can do better, and has, in finding a brilliant candidate--even a conservative one meeting every one of Republican criteria (except possibly a demonstrated anti-Democrat animus).
So what are Republicans so afraid of?
