Reason Roundup

High-School Assault Accusation Could Kill Kavanaugh Confirmation. Should It? Reason Roundup

Plus: Wikileaks says AP was hoaxed by FBI informant and U.S. border-protection agent admits to being a serial killer.


Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," Christine Blasey Ford, now 51, tells The Washington Post. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing." The he in question is federal appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's pick to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Rumors about Ford's alleged encounter with Kavanaugh when she was 15 and he 17 started to swirl last week; they now threaten to at least delay a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation, if not entirely derail his chances.

Earlier this summer, Ford had revealed her claims to "a senior Democratic lawmaker," as the Post reported Sunday. That lawmaker, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, failed to question Kavanaugh about the alleged assault while he was under oath But she did allude to it in a statement, saying she had referred "the matter to federal investigative authorities." Since then, Ford "has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed."

A psychology professor in California, Ford had contacted the Post previously but not wanted to attach her name to the story. Now that things were already circulating, she decided to come forward. And since the Sunday publication of her story, statements from senators—including some Republicans—suggest they could be swayed to vote no on Kavanaugh.

"Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tells me in an [interview] he that doesn't think the Judiciary [Committee] should move ahead with its Thursday vote on Kavanaugh until they hear more from Christine Blasey Ford," Washington Post reporter Sean Sullivan tweeted last night.

"For me, we can't vote until we hear more," said Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Without Flake's "support, the committee cannot advance the nomination," notes Politico. Republicans could, however, try to get a direct full-Senate vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Another Republican on the committee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said that the Ford story "demands a response" and told CNN that the committee "might have to consider" a postponed vote.

Delaying the vote until more information is known "wouldn't just be for [Ford's] sake," writes former federal prosecutor David Lat in The New York Times, "but for the sake of Judge Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court itself."

The fact that Ford took a polygraph test and passed has helped her credibility, even if science says it shouldn't.

The fact that Feinstein sat on Ford's letter about the alleged assault hasn't helped. "Dianne Feinstein should have questioned Kavanaugh, under oath, in the closed hearing," tweeted The National Review's Tiana Lowe. "Not doing so, in tandem with the release of her statement, still makes these allegations look as politically charged as possible."

"What is puzzling to me," GOP Sen. Susan Collins tells The New York Times, "is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge."

That the vote should be postponed until after the midterm elections is becoming a popular refrain.

"Republicans held the Scalia seat vacant for over a year on the 'principle' the voters deserved a voice," tweets Vox editor Ezra Klein. "There's a midterm election 50 days from now, and troubling new information about Kavanaugh is emerging. Shouldn't voters get a chance to weigh in here, too?"

Temporal issues aside, the thornier questions here surround what is right should further investigation prove the allegation credible. Does an attempted sexual assault as a teenager disqualify one from future employment as a Supreme Court Justice? (Would it be different if the job was different?) Is it even possible to determine, this far from the event, if the allegations are credible?

Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks said that while she opposes Kavanaugh's nomination "based on his judicial record," she's "uncomfortable with asserting that his behavior as a teen tells us anything about his 'character'" at this point. "I don't think teen behavior is predictive of adult behavior, and I am also skeptical of the very idea of 'character' as we use the term in American politics," she writes on Twitter:

There is a ton of solid research on the general idiocy of teenagers, especially teenaged boys, and the neuroscience that explains their general idiocy….as a lawyer I also think there are sound reasons behind statutes of limitations. After 35 years it is nearly impossible to conduct a full or fair investigation.

This does not mean I consider sexual assault "excusable" or "minor." It just means that I think the bad behavior of minors should be treated differently than the behavior of adults, and that adults should not be shadowed forever by misdeeds as children.

Those considerations don't seem likely to win the day here. That the Republicans should simply ditch Kavanaugh now and move on has been taken as a given in some circles.

But the White House and others now seem to view this as a proxy for larger battles surrounding sexual assault and harassment allegations and the #MeToo movement.

"A lawyer close to the White House said the nomination will not be withdrawn," tweeted Carrie Budoff Brown yesterday.

"If anything, it's the opposite," the source supposedly told her. "If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried."


