# 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:** 265
**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 29, 2018, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5281 "2018-09-29T22:31:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Also, he specifically mentioned “quarters” which is often played with beer. It’s often played where you chug the beer, too, so it’s not like you’re just sipping beer during the game. I think there are lots of variations of that game, but I’ve only played it with beer. That you remember. 🙂 ---
**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 29, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5282 "2018-09-29T22:34:31Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > That you remember. 🙂 I have blacked-out, I’ll admit it. So, you could be right! Do we have a “tell us about your black-out experience” thread in MPSIMS yet? I’m afraid to look… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5283 "2018-09-29T22:34:54Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > But it would add to Ford’s credibility (or detract from it, what if Judge never worked at a supermarket). A sham investigation is no investigation at all. At this point, Mark Judge’s confirmation of the events is the only thing which will get the R’s to vote against Kavanaugh. Anything less than that allows them to go with the “insufficient corroborating” defense and vote him through. Even if someone comes up with a photo of everyone on that house at that day, it is still not proof that the attack happened. Without the certainty of the attack, it gives the R’s enough wiggle room vote yes. ---
**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 29, 2018, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5284 "2018-09-29T22:39:34Z")
If the feds don’t investigate Swetnick’s accusation, this makes it likely that Avenatti will use the media to run with it. And then the WH will have zero control over what is revealed and the conclusions that follow from it. I see this backfiring on the Republicans big time, but I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5285 "2018-09-29T22:46:34Z")
They also aren’t allowed to inquire about Mark Judge’s employment or any aspects of Kavanaugh’s obvious drinking problem. So, not even a legitimate investigation into the other claims. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5286 "2018-09-29T22:47:18Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > At this point, Mark Judge’s confirmation of the events is the only thing which will get the R’s to vote against Kavanaugh. Anything less than that allows them to go with the “insufficient corroborating” defense and vote him through. Even if someone comes up with a photo of everyone on that house at that day, it is still not proof that the attack happened. Without the certainty of the attack, it gives the R’s enough wiggle room vote yes. I’m not concerned about the outcome. But yea, in this context, the FBI is the client of the WH and the WH can tell them to do what they want (in a way that would be wholly inappropriate in a criminal investigation). But Trump using the FBI’s good name (ha) to legitimize the nominee as having gone through a proper investigation into these allegations won’t ring true to many people. It’s still better than nothing, but nothing is a seriously low bar. ---
**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 29, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5287 "2018-09-29T23:05:23Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > So it’s out here clear on the board: > The WH is not investigating Swetnicks claim. > > The WH has sent the FBI witness lists of people the FBI can investigate in the Ford and Ramirez allegations. People not on the list won’t be interviewed. > [Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061?__twitter_impression=true) > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Of course. It is absolutely absurd to not even talk to her to clarify that. > It is equally absurd to not let the FBI learn when Mark Judge worked at the supermarket. > No one can defend that with a straight face. As I understand it, a hallmark of the FBI’s methods is to interview one person, obtain names from that person of others who might have information on the topic of interest, and then go interview those people. And so on. If it’s true that Trump is saying ‘you may not interview anyone at all who is not on this list,’ then the investigation is illegitimate on its face. Most Americans other than the 30-40% of hardcore white-supremacist/Trump fans will see this as a cover-up. And Senators who vote to support a cover-up\* may find their re-election chances affected by their choice. \*By that I mean ‘_vote to confirm Kavanaugh even though the ‘investigation’ was clearly a sham_.’ I’m not claiming that there is a vote scheduled on approval/disapproval of cover-ups as such. ---
**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 29, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5288 "2018-09-29T23:10:28Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > His harping on liking beer beer beer, without mentioning harder stuff, was also a tell. It’s like he’s playing to the idea that drinking beer is just harmless good ole American fun; it doesn’t count as really binge drinking if all you’re talking about is beer. Because everyone likes beer, right? > > Does anyone really think his intake was limited to beer, though? High school kids who aspire to party as hard as Animal House ain’t just drinking brewskis, particularly those with a reputation for getting sloppy drunk. The tell was that he blew it up into a tantrum, as if he was just this far from losing it. I imagine the scotus are looking at this guy and saying WTF. I bet they don’t want the hassle. