The women from CA just testified that she traveled to DC via airplane, that she traveled to DE via airplane last summer, and that has traveled via airplane many times, often to get to vacations, and for business purposes.

This directly contradicts with her claimed fear of flying, and with her reasons to not be able to testify on Monday, as she claimed to be afraid of flying.

She also testified that she did not submit to interviews with Senate staffers because she did not want to fly, and that she was hoping the staffers would come to her location, however this directly conflicts with Senator Grassley's staffers offering to go to her location to interview her.

When has he lied under oath?

Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.

They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.

The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.

“Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Sept. 13.

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

If you're in a boxing match and realize you are about to be bettered by your opponent, and the only chance you have is to punch him in the balls, do you take it?

In the flat earth thread, he claims he watched a ship go over the horizon and he brought it back with binoculars.

That is obviously a lie, because it's impossible.  :/

Believes the earth is flat. I can't trust people with severe mental issues.

Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.

The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.

In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.

You fail to address:

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. 

The world is not flat, and there is substantial evidence to back it up. The appropriate course of action would be to present said evidence, not attempt to silence the OP via a negative rating. And yes a negative rating is very much an attempt to silence the OP, especially in this case.