# Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 4, 2018, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733 "2018-09-04T12:49:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 124
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2461 "2018-09-22T15:03:10Z")
This is getting to be bigger than some rat-fuck political hack being promoted to a position of enormous power that he does not merit. Very few of us do, which is why we have to be so damned careful! Here’s the thing: the soft guys with the wobbly bits have a problem, and the problem is us. Fixing it is going to be a bear. Now, does that mean that some partisan woman will make shit up? Yes. It does. Being an immoral jerk is bad, but it is a choice. The power of equality is the power to choose. When political power became more available to black people, some ambitious jerks seized the opportunity to become a well-paid and comfortable defender of the oppressed. Human, all too human. Not a good reason to give up. Not even close. And they’re gone past asking, and headed straight into demanding. Good. Let’s help. Do it for Mom. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2462 "2018-09-22T15:04:47Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Or, you know, she could have shit to do on Wednesday. I set meetings all the time. It requires a few emails back and forth to decide on a day. I’ve never just set a meeting day and insisted upon it if someone can’t make it. Are your meetings with 21 Senators of the United States Congress? It seems that the more power the institution has the more the institution tends to set its own timeline. It is capricious in a certain way, but it is the prerogative that comes with holding such power. Courts set trial dates and send subpoenas to have witnesses appear on a particular date, not whenever it might be convenient. The courts have the power to do so and may penalize willful noncompliance if it comes to that. But the local beat cop asking for your statement as a witness to a traffic accident may very well bend to your schedule. At least those officers I worked with routinely did. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2463 "2018-09-22T15:05:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What are these “several things”? I’m going to start you off with an easy one. A big fat meatball right over the heart of the plate. > [@](#): > > Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school. Are these details corroborated or uncorroborated? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2464 "2018-09-22T15:07:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For those of us inclined to see sexual assault and rape as a very serious problem that is far, far more important than political concerns, the statements to her therapist and husband, Mark Judge’s writings about his own and friends’ drunken bad behavior, and the statements from her friends noting how much she changed after the incident (which they weren’t aware of at the time), add up as making the allegations credible enough that they should be taken seriously. > > Of course, for anyone who sees this merely as an opportunity to get a conservative on the SCOTUS, and that anything that might possibly delay that should be seen in the most negative/dishonest light as possible, and that sexual assault and rape in society is a relatively minor thing compared to that, these pieces of data aren’t likely to be seen as convincing. > > If Kavanaugh is innocent, an investigation really could help him. Hard as you might find it to believe, there are plenty of us who don’t know for certain what happened, and could be swayed in one direction or another by a full and objective investigation. Not everyone has already made up their mind. First, this is an extremely unfair characterization that unless a person believes that such things add up to corroboration, then he or she is simply a partisan whore wanting a conservative on the Supreme Court. I have defended guys from allegations far worse than this in criminal court. These guys weren’t conservative judges. At a base level, I have a problem with mere accusations causing someone else harm, whether that be prison, public approbation, or losing a seat on the Supreme Court. I have no ulterior motive here. Second, from my own life experience, most people are generally decent, all are capable of evil given the wrong circumstances, and that many, many people are kooks and liars. I don’t know Prof. Ford to be able to say with any certainty at all what category she falls in. And you don’t either. In your zeal to make sure that victims of sexual assault receive justice, you are willing to accept a level of evidence that would be unlikely to convict someone of speeding. It resembles the standard of proof for witchcraft in Salem in 1692. I know that is not your intent, but it will be the inevitable result. Finally, I agree with the previous poster that your examples are not corroboration at all: 1. So Mark Judge admits that he and his friends (presumably Kavanaugh) were hard partiers. That means nothing. I’m sure many posters here can recount some of their stupid younger moments. To suggest that as corroboration that Judge, let alone his friends, tried to rape women is a stretch at best. Plus, if you are going to make up a story to implicate Kavanaugh, why not put Judge in the room as well so that any denial he makes will make Kavanaugh look guilty by implication? 