# The Kavanaugh Effect. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 8, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189 "2018-11-08T14:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/81 "2018-11-08T21:43:14Z")
One of the highest priorities of everyone with even a little bit of power in America should be to make every man (and woman) absolutely terrified to even consider sexually harassing, abusing, or assaulting someone. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/82 "2018-11-08T21:45:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It wasn’t obvious. Which is why I specifically asked for clarification as to whether you actually saw no reason at all. To which you responded: > > "What’s the big deal? A thorough investigation into a serious allegation is reasonable. Doesn’t need to be a spectacle. And it would show that we actually are trying to take sexual assault seriously. > > What’s to be afraid of?" > > That made things even less obvious. But frankly, even saying that see no “good reason” puts us just too far apart, even after I dropped the hint about what at least one good reason is. Here is the hint again: IT WAS 35 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!! You really don’t think that is at least one good argument for letting this thing go? That it was so long ago that it will be near impossible to get to the bottom of it, and that maybe JUST MAYBE the House has better things to do? I don’t see that fact that it was 35 years ago to be a reason not to look into the matter. That is a good reason as to why such an investigation may not return as comprehensive results as we would like, but it is no reason not to look into it. It would actually be easy to tell if Ford was paid or persuaded into making false accusations, the right’s failed attempt to smear Mueller should be a good example of that. If it was a false allegation, I would think that a thorough investigation would turn up evidence of the fabrication much easier than it would find evidence of guilt if it is valid. If you (royal you) are convinced that it is a fabrication, you should welcome an investigation to clear Kavanaugh’s name. Bill Cosby raped women even longer ago than that, yet those accusations were investigated, had they not been beyond the statute of limitations, he could have been charged and convicted on all of the stuff he did. I would think that there is no good reason at all not to do what is possible to look into such allegations, even if those measures would be destined to fall short, due to the nature of time passing. He’s not just some random stand up comedian and entertainer, he’s a supreme court justice. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/83 "2018-11-08T21:47:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The House has lots of committees with lots of staffers, and they can do a lot of things at the same time, and I think this should be one of those things. Yes, in this moment, thoroughly investigating allegations of sexual assault (and there are multiple allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh) against powerful men should be one of the highest priorities of government, and indeed every American institution. Sexual assault is a crime. Let Ford file criminal charges. There is no need for the House to be the investigative body for criminal activity. If she can’t or won’t file such charges, then no, the House has no business wasting its time investigating something which has such a low probability of finding anything and an even lower probability of accomplishing anything. To do so would be an act of political vengeance, pure and simple. Frankly, with Trump in office, I think the House is going to have its hands full, so I don’t buy your argument that this should be on the "to do’ list. **K9befender** : The House didn’t investigate Cosby. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/84 "2018-11-08T21:49:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sexual assault is a crime. Let Ford file criminal charges. There is no need for the House to be the investigative body for criminal activity. If she can’t or won’t file such charges, then no, the House has no business wasting its time investigating something which has such a low probability of finding anything and an even lower probability of accomplishing anything. To do so would be an act of political vengeance, pure and simple. > > Frankly, with Trump in office, I think the House is going to have its hands full, so I don’t buy your argument that this should be on the "to do’ list. Perjury is also a crime, and I think the probability of finding evidence is much higher than you do. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/85 "2018-11-08T21:53:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Perjury is also a crime, and I think the probability of finding evidence is much higher than you do. Investigating him for perjury a few months ago is a different matter. We were discussing investigating him for sexual assault, 35 years ago when he was a minor. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/86 "2018-11-08T22:02:00Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > There are four Democratic Senators who voted against Kavanaugh who won in Trump States (Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Stabenow). There is also a Republican ex-Senator who voted for Kavanaugh who lost. Five, actually. John Tester also won in a deep red state and voted against Kavanaugh. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/87 "2018-11-08T22:04:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sexual assault is a crime. Let Ford file criminal charges. There is no need for the House to be the investigative body for criminal activity. She can’t, as the statute of limitations has passed. As far as the need for the house to be the investigate body, do they not have investigations? Where do impeachment proceeding start? > [@](#): > > If she can’t or won’t file such charges, then no, the House has no business wasting its time investigating something which has such a low probability of finding anything and an even lower probability of accomplishing anything. To do so would be an act of political vengeance, pure and simple. I would agree that there are those who would claim it to be only an act of vengeance, but that doesn’t mean that it actually is, unless you are claiming that any investigation into anything is an act of vengeance. > [@](#): > > Frankly, with Trump in office, I think the House is going to have its hands full, so I don’t buy your argument that this should be on the "to do’ list. The house will have its hands full with what, exactly? > [@](#): > > **K9befender** : The House didn’t investigate Cosby. That was to your point that an investigation wouldn’t be able to turn up anything from that long ago, not as to what agency is doing the investigation. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Investigating him for perjury a few months ago is a different matter. We were discussing investigating him for sexual assault, 35 years ago when he was a minor. Yes, and investigating him for perjury about a few months ago when he lied about things that happened decades ago is what we are looking to be doing. And, we should look into the perjury of his involvement with stolen democratic emails and a few other shenanigans that came up along the way, or are you opposed to those too? ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/88 "2018-11-08T22:09:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Investigating him for perjury a few months ago is a different matter. We were discussing investigating him for sexual assault, 35 years ago when he was a minor. I think an investigation of perjury would require at least some level of investigation into the allegations he may have lied about. But it’s okay if we disagree. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/89 "2018-11-08T22:30:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > She can’t, as the statute of limitations has passed. As far as the need for the house to be the investigate body, do they not have investigations? Where do impeachment proceeding start? You’re going to impeach him for something he may have done when he was 17? Please tell me you’re not serious about that. > [@](#): > > I would agree that there are those who would claim it to be only an act of vengeance, but that doesn’t mean that it actually is, unless you are claiming that any investigation into anything is an act of vengeance. No, I’m not claiming that and no, saying that this would be an act of political vengeance does not imply that all investigations are acts of political vengeance. > [@](#): > > The house will have its hands full with what, exactly? I don’t understand the question-- are you telling me you can’t think of things the House should be investigating Trump for? You actually need me to list them? I’ll be happy to do so, but only if you first admit that you can’t think of anything the House should be investigating Trump for. > [@](#): > > That was to your point that an investigation wouldn’t be able to turn up anything from that long ago, not as to what agency is doing the investigation. Ford’s case is weaker than weak, but I’m not going to rehash that here. Comparing Kavanaugh to Cosby is ridiculous anyway. No one is charging Kavanaugh with dozens of rapes. > [@](#): > > Yes, and investigating him for perjury about a few months ago when he lied about things that happened decades ago is what we are looking to be doing. No, that’s a separate issue. > [@](#): > > And, we should look into the perjury of his involvement with stolen democratic emails and a few other shenanigans that came up along the way, or are you opposed to those too? Also a separate issue. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2018, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/90 "2018-11-08T22:42:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re going to impeach him for something he may have done when he was 17? Please tell me you’re not serious about that. No, I think that he shouldn’t have been confirmed in the first place over something that he did 35 years ago. As far as impeachment, I don’t think that he should be impeached for what he did 35 years ago, I think he should be impeached for lying about it. > [@](#): > > No, I’m not claiming that and no, saying that this would be an act of political vengeance does not imply that all investigations are acts of political vengeance. I disagree that this would be an act of political vengeance. There is no sense of revenge or getting anyone or anything back in this. It is just making sure that we do not have people who lie about sexual assault (and other things) in one of the highest positions of power in the world. Now, as far as political vengeance, there is an element to that, in that there is a concern from what Kavanaugh said in his hearing that he would be out for vengeance against the democrats while in his position as a SCOTUS, and so removing him to remove someone who makes judicial rulings out of vengeance isn’t vengence, it is common sense. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand the question-- are you telling me you can’t think of things the House should be investigating Trump for? You actually need me to list them? I’ll be happy to do so, but only if you first admit that you can’t think of anything the House should be investigating Trump for. There are plenty of things that trump can be investigated for. I think that a list would be fairly long, though I don’t know if your list and mine would match up entirely. But you said the house would have its hands full, as in it would not be able to handle investigating both trump and kavanaugh. I disagree, and I really hope that you are not too strong on the idea that only trump may be investigated out of this administration, as I have a list of other cabinet and white house officials who could also have a good looking over. > [@](#): > > Ford’s case is weaker than weak, but I’m not going to rehash that here. Comparing Kavanaugh to Cosby is ridiculous anyway. No one is charging Kavanaugh with dozens of rapes. If Ford’s case is weak, then an investigation should be pretty easy. We didn’t want much more than what the FBI did in a few days, but we did want a little bit more. > [@](#): > > No, that’s a separate issue. It is the same issue. Like I said, we would not be impeaching him for the assault, even if it were conclusively proven. We would be impeaching him for lying about it in his hearings. > [@](#): > > Also a separate issue. They are different issues, but it is still the same matter of him lying about it under oath to congress. The shenanigans with the stolen emails happened well over a decade ago, is that too long ago to investigate? Once again, I would not be impeaching him for helping allegedly disperse private democratic communications, I would be impeaching him for lying about it. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/91 "2018-11-09T03:34:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It might not have mattered in North Dakota, where Heitkamp trailed all along, but it was huge in Missouri. Many polls showed the Missouri race a dead heat. Many polls showed again this election cycle a lot of rather false images of what the electorate was actually going to do at election time. If you seriously think that the Kavanaugh thing is why McCaskill got smacked down hard at the voting booth, you’re being willfully blind, imo. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/92 "2018-11-09T03:40:27Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Yes I know what corroborated means. > > Here’s the results of a quick Google. > > Ford’s testimony that that Kavanaugh and Judge were a bit older than her and went to a nearby private school has been corroborated by subsequent evidence. > > Many other details of her story have been corroborated by subsequent evidence. > > Claims that her story is completely uncorroborated are pretty clearly false. You are still quite wrong. Speaking as an attorney, I counsel you that you probably shouldn’t try cases with that conception of “corroborate.” A says that she was subjected to a crime by a pink unicorn. A later says that the crime was committed by B. The fact that B happens to be a pink unicorn does not corroborate her claim that she was subjected to a crime by a pink unicorn, unless it happens to be the case that pink unicorns are so completely rare, B is probably the only pink unicorn in existence. As long as pink unicorns are not unique, then ANY pink unicorn A names would “corroborate” the claim about the crime being committed by a pink unicorn, under your theory. In short, I don’t get to argue as a prosecutor that Kavanaugh is guilty because Ford said she was almost raped by someone from a local private school a year or so older than her, and then later named Ford as that person, in “corroboration” of her claim about what kind of person almost raped her. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/93 "2018-11-09T03:50:03Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Many polls showed again this election cycle a lot of rather false images of what the electorate was actually going to do at election time. If you seriously think that the Kavanaugh thing is why McCaskill got smacked down hard at the voting booth, you’re being willfully blind, imo. It’s kind of funny how hard this narrative is being pushed, even with very little evidence. Many Democratic Senators won in Trump-won states after voting against Kavanaugh (more than lost, actually). It’s almost like the GOP is pushing very hard to make sure that if RBG leaves the bench they can bully Democrats into rolling over and giving them bipartisan cover for yet another justice that will overturn Roe. It’s not going to work - the upper Midwest is where the next Presidential race will be won and it was pretty clear last night that voters there are perfectly fine with their Senators voting against Trump’s nominees. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/94 "2018-11-09T03:59:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yes because for some people “a full investigation” means until they find something to hang him with. True, but this wouldn’t have been a Republican investigation. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/95 "2018-11-09T07:17:04Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You are still quite wrong. Speaking as an attorney, I counsel you that you probably shouldn’t try cases with that conception of “corroborate.” > > A says that she was subjected to a crime by a pink unicorn. A later says that the crime was committed by B. The fact that B happens to be a pink unicorn does not corroborate her claim that she was subjected to a crime by a pink unicorn, unless it happens to be the case that pink unicorns are so completely rare, B is probably the only pink unicorn in existence. As long as pink unicorns are not unique, then ANY pink unicorn A names would “corroborate” the claim about the crime being committed by a pink unicorn, under your theory. > > In short, I don’t get to argue as a prosecutor that Kavanaugh is guilty because Ford said she was almost raped by someone from a local private school a year or so older than her, and then later named Ford as that person, in “corroboration” of her claim about what kind of person almost raped her. :smack: But a guy on Twitter said I am right! He also needs to understand what “evidence” means. Evidence means probative or disprobative of a fact in issue. The fact that Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford were all students in schools nearby at overlapping times was never at issue, it was agreed fact. Neither was the other stuff the frankly disingenuous Twitter link, such as membership of a local country club, or dating a mutual friend. What was at issue was a an attempted rape, at a house gathering, in a room, by Kavanaugh, with Judge as a witness. Nothing corroborating that was ever brought. The Twitter feed spends a lot of time on one date in the calendar, which could have been corroborating, unfortunately Ford herself said it was not the date in question. In Court, if you tried to lead evidence of undisputed facts (except as background) most times you’d get told off. ---
**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:** [November 9, 2018, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/96 "2018-11-09T14:06:11Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > In short, I don’t get to argue as a prosecutor that Kavanaugh is guilty because Ford said she was almost raped by someone from a local private school a year or so older than her, and then later named Ford as that person, in “corroboration” of her claim about what kind of person almost raped her. :smack: However, none of that changes the fact that there are several details of her story that have been corroborated. To keep it simple and focus on just one, of many, details that have been corroborated, she wrote, “Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.” That has been independently verified from other sources. We have a word for when things have been independently verified from other sources. Corroborated. We’d be having a very different conversation if Ford had written her letter but it turned out that no one could verify that she had ever been more than ten miles from Pocatello, Idaho when she was in high school. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/97 "2018-11-09T14:52:26Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > We’d be having a very different conversation if Ford had written her letter but it turned out that no one could verify that she had ever been more than ten miles from Pocatello, Idaho when she was in high school. What if it turned out that [ul] [li]No one can verify where the party happened[/li][/ul][ul] [li]No one can verify when the party happened[/li][/ul][ul] [li]No one can verify that she was at the party[/li][/ul][ul] [li]No one can verify that Kavanaugh or Judge were at the party[/li][/ul][ul] [li]No one can verify that the other people who Ford claimed were at the party were actually there[/li][/ul][ul] [li]No one can verify who attacked Ford, and[/li][/ul][ul] [li]No one can verify that the attack actually happened[/li][/ul]What kind of conversation would we be having if that were true? Because it is. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2018, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/98 "2018-11-09T15:33:06Z")
I’m actually a little surprised that conservatives are still defending Kavanaugh. I figured it’d be like the caravan gambit and once it worked they would acknowledge that it was all bullshit. ---
**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:** [November 9, 2018, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/99 "2018-11-09T15:36:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m actually a little surprised that conservatives are still defending Kavanaugh. I figured it’d be like the caravan gambit and once it worked they would acknowledge that it was all bullshit. Patriarchal culture, and the societal instinct to protect powerful and wealthy white men from the consequences of their actions, are very strong forces. ---
**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:** [November 9, 2018, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/100 "2018-11-09T15:49:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What if it turned out that [ul] > [li]No one can verify where the party happened[/li][/ul][ul] > [li]No one can verify when the party happened[/li][/ul][ul] > [li]No one can verify that she was at the party[/li][/ul][ul] > [li]No one can verify that Kavanaugh or Judge were at the party[/li][/ul][ul] > [li]No one can verify that the other people who Ford claimed were at the party were actually there[/li][/ul][ul] > [li]No one can verify who attacked Ford, and[/li][/ul][ul] > [li]No one can verify that the attack actually happened[/li][/ul]What kind of conversation would we be having if that were true? Because it is. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s the conversation we’re having. Are you paying attention? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=6)