Wikileaks denies Russian visa story. AP says a "new cache of internal WikiLeaks files obtained by @AP shows that WikiLeaks staffers discussed having Julian Assange skip bail and escape Britain as authorities closed in." The story also reported that Assange had sought a visa from Russia. Wikileaks responds:

Thordarson "distributed these docs to Scandinavian media outlets years ago who found them to be untrustworthy," Wikileaks asserts, calling him "a proven serial document fabricator & media hoaxer."


  • Juan David Ortiz worked for nine years as a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent while spending his spare time murdering sex workers. He has now confessed.
  • The creepy clown panic of 2016 is still claiming victims.
  • "The headline on the ThinkProgress article was false. Kavanaugh didn't say he would kill Roe. And [The Weekly] Standard was right to point this out," writes William Saletan at Slate.

NEXT: People Without Nations, Nations Without People

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The creepy clown panic of 2016 is still claiming victims.


    1. Hello.


    2. After seeing Tim Curry’s outstanding performance in IT I can never take scary clowns seriously again.


  2. Juan David Ortiz worked for nine years as a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent while spending his spare time murdering sex workers.

    I think I’ll wait for the TV movie, or at least the episode of Law & Order: Border Patrol Unit Squad before I pass judgment.

    1. Yes, but did he make them call him Big Papi?

    2. Has John posted anything lately? Pretty sure ‘Juan” is “John” in the Mexican language.

  3. That lawmaker, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, failed to question Kavanaugh about the alleged assault while he was under oath…

    Hey, the Senate is the more deliberative body. You can’t expect its members to jump into action.

    1. If she deemed the evidence credible, and sat on it for political reasons, she should take tremendous heat for it regardless of the outcome of this. That’s atrocious on a moral level if she actually deemed it credible.

      1. That’s why she claims that she didn’t deem it credible, so she doesn’t catch heat for the exact planned timing. How are there so many people out there who fall for this shit over and over again.

        1. Something Lincoln, something Barnum…

        2. What nobody does asks, is how did it leak….it was only in her hands on the hill….regardless of Kavanaugh, she should be additionally reviewed by ethics and recommended for at least censure but I think in this case it warrants an additional vote for removal….there should be a message on these hatchet jobs.

      2. Her excuse is that the accuser didn’t want to be named publicly. But how could you investigate rape without knowing all the parties? So much for that excuse.

        1. These are the same people that dont want ‘victims’ to have to testify in court or that the Accused gets to defend themselves.

          Sexual accusations are not a skeleton key for destroying people.

      3. It should be deemed irrelevant and excluded similar to what would happen if a prosecutor tried to introduce “new” evidence after the jury started deliberating, evidence they possessed the entire trial.

  4. The fact that Feinstein sat on Ford’s letter about the alleged assault hasn’t helped.

    It may end up working as intended.

    1. Depends.

      *** bites lip ***

    2. It was the least effective argument the Dems had. It was the one least able to stand scrutiny. That is why it wasn’t brought up during the hearings when there was time to scrutinize it and was held for the last minute.

      DiFi didn’t believe it, why should I?

      Show me one Reason writer who cares about Ellison, or about things like this.
      Bill Clinton jumped aboard disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’ plane for junkets 26 TIMES in just three years
      Financier Jeffrey Epstein drew a light 18-month prison term for soliciting prostitutes and procuring underage girls for prostitution
      The famously Lothario-like Bill Clinton is one of several big names who hung with Epstein before the depth of his legal problems were made public
      Epstein’s jet was reportedly set up with a bed where guests had trysts with young girls
      Flight logs show the former president jetting to Brunei, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, the Azores, Africa, Belgium, China, New York, and Belgium ? all on Epstein’s plane

      1. Ted Kennedy left a woman to drown. The left doesn’t care. Fuck them.

        1. Ah, but did she think he might inadvertently kill her?

            1. Exactly. The Democratic Party has zero credibility.

  5. Let’s Hope Justice Kavanaugh Avenges This Disgusting Democrat Slander
    There is this thing called due process, where someone accused of something has a right to defend himself, except liberals don’t like it very much. They sometimes play lip service to it, but only when it has to do with covering for the criminals they consider victims of society. You Normals are “society,” by the way. But regardless, when it is politically useful to let super-convenient accusers trash people from a distance by feeding talking points to eager media allies, forget due process. Allowing someone to effectively challenge fake charges gets in the way of the liberal elite’s ability to slander good people for cheap political gain with fake charges. We can’t have that.

