predictably judged absent of any basis. We live in the bonfire of the vanities. Why actually wait for the report ? Better to beg for it, get it, discount it before it starts, demand another one, a different one, a better one.

From the start the request for the FBI investigation was about delay not truth. Very predictable.

The FBI is investigating because the swing voters threatened to reject Kavanaugh. If they do and the democrats manage to take the Senate in November, that seat won't be filled until after 2020. If the 2020 president is a democrat, the seat will be filled by a democrat.

For some Republicans this is the chance of a lifetime to shoot down Roe V Wade. For all Democrats, this is the chance of a lifetime to save Roe V Wade and all the girls who will die from botched abortions without it.

Were there time (were time made... assholes) for more comprehensive analysis she'd probably have her claims vindicated. — fdrake

Her claims are already vindicated by her credible testimony. Has any Senator accused her of lying? Even Trump didn't do that after her testimony (although he did BEFORE the testimony). Kavanaugh has even said that he's not questioning that she had been assaulted, he just denies being the one. (rank and file folks calling her a liar just reflect on their own partisanship, not on a careful evaluation of evidence).

So the only outstanding question is: is she correctly remembering who did it? There was only one other person in the room: Judge. He will deny it, and that won't really tip the scales toward Kavanaugh, because (if guilty) he's not going to admit it.

It would be helpful if someone remembered being at a gathering at a house that included both Ford and Kavanaugh, but that seems unlikely since all the named people have said they have no recollection. If it happened, this implies it was not a big, memorable event - maybe just a few folks went to someone's house to use their swimming pool (Ford says she was wearing a swimsuit), somebody brought beers, and ...you know, drunk boys will be drunk boys (paraphrasing some prior excuses that have been made).

In the investigation (and by some pundits), why is Dr Ford being referred to as 'Christine Blasey Ford', while Brett Kavanaugh keeps his title of 'Judge Kavanaugh'?

Her claims are already vindicated by her credible testimony. Has any Senator accused her of lying? Even Trump didn't do that after her testimony (although he did BEFORE the testimony). Kavanaugh has even said that he's not questioning that she had been assaulted, he just denies being the one. (rank and file folks calling her a liar just reflect on their own partisanship, not on a careful evaluation of evidence). — Relativist

I meant vindicated by the standards of her detractors.

From reports I've been reading, the FBI investigation will be extremely half-assed. — Maw

'Half-assed' is an understatement. It will be hundredth-assed. The scope of the investigation is defined by the White House while "White House counsel Don McGhan, who is the administration's leading advocate for Kavanaugh's confirmation, is overseeing the probe for the President and working closely with Senate Republican leaders." -- CNN's Ariane de Vogue, Dana Bash, Evan Perez and Kevin Liptak.

They've already decided that Kavanaugh's drinking history isn't part of the probe at all. Senator Lindsey Graham expressed what he views the proper scope of the probe to be: "They're going to Mark Judge, did you ever see Brett Kavanaugh drug women or engage in gang rape. I think that's going to be the focus of it."

In the investigation (and by some pundits), why is Dr Ford being referred to as 'Christine Blasey Ford', while Brett Kavanaugh keeps his title of 'Judge Kavanaugh'? — Evil

I don't know what influences it, but naming patterns vary over time. Some pundits referenced Obama as "Mr. Obama" and others as "President Obama". George Bush got "President Bush" or "George Bush" quite often. Trump gets "President Trump" and "Trump". Some women use three names, most two. Some men use three names too. Black professional women use 3 names more often than white professional women, seems to me.

Several decades ago (40, 50 years) and further back, naming patterns were much more regular -- that is my impression. I never heard anyone refer to "Mr." Kennedy, for instance, or "Mr." Eisenhower. (Eisenhower could be addressed as President or General.) Kennedy was always "President Kennedy" (except in headlines where it was often "JFK".

People always referred to Secretary of State Dulles as "John Foster Dulles". The economist was always "John Maynard Keynes". What, were there so many John Dulles secretaries of state and "John Keynes" economists that one needed to use the middle name to distinguish them???

How many Ginsbergs are on the court, Ruth Bader?

If Kavanaugh thrust his diminutive Irish prick into the public sector, why wouldn't that be only 'indecent exposure' -- the same as flashing someone?

And if Kavanaugh's busy ugly little Irish prick failed to find its way through Ms. Ford's various layers of clothing, wouldn't that be "attempted rape" and not "rape" accompli?

I ask the question because some papers have decided to call it rape, and in the case of Ramirez, an assault (not that it makes much difference).

I don't know what all they will investigate, but from the POV of the administration, the less of a fishing expedition the better. Very few people's reputations could survive a thorough open ended investigation. People who have led interesting lives generally have skeletons in the closet -- sometimes a whole attic full of skeletons. Not criminal evidence, just embarrassing, compromising, inelegant history.

1. She traveled by air a lot for entertainment purposes visiting many remote countries as she writes in her cv.
2. When invited to the Senate hearings she refused claiming her fear of planes. Only under pressure or for money, I don't know, she agreed to fly to Washington. — Proto

A little thought always helps. How does the fact that she does fly show that she is not afraid of flying? How does the fact that she would rather fly to a place of enjoyment than to a place of trial show that she is not afraid of flying?

From the start the request for the FBI investigation was about delay not truth — Rank Amateur

And your evidence for this is? As I have pointed out, a few days delay is not a high price to pay for the chance to resolve doubts.

well one reason is it is less than a day old, has not produced anything, and already it is being criticized for not being long enough or wide enough in depth.

Anyone who believes that the democratic objective is anything other than to delay confirmation until after the midterms is naive.

