Several Trump nominees have failed for various reasons well below the threshold of sexual assault allegations.  Again, your belief that his nomination was assured and everyone knew it is nonsense.  It wasn't even assured that he would get a positive report out of committee.

The most parsimonious explanation would be that the event simply never took place.   To this date, there's literally no evidence whatsoever that Kavanaugh was at this party, and where he was that summer is fairly well-documented.  Furthermore, he states that he remained a virgin for several years after the incident would have occurred, a status that none of his former girlfriends have denied.  Meanwhile:

1. The witnesses all deny memory of the party ever happening.
2. The accuser made sure to scrub her social media history before coming forward.  More or less erasing evidence.
3. She claims to have wanted to remain anonymous, but contacted the press.
4. She and her law team deliberately stalled the process for no reason other than political ones.  Including a baldy political repeating that she needed to have her security assured with each press release (she was going to the Senate, of course there would be security).
5. She claimed to fear flying as an excuse, but she apparently flies more often than most people.
6. She testified that she didn't know she could do so in private if she wished, despite it being widely reported that the Senate was totally willing to come to her if necessary (put simply, I knew, she should have).
7. She testified to memory encoding that sounded legit to the untrained, but wouldn't pass a high school AP course (memories of traumatic events are very much subject to reinterpretation).
8. She cannot state how she got home.
9. Her testimony is that she apparently left her best friend in a house with a couple of drunk boys with rape on their mind.
10. No one can recall her acting in a different manner after this alleged assault.
11. Her former boyfriend has no memory of her reports of having difficulty in enclosed spaces.
12. The one person she could not name would be the person who provided the home.
13. Her testimony was perfectly vague on details.  She gave nothing that could be directly contradicted by a fact check and expose her to perjury charges.
14. A talking point was made that she had "nothing to gain" by coming forward, but she will gain much financially and professionally.  In addition, she will be a hero within her community for the rest of her life.
15. She demanded that the FBI interview her again for purposes that can only be categorized as political.
16. She simultaneously claims that the thing she remembers most is the laughter, yet she had earlier testified that the music was turned up in order to drown out any potential cries for help.
17. She refused to turn over the one piece of evidence that she can produce to the Senate, the therapy notes that are partially corroborate, partially contradict her testimony.

That's exactly what I said.

My mistake, your wording was contrived.

Here's the first one found on Google.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/20/christine-blasey-ford-got-doxed-can-anyone-ever-really-disappear-online/

This makes sense. Your implication seems unfounded - that she was "erasing evidence". If I'm going public, I'm closing all social media too.

False.  Feinstein's office not only contacted her, but went so far as to recommend her lawyer (this comes directly from Ford's testimony).

Contacted yet did nothing. Here get a lawyer is not helping when time is short. This information needed to come to light prior to Kavanaugh making it to the SCOTUS.

Here's a source of her team demanding security.  It happened each time while they were stalling her testimony.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-letter-fbi-investigation.html?gtm=top>m=bottom

Seems reasonable to make security demands, given the death threats. Where is your evidence that this was done "deliberately" and to "stall"?

My point is that it was a BS excuse and was no reason for a delay in the hearings as her lawyers stated.

To state a fact cannot be said to be an excuse. Your evidence that this was done to delay the hearing?

Again, I was made aware of the offer.  I remember being shocked when she claimed that she didn't know.  And even if she went into a deep hole, her lawyers should have certainly given her the option.  After all, they were so afraid for her security and well-being in the various letters they sent to Grassley's office when demanding the hearing be delayed.

But that would have moved the hearing out of the public's ears.  And the point was to drag Kavanaugh's name through the mud.

Your evidence that she was made aware of this?

My BA was in Psychology as it happens.  Not that it takes a degree to know this.  Faulty memories in traumatic events are routinely within the curriculum of general psych classes.  Ford's description of the mechanism for memory encryption had the veneer of science to it, but completely misstates the surety one can have in such a memory.

Oh a BA in psychology. Great, you're only about 4-6 years from actually being able to offer something remotely considered expert testimony. Pipe down.

It's a rather important question.  She was far enough from home that someone had to have given her a ride.

Thank you captain obvious. Why is this materially relevant? It's a post-event circumstance.

And these two drunk boys wouldn't have gone after her friend next, why?

Have you been sexually assaulted before? It's human nature to extract oneself from seemingly harmful situations. Not to sit there and consider other's potential peril. I'm shocked that someone with an undergraduate degree in psychology isn't aware of this.

Your response does not match what I said in #10.

I think it does.

So, she testified that she did have difficulty in enclosed spaces.  A person who lived with her saying she never displayed such behavior is important to note.

Why?

If we knew the name of this person, we'd know where the event would have taken place.  This dovetails with #13's point that she didn't recall anything that can be fact-checked.

I think she was just as interested in this person as you are.

This is incorrect.  As a matter of fact, she remembers quite a lot of things that cannot be factually disproven.  For example she specifically remembers that she had a single beer.  That's an odd thing to remember, except as a means for telling the audience that she was sober at the time and her testimony can be trusted more.  But details that can be checked?  Nope.