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5289 "2018-09-29T23:13:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And not to quote myself, but this is very serious for Manchin. He has a relatively comfortable lead and should win re-election. If he votes against Kavanaugh, he will see himself in a huge dogfight and very likely to lose re-election. People in this state are very strong behind Kavanaugh. Manchin always claims to be pro-life and pro-gun. If he votes no, it will be the last straw for so many people I have personally spoken with who are planning to vote for him. > > Manchin is the last vote we need and Kavanaugh can be confirmed, even without Collins or Murkowski. A report I read said Manchin will vote how Collins and Murkowski vote. He’s covering his ass. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5290 "2018-09-29T23:14:32Z")
The idea of the WH limiting who the FBI is allowed to talk to is so utterly bizarre, even for these morons, that I’d like to wait for further corroboration from multiple sources before believing it to be fully accurate. If true, it completely invalidates the investigation! Sure, the WH is entitled to direct the FBI as to the purpose of the investigation and the questions they want answered. But telling them who they may or may not talk to or the areas allowed for discussion is no less egregious than prejudging the case and dictating the intended outcome! If there is any concern about Kavanaugh’s privacy rights, the goddam report is given to the president in confidence and can be suitably redacted when made public. There is no possible rational justification for hamstringing the investigation except to bias the odds toward the desired outcome. ---
**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 29, 2018, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5291 "2018-09-29T23:18:22Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > At this point, Mark Judge’s confirmation of the events is the only thing which will get the R’s to vote against Kavanaugh. Anything less than that allows them to go with the “insufficient corroborating” defense and vote him through. Even if someone comes up with a photo of everyone on that house at that day, it is still not proof that the attack happened. Without the certainty of the attack, it gives the R’s enough wiggle room vote yes. Isn’t Judge in the position to confirm the perjury already committed by k on Thursday was perjury? Thursday was a disaster, and no one seems to be considering that. This thing could get very messy. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5292 "2018-09-29T23:42:25Z")
Actually, I think the bigger problem is not that they leave out the claims of one of the accusers, but this part from the article: > [@](#): > > Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. The FBI must have freedom to investigate not only the claims of sexual assault but also whether Kavanaugh has made false statements under oath about his past…because these are the things that can likely be determined with more certainty. If it is limited to simply investigating the sexual assault claims themselves, we already know what the conclusion is very likely to be: It is hard to ascertain if they are true or false. I think much more damning is the fact that Kavanaugh made a number of statements that, while probably not _ **absolutely provable** _ as falsehoods, can be shown to be ridiculously unlikely and contradicted by his contemporaries. (I would even go so far as to say “false beyond a reasonable doubt”.) Then, the question becomes why he is lying…And, of course, the only reasonable answer is that he is lying because he knows that the truth would make the sexual assault claims much more credible. And, even if he doesn’t have any recollection of these assaults (which is certainly possible), I think he recognizes that the truth about his drinking habits and attitudes and behavior toward women make it entirely plausible that he committed them. Hence, it is necessary to lie. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5293 "2018-09-29T23:49:42Z")
Kavanaugh lied about getting into Yale on his own hard work. He was a legacy. His grandfather went to Yale. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5294 "2018-09-29T23:52:35Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I think much more damning is the fact that Kavanaugh made a number of statements that, while probably not _ **absolutely provable** _ as falsehoods, can be shown to be ridiculously unlikely and contradicted by his contemporaries. (I would even go so far as to say “false beyond a reasonable doubt”.) > > Then, the question becomes why he is lying…And, of course, the only reasonable answer is that he is lying because he knows that the truth would make the sexual assault claims much more credible. And, even if he doesn’t have any recollection of these assaults (which is certainly possible), I think he recognizes that the truth about his drinking habits and attitudes and behavior toward women make it entirely plausible that he committed them. Hence, it is necessary to lie. I would argue the why doesn’t even matter. He lied under oath. His classmates have already disputed his explanation of the girl they humiliated in their yearbook, and it shouldn’t be too hard to have a few of them say that “ralphing” wasn’t about his aversion to spicy food, because obviously it wasn’t. So, he perjured himself. Why do we even have to go any further than that? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5295 "2018-09-29T23:58:20Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I would argue the why doesn’t even matter. He lied under oath. His classmates have already disputed his explanation of the girl they humiliated in their yearbook, and it shouldn’t be too hard to have a few of them say that “ralphing” wasn’t about his aversion to spicy food, because obviously it wasn’t. So, he perjured himself. Why do we even have to go any further than that? Yeah…You have a point. I guess the lying itself should be disqualifying…However, the fact that he finds it necessary to lie on these little points is kind of the icing on the cake. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5296 "2018-09-29T23:59:52Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I would argue the why doesn’t even matter. He lied under oath. His classmates have already disputed his explanation of the girl they humiliated in their yearbook, and it shouldn’t be too hard to have a few of them say that “ralphing” wasn’t about his aversion to spicy food, because obviously it wasn’t. So, he perjured himself. Why do we even have to go any further than that? All of that is semantic issues that can be easily discounted. Even if everyone else meant throwing up from drinking, he could always say that he’s shocked that’s what they meant, as he always thought it was because of his weak stomach. Even if everyone else meant boof=sex, he could say he meant fart. There’s no way to prove those were lies that would rise to the level of perjury. Even the stuff about blacking out can be explained away as “How would I remember I blacked out? When you’re blacked out, you don’t retain memories. I’m shocked to find out I really did black out!” Unless there’s a “blue dress” kind of evidence like in Clinton’s case that can prove he’s lying, all the stuff he lied about won’t matter in terms of his confirmation. ---
**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 30, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5297 "2018-09-30T00:01:58Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > All of that is semantic issues that can be easily discounted. Even if everyone else meant throwing up from drinking, he could always say that he’s shocked that’s what they meant, as he always thought it was because of his weak stomach. Even if everyone else meant boof=sex, he could say he meant fart. There’s no way to prove those were lies that would rise to the level of perjury. Even the stuff about blacking out can be explained away as “How would I remember I blacked out? When you’re blacked out, you don’t retain memories. I’m shocked to find out I really did black out!” > > Unless there’s a “blue dress” kind of evidence like in Clinton’s case that can prove he’s lying, all the stuff he lied about won’t matter in terms of his confirmation. So, he’s either lying, or stupid. Either should be disqualifying for the highest court in the land. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5298 "2018-09-30T00:19:09Z")
By the way, turns out he also lied about his credentials. He said he got into Yale with no connections (“I have no connections there. I got there by busting my tail."). He’s a legacy. [His grandfather went there](https://theintercept.com/2018/09/29/the-unbearable-dishonesty-of-brett-kavanaugh/). ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5299 "2018-09-30T00:29:29Z")
A Yale educated man with a employment history in law. Why didn’t he know how to testify better? I am telling you he was _on_ something. A little liquid courage. Or an injection from his doctor, to calm him. He was out of control. ---
**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 30, 2018, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/5300 "2018-09-30T00:31:40Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > All of that is semantic issues that can be easily discounted. Even if everyone else meant throwing up from drinking, he could always say that he’s shocked that’s what they meant, as he always thought it was because of his weak stomach. Even if everyone else meant boof=sex, he could say he meant fart. There’s no way to prove those were lies that would rise to the level of perjury. Even the stuff about blacking out can be explained away as “How would I remember I blacked out? When you’re blacked out, you don’t retain memories. I’m shocked to find out I really did black out!” > > Unless there’s a “blue dress” kind of evidence like in Clinton’s case that can prove he’s lying, all the stuff he lied about won’t matter in terms of his confirmation. I just don’t see that kind of lying as unimportant. I cannot imagine having a scotus justice who lied so brazenly. The contempt in those lies was screaming out: “I don’t care about your justice!” If he says he meant “other things” I can’t see that flying. Did no one else think he was giving up on confirmation when he went off on those tantrums? The guy knows better. He was virtue signalling to bad people. He cannot have given that testimony and expected to stay in there. The fact that he is is just more insanity, that I don’t think he expected. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=264) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=266)