Well, I didn't read Judicial opinions. Nor did I hear about him when he was first nominated. Chances are, neither did Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. These are the "people with information" I was referring to.
If they are to be believed, they would in fact be aware of him and what was going on. Not to mention if you want to establish a "pattern" similar acts would have been known to people that were asked questions during the vetting process.
We all know how far the left will go to dig up dirt.
If the previous investigations did not find these people, obviously they did not go deep enough.
Or more obviously, they were not there to be found. Pants down at a party is nonsense claim. Even if it were true, which the accuser wasn't certain over, it wouldn't be relevant to bring it up. It's only being cited because of a desparate need to hand craft a "pattern".
The rape train claims would have come up if they were true.
Because prior to the hyperpartisan era they would have rightly been called out by the media for transparently ignoring their actual duties.
Oh, hyperpartisan like the way the Republicans ignored Garland's nomination? Yeah, but that was another time...
Lol, did you miss where the media repeatedly and loudly called them out for that?
The media is an active partisan here.
Are you implying that 45 days of investigation was enough?
Yes it was enough.
Then why didn't they find Dr. Ford if it was such a good investigation? 
Because by her own version of the story she never told anyone for 30 years.
Or, as possibly, cause she remembered the event and in explaining it to her husband started trying to remember who it was who did it, and managed to find the two most famous men from the class? And again, accordingly, it didn't exist when they looked at him before.
Four days of hearings? Is there some time limit? Must be well over 300 days, IIRC.
Well yes there are time limits. Given that a President has thousands of officials to appoint, spending 4 days on each of them would mean it would take what, 7 or 8 years to vet them, given holidays and other business?
In any event the hearings on this WERE NOT USED to really investigate. They were used to allow the Senators to create commercials for their campaigns. If you're going to be on a high horse about process, then your side should have clean hands. NO SUBSTANTIVE questions to Ford from the side looking for the truth.
More disclosures? Didn't Kavanaugh have more writings than almost any other judge? And weren't some hundreds of pages only released on the morning of the first day of hearings?
No. The Senators had access to them before that. How do you think they formulated their questions and generated "Spartucus" moments?
More interrogatories? With that many pages of writings, don't you think that might bring up more questions than usual? And just how many previous judges were accused of attempted rape before him? 
Well, no. They had more than enough to evaluate him. The Democrats literally claimed that Kagan's record (far less) was beyond what it takes. It's just hypocrisy to claim Kavanaugh's wasn't. It's also ridiculous to claim that people WHO DIDN'T NEED TO READ ANYTHING to oppose the nomination where asking questions in good faith.
And there was no accusation at the time he was asked to provide those interrogatories. Which literally means your last implication is just nonsense.
And how long did it take Republicans to make an informed decision about Garland? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never even talked to him. 
That's because, unlike Democrats, Republicans -some at least- would have been obligated to vote for him because he was qualified. Many voted for Kagan and Sotomayer and they are far more blatantly political than anyone else nominated to the court.
If Garland got a hearing and vote he would be on the Supreme Court because enough Republicans would never do what the Democrats are doing here. I'll just be blunt, enough Republicans are honorable that it could only play out that way, I don't see any Democrat who is going to do their duty and vote in favor because he's qualified (literally, one of the most qualified people ever nominated).
That's not why the Dems brought it up. They brought it up specifically because this is banana court justice played out in the court of public opinion. It's prejudicial therefore its relevant to them. It's just a fact that if you played out Ford's history with alcohol and men it would ALSO be prejudicial and cause people not to believe her. In both cases the point of bringing it up is to cause the prejudice.
Odd how you think that drinking and attitudes about women are relevant to an attempted rape accusation.
I see. You think every one who drinks is now presumed guilty of attempted rape. And I'm the one that's odd.
Why don't you think its relevant that he was a virgin until after law school. That was a surprise the Dems didn't see coming and they just pretend they don't know it.
However, a vast majority disagree.
Exactly my point. It's prejudicial. It's the same reason they want Judge on the stand, not so he provide any material information, but because he wrote a salacious book that paints a bad picture.
It's the exact same reason they don't want Ford's history on the table. A vast majority would stop believing her if she was a heavy drinker and partier and promiscuous (which, based on her yearbook, may not be difficult to establish).
Face it, you are quite literally the poster case for why salacious and irrelevant facts should not be included.
Bloofing? Nuff Said.
Oh, yeah, all high school boys talk about throwing up because of weak stomachs. Riiiightttt... 
Bloofing was passing gas I believe per the testimony. Care to walk through what any of that testimony had to do with his judicial competence?
If you have a good source on the timeline, I'd like to see it.
I don't have a good source. I looked at about 10 partisan renditions (most from the left) and about half reported that Feinstein sent it to the FBI because she was under pressure from other Democratic Senators (and all but one skipped the insight that this meant there was a leak, the one implied that Feinstein had discussed that she had the letter and what it was about but not the names - which is pretty much an admission that she leaked it, with predictable results that her colleagues further leaked it).
I haven't been paying too much attention about when the letter was leaked. And what's the big deal about the letter being leaked again?
That is was leaked as a tactic. Ford asked for confidentiality. Confidentiality is available, and frequently used, in the Senates existing process. Feinstein knew that, so did the Senate Dems, they deliberately avoided (or at least she did) the process that would have complied with Ford's requests (which puts to lie the idea that Dems believe its a victims right to decide how and when to come forward).
Your party used her for what they think is the greater good. If you don't call that out, you're complicit in believing it was justified.
I know Dr. Ford wanted to stay anonymous, but I also recall Feinstein being criticized for not revealing the letter earlier. So which was it that the Republicans wanted to happen again?
See above, Feinstein was more than aware that a process existing to investigate and deal with the matter in confidence, she just decided it wasn't as helpful as forcing it public.
I mean heck, the lawyers - that Feinstein recommended - practically admitted to malpractice when Ford claimed that she didn't know that the Senate investigators offered to come to her. The alternative to it being malpractice, is that they did convey that information to Ford and she was incapable of remembering it or correctly processing it, which would go completely to her credibility.