    The sliming of Brett Kavanaugh by a Bernie donor is disgusting and disgraceful, and if Democrats had any shred of decency they would hang their heads in shame and spend the next two months ahead of the midterms doing penance to atone for their scummy act of cheap political theater. But they don’t, so they won’t.

    1. See, if you propose to inflict damage upon someone, even if justifiable, you bear the burden of proof. You have to prove it; the accused doesn’t have to disprove your amorphous innuendos. You have the duty to back up your claims, in public, and subject yourself to the greatest engine for the ascertainment of truth humanity has yet invented, cross-examination by a zealous advocate for the accused who is doing his best to show that you can’t be trusted.

      Take the stand and the heat, or shut up.

      Is it hard? Yeah? Is it tough on real victims? It sure is. Is it unfair? Maybe, but the only people who think life can ever be fair are little kids and socialists, and only fools design their society around the insights of either bunch.

    2. Letters: Where’s the outrage about Ellison?
      Where is the outrage about the Democrats sticking with their nominee, Keith Ellison? You can be sure if a Republican were accused of alleged domestic abuse the Democrats would be calling for a head on a platter.

      Just because Ellison denies it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If the victim says it happened, and her son saw the video of it, that should be proof enough that it did happen. The victim shouldn’t be forced to release the video which would further embarrass and victimize her.

      I have seen nothing in the press to indicate that there is even an investigation into this matter. Ellison says he wants to be elected attorney general to “protect Minnesota families.” Who is going to protect Minnesota families from Keith Ellison? Voters, you have a choice on Election Day. Show Ellison the door.

    3. That is precisely why this in and of itself should be precedent of due process in MeToo…..I understand “something” may have happen…but I don’t even begin to know how you prove anyone’s intention…i.e…with Weinstein you have dozens and a modis operandi established….you have nothing so far here that proves if it happened he had any intent of hurting her or actually doing anything without consent. We have not heard if she had drank but I am from that time and when folks went to someone’s house with an open bar, it was because of the open bar. Also I look at the worse case…if she went after him then, what would have happened….if the police pursued it and I don’t think they would have (this may have been considered inappropriate rough housing…..but if they pursued and put him in juvie, the record would be sealed so that it could not be held against him. So should everyone be considered for work, promotion, public office based on a juve record only or an accusation that never led to one? That’s what is at stake…this is for the Supreme Court so the process should be a judicial one not a political one.

  6. “Republicans held the Scalia seat vacant for over a year on the ‘principle’ the voters deserved a voice,” tweets Vox editor Ezra Klein.

    Oh, Ezra. You sure you want to open the can of hypocrisy worms?

    1. Nobody slandered Garland. They just didn’t vote.

      1. Maybe it’s time for Republicans to start slandering all Democratic nominations.

        1. I have submitted to the FBI that Diane feinstein, doug jones, chuck schumer, kamela harris, michael bennet, jeff flake, richard blumental, chris murphy, chris coons, tom carper, bill nelson, brian schatz, mazie hirono, dick durbin, tammy duckworth, joe donnelly, elizabeth warren, angus king, ben cardin, chris van hollen, ed markey, debbie stabenow, gary peters, amy kloblucahar, tina smith, claire mcglaskill, john tester, catherine masto, jeanne shaheen, maggie Hassan, bob mendez, cory booker, tom udall, martin heinrich, chuck schumer, kirstin gillibrand, heidi heitcamp, sharod brown, ron wyden, jeff merkley, bob casey, jack reed, sheldon whitehouse, patrick leahy, bernie sanders, mark warner, tim kaine, patty murray, maria cantwell, joe manchin, tammy baldwin…

          All fuck kids. Disprove it.

          1. Bill Nelson never fucked no kids. He was too busy releasing awesome records and, hopefully, preparing for a Bebop-Deluxe reunion.

            1. +1

    2. You really think he cares?

      I wish people would get over this “hypocrisy” pretension. That accusation had more impact when the nation possessed a moral, cultural, and social structure that was far more clearly defined, and thus easier for left-wing subversives to target. In our glorious new “diverse” country, “hypocrisy” is nothing more than a dull rhetorical instrument with all the heft of a dowel rod.

      “It’s not tribalism when we do it!” is the new national motto, and those who don’t get this are going to get run over and destroyed.