There is way to much at stake with this particular seat.

Anyone who believes that the democratic objective is anything other than to delay confirmation until after the midterms is naive. — Rank Amateur

I don't doubt that's an adjacent objective, but it nevertheless takes a backseat to the fact that 1) the attempted rape allegation is credible and requires investigation, and 2) Kavanaugh brazenly lied multiple times under oath.

Besides, Congress doesn't suddenly change on November 7th. Republicans have until January 2019 to "plow through" the nomination and install Kavanaugh, which they will no doubt attempt to do, regardless of outcome on November 6th.

I don't know what all they will investigate, but from the POV of the administration, the less of a fishing expedition the better. — Bitter Crank

Their move is certainly effective. In the wake of the news of the tight grip that the White House is determined to exert on the investigation, the shares for Kavanaugh's being confirmed, on the Predictit prediction market have jumped up 10 points (from about 61 cents to about 71 cents). The reason they still remain as low as 71 cents, I conjecture, is because there is an expectation that the ambivalent Senators (Flake, Collins and Murkowski) might still vote "no" if they will feel the FBI investigation to have been a sham despite Kavanaugh having been "cleared".

Besides, Congress doesn't suddenly change on November 7th. Republicans have until January 2019 to "plow through" the nomination and install Kavanaugh, which they will no doubt attempt to do, regardless of outcome on November 6th. — Maw

The democratic drive in stalling until the midterms is to make all the races a single issue election on abortion. "If you don't give us a democratic house - roe v wade is gone". If the American people respond that way, they will make the same claim as the republicans did on Obama's lame duck nomination.

all the races a single issue election on abortion — Rank Amateur

Lol that's demonstrably not the case.

not sure your point here

You said that the Democrats are running on a single issue for midterms: "all the races a single issue on abortion." That's simply false.

Besides, Congress doesn't suddenly change on November 7th. Republicans have until January 2019 to "plow through" the nomination and install Kavanaugh, which they will no doubt attempt to do, regardless of outcome on November 6th. — Maw

They won't plow it through if more than 1 swing senator votes no. Graham has explained the Democratic strategy repeatedly now.

If you havent seen Matt Damon's performance on SNL, watch it.

If you havent seen Matt Damon's performance on SNL, watch it. — frank

I saw it, it was great.

Ok, what I was saying was delaying the confirmation passed the midterms, would allow the midterms to be a defacto referendum on abortion - which they believe (I think rightly so) they win on.

If they successfully delay the confirmation past November 6th, then there is no further platform to run on because the race is over...

well one reason is it is less than a day old, has not produced anything, and already it is being criticized for not being long enough or wide enough in depth. — Rank Amateur

I agree with you. It is rather strange to exclude Kavanaugh's drinking, when that is at the heart of the accusation and of his credibility. Still, more truth is better than less.

Anyone who believes that the democratic objective is anything other than to delay confirmation until after the midterms is naive. — Rank Amateur

And what good will that do? They have the majority for the rest of 2018 regardless of how the election turns out.

There is way to much at stake with this particular seat. — Rank Amateur

We agree. There is no point in filling it with a prevaricator lacking judicial temperament.

If they successfully delay the confirmation pass November 6th, then there is no further platform to run on because the race is over. — Maw

Really? How about health care? Conspiracy with the Russians? The destruction of our alliances? An anti-farm trade policy? Support of racism? Attacks on women? Separation of children from their families? Balancing the budget? Environmental protection? Basic competence at FEMA? Voting rights? A rational response to climate change? The repeal of the state income tax deduction? Failure to respond to mass shootings? Open your eyes. The Republicans are on the wrong side of so many issues that they are in for a historical shellacking.

Conspiracy with the Russians? The destruction of our alliances?
Trump infiltrated American politics, and now Ford. Both are Russian agents.

Ok, what I was saying was delaying the confirmation passed the midterms, would allow the midterms to be a defacto referendum on abortion - which they believe (I think rightly so) they win on.

It will be a referendum on Trump, and the Trumpublican party.

Really? How about health care? Conspiracy with the Russians? The destruction of our alliances? An anti-farm trade policy? Support of racism? Attacks on women? Separation of children from their families? Balancing the budget? Environmental protection? Basic competence at FEMA? Voting rights? A rational response to climate change? The repeal of the state income tax deduction? Failure to respond to mass shootings? Open your eyes. The Republicans are on the wrong side of so many issues that they are in for a historical shellacking. — Dfpolis

What the fuck are you talking about? You can't run on a platform for the midterms, after the midterms are over.

This is pretty fucked up, @proto & @Rank Amateur. Attacking Ford's credibility is something that even Fox News mostly deemed to be "stooping too low". That should give you pause.

I don't want to get ugly, but my issue with Proto is that he gave a list of reasons he believed Ford was lying. At least two people (Dfpolis and I) identified problems with each point, and this made no difference. Without refuting our rebuttals, it should at least weaken his belief. So his list doesn't actually seem to be factors that led to his belief, rather they seem like post-hoc rationalization of his (irrational?) belief.

Is it a mistake to take epistemology, and justification of belief, too seriously when it comes to politics? Or maybe I should just accept that some people are clairvoyant.

Who praises Putin at every turn? Who takes his word over that of our intelligence agencies? Who hid the fact that he was working on a Moscow Trump tower during the election? Whose son welcomed the offer of Russian help? Who hired a pro-Putin consultant as his campaign manager? Who attacks NATO and our allies?

What the fuck are you talking about? You can't run on a platform for the midterms, after the midterms are over. — Maw

The midterms are not over. My point was that the Kavanaugh debacle is only one issue among many on which the Republicans have a losing hand.