# 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:** 127
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2521 "2018-09-22T19:09:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The politics is almost completely a side discussion compared to what to do about a credible allegation of sexual assault. It should be reported to the police, and investigated by them. For some as yet unexplained reason, the alleged victim has not reported it. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2522 "2018-09-22T19:11:04Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It should be reported to the police, and investigated by them. For some as yet unexplained reason, the alleged victim has not reported it. It’s been explained many times. Accusers of sexual assault and rape are generally treated like shit in this country, and this has only started to change recently. And she may well still report it to the local authorities (it’s already been reported to national law enforcement). ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2523 "2018-09-22T19:19:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s been explained many times. Accusers of sexual assault and rape are generally treated like shit in this country, and this has only started to change recently. And she may well still report it to the local authorities (it’s already been reported to national law enforcement). That may explain why she chose not to report it in the past, if it’s true. It doesn’t explain why she has not done so now. As for “national authorities”, there are none with jurisdiction to investigate the allegation as it currently stands - a misdemeanor that happened approximately 35 years ago. That’s not a case for the FBI under any circumstances. If you expect another FBI background check, perhaps you could explain what you expect it might find that the previous 6 haven’t. If there was credible evidence that Kavanaugh was a sexual predator, they would have uncovered it - assuming that part of the background check is speaking to people who knew him. But then, you’ve already admitted to prejudging the case, to being biased towards the accuser, in defiance of justice or logic. So I’ve no doubt you’ll continue to assume Kavanaugh is a sexual predator regardless of what the evidence says. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2524 "2018-09-22T19:20:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Of course it’s credible. The accuser has no apparent reason to lie. Her life is being strongly negatively impacted. She told others years before making this allegation. And the delay is irrelevant – most sexual assaults and rapes from acquaintances/friends (i.e. “date rape” and similar pheonomena) from the 80s weren’t reported. Because society treated accusers at the time like utter shit if they accused someone of raping or assaulting them except for quite narrow circumstances (i.e. nearly every rape aside from “stranger jumps out of the bushes with a knife”). It tells us absolutely nothing that a terrified and traumatized teenager wouldn’t report an assault, since she would likely be treated terribly had she done so. I’m with **AK84** here. That is such a loose definition of “credible” that makes almost every allegation of sexual assault to be credible. 1. No reason to lie: Everyone has a reason to lie. Some people are simply liars. We don’t know if this is Ford, but we don’t know it is not. The accusation cannot be the credibility. 2. Life “strongly negatively impacted.” Really? She will be a hero to the left even if Kavanaugh is confirmed. She will be a millionaire on the speaking circuit. She will be the face of sexual assault “survivors” who were treated poorly by “old white men” on the Judiciary Committee. Any criticism of her will be characterized as people who “just don’t get it.” You can call me a lying whore all day while I keep cashing the checks. 3. Prior revelation. Yes thirty years after it happened and the person to whom she disclosed (the therapist) has notes which are irreconcilably in conflict with her story. Also done to save her marriage and in a time (the first such time) that Kavanaugh would have realistically been a good possibility for a Supreme Court nomination. Again, I am not trying to be daft. But these things that you cite for credibility could likely be said about any accusation. And I fear, to the extent that we are not there already, that an accusation means guilt and prison, scorn, or no Supreme Court for you. She may very well be telling the truth, but it has been so long that it will never be proven. No, it is not a criminal trial, but our basic sense of fairness as Americans should make us demand more than a simple allegation to prevent pretty much anything. As you admit, there is only a “non-zero” chance of finding anything. But that is not what the Dems want. They want an interrogation on how much Kavanaugh drank in high school, how many girls he banged, did his parents know, is that consistent with Christian morality, would he want his daughters drinking and fucking in high school, etc. Plain character assassination that a reasonable judicial body should not allow. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2525 "2018-09-22T19:22:51Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > You tried to make the case that the corroborated details were not substantive, but I addressed that. > > You tried to make the case that under an alternative definition of corroborated the details were not corroborated, but I addressed that as well. > > What posts have I failed to address? > > Are you now denying that details of her story have been corroborated? The only thing you have put forward is that they lived near each other. If you want a debate point “win” then that is corroboration of _that particular detail of her story_ which nobody disputes. It says absolutely nothing about her sexual assault claim. You have not addressed that. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2526 "2018-09-22T19:23:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That may explain why she chose not to report it in the past, if it’s true. It doesn’t explain why she has not done so now. As for “national authorities”, there are none with jurisdiction to investigate the allegation as it currently stands - a misdemeanor that happened approximately 35 years ago. That’s not a case for the FBI under any circumstances. False. The FBI could, if so ordered or requested, investigate this as they have other concerns of the Senate during judicial confirmation hearings. They did so for Clarence Thomas and for many other judicial nominees. > [@](#): > > If you expect another FBI background check, perhaps you could explain what you expect it might find that the previous 6 haven’t. If there was credible evidence that Kavanaugh was a sexual predator, they would have uncovered it - assuming that part of the background check is speaking to people who knew him. The second sentence is laughable nonsense, considering the many, many abusers and assaulters who have gone through background checks. But now, the FBI would have a starting point – they could interview Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge, their fellow students, and much more. There’s plenty they could look into, as many law enforcement and investigative professionals have explicitly stated. It might be unusual, but it’s far from unheard of for investigators to look into incidents that are this old or older. > [@](#): > > But then, you’ve already admitted to prejudging the case, to being biased towards the accuser, in defiance of justice or logic. So I’ve no doubt you’ll continue to assume Kavanaugh is a sexual predator regardless of what the evidence says. LOL. I’ve admitted to being in favor of a full investigation. That’s because I’m interested in the truth, and in treating sexual assault accusations seriously and respectfully. ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2527 "2018-09-22T19:27:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m with **AK84** here. That is such a loose definition of “credible” that makes almost every allegation of sexual assault to be credible. > > 1. No reason to lie: Everyone has a reason to lie. Some people are simply liars. We don’t know if this is Ford, but we don’t know it is not. The accusation cannot be the credibility. > > 2. Life “strongly negatively impacted.” Really? She will be a hero to the left even if Kavanaugh is confirmed. She will be a millionaire on the speaking circuit. She will be the face of sexual assault “survivors” who were treated poorly by “old white men” on the Judiciary Committee. Any criticism of her will be characterized as people who “just don’t get it.” You can call me a lying whore all day while I keep cashing the checks. > > 3. Prior revelation. Yes thirty years after it happened and the person to whom she disclosed (the therapist) has notes which are irreconcilably in conflict with her story. Also done to save her marriage and in a time (the first such time) that Kavanaugh would have realistically been a good possibility for a Supreme Court nomination. > > Again, I am not trying to be daft. But these things that you cite for credibility could likely be said about any accusation. And I fear, to the extent that we are not there already, that an accusation means guilt and prison, scorn, or no Supreme Court for you. That’s just ridiculous. If I accused Kavanaugh, it wouldn’t be credible – I didn’t go to a nearby high school. There’s no chance we were in the same place at the same time in such an event. I never told anyone years before the allegation. These things can only be said about an accusation that is made by someone of similar age, who went to school very close to Kavanaugh, and who told their therapist and husband years before the accusation came to light. That’s many, many fewer than “any accusation”. In fact, unless there are other victims who haven’t come forward, it can only be said about one accusation. > [@](#): > > She may very well be telling the truth, but it has been so long that it will never be proven. No, it is not a criminal trial, but our basic sense of fairness as Americans should make us demand more than a simple allegation to prevent pretty much anything. I agree – we should demand an investigation and then make a decision based on the findings of that investigation. > [@](#): > > As you admit, there is only a “non-zero” chance of finding anything. But that is not what the Dems want. They want an interrogation on how much Kavanaugh drank in high school, how many girls he banged, did his parents know, is that consistent with Christian morality, would he want his daughters drinking and fucking in high school, etc. Plain character assassination that a reasonable judicial body should not allow. Doesn’t matter what the Democrats want. All such credible accusations must be investigated. 6 days is not enough time to decide that we’ve done everything we can. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2528 "2018-09-22T19:30:49Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That may explain why she chose not to report it in the past, if it’s true. It doesn’t explain why she has not done so now. As for “national authorities”, there are none with jurisdiction to investigate the allegation as it currently stands - a misdemeanor that happened approximately 35 years ago. That’s not a case for the FBI under any circumstances. > > If you expect another FBI background check, perhaps you could explain what you expect it might find that the previous 6 haven’t. If there was credible evidence that Kavanaugh was a sexual predator, they would have uncovered it - assuming that part of the background check is speaking to people who knew him. > > . Just to further add to this. Discovery or investigation are generally controlled by law and policies which greatly control and limit what can and cannot be searched for or investigated. To get an agency to investigate something an asker has to declare what the facts in issue are and what evidence is the proposed investigation likely to reveal which will settle or be probative to the facts in issue. In this case, there is very little which an investigation is likely to reveal which will be probative or disprobative of the facts in issue and therefore its not one which can reasonably beordered. ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2529 "2018-09-22T19:35:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The only thing you have put forward is that they lived near each other. If you want a debate point “win” then that is corroboration of _that particular detail of her story_ which nobody disputes. It says absolutely nothing about her sexual assault claim. You have not addressed that. I have addressed that. One more time… Her claim that she was sexually assaulted is credible, in part, because several details of her claim have been corroborated. This is a long way from saying her claim has been proven. Furthermore, “The only thing you have put forward is that they lived near each other,” is demonstrably false. Other corroborated claims that I have put forward include: Ford and Kavanaugh were in the same social circles Judge was a heavy drinker in high school Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in high school Judge and Kavanaugh drank heavily together That is much more than they lived near each other. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2530 "2018-09-22T19:37:15Z")
Text of Ford’s response to Grassley: > [@Letter](#): > > Dr. Ford accepts the Committee’s request to provide her first-hand knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct next week. Although many aspects of the proposal you provided via email, on September 21, 2018, at 2:33 pm, are fundamentally inconsistent with the Committee’s promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations, and we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process, we are hopeful that we can reach agreement on details. Can we set up a time for later this afternoon to continue our negotiations? > > Sincerely, > > Debra S. Katz > > Lisa Banks I’m sure that Grassley’s response will be much nicer than mine would. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2531 "2018-09-22T19:39:00Z")
How can classmates of Ford have corroborated her story back in the 1980s if she never told anyone about the event until 2012 when in therapy with her husband? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2532 "2018-09-22T19:39:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That may explain why she chose not to report it in the past, if it’s true. It doesn’t explain why she has not done so now. You know, I’ve heard an argument like this argument before. I think it went “She couldn’t have been raped because she didn’t fight.” Is that the disgusting direction you wanted to take your argument? If not, why don’t you make an attempt to restate it in a way that doesn’t track with that pathetic old trope? ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2533 "2018-09-22T19:39:51Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I have addressed that. One more time… > > Her claim that she was sexually assaulted is credible, in part, because several details of her claim have been corroborated. This is a long way from saying her claim has been proven. > > Furthermore, “The only thing you have put forward is that they lived near each other,” is demonstrably false. Other corroborated claims that I have put forward include: > > Ford and Kavanaugh were in the same social circles > Judge was a heavy drinker in high school > Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in high school > Judge and Kavanaugh drank heavily together > > That is much more than they lived near each other. Anybody in that social circle would have known these things, even the young men/boys in that circle. It adds nothing to the credence of her allegation. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2534 "2018-09-22T19:40:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As for my own reaction to allegations of sexual assault – I trust that, in general, accusers of sexual assault are truthful and honest. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > LOL. I’ve admitted to being in favor of a full investigation. That’s because I’m interested in the truth, and in treating sexual assault accusations seriously and respectfully. You outright admit to being biased in favour of the accuser, in defiance of justice or logic. Logic says that, without corroborating evidence, we cannot decide whether the accuser or accused is more likely to be telling the truth. And justice demands that the benefit of the doubt be given to the accused, because of the enormous harm done to both the individual and to society as a whole by punishing an innocent. In case you don’t understand fully, it is far worse to punish an innocent person than it is to rape or even murder someone. Because the latter, no matter how horrific, is done by individuals, but the former is done by the entire society. As yet, there is no credible evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford (or at least, none that has been presented in this thread or the links I’ve followed from it). The absolute most we can say about the accusation at present, without unfounded speculation, is that it is not impossible that it’s true. That is not grounds for anything beyond an investigation, but it appears that Ford is not willing to make the report to the police that would trigger an investigation. And again, we need some perspective. This is an unsupported allegation of a misdemeanor crime decades ago. That is not something that, reasonably, should be considered to matter for _any_ job. It certainly doesn’t for POTUS, a significantly higher position than Kavanaugh is going for, as everyone since Clinton has admitted to crimes as a youth. Clinton drugs, Bush jr DUI, Obama drugs, and Trump… well, how long have you got? But then, you can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into, and it’s very clear you are incapable of approaching this reasonably. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2535 "2018-09-22T19:40:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Text of Ford’s response to Grassley: > > I’m sure that Grassley’s response will be much nicer than mine would. Grassley at least has gotten the political message (if not the personal moral one) that sexual assault accusers must be treated with at least some small degree of kindness, decency, and respect, and thus not dismissed out of hand over small disagreements about how exactly to testify. It’s a shame that you haven’t got that message. Kavanaugh has nothing to fear from scrutiny and an investigation if he’s innocent. The Republicans are not acting as if this is the case. ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2536 "2018-09-22T19:43:28Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You know, I’ve heard an argument like this argument before. I think it went “She couldn’t have been raped because she didn’t fight.” > > Is that the disgusting direction you wanted to take your argument? If not, why don’t you make an attempt to restate it in a way that doesn’t track with that pathetic old trope? WTF, dude. This is ridiculous and why we cannot have reasoned debate on this. The poster that you responded to neither said nor implied any such thing. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2537 "2018-09-22T19:44:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You outright admit to being biased in favour of the accuser, in defiance of justice or logic. > > Logic says that, without corroborating evidence, we cannot decide whether the accuser or accused is more likely to be telling the truth. And justice demands that the benefit of the doubt be given to the accused, because of the enormous harm done to both the individual and to society as a whole by punishing an innocent. > > In case you don’t understand fully, it is far worse to punish an innocent person than it is to rape or even murder someone. Because the latter, no matter how horrific, is done by individuals, but the former is done by the entire society. > > As yet, there is no credible evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford (or at least, none that has been presented in this thread or the links I’ve followed from it). The absolute most we can say about the accusation at present, without unfounded speculation, is that it is not impossible that it’s true. That is not grounds for anything beyond an investigation, but it appears that Ford is not willing to make the report to the police that would trigger an investigation. > > And again, we need some perspective. This is an unsupported allegation of a misdemeanor crime decades ago. That is not something that, reasonably, should be considered to matter for _any_ job. It certainly doesn’t for POTUS, a significantly higher position than Kavanaugh is going for, as everyone since Clinton has admitted to crimes as a youth. Clinton drugs, Bush jr DUI, Obama drugs, and Trump… well, how long have you got? > > But then, you can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into, and it’s very clear you are incapable of approaching this reasonably. This post is mostly nonsense, and mostly unrelated to anything I’ve posted. All I’m calling for in this case is a full investigation. Any biases I have as a bystander are entirely irrelevant to this, since I’m not calling for any punishment or consequences at all. Our society treats sexual assault accusers like shit, and here’s an opportunity to not treat one like shit, and to fully investigate their accusation, prior to seating someone in a lifetime appointment to the highest court. And violent attempted rape (what Ford describes) in MD is absolutely a felony, not a misdemeanor: [https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html](https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2538 "2018-09-22T19:46:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It should be reported to the police, and investigated by them. For some as yet unexplained reason, the alleged victim has not reported it. I think it’s pretty clear that the SoL precludes any criminal investigation being possible. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2539 "2018-09-22T19:47:22Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You know, I’ve heard an argument like this argument before. I think it went “She couldn’t have been raped because she didn’t fight.” > > Is that the disgusting direction you wanted to take your argument? If not, why don’t you make an attempt to restate it in a way that doesn’t track with that pathetic old trope? Um, no? I’m saying it may have been understandable for her not to report it to the police in the past, due to a belief that she would not have been taken seriously and would not want it to be made public. Now that neither of those things are relevant, there is no reason not to report it and to have a full investiagtion. I suspect if such a report is made, credible evidence is found, and Kavanaugh arrested and questioned, there would not be such a push to confirm him. My argument, to make it clear, is not that her failure to report it means that she’s lying. It’s that, if she wants it investigated and wants to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, she should report it to the police, not accuse him in public, provide no evidence, and attempt to prevent him from replying to the charges. ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2540 "2018-09-22T19:47:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Grassley at least has gotten the political message (if not the personal moral one) that sexual assault accusers must be treated with at least some small degree of kindness, decency, and respect, and thus not dismissed out of hand over small disagreements about how exactly to testify. > > It’s a shame that you haven’t got that message. > > Kavanaugh has nothing to fear from scrutiny and an investigation if he’s innocent. The Republicans are not acting as if this is the case. How has Grassley disrespected her or how has she been “bullied”? That word sounds like millennial safe space bullshit. What he said was come here and testify, public or private, we will hear your story. How does that deserve that shitty response from her attorneys? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=126) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=128)