      1. So, hypocracy is a virtue?

        1. No, the point is that “hypocrisy” as an accusation is a pose, nothing more. No one in our polarized society really gives a shit about whether they’re being intellectually inconsistent; the goal is acquiring more power and control over the country’s resources and general direction.

          1. the goal is acquiring more power and control over the country’s resources and general direction.

            Your goal, or theirs?

            1. If you have to ask, you’re too stupid to give an answer to.

            2. Just because you’ll be chanting “MUH PRINCIPLES” as your enemies slip the noose around your neck, doesn’t make you a virtuous being.

    3. He does, only reason he has a job is because he is selling what his readers want to hear….it is unfortunate that Vox does not have ethics or standards.

    4. He does, only reason he has a job is because he is selling what his readers want to hear….it is unfortunate that Vox does not have ethics or standards.

  7. Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks says that while she opposes Kavanaugh’s nomination “based on his judicial record,” she’s “uncomfortable with asserting that his behavior as a teen tells us anything about his ‘character’ now.”


    1. It’s been a long time since she sat at the front of the bus, she has certainly fallen from grace.

  8. Murkowski of Alaska, said that the Ford story “demands a response”

    “In response, we note that the statute of limitations has expired.”

    1. In response, if you step into something brown and squishy in the field where the bull is kept, it probably is not chocolate ice cream.

      Some Republican in California needs to bring a recall petition against DiFi for failing to honor her oath of office and take that letter to the FBI as soon as she read it.

  9. Terrorism is surging in the US, fueled by right-wing ideologies

    The country is seeing a surge in terrorism. There were only six attacks in the US a decade ago, but 65 in 2017. The number of fatalities is also increasing.

    Most attacks in 2017 were thought to be motivated by right-leaning ideologies, a Quartz analysis of data from the Global Terrorism Database shows. Out of 65 incidents, 37 were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations.

    That list includes the case in which neo-Nazi extremist James Fields is accused of driving into a crowd of counter-protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia last year, killing one person. It also includes attacks on a gay bar in Puerto Rico, mosques in Washington, Texas, and Florida, and a vehicle decorated with Jewish iconography in New York.

    The right gets angrier every year.

    1. If a democrat plants a bomb at a mosque, is it a right-wing attack, or a left-wing attack?

      1. If it makes a Democrat feel bad, its a right-wing attack.

    2. Currently, the definition of terrorism seems to be in flux.

      1. It is the migrant crisis. Wingnuts see the news and all the movement of destitute people. Add the GOP financial collapse of 2008 and the middle aged are angry. Throw a little Far Rush (Praise Be Unto Him) and things are boiling.

        1. “Add the GOP financial collapse of 2008”

          It says a lot about you that you had to reach back a decade to misremember what the public thought about the Clinton initiated housing collapse, in order to present it as something people care about.

      2. It’s not in flux, it’s just applied more… Liberally.

    3. The left is the home to anti-semitism in this country. Limda sarsour ring a bell?

      And the only ppl running around in black and wearing masks are your fellow travelers. Fascists have always been all about the big lie.

      1. Bullshit. 80% of Jews vote Dem because the GOP is too NAZI-like.

        1. Funny how you didn’t refute my point at all.

          BDS ring a bell?
          Linda Sarsour?
          The gnashing of teeth over recognizing Jerusalem?

          Face it, muslims are higher on the intersectionality totem poll so those jews will just have to accept their new old status.

          And speaking of terrorism, how many knife attacks and arsonists can we expect from the left this week?

          1. “And speaking of terrorism, how many knife attacks and arsonists can we expect from the left this week?”

            The left perpetuates more mass shootings in Chicago every week than the right does over a decade.

          2. What was the kerfuffle over the Democrat platform concerning Israel and recognition, I don’t recall.

            Just kidding. You’d need to be a special brand of retard not to see that Jews are being specifically thrown under the bus by the left. The fact that Ellison was being considered as the head of the DNC should give you a clue, idiot.

        2. 20% vote GOP because Nazis are Socialists and Democrats are mostly Socialists.

    4. Shrieky-poo seeing the Nazis under his bed.

    5. The Pulse club shooting is right wing?

  10. What she said, without more, of 35 years ago = case dismissed + sanctions against her + sanctions against Kamala Harris + sanctions against Robby.

  11. “A lawyer close to the White House said the nomination will not be withdrawn,” tweeted [link?] Carrie Budoff Brown yesterday.

