Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

It is an accusation for sure. I see no evidence that it is credible or not credible at this time.

I’m not willing to lie, but this isn’t a matter of what people would generally be okay with. All it takes is a single person, and I do believe there are people who would be willing to lie to torpedo the nomination, willing to accept whatever stigma may come, if any, if the result would be the nomination gets torpedoed.

Ooooooh, I see. It’s the women who have it easy, and men so dearly wish to be treated like women for their easy ride through life! Because if men are the victims of sexual assault, all you hear is things like, “What were you wearing? How drunk were you? Were you leading your rapist on?”

It’s sort of like how the gays have it easy in this country, while Christians have to deal with all this hostility like the war on Christmas!

I don’t know about that. “That was a perfunctory investigation. There’s no way you can investigate this matter is such a short time …”

No need to shed tears for anyone on either side. This is the political major leagues and there’s no crying in baseball. But we’re discussing how this or that side should play the game.

I don’t think this is correct.

I was addressing the comparison you made in your prior post, not the one you’re making now.

Yes besides i)being unsure as to the actual year of the event ii) tor the location iii) the number of peoples in the House iv) impeaching her own corroborating evidence, she is the best witness ever

Not as such, no. But shouldn’t denial, refusal to accept responsibility, and failure to learn and grow be disqualifying for a Supreme Court Justice?

What makes the allegation credible? Simply because it was physically possible? What in your mind would be an “incredible” allegation?

What if I said (and mods, I am not really making this allegation) that I met Kavanaugh at a legal conference some years ago, maybe in 2003, let’s say, and that he invited me back to his room and attempted to force homosexual intercourse on me? Let’s say I said that tomorrow. Should the committee investigate? Should the vote be delayed? Do I get to be on national TV?

“Christine was in fact a Plymouth Fury. We regret the slight inaccuracy, but all those shrill liberal cars kinda look alike, don’t they?”

As I understand it, there’s plenty of evidence to make it credible – for example:

Ford lived in the area and went to school in the area at the time in question;
One of the alleged attempted rapists (Judge) has written a memoir in which he tells stories about his own and his friend Kavanaugh’s drunken misbehavior in high school (no attempted rapes are mentioned, of course);
Ford told her therapist and husband about the assault several years ago.

Further, nothing has come to light that would cast an negative light on Ford’s honesty – no criminal record, no history of dishonesty, etc.

With all that in mind, it seems entirely reasonable to call her allegations credible.

What evidence do you have to corroborate your allegation? Was anyone else there? Have you spoken about the incident to others in the past?

But you just described a political downside. I never said it wasn’t a “real” downside from the perspective of the Republicans. But it’s still a political downside. You haven’t offered any non-political downside for investigating these allegations.

Yes; the alternate reality iiandyiiii had postulated, and to which I was ultimately responding, is one in which Kavanaugh hadn’t done all of those things.

In real reality, of course, he has simply denied everything.

Were you at that conference in 2003? Was Kavanaugh? Did you tell your therapist several years later about it? Did you tell your spouse? If all these answers are “yes” (and have been confirmed by journalists), then your allegation is credible.

Ford did go to school in that area, at the time in question, she told her therapist and husband decades later, etc. All this has been confirmed by journalists.


My response is rather that your insistence on a non-political downside is not determinative.

It’s roughly correct, although I may not be clear on the timeline of the WH’s involvement. And she did apparently go to the press, but refused to go on the record.

So would you disagree with the assertion that it’s not reasonable to value partisan political concerns over getting to the bottom of a credible allegation of attempted rape prior to seating someone on SCOTUS?

I see that Sen. Hatch has taken the F-P position: it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl.

Speaking in purely political terms, a bunch of GOP Senators taking that position strikes me as the best outcome Dems could hope for. They aren’t gonna get a better SCOTUS nominee (politically speaking, again). But they might win some more seats in Congress with another round of proof that a lot of Republicans don’t really care about sexual assault.

If this is a frame job, Ford is playing a seriously long game. She told her husband and therapist about this years ago, well preceding any thought that this guy would be nominated for the SC. She didn’t go right to TMZ with it, she sent a quiet letter to a Rep, requesting anonymity, and didn’t demand promotion of the incident.

That’s not to say that her accusation is valid, but it doesn’t smell like a dishonest frame job.

Let’s hope so. But remember, less than two years ago we thought nobody could possibly vote for a pussy-grabber. How’d that turn out?

Democrats still can’t stop the nomination (by themselves) and never could, but McConnell was clearly right to have cold feet about Kavanaugh initially. I suspect that there were equally conservative candidates who would have already had their commission by now and maybe even with some Democratic votes, at that. If this drags on some of those people may look increasingly attractive.

One can only wonder what he knew about him (documentation of which he’s still keeping hidden). I’m guessing it *wasn’t *this, though.