So here's what I think happened between Kavanaugh & Ford

[bripat9643]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I'd have to largely agree with that. Along similar lines, I can't help but remember that Ford herself said that her fear was that Kavvy would accidentally kill her. It seems clear that she would concede that--to a certain extent--he may not have fully recognized the significance of his actions. Even then, I think we have to still balance that against the fact that she did not fully recognize the significance of his actions. As she's said, because he didn't actually rape her she told herself it wasn't really a big deal.

There are plenty of lines of inquiry that could end inconclusively trying to examine whether being drunk leads people to do things that are incompatible with their true nature, or reflective of their true nature. And plenty more about to the degree teenage immaturity implies a need for youthful correction or adult punishment. And while I'm not generally inclined to tolerate a "boys will be boys" defense I also think that it has to be remembered that teenagers of the 70s and early 80s were raised differently than those being raised today.

I think most people have been barking up the wrong tree over all of this. I'm not willing to say that Ford's allegations, even if true, are disqualifying. If Ford had reported the assault when it happened, and if he had been charged and convicted, he would have ended up with a sealed juvenile record, and none of us would be able to know about it now. Chances are, even despite all that, he would still have ended up in the same place and would still have been nominated now, but this story would not be on anyone's plate (and rightly so, because I don't think a single mistake from decades in one's past should hang over them forever). Maybe the sum total of the various allegations that seem to reach well into his adult life, but that is probably left as a separate discussion.

I think the credibility question is more important. And for my part, I've continually pointed to discrepancies that indicate he has lied under oath. Considering the wider context of his nomination and judicial history, his dishonesty is the most important matter.

There were no "actions." This event never happened.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Given how publicly abusive she was toward Kavanaugh I'm thinking it was someone close to her.

 

[Clementine]

----------------------------------- heard the envelope contained note of encouragement . [who knows]

I say bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

No. It DIDN'T happen.
The day someone is guilty over a 40 year old "HE DID IT" by some ugly hag is the day ALL men should tread carefully.

You need to slow down your reading. What I just said DID happen was Kavanaugh's paranoid meltdown in the committee hot seat. Which --- it did.

I have to presume you're addressing me as the prior post, since you didn't quote anybody.

No it didn't, he should have been more aggressive, about the second time a commie senator asked him if he would ask for an FBI investigation, he should have asked the commie committee members for a show of hands, if he got another clean background check form the FBI, WOULD THEY VOTE FOR HIS CONFIRMATION???

You can bet your ass not one single hand would have risen. It all pure political bullshit.

You don't "ask for a show of hands" in a judicial hearing. klown shoes.

Know what else you don't do? Ask one of the Senators if she's ever been drunk to unconsciousness.

The fucking commies threw civility out the window, Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, if he wasn't completely pissed he wouldn't be human. And asking for a show of hands, would prove this bullshit about another investigation was just another delaying tactic, because it wouldn't change one commie vote on the committee. Nothing about this hearing was directed at obtaining the truth.

.

Once the FBI investigation is finished, they will be asking for another delay. It's guaranteed. What have they got to lose?

 

[bripat9643]

Given how publicly abusive she was toward Kavanaugh I'm thinking it was someone close to her.

Love the avatar photo.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

and the emotional meltdown in general, comprise conduct unbefitting of a judge, regardless what the backstory is or isn't.

I love how we keep hearing that until we have experienced sexual assault we shouldn't be passing judgment on someone who claims they have, but it's okay for you to pass judgment on Kavanaugh for getting emotional the other day despite the fact you haven't endured two weeks of being called a rapist in front of your family, friends, and the entire world. Judges aren't superhuman deities. They are people and until you've gone through what he and his family have you have no idea how you would respond if you were in his position.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why do you believe her and not Judge?

First of all, because Judge has reason to lie in denial of Ford's claims. But Ford has gained nothing by making her claims.

But more broadly, I have the ability to listen to someone and evaluate what they say in a rational and objective manner. That is something you lack. You believe what you want, just because you want.

 

[bripat9643]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I think a close, male relative has been abusing her since childhood

I'm more inclined to think something did happen. What pushed me in that direction was the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Merits of the investigation aside, he could have just wholeheartedly said, "yes, absolutely, let's do it", and he did not. He kept deflecting to "I called for a hearing". More than once. That didn't look good.

I'd just need more info to reach a conclusion.
.

That doesn't indicate anything to me other than that calling for an FBI investigation is playing right into the hands of the douchebags.

What do you do if your only choices are to play into the hands of the douchebags or go through with the vote when you don't have 50?

Blame Jeff Flake for that.

 

[task0778]

I'm more inclined to think something did happen. What pushed me in that direction was the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Merits of the investigation aside, he could have just wholeheartedly said, "yes, absolutely, let's do it", and he did not. He kept deflecting to "I called for a hearing". More than once. That didn't look good.