    Are you asking us for the link? DO YOUR JOB, ENB. Or we’ll get a golden-haired early-riser who can!

  12. The answer to the headline is no.

  13. I thought he might inadvertently kill me…

    Hey, at least she’s not claiming he’s an advertent killer.

    1. Damn your Fist fingers!

      “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

      “Oh, fuck it! I thought he might kill me on purpose.”

    2. Big Ben, say hello to Patrick Mahomes.

        1. Most touchdown passes in the first two games of a season – EVAH!

  14. That she cannot remember the day, the date, or the time = credibility < zero.

    1. Or the names of the 2 “others” at the party. Odd that.

      1. so there were five people at the party, shitty party

  15. “What is puzzling to me,” GOP Sen. Susan Collins tells The New York Times, “is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge.”

    Whoa, both? Slow your rape apologist roll, Senator.

    1. I am not going to apologize for the Chiefs rape of the Steelers.

    2. “Not to mention the cloud of doubt cast on Feinstein and the Dems.”

      1. Diane Feinstein is raping the American public.

    3. You are stupid if you are puzzled by this. Like it never happened before.

    4. This shit is so obviously the usual Democrat sleaze move. Everything is done for maximum chaos.

      1. This is so desperate that I feel sorry for the Democrats.

        Imagine how many will kill themselves once election 2018 is a big loss for Democrats and Trump gets reelected in 2020.

        1. They will take the House, but probably not by a large margin. The Senate will not likely switch. And 2020 is a long way off, but based on their reactions so far, they are screwed and Trump will be re-elected.

          1. The gains for Republicans in the House and Senate during election 2018, will be an indicator of what to expect in 2020 for Democrats losses.

            Americans are sick of Democratic Party bullshit and Trump becomes more popular every day.

  16. Tony and PB held me down and did horrible things to me physically a few years ago. I can’t give you the date. They are guilty and must be banned. My words are proof, as I was a witness.

    1. To be fair… it was probably multiple dates, not a singular date.

      1. Tony, Hihn, and Buttplugger rape our free spirit every day…every day.

  17. Things we can confirm about the Kavanaugh/Ford incident:

    Things we can’t confirm about the Kavanaugh/Ford incident:
    Where did it happen?
    When did it happen?
    Who else was there as a witness?
    Did Ford even know Kavanaugh in High School (Different schools)?
    Why does she remember only 2 of the supposed 4 people at the party?
    Why did she tell her therapist she was attacked by 4 people and now its 2?
    Why did she tell her therapist she was groped and now it is a life threatening attempted rape?
    Who did she know at the party?
    How did she get home?
    How did she get to the party?
    Why did she wait until 2018 to assign names to her attackers? Were they well known kids around the town? (Again, different schools)
    Why did Ford scrub all of her social media?

    So I’m going to have to go with… Kavanaugh is guilty?

    1. If Ford does testify before the Judiciary Committee, any Republican who has the temerity to ask any of those perfectly reasonable questions will be crucified in the press.

      1. I’ve seen the Republicans in committee… they can’t ask an intelligent question to save their lives outside of maybe 2. It’s a sad sight to see.

      2. “Dr. Ford, how did you feel when you realized your potential rapist might potentially be a Supreme Court Justice?”

    2. I was tempted to check her social media. Something told me it would show a bunch of Democrat party partisanship and activism.
      Maybe her claims are accurate and if they are they are serious. The problem is that it’s too late for proof and the accusation seems just short of being something to hold against the nominee at this point. It reeks of political slime and defamation. Whether or not the accusation is accurate this whole thing is a blatantly partisan move to deny Trump’s nominee. As much as I don’t like the mrand, it does seem to be tit for tat over Republicans not even considering Garland.

      1. Tats for tits was the worse idea ever

      2. High school kids going for a little grope does not rise to the level of rape, a slap on the hand at that time yes and nothing more

        1. If he did it (no one knows for sure other than Kavanaugh and Ford and anyone who claims otherwise is being extremely disingenuous), it’s a lot more than a little grope. If her story is accurate, he pinned her down, attempted to remove her clothing, and would have raped her but for some type of intervention. That’s a serious violent crime.

          1. “If her story is accurate”

            It has already proven not to be, so why are you pretending it could be?

    3. I would not even give Democrats the satisfaction.

      Just laugh them off the field.