2. The statements to her husband and therapist. Her therapist’s notes tell a different story than hers. Plus, in that instance, she had an incentive to tell a self-serving story to save her marriage. What a great out to a spouse. Honey, I haven’t been doing all of these things to you for all of these years because I’m a nasty person, I’ve done it because of this repressed memory of a sexual assault I suffered. Who would leave their spouse after that? Plus, the timing is suspect as well. Romney could have won and Kavanaugh was on the top list of conservatives to the Court. She has made her political positions well known. 3. Statements from friends about how she changed. People always change through their teen years. A person’s strange actions could be a result of an infinite number of things. There are times in my life that I have acted in ways that to my friends would seem “strange.” It doesn’t mean I was raped. This is silliness at best. Now, you’ll probably say that an FBI investigation (and only that) could suss out some of these details to give the senators a clearer picture. I submit that it will not. You will get more of the same crap. People saying that Kavanaugh was wonderful and would never do that. People saying that Ford is/was wonderful and would never make up a story. People denying such a party took place. People remembering a similar party. People saying that Ford is a crazy, kooky woman. People saying she is level headed. The FBI investigation would be worthless, but you would likely say that there is no harm in it so go ahead and do it. But the delay just happens to coincide with Democratic desires to continue to delay the process until after the midterms and also just hope that because we cannot prove this allegation, that maybe enough bad shit will come out to convince two of the three of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski to vote no. I mean, that’s the whole reason to subpoena Judge. He’s already said that he doesn’t remember a similar party and never saw Kavanaugh do such a thing. What is the point of his testimony other than to embarrass him about his drinking and hope that enough of Judge’s actions get transferred to Kavanaugh? Please name one relevant detail that Judge could provide. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2465 "2018-09-22T15:16:36Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > I hope that any person on this board who had any remaining shred of respect for you has lost it. They should have lost it long before, but this is just like a little extra shit frosting on your shit cookie. > > Whether you believe this horrifying nonsense you are spewing or you are just employing it for cynical purposes, you are a disgusting boil. You spread corruption and ignorance and you’ll never face any repercussions for it. > > I’m out. There are a lot of great people on this board, but staying here is like staying at a party where everyone has your shit on their shoes: the stench is disgusting and a nasty disease all too likely. Personal attacks mean you got nothing. I have said many times that I have no idea whether this allegation is true, partially true, or absolutely false. I am just running through possibilities, but your side seems to say that he is guilty, no other possibility. That, in my mind, says more about your side. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I agree this is an interesting head-scratcher. > > On one hand, you’d think Kavanaugh and/or his allies wouldn’t be _that_ stupid and careless as to mount a defense founded on details that had not been disclosed by Ford. Wouldn’t that be a rookie mistake? Wouldn’t a seasoned lawyer see this quicksand pit from 500 miles away and deftly avoid it? Who doesnt realize this is how dumb criminals who talk to cops without having a lawyer present often incriminate themselves? For all we know, the names of all the female party attendees might be known by Ford but at the advice of her lawyer, she withheld that information specifically to see if Kanavaugh would knee-jerkingly reveal awareness of their names. Could he be \*that \* incompetent as to fall for that? > > On the other hand, Team Kanavaugh was apparently dumb enough to think coming out with the doppelgänger theory made a lick of strategic sense. So this tells us that we can’t assume too much about their competence and sophistication. Anything therefore is possible. That is indeed interesting. I wouldn’t think that a third year law student would make such a stupid move. Criminals? Yes. Lawyers? No. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I’m going to start you off with an easy one. A big fat meatball right over the heart of the plate. > > Are these details corroborated or uncorroborated? Of course those details are corroborated, but that doesn’t corroborate the allegation. Unless you are saying that any woman who went to high school in a two county area from me has corroborating if she would make a similar allegation against me. I mean, hell, if a guy is murdered in your hometown is that corroboration that you killed him? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2466 "2018-09-22T15:17:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > First, this is an extremely unfair characterization that unless a person believes that such things add up to corroboration, then he or she is simply a partisan whore wanting a conservative on the Supreme Court. I have defended guys from allegations far worse than this in criminal court. These guys weren’t conservative judges. At a base level, I have a problem with mere accusations causing someone else harm, whether that be prison, public approbation, or losing a seat on the Supreme Court. I have no ulterior motive here. > > Second, from my own life experience, most people are generally decent, all are capable of evil given the wrong circumstances, and that many, many people are kooks and liars. I don’t know Prof. Ford to be able to say with any certainty at all what category she falls in. And you don’t either. In your zeal to make sure that victims of sexual assault receive justice, you are willing to accept a level of evidence that would be unlikely to convict someone of speeding. It resembles the standard of proof for witchcraft in Salem in 1692. I know that is not your intent, but it will be the inevitable result. > > Finally, I agree with the previous poster that your examples are not corroboration at all: > > 1. So Mark Judge admits that he and his friends (presumably Kavanaugh) were hard partiers. That means nothing. I’m sure many posters here can recount some of their stupid younger moments. To suggest that as corroboration that Judge, let alone his friends, tried to rape women is a stretch at best. Plus, if you are going to make up a story to implicate Kavanaugh, why not put Judge in the room as well so that any denial he makes will make Kavanaugh look guilty by implication? > > 2. The statements to her husband and therapist. Her therapist’s notes tell a different story than hers. Plus, in that instance, she had an incentive to tell a self-serving story to save her marriage. What a great out to a spouse. Honey, I haven’t been doing all of these things to you for all of these years because I’m a nasty person, I’ve done it because of this repressed memory of a sexual assault I suffered. Who would leave their spouse after that? Plus, the timing is suspect as well. Romney could have won and Kavanaugh was on the top list of conservatives to the Court. She has made her political positions well known. > > 3. Statements from friends about how she changed. People always change through their teen years. A person’s strange actions could be a result of an infinite number of things. There are times in my life that I have acted in ways that to my friends would seem “strange.” It doesn’t mean I was raped. This is silliness at best. > > Now, you’ll probably say that an FBI investigation (and only that) could suss out some of these details to give the senators a clearer picture. I submit that it will not. You will get more of the same crap. People saying that Kavanaugh was wonderful and would never do that. People saying that Ford is/was wonderful and would never make up a story. People denying such a party took place. People remembering a similar party. People saying that Ford is a crazy, kooky woman. People saying she is level headed. > > The FBI investigation would be worthless, but you would likely say that there is no harm in it so go ahead and do it. But the delay just happens to coincide with Democratic desires to continue to delay the process until after the midterms and also just hope that because we cannot prove this allegation, that maybe enough bad shit will come out to convince two of the three of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski to vote no. > > I mean, that’s the whole reason to subpoena Judge. He’s already said that he doesn’t remember a similar party and never saw Kavanaugh do such a thing. What is the point of his testimony other than to embarrass him about his drinking and hope that enough of Judge’s actions get transferred to Kavanaugh? Please name one relevant detail that Judge could provide. You’re the one prejudging this situation, and prejudging a potential investigation, not I. I don’t know what happened. A full investigation would have a non-zero chance of turning up more information. It’s just ridiculous to be certain that it wouldn’t. Judge might be lying in his letter, but unwilling to lie under oath, for example. That would be very helpful in finding more facts out. They might be able to find other attendees of the party who might remember something important – perhaps Ford running out of a bedroom, or disappearing suspiciously, or something else. Alternately, the investigators might find something that would cast suspicion on Ford’s account – suspicious payments, or some previous statement she made about how she hated Kavanaugh ever since he rejected her for a date in high school, or countless other possibilities. Judge could provide the following details if he answers honestly: Does he ever remember being at a party with Ford? Does he ever remember any interaction between Kavanaugh and Ford? Does he remember heavy drinking at parties in the summer with Kavanaugh? And much more. It really is reasonable to want an investigation, regardless of politics. I was the first Doper (IIRC) to call for Al Franken to resign after he was credibly accused – sexual assault and rape are more important than politics. We shouldn’t be seating a SCOTUS justice without fully investigating such allegations and making sure he isn’t lying about it. Especially not in the present, not if we want the SCOTUS to be seen as a legitimate arbiter of law. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2467 "2018-09-22T15:26:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Of course those details are corroborated… I claimed that several details of her story were corroborated. You asked what are some of those details. I gave an example. You apparently now agree that details of her story have been corroborated. We’re getting somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2468 "2018-09-22T15:34:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re the one prejudging this situation, and prejudging a potential investigation, not I. I don’t know what happened. A full investigation would have a non-zero chance of turning up more information. It’s just ridiculous to be certain that it wouldn’t. Judge might be lying in his letter, but unwilling to lie under oath, for example. That would be very helpful in finding more facts out. They might be able to find other attendees of the party who might remember something important – perhaps Ford running out of a bedroom, or disappearing suspiciously, or something else. > > Alternately, the investigators might find something that would cast suspicion on Ford’s account – suspicious payments, or some previous statement she made about how she hated Kavanaugh ever since he rejected her for a date in high school, or countless other possibilities. > > Judge could provide the following details if he answers honestly: > > Does he ever remember being at a party with Ford? Does he ever remember any interaction between Kavanaugh and Ford? Does he remember heavy drinking at parties in the summer with Kavanaugh? And much more. > > It really is reasonable to want an investigation, regardless of politics. I was the first Doper (IIRC) to call for Al Franken to resign after he was credibly accused – sexual assault and rape are more important than politics. We shouldn’t be seating a SCOTUS justice without fully investigating such allegations and making sure he isn’t lying about it. Especially not in the present, not if we want the SCOTUS to be seen as a legitimate arbiter of law. You don’t think that there is an investigation going on right now? I’ll bet you a shiny nickel that a guy who worked at Dairy Queen in 1982 who served Brett Kavanaugh a vanilla ice cream cone has his voice mailbox full from messages from reporters. Every left wing operative is out there looking for evidence that Kavanaugh is a drunken rapist and every right wing operative is out there for evidence that Ford is a lying whore. Do you disagree with me that this allegation of sexual assault is being investigated more than any other such allegation in the history of the world? This is worlds better than an FBI investigation as those agents have ethics and must respect civil liberties. Journalists are generally ethical as well, but those who are not ethical are out there paying bribes and making threats. This “we must have an FBI investigation” is a talking point. Nobody who is sexually assaulted gets an FBI investigation unless it was interstate in nature or occurred on Federal property. The Maryland authorities who would properly investigate this, if they deemed it fruitful, have never been contacted about it. The FBI has declined to investigate and this type of discretion is not unusual. Law enforcement resources are limited and running around on a wild goose chase about stuff that happened last century does not seem like a legitimate use of law enforcement resources. Also, to the extent that you felt that I was implying political motivation, I apologize. I was merely commenting on the fact that in cases of allegations of sexual assault, you tend to believe the accuser first, either without evidence or upon flimsy evidence. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2469 "2018-09-22T15:36:04Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I claimed that several details of her story were corroborated. > > You asked what are some of those details. > > I gave an example. > > You apparently now agree that details of her story have been corroborated. > > We’re getting somewhere. Yes, she is also a female named Christine Blasey Ford, so that detail is corroborated. I guess he is guilty. In any event, I was asking for details _of substance_ that have been corroborated. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2470 "2018-09-22T15:38:05Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > I’m out. There are a lot of great people on this board, but staying here is like staying at a party where everyone has your shit on their shoes: the stench is disgusting and a nasty disease all too likely. I feel you, man. This shit is getting ridiculous. We’re now at the point that Kanavaugh is being made to look like Lenny from Of Mice and Men, and this is in his _defense_. A teenaged drunkard of a football player whose “hijinks” included putting a younger schoolmate in mortal fear while groping her body against her will…and yet he’s the one whose credibility is assumed by default. We’re being asked to accept that even if this is how the whole thing went down, it’s nothing to worry about at all. So what if this caused her psychological harm well into middle age. Why should his youthful hijinks come back to haunt him _now_? Please don’t leave. If sane voices disappear from this board, I shudder to think what this community will become. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2471 "2018-09-22T15:47:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yes, she is also a female named Christine Blasey Ford, so that detail is corroborated. I guess he is guilty. > > In any event, I was asking for details _of substance_ that have been corroborated. Number one you didn’t ask for ‘details of substance’. I can’t imagine why you would claim that you did. Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated. Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated. None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2472 "2018-09-22T15:52:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. This Monday versus Thursday versus Wednesday is simply a power play. This is the U.S. Senate, not a doctor’s appointment. Be there when it is scheduled. > > 2. Further, it is terribly disingenuous to want to testify after Kavanaugh. What possible reason could there be for that other than to let him deny what you have already said and then spring additional things on him that he will not have the chance to rebut? > > Simply asking for such a thing lowers her credibility in my eyes and in many others. Does anyone on this board think it is fair not to allow Kavanaugh a chance to rebut her testimony? > > 1. Objecting to outside counsel. Again, who in the hell is she to dictate procedure? Further, there can be no other reason for that than she wants to give Booker, Kamala Harris, and Hirono a national spotlight to continue to smear Kavanaugh with outrageous attacks and to “question” her by telling her how wonderfully courageously courageous she is. 1. I can conceive of a non-bad faith reasons for this and it’s relatively trivial either way. But I agree it’s not a service provider appointment and the net bad reflection is on Ford’s camp if that’s the deal breaker, IMO. 2. This one in my opinion is really outrageous and absolutely necessary for the Senate (whichever party) to reject. It’s an ageless principal of both law and general fairness that if somebody accuses you of something you get to hear it as directly as possible from them, then respond to it. It would be very hard to come up with a valid reason to overturn that idea and I don’t see what it would be in this case. That principal is also being modified from the formal legal version by agreeing Kavanaugh doesn’t have to physically be there, but that’s fine IMO. We now have audio/video, whereas the original idea of _facing_ an accuser was in part for the accused not to have to rely on other people’s accounts of what was said and without knowing the tone, body language etc. But demanding that a person accused respond to allegations before hearing them in full, just based on partial information in a news story, is a ridiculous demand which I agree alone seriously undercuts Ford’s credibility. 1. I agree this is also pretty plainly politically tactical. The idea is to preserve the narrative of ‘insensitive white males’ as ‘interrogators’ besides insuring a political stage for the Democrats you mentioned and others. There’s no rational basis why the committee can’t use outside counsel to ask questions it decides to ask. If the majority of the committee is GOP (or Dem), ‘elections have consequences’. No honest person believes the Democrats would act other than to maximize their political position with shoe on other foot, as they are trying to do as is. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2473 "2018-09-22T16:15:54Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Number one you didn’t ask for ‘details of substance’. I can’t imagine why you would claim that you did. > > Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated. > > Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated. > > None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance. I guess we have different definitions of “corroboration.” All this shows is that she was familiar with who Judge and Kavanaugh were in high school. Anyone who attended school in the area or was in the same social circles of the two could tell you the exact same thing. Anyone that Judge or Kavanaugh confided in the subsequent 36 years could tell you the same thing. It is not evidence, substantial or otherwise, that a sexual assault occurred. If anything, it _diminishes_ the claim, because, if the claim is false, who better to put in the same room with Kavanaugh than a known drunk who admitted to blacking out at parties? It is much easier to fabricate allegations against people you know because you can sprinkle in verifiably true details into your otherwise false (if it is false) narrative. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2474 "2018-09-22T16:21:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Now, putting aside all politics, is this a plausible or at least possible scenario? No, dude. This is ludicrous. Concocting some elaborate story based on essentially nothing in order to discredit someone is ludicrous. Reserving judgment is actually you know, reserving judgment. Not it could be X, it could be Y, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2475 "2018-09-22T16:23:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Where does she say this? Linky, _please!!_ > > Oh, that’s right: the conservatives on this board have a talented crew of mind-readers, able to discern the intents and motivations of people they’ve never interacted with. :rolleyes: I’m confused. What do you want a “linky” to? The fact (I assumed was a universally understood) that Dr. Ford wanted to remain anonymous? Okay, here’s a linky: [https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html) I could probably come up with hundreds of other similar linkys. She would, in fact, be anonymous to this day if it weren’t for some pesky leakers that are nearly ubiquitous in the world of politics. Perhaps you want a linky that she wanted to remain anonymous to avoid blowback onto herself. I honestly cannot conceive of why a person would want to remain anonymous for any other reason than to avoid blowback. Do you NOT think she wanted to avoid blowback? But, in any case, I think that can be strongly infered by her lawyer’s statement in that very same article: > [@](#): > > Katz said her client “was not wanting to inject herself into this. Because who would want to incur this kind of really highly politicized attack game that she now finds herself in? She was fine with that decision, but that decision was taken away from her after the hearings when her allegations were essentially leaked.” Is that sufficient? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2476 "2018-09-22T16:31:30Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Number one you didn’t ask for ‘details of substance’. I can’t imagine why you would claim that you did. > > Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated. > > Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated. > > None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance. Missed the edit window: Again, assuming her allegation are false, what if there was indeed an event where all parties recall being present? Say there was an Independence Day party on July 4, 1982 where there was a picture of Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge sitting by the pool and drinking beer. If Ford said that after that party, Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, would you consider that corroboration? To me, all that shows is that it would not have violated the laws of physics for the assault to have occurred. However, it still says nothing of Ford’s veracity, or indeed of Kavanaugh’s veracity. To me, that is not evidence of anything other than they were at a party. It would be like saying that Anita Hill’s allegations against Clarence Thomas had corroboration because we can prove that they both worked together. I’m not trying to be dense, but I’m trying to figure out how this is evidence of anything. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2477 "2018-09-22T16:39:50Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > … I’ve never just set a meeting day and insisted upon it if someone can’t make it. Yes, but you’re not representing 21 senators. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2478 "2018-09-22T16:43:49Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > … What the hell are you talking about? How is Kavanaugh, or anyone else, supposed to answer a claim _if they have not heard it_ … I’ve wondered this too. What does the Ford-should-go-last crowd expect Kavanaugh’s testimony to consistent of? Is he supposed to testify against the fragmented media reports? Deleted FaceBook posts? Ford’s letter (which, I believe Feinstein still has not released an unredacted copy of)? Predict what Ford may say in the future and testify against that? It’s totally nonsensical for Ford to testify last. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2479 "2018-09-22T16:44:24Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Number one you didn’t ask for ‘details of substance’. I can’t imagine why you would claim that you did. > > Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated. > > Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated. > > None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance. Corroboration that has nothing to do with the details of the alleged attack that would not be know by parties not involved would be interesting. But saying she ran in the same social circles is nothing of substance. As an example, in the general sense, it would be relevant corroboration if a person making allegations of sexual assault is able to correctly describe the interior of a private space, such as the accused’s bedroom, that would not be commonly known. But in the specific case since Ford apparently cannot recall the location of the residence involved then making a similar statement that could be corroborated would be quite difficult in the current year. So far Ford seems to allege that she can provide testimony about an incident but no physical evidence. And so far Kavanaugh seems to be willing to provide testimony that he never engaged in such behavior with any woman. A serious question is what, if anything, can be offered in the way of evidence that could be independently corroborated at this point? As much as Whelan’s doppleganger theory has been dismissed he at least was trying to corroborate details provided in Ford’s allegation in order to try to identify the house where the alleged attack occurred. Since Ford describes going into an upstairs bedroom then it stands to reason that the house in question would have more than one story. Ford describes going into a bathroom across from the bedroom so the house in question would have an upstairs bathroom. Those are corroborating details, though not particularly specific ones. Any more specific details that could be independently corroborated would be helpful in verifying or disputing the truthfulness of her claims. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2480 "2018-09-22T16:47:25Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > There are two days next week that if I got called before Congress to testify, I would have to say that I could not attend, and it would have to be a different day. I don’t say that because I’m so self important, but because I think I’m pretty typical. It just doesn’t work that way with legislative and judicial bodies. If the WV Supreme Court tells me to be there next Wednesday, it just won’t work for me to tell them that I can’t be there because I have nobody to watch my dog that day. Perhaps if I had to attend a funeral that day, they would accommodate. What I would not get away with is telling them that Thursday and Tuesday are just as good and just as “arbitrary” as Wednesday and to fuck them that I’ll be there on the day of my choosing. Hundreds, if not thousands of people will need to be there for this Ford/Kavanaugh hearing. If we tailored it to everyone’s individual schedule, it would never happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=123) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=125)