I'd just need more info to reach a conclusion.
.

RE the comment about the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation, he wants this shit to be over and take the effing vote. Hard to blame him for that IMHO, and to me indicates nothing about credibility because he's going to feel that way whether he did it or not. AND, other than for political reasons, there's no reason to have this extra FBI investigation because the Senate investigators have already done it, all the witnesses have testified under penalty of perjury and the facts are already known. There's just no data to investigate, he said this and she said that and the witnesses said whatever. To me it's a waste of time as far as Ford's accusation is concerned. All this is doing is giving more time to the Dems to find another person to accuse Kavanaugh of something. Which the Dems are going to say HAS to be investigated and on and on until the election is over.

 

[bripat9643]

and the emotional meltdown in general, comprise conduct unbefitting of a judge, regardless what the backstory is or isn't.

I love how we keep hearing that until we have experienced sexual assault we shouldn't be passing judgment on someone who claims they have, but it's okay for you to pass judgment on Kavanaugh for getting emotional the other day despite the fact you haven't endured two weeks of being called a rapist in front of your family, friends, and the entire world. Judges aren't superhuman deities. They are people and until you've gone through what he and his family have you have no idea how you would respond if you were in his position.

Were you expecting the snowflake to be consistent?

 

[OldLady]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.
Manly playfulness? Forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her? What IS he doing, then, Mac?

Showing off. Being an asshole. I don't know about you, but I saw stuff not terribly unlike this, and varying degrees of this shit happens every weekend on college campuses.

I'm not condoning or pardoning it. I have two daughters. I just don't see life as a simple, binary, either/or thing. That's just not the way my little brain works.
.

This mess is anything but simple, but I guess the fact that I didn't attend college until I was older is why this behavior is hard for me to dismiss. I did my share of wrestling to keep boys from "stealing bases" so to speak, but Never did anything like this happen to me at a party, or to anyone I knew. And we were far from girl scouts in those days.

 

[Pogo]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I'd have to largely agree with that. Along similar lines, I can't help but remember that Ford herself said that her fear was that Kavvy would accidentally kill her. It seems clear that she would concede that--to a certain extent--he may not have fully recognized the significance of his actions. Even then, I think we have to still balance that against the fact that she did not fully recognize the significance of his actions. As she's said, because he didn't actually rape her she told herself it wasn't really a big deal.

There are plenty of lines of inquiry that could end inconclusively trying to examine whether being drunk leads people to do things that are incompatible with their true nature, or reflective of their true nature. And plenty more about to the degree teenage immaturity implies a need for youthful correction or adult punishment. And while I'm not generally inclined to tolerate a "boys will be boys" defense I also think that it has to be remembered that teenagers of the 70s and early 80s were raised differently than those being raised today.

I think most people have been barking up the wrong tree over all of this. I'm not willing to say that Ford's allegations, even if true, are disqualifying. If Ford had reported the assault when it happened, and if he had been charged and convicted, he would have ended up with a sealed juvenile record, and none of us would be able to know about it now. Chances are, even despite all that, he would still have ended up in the same place and would still have been nominated now, but this story would not be on anyone's plate (and rightly so, because I don't think a single mistake from decades in one's past should hang over them forever). Maybe the sum total of the various allegations that seem to reach well into his adult life, but that is probably left as a separate discussion.

I think the credibility question is more important. And for my part, I've continually pointed to discrepancies that indicate he has lied under oath. Considering the wider context of his nomination and judicial history, his dishonesty is the most important matter.

Astoundingly well put. I agree with literally everything in this post with the possible exception of teenagers "being raised differently" in different eras.

 

[Avatar4321]

Here is what I think happened:

Absolutely nothing

 

[OldLady]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alternate alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

Why do you believe her and not Judge? This is just another variation of "guilty until proven innocent." Your theory requires Judge to be lying. I'm far more inclined to believe him than to believe her. She admits she was so drunk she can't remember anything clearly.

I have no trouble believing Ford is lying. She has been well paid for lying.

No, she "admits" to one beer. The insignificant details of a day 36 years ago would be fuzzy to nonexistent for all of us.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alternate alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

Why do you believe her and not Judge? This is just another variation of "guilty until proven innocent." Your theory requires Judge to be lying. I'm far more inclined to believe him than to believe her. She admits she was so drunk she can't remember anything clearly.

I have no trouble believing Ford is lying. She has been well paid for lying.

No, she "admits" to one beer. The insignificant details of a day 36 years ago would be fuzzy to nonexistent for all of us.

When it happened and where does not seem insignificant.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm more inclined to think something did happen. What pushed me in that direction was the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Merits of the investigation aside, he could have just wholeheartedly said, "yes, absolutely, let's do it", and he did not. He kept deflecting to "I called for a hearing". More than once. That didn't look good.