    4. Well, according to Ford in at least one statement, we can confirm that her 15 year old girl self drank at least one beer.

      And we can speculate about how that might have afffected her perception and memory.

      1. Can we have her fired and discredited for her admitted, under age drinking?

      2. everyone always says they only had one, she was probably drunk off her ass, stumbled into Brett and he covered her mouth to keep her from puking all over the place. A more likely scenario that would be fitting of that boy scout

  18. “For me, we can’t vote until we hear more,” said Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Beware the man with nothing to lose.

    1. Flake is down to about 20% popularity in the great state of Arizona. All you need to really know.

      1. Republican office holders don’t represent Republican voters. Their role is to stand between their voters and any political power, to protect the left at opportune times. Their other role is not to defend their voters, so when the media screams racist and the like, their lack of a response lets everyone else know the charge is ‘really’ true. Flake is taking one for his real team, expecting a reward later.

        1. Gee, he probably has a lucrative job lined up as an “analyst” for CNN. We can’t expect him to jeopardize that!

      2. Once upon a time I defended Flake, won’t make that mistake again. His credibility is shot.

    2. His swan song is a delight.

      1. Its always a delight when RINOs go down in flames. They just give the GOP a bad name.

  19. “The creepy clown panic of 2016 is still claiming victims.”
    Siggi the hacker is a weird name for a clown, but he’s got the facial expression down pat

    1. The facial expression of a serial child molester, indeed.

  20. Juan David Ortiz worked for nine years as a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent while spending his spare time murdering sex workers. He has now confessed.

    What?! I thought his work as a CBP agent was *documented*!

      1. So? That just proves his parents are evil too /sarc

        1. Motive of a lie?

      2. “My name is Christine Ford. Your mother foreclosed on my parents. Prepare to not be confirmed.”

          1. +3 times a lady

        1. +4

          1. Get your woman on the floor….

  21. If accusations are all it takes for disqualification, well, all Republicans are routinely accused of being racist Nazis. The Democrats apparently still have not learned anything about crying “Wolf!”

    1. No one has said an accusation is all that is required for disqualification. If it were, Flake and others wouldn’t be asking for more information. The team red shit is insane this week.

      1. DJK, I heard you raped a sheep once. Why would you rape a sheep? Look, you can’t post here anymore since you fuck sheep.

        What’s that, you never fucked sheep? Prove it!

  22. She does not know when or where it happened . .The time from was over a three year period sometime.
    I call bullshit.

    1. You know you’re getting old when you can’t recall the *decade* something happened.

    2. That high school party was like the 60s. If you remember it, you weren’t there

    3. She was 15 for three years?

    4. When she was 15 and he was 17. Not when she was between 15 and 17. Reading comprehension.

      1. We get it, you believe an obviously false hit job.

  23. Look, I don’t pick my battles. I just say what I think is right and wrong.

    Doing something awful – a felony, even – as a teenager is not a lifetime disqualification.

    Lying about it as an adult? Much more so.
    ? Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) September 16, 2018

    Look, it doesn’t matter whether or not it actually happened because it was so long ago. The problem is that he’s lying about it now.

    1. How can you be sure if he’s lying if maybe it didn’t happen?

      1. You’re not understanding. It doesn’t matter if it happened or not because he would have been a teenager. But he’s an adult now who is lying that it never happened.

        1. What’s that? A Kavanaugh cock in my face? I know I’ll call for help! “A lie! Somebody’s lying on the floor of the Senate! Help! A liar! Help!”

      2. Well, he is an establishment, conservative, white male accused by a woman of some sexual transgression. Of course he is lying (and super, super guilty).

      3. How can you be sure he isn’t? It is nothing but he said she said over something alleged to have happened when they were high school students over thirty years ago. It is nothing but a cloud; the entire purpose of this “late breaking” allegation is for no other purpose than to derail the confirmation. Or at the very least set it back until Democrats hope to have a slim majority in the Senate. AKA desperate times desperate measures.

    2. That’s a Patton Oswalt-quality response: “The worst part of Bill Cosby being a rapist is the hypocrisy.”

      1. The worst part of men dying in war is the burden on the women they left at home.

        1. God was that ever a punchworthy quote.

      2. The worst thing about being Patton Oswalt is that money can’t make you any taller or much more attractive.

  24. The fact that Ford took a polygraph test and passed has helped her credibility, even if science says it shouldn’t.

    Yes, let us continue to hammer this home. Regardless of Ford’s stance, we need to stamp out this idea in our society that polygraph’s are anything but pseudoscience.