I can remember every single shot I took prior to blacking out one halloween party nearly a decade ago. It doesn't seem odd at all to me. I couldn't tell you where I slept that night either.

Facepalm if you like, but it's completely true that she will benefit financially, professionally, and socially from these accusations.

Yes, she's benefiting greatly with death threats and public shame. Sounds amazing, sign me up!

Facepalm if you like, but is there a logical reason why she would wish for the FBI to challenge her story?  The only purpose is, again, delay.

Perhaps she remembered something new? Or wanted to offer potential leads on witnesses?

I said nothing about her hearing the people downstairs.  I question why her hearing worked so well she clearly recalls the sound of their laughter as well as hearing and comprehending what Judge was saying from the sidelines as she says she was struggling while in an environment noisy enough to drown out her cries for help.  It's a direct contradiction.

It's clear you are not familiar with how soundwaves work. Loud music downstairs has to travel through walls, which diminishes the noise in the room upstairs. The people upstairs in the room with you are perfectly audible, especially with a closed door.

The FBI would have just turned it right over to the Senate.  The difference is merely a middleman.  The offer to turn it into the FBI was merely the last attempt they made at delay for delay's sake.

Source for suggesting medical history granted for FBI viewing would necessarily be handed over to the senate?

Do you know what parsimonious means?  The conclusion that she simply lied for political reasons is easily the simplest conclusion and would leave us with zero questions or loose ends.

What takes a stretch is believing that Kavanaugh did this despite it being completely against his character, Kavanaugh's whereabouts being largely accounted for even during the deliberately vague timeline, and no evidence being presented beyond Ford's testimony and some therapist notes that indicate this happened to her at a later time, with more people involved, and which was only seen by a reporter for the Washington Post.

But please tell me.  How is it lunacy simply to reject her story outright?  Do people just not lie about important things in your world?

I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means. Your version of events is akin to the stork theory of where babies come from. It ignores all of the testimony in favor of some bizarre narrative where a drunk has never behaved inappropriately toward anybody in his entire life. Oh and has never had any lapses in memory despite "I like beer" being the guy's motto.

Nobody in their right mind goes to publicly testify under threat of perjury that somebody attempted to rape them. Either she's clinically insane, or you're wrong. I'll take the latter.

I'm pretty sure the main reason they were erased was so that anti-Republican messages wouldn't go public.  It wasn't to protect her birthday pictures and status updates.

Your surety is a result of a presupposition about her motivations for testifying. Suppose she had anti-progressive messages instead; are you saying you'd have more reason to believe her?

You've fallen off the script.  If she wanted to remain anonymous, then the information couldn't come to light.

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. The choice isn't public or anonymous. The choice was public or private. You don't need to be anonymous in private.

Again, she was testifying before the United States Senate.  The Senate is already a highly-secure environment on any given day, much less a day with a high profile hearing.

The fact that security is not an issue is evidence enough that this was deliberate and a part of a stall.  There's no argument against it.

Nobody was suggesting the building itself wasn't secure. It's her travelling where she would be susceptible.

The fact that her lawyers said the hearing had to be delayed because she was afraid to fly on planes.  And then flew on a plane to the hearing.

The consequence of her fear of flying was delay. This is not the same as deliberately delaying.

Again, it was widely broadcast.  And her lawyers, who were complaining about her security and how nervous she was, would have to have been completely negligent, like professional misconduct negligent, to not tell her that she could testify in private without cameras anytime she wanted if she so desired.

This isn't evidence. 

Never claimed to be able to offer expert testimony.  I didn't use my credentials to provide credibility, you asked for them.

I said she misstated basic principles of psychology and that you don't need a psych degree to realize it.

Oh I see you were offering useless testimony then. Got it.

It's a particularly strange gap that, again, would have provided room to fact-check.  It cuts against her credibility.

Doesn't seem strange at all to any of the experts who analyzed her testimony that I've seen.

 While it's true that all people react differently, it is odd that she abandoned her friend.  Again, cutting against her credibility.

You are welcome to your opinions of course.

Then by all means explain why.  It's not like sexual assault victims only exhibit changes in behavior when around the person.

I think avoiding a particular person after having unwanted advances from them shows a change in action.

It cuts against her credibility that people close to her have not observed the behavior she claims.

Were they in scenarios wherein this behavior should be apparent?

But, again, she couldn't provide information that could be fact-checked.

Okay?

She didn't black out.  She said "one beer" to establish her sobriety.

All I'm saying is that memory is funny and we cannot control what gets banked.

Public shame?  Where?  If anything, her testimony went without scrutiny and everyone tiptoed around her while others held her up as a heroine.

Well I know there's a certain group claiming Dr. Ford made up the entire event. Oh wait, you're in that group yourself.

Her legal team was in full contact with the Senate the whole time.  If she wanted to add anything to her testimony, or add additional witness or evidence she could have done so at any time.