I'd just need more info to reach a conclusion.
.

RE the comment about the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation, he wants this shit to be over and take the effing vote. Hard to blame him for that IMHO, and to me indicates nothing about credibility because he's going to feel that way whether he did it or not. AND, other than for political reasons, there's no reason to have this extra FBI investigation because the Senate investigators have already done it, all the witnesses have testified under penalty of perjury and the facts are already known. There's just no data to investigate, he said this and she said that and the witnesses said whatever. To me it's a waste of time as far as Ford's accusation is concerned. All this is doing is giving more time to the Dems to find another person to accuse Kavanaugh of something. Which the Dems are going to say HAS to be investigated and on and on until the election is over.

I understand that, but I'm pretty impatient when people don't give a straight answer to a straight question, and they lose a couple of points when they do that. He was asked directly, "would you support an FBI investigation?" and his answer was "I called for hearings". Huh? That wasn't the freakin' question. Then he did the same thing again.

It's not a disqualifying thing, but it is a red flag.
.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I did my share of wrestling to keep boys from "stealing bases" so to speak

Funny, I did my share of wrestling to steal bases from boys who were too timid or oblivious to make a move. To each their own.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you believe her and not Judge?

First of all, because Judge has reason to lie in denial of Ford's claims. But Ford has gained nothing by making her claims.

But more broadly, I have the ability to listen to someone and evaluate what they say in a rational and objective manner. That is something you lack. You believe what you want, just because you want.

Ford has gained $750,000, moron. And don't think that was all from small donors. It's Soros money.

Your theory that you're objective doesn't pass the laugh test. You believe her because you want to believe her, and for no other reason. Sans your bias, there's no reason to believe judge is lying and every reason to believe she is lying. For one thing, she has lied about so many other details in her narrative.

 

[Pogo]

No. It DIDN'T happen.
The day someone is guilty over a 40 year old "HE DID IT" by some ugly hag is the day ALL men should tread carefully.

You need to slow down your reading. What I just said DID happen was Kavanaugh's paranoid meltdown in the committee hot seat. Which --- it did.

I have to presume you're addressing me as the prior post, since you didn't quote anybody.

No it didn't, he should have been more aggressive, about the second time a commie senator asked him if he would ask for an FBI investigation, he should have asked the commie committee members for a show of hands, if he got another clean background check form the FBI, WOULD THEY VOTE FOR HIS CONFIRMATION???

You can bet your ass not one single hand would have risen. It all pure political bullshit.

You don't "ask for a show of hands" in a judicial hearing. klown shoes.

Know what else you don't do? Ask one of the Senators if she's ever been drunk to unconsciousness.

The fucking commies threw civility out the window, Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, if he wasn't completely pissed he wouldn't be human. And asking for a show of hands, would prove this bullshit about another investigation was just another delaying tactic, because it wouldn't change one commie vote on the committee. Nothing about this hearing was directed at obtaining the truth.

Wasn't it.

Then why did Kavanaugh immediately trot out his calendar from 1982 and immediately try to shift the attention to "weekends"?

And why did Rachel Mitchell then question the entry for July 1st, which was a weekday not a weekend, where he had listed a social/drinking gathering that matched Ford's description?

That was the last question Mitchell got to put forth, so at that point obtaining the truth was, as you noted, out the window.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm more inclined to think something did happen. What pushed me in that direction was the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Merits of the investigation aside, he could have just wholeheartedly said, "yes, absolutely, let's do it", and he did not. He kept deflecting to "I called for a hearing". More than once. That didn't look good.

I'd just need more info to reach a conclusion.
.

RE the comment about the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation, he wants this shit to be over and take the effing vote. Hard to blame him for that IMHO, and to me indicates nothing about credibility because he's going to feel that way whether he did it or not. AND, other than for political reasons, there's no reason to have this extra FBI investigation because the Senate investigators have already done it, all the witnesses have testified under penalty of perjury and the facts are already known. There's just no data to investigate, he said this and she said that and the witnesses said whatever. To me it's a waste of time as far as Ford's accusation is concerned. All this is doing is giving more time to the Dems to find another person to accuse Kavanaugh of something. Which the Dems are going to say HAS to be investigated and on and on until the election is over.

I understand that, but I'm pretty impatient when people don't give a straight answer to a straight question, and they lose a couple of points when they do that. He was asked directly, "would you support an FBI investigation?" and his answer was "I called for hearings". Huh? That wasn't the freakin' question. Then he did the same thing again.

It's not a disqualifying thing, but it is a red flag.
.

He obviously doesn't want an FBI investigation, but if he said that he knows the douchebags are going to harangue him about it.

That's pretty easy to understand. The FBI investigation is a stall tactic, and nothing more. We all know the aren't going to turn up anything on Kavanaugh.