# 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:** 130
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2581 "2018-09-22T21:23:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I certainly do – I want a full investigation. Law enforcement very frequently proceeds with investigations based on a single report or statement. In this case, law enforcement has reviewed the claim and declined to investigate. Further, Ford, who uniquely is the only person in the world that seems to have a memory of this event, could provide details to help law enforcement. Except that she has not. She has named two other people at the party, both of whom deny being there. She doesn’t remember where or when. If you are an investigator what do you do next? Detain everyone who lived or passed through Montgomery County, MD from 1981-1984? It’s a fool’s errand, and the Dems know it. This “investigation” would be nothing about how many beers Kavanaugh drank on a particular night and how many girls he banged in high school, stuff that if one even suggested being approached with Ford would be the fodder of yet another Pit thread instead of reasoned discussion. ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2582 "2018-09-22T21:24:17Z")
> [@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. So, you have no idea why someone would not report such an incident? But that very point has been discussed here, is a matter of historical record, women are reluctant to expose themselves to that. You have every opportunity to inform yourself as to the facts. (Wouldn’t that be the way of things? We get some reform going, and women feel more secure and comfortable in reporting such indecencies, so they do. And tighty rightys will be right down here to tell us that ever since the liberals got their way, rape reports are _skyrocketing_! Sure would love to be wrong about 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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2583 "2018-09-22T21:24:36Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > In this case, law enforcement has reviewed the claim and declined to investigate. Further, Ford, who uniquely is the only person in the world that seems to have a memory of this event, could provide details to help law enforcement. > > Except that she has not. She has named two other people at the party, both of whom deny being there. She doesn’t remember where or when. If you are an investigator what do you do next? Detain everyone who lived or passed through Montgomery County, MD from 1981-1984? It’s a fool’s errand, and the Dems know it. > > This “investigation” would be nothing about how many beers Kavanaugh drank on a particular night and how many girls he banged in high school, stuff that if one even suggested being approached with Ford would be the fodder of yet another Pit thread instead of reasoned discussion. The Montgomery county sheriff has said that he is ready to investigate if Ford makes a complaint. Which she may do shortly. Further, the FBI could easily investigate if ordered by the WH. The only reason not to is political. It’s literally only been 6 days since the accuser came forward. It’s nuts to think that 6 days is close to long enough to conclude that nothing else needs to be done about an allegation. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2584 "2018-09-22T21:28:49Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why don’t we have that with Ford? She and Kavanaugh have acknowledged knowing each other. That they attended the same school at the same time is also not in question. We don’t have that with Ford because both of your assertions are incorrect. They have not acknowledged knowing each other, and they did not attend the same schools, especially during summer vacation. > [@](#): > > An investigation could fairly easily establish whether Ford and Kavanaugh attended the same parties and social events during the summer she said the assault occurred… I don’t think it would be easy to establish this. We aren’t sure what year, we don’t know the exact date, we don’t know which house, and the only people Ford says were there have both denied it. Who else are we going to ask? Classmates of Kavanaugh? 65 of them have already said they don’t believe it ever took place, so I doubt if they are going to be able to say anything about the party. > [@](#): > > There’s no reason to think there would be such witnesses in the priest situation but not Ford’s. There aren’t any such witnesses named in Ford’s case. Kavanaugh and Judge (and maybe Whyte) are the only ones named, and they all deny it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2585 "2018-09-22T21:29:48Z")
Your bullshit distinction rides on your assertion that: > [@Ashtura](#): > > It stretches credibility that a high level politician would be expected to read this letter and just sit on it, but, uh, sure. And yet that’s what DiFi did her best to do. Reality may sometimes stretch credibility (damn frequently, over the past two years), but it’s still reality. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2586 "2018-09-22T21:33:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Montgomery county sheriff has said that he is ready to investigate if Ford makes a complaint. Which she may do shortly. She won’t. You need evidence for a criminal complaint. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there isn’t probable cause to arrest, there isn’t even reasonable suspicion. No DA in his right mind would try to prosecute this, not because of any unfairness to women, but because it was 35 years ago, no witnesses, no circumstantial evidence, not even a specific date and place where a crime is alleged to have been committed. All that pesky stuff about the rights of the accused that you liberals are supposedly so concerned about. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2587 "2018-09-22T21:36:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Text of Ford’s response to Grassley: > > I’m sure that Grassley’s response will be much nicer than mine would. You know, we’ve known who Ford is for just six days. (It may _seem_ like longer, but that’s all it’s been.) I realize the delays seem intolerable, but jeez. You’re not a kid waiting for Christmas to get here. ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2588 "2018-09-22T21:36:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > She won’t. You need evidence for a criminal complaint. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there isn’t probable cause to arrest, there isn’t even reasonable suspicion. No DA in his right mind would try to prosecute this, not because of any unfairness to women, but because it was 35 years ago, no witnesses, no circumstantial evidence, not even a specific date and place where a crime is alleged to have been committed. All that pesky stuff about the rights of the accused that you liberals are supposedly so concerned about. > > Regards, > Shodan Lots of professional investigators seem to disagree with you, and YANAL. But we’ll see. I expect she’ll testify in the coming week. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2589 "2018-09-22T21:37:00Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > CNBC reports that she agrees to testify with “details yet to be worked out.” > > [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/22/christine-blasey-ford-accuser-of-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-agrees-to-testify-to-key-senate-members-details-to-be-worked-out.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/22/christine-blasey-ford-accuser-of-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-agrees-to-testify-to-key-senate-members-details-to-be-worked-out.html) > > That’s not an acceptance. The GOP needs to quit allowing these games. 12 more hours for a full acceptance or we vote Monday. Do you promise? ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2590 "2018-09-22T21:48:37Z")