I'm too lazy too look back but I'm pretty sure this chain was about the FBI not the senate so I don't understand your response.

The music was supposed to be coming from inside the room, not from downstairs.

To quote Ford's letter to Feinstein:

"They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help."

This is my mistake, I do apologize. Proximity and volume is important in this then. She did classify it as uproarious laughter so the expectation would be loud laughter.

What else would the FBI do with it?  You are aware that all they were doing was compiling information to hand over to the Senate, right?  What purpose would it serve for the FBI to collect information just to sit on it?  Are you under the impression the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation?  Because they weren't.  There literally wasn't a federal crime to be investigated in the first place.  All they did was conduct a few interviews and forward everything to the Senate.

Anyway, here's Sen. Grassley's incredulity at the attempt to use the therapy notes as a token for extending the FBI investigation:

"It's not even clear to me what purpose turning these materials over to the FBI would accomplish.  The FBI would simply turn over that evidence to the Senate."

Right, but this is about only the materially relevant medical history. The senate would receive redacted records with only relevant facts exposed for their viewing, rather than Dr. Ford's entire medical history.

Entertaining the possibility that someone lied is the same as believing in a magical stork?

Gotcha.

Ah so you are of the position that Dr. Ford was lying? She doesn't believe what she said, despite a polygraph showing otherwise? 

I shouldn't have to point out that, not all men who drink commit sexual assault.  Furthermore, enjoying a beer is most definitely NOT prima facie evidence proving that an accusation must be true.

What's bizarre (and dangerous) is painting a direct line where:  Likes to drink -> Must be guilty of sexual assault.

Nobody is doing this. You can behave inappropriately without committing sexual assault. Kavanaugh wants us to believe he was perfectly behaved throughout his life while drinking copiously in his youth (most do), which is quite humorous indeed.

The topic of this thread is about someone who is facing perjury charges because of a false claim.  There were at least two other accusations we know definitively were false and who also face perjury charges.

Not only does it happen, it happened to Kavanaugh several times within the span of a week.

None of those individuals meet the burden of "in their right mind" due to being emotionally comprised. Ford appeared composed and objective when giving testimony. 

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

1. There's no "regardless". Interrogations involves questions. Questions designed to prompt responses they otherwise may not give, or think of. The Senate are not trained to interrogate. Both Ford and Kavanaugh should have been questioned by the FBI after the hearing. And like I told you, she needed some help from investigators in at least one instance. Possibly more.

2. Let's not resort to arguing semantics now. You know exactly what I meant, but ignore the entire point and purely focusing on the semantics.
He constantly/consistently opposed an FBI investigation by deferring to "whatever the committee wants". Which everyone knew was 'no'. He also didn't want to take a lie detector test. What innocent person, who previously explained the importance of polygraphs for both screening of law enforcement and accuracy of witnesses, would suddenly not want to take one when their accuser did?

3. Except Renate herself you mean? Who found it hurtful and shocking, and prays their daughters "won't be treated this way". As anyone would. Tell me if you believe "Renate allumni" was meant as a nice comment, and that he didn't obviously assume that people who would read it would think it referred to a sexual conquest?

4. He didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference, and hearing Kavanaugh and his friends use it as a sexual reference regularly. And he's far from the only one making that claim.
Someone saying that it was a drinking game, even if true is not an indication of it not being a sexual reference. At best it only means they weren't aware of it's original meaning.
I had people in my class who had never heard the term 'thong' before. Doesn't mean it wasn't a very commonly used term. And it was.

5. If extensive interviews conducted by New York Times with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates does not convince you, then I'mure nothing will.

6. No, I already told you that prep school boys partied with girls on the weekend. And Renate, which was right there in his yearbook as well, is not a boys name last time I checked. 

7. When in that same hearing he was asked to name cases he was involved in, he omitted Pickering. The accusation is that he tried to conceal the fact that he knew he had received information stolen from Senate Democrats. And that he tried to mislead the Senate into thinking he wasn't particularly involved with handling Pickering. While evidence suggests that he was heavily involved, and in some cases appeared to be the authority on the matter.

8. Due to how you structure your replies, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. But I assume you're asking for this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6229253/Brett-Kavanaugh-faces-official-ethics-complaints-Merrick-Garland-decide-them.html

1. Not at all. I've said before that I don't fault him for stupid teenage behavior. If you asked me before, and I didn't reply it's possible it happened when I had some computer issues. If so I may get back to you on it soon.

No the problem isn't his behavior back then. The problem is a supreme court Justice who believes it is ok to lie under oath.

2. Renate alumni. A graduate of the school of Renate. Without further context, anyone reading that sentence would assume he meant they hooked up.
The two of them were supposedly friends. She did not know, or expect that he would write this about her in his yearbook behind her back.

3. Again, nothing is wrong about that sort of conduct back then. The issue is if a judge lies about that sort of thing, or anything, under oath.
Presumably the reason he would lie about it is because he was accused of attempted rape along with another boy, which would be two men and one woman. And to just in general try to not look as if he was as obsessed with sex as he was.