Given that Grassley’s aide coordinating messaging on this whole thing [just resigned](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/GOP-Staffer-Garrett-Ventry-Kavanaugh-Resigns-Harassment-Allegation-494036251.html) because it came out he was fired for sexual harassment, you would think conservative Dopers would be fine with a calm, measured, detailed approach. Or maybe they just want to shove this through before more women come forward, like those that said they were coached to [look like models](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua) in order to clerk for Kavanaugh. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2591 "2018-09-22T21:49:03Z")
> [@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. How about: she outed herself less than a week ago, she’s had her whole life turned upside down, she’s had to move out of her house and go into hiding on account of death threats, and she’s been trying to negotiate terms for appearing before the Judiciary Committee. IOW, she’s been rather busy, and assuming she’s telling the truth, her focus is keeping her rapist off the Supreme Court, not putting her rapist in prison. You might say: the Maryland police could do the investigation she wants. True, but on what time frame? It’s not going to be a high priority for them. Even if she intends to bring charges against Kavanaugh in Maryland, it makes little sense for her to do so before the question of Kavanaugh’s nomination is settled. > [@](#): > > 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. The difference being, this time it would be the focus of their investigation, rather than something they might have found out by accident. And yes, additional background investigations have traditionally been the FBI’s purview. Grassley has requested and received a number of them. ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2592 "2018-09-22T21:50:44Z")
Already said I think Dr Ford should let it go, and make her story known through more open channels. In the cold grey light of _realpolitik_, the Senate committee refusing to let her testify works better. Oodles and gobs better. Clearly, the Ghastly Grassley wanted to do just that, but he was using the old playbook, when you could just brush aside a woman’s claims and that was the end of it. That was then, when attempted rape in the first degree was a misdemeanor. The women are pissed. They have good reason. And the handwriting on the wall is _Grassley testes delenda est_. Its your ass, Chuckie… ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2593 "2018-09-22T21:59:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > …the letter that Feinstein is still sitting on was available to investigate during the hearings. Nothing… Ah, yes, investigate during the hearings, the appropriate time. Like the other things Dems brought up. See, the Dems can’t vote an investigation themselves, they have to ask. And they asked…three? four? times on other topics, and each time were refused, eleven to ten. “Fuck you, we don’t have to, and you can’t make us!” Take Sen Leahey’s complaint about stolen information in the Kav’s hands. He had evidence, he showed the evidence, he politely asked for an investigation, eleven to ten, no. But for a very good reason! They didn’t want to! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2594 "2018-09-22T22:08:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Lots of professional investigators seem to disagree with you, and YANAL. Name one who thinks Kavanaugh will be indicted or could be convicted based on the evidence to date. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2595 "2018-09-22T22:13:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > She won’t. You need evidence for a criminal complaint. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there isn’t probable cause to arrest, there isn’t even reasonable suspicion. No DA in his right mind would try to prosecute this, not because of any unfairness to women, but because it was 35 years ago, no witnesses, no circumstantial evidence, not even a specific date and place where a crime is alleged to have been committed. All that pesky stuff about the rights of the accused that you liberals are supposedly so concerned about. > > Regards, > Shodan Of course there would be no arrest, no beyond a reasonable doubt, before an investigation. I am not sure how you think that this works, that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt before there is an investigation is exactly backwards. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2596 "2018-09-22T22:14:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Name one who thinks Kavanaugh will be indicted or could be convicted based on the evidence to date. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s not what I said. Generally, investigations precede indictments and convictions. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2597 "2018-09-22T22:24:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ah, yes, investigate during the hearings, the appropriate time. Like the other things Dems brought up. See, the Dems can’t vote an investigation themselves, they have to ask. And they asked…three? four? times on other topics, and each time were refused, eleven to ten. “Fuck you, we don’t have to, and you can’t make us!” > > Take Sen Leahey’s complaint about stolen information in the Kav’s hands. He had evidence, he showed the evidence, he politely asked for an investigation, eleven to ten, no. But for a very good reason! They didn’t want to! They are desperate to keep any evidence on Kavanaugh from emerging. Hurry hurry hurry vote vote vote before it comes out! > [@Shodan](#): > > Name one who thinks Kavanaugh will be indicted or could be convicted based on the evidence to date. This irresistibly reminds me of right-wing delusions that because Mueller hasn’t yet revealed all the evidence he’s gathered, there must BE no evidence. Guess consistency is a good thing, even if it’s only consistency in irrationality… > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am not sure how you think that this works, that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt before there is an investigation is exactly backwards. Do they really believe that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE an investigation is authorized? Or are they only _pretending_ to believe it? My guess is: the latter. ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2598 "2018-09-22T22:32:35Z")
It’s interesting to see the ways partisans scramble to insist that there _must not_ be an investigation of this allegation. The contortions are impressive to watch. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2599 "2018-09-22T22:37:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ah, yes, investigate during the hearings, the appropriate time. Only if you think it’s important. Otherwise, toss an innuendo grenade and wallow in the negative free press it generates. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/2600 "2018-09-22T22:46:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s interesting to see the ways partisans scramble to insist that there _must not_ be an investigation of this allegation. The contortions are impressive to watch. what everybody is saying is there is nothing to investigate because there is nothing to base an investigation on. It’s not a hard concept to follow. There’s no rape kit to check because she wasn’t raped. There is no evidence of a torn shirt, missing buttons, mussed hair, chipped fingernail or anything else. Just her story of a drunken HS party 36 years ago with kids from another school. Break out the black helicopters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=129) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=131)