    I saw an article the other day say that the science on polygraphs were mixed. Even that is too weak, I don’t believe I’ve seen anything to indicate their validity, unless you want to just start including references from Marston himself or something.

    1. Polygraphs cannot detect lies.

      They record BP, skin conductivity, pulse, and respiration.

      Remember all the spies in the CIA/NSA that were later caught took polygraphs on regular basis and ‘passed’.

    2. I saw an article the other day say that the science on polygraphs were mixed. Even that is too weak, I don’t believe I’ve seen anything to indicate their validity, unless you want to just start including references from Marston himself or something.

      They’re as reliable as poker tells and the old ‘If you spend 10 min. playing poker and you can’t tell who the sucker is, you’re the sucker.’ adage applies.

      In this case it almost seems like a badge of guilt or hallmark of a setup to me. Police don’t usually subject witnesses to polygraphs so why has Ford taken one unless her coaches wanted her to show up ready to play.

    3. They’re like drug dogs, the law uses them as an excuse to fuck over the people they want to fuck over.

      1. +1

    4. has helped her credibility, even if science says it shouldn’t.

      So if the Democrats aren’t the party of science, and the Republicans aren’t the party of science, then there’s no need for libertarians to be the party of science, amirite?

      1. ‘has helped her credibility’ Not in my opinion.

    5. “We fucking love science!!!”

  25. Re-elect no one. Get new faces. Then vote them out as well.

    1. I don’t support mandatory term limits, but hope that someday people realize politician shouldn’t be a career.

      I also think if the supreme Court is going to use how people voted as a test for legal validity (Obamacare), I think we need to vote for senators far more often.

  26. “Does an attempted sexual assualt (sic) as a teenager disqualify one from future employment as a Supreme Court Justice?”

    Anybody who answers in the affirmative may have difficulty advocating sentencing reform in the future.

    No mercy for people who’ve never been charged (much less convicted)!

    Mercy for convicted felons?!

    You know what the best outcome for this might be?

    The era of sexual harassment truly began with the Clarence Thomas hearings. Once he’d been put through the grinder, accusations of sexual harassment somehow became sufficient basis for disqualifying people from employment, not to mention polite society. If polite society has now become so intolerant that Norm MacDonald can’t even go on the Tonight Show without making the senior producers cry, then, yeah, it’s time to take a step back.

    Kavanaugh can’t be guilty–he wasn’t charged, and it happened 40 years ago. Maybe if Kavanaugh is confirmed because what somebody did 40 years ago as a teenage doesn’t count for shit, then we can get back on the path of sanity again.

    1. For those who haven’t followed the saga of Norm MacDonald, it is the perfect emblem for our times.

      Norm questioned the length of punishment of the #metoo movement – a buddy of his was accused by an ex-girlfriend after they had a rocky breakup. He can’t work, can’t even walk down the street without getting shouted at. So Norm says, how long does this punishment last? We used to have forgiveness… you admitted that you did something wrong, you asked for forgiveness and then at some point we move on and you get a second chance. Not any more, apparently.

      He mentioned Rosanne Barr, who made an offensive joke in a tweet. And Louis C.K. who asked a couple of women if they would let him masturbate in front of them (if they said no, he took no for an answer). And they lost their jobs and are pariahs. An offensive joke, and consensual (but weird) sexual activity. And that’s the end of your life in public. No more work, no public appearances, no going to the grocery store.

      I think he was perfectly reasonable to question that level of “punishment”, even if you disagreed with what he was saying.

      And for that, the Tonight show staff was in tears at his mere presence? Are we really supposed to believe that?

      1. I heard a nice comeback on that one… I thought it was attributed to Louis CK’s twitter, but couldn’t find it.

        Basically it was:

        Norm MacDonald, too traumatic to have on the Tonight Show after expressing sympathy for Rosanne Barr and Louis CK.

        Not too traumatic for the tonight show: Actual rapists. Mike Tyson (convicted), Kobe Bryant (accused and settled out of court), Bill Clinton (accused multiple times, guilty of at least sexual harassment),

        There was more, but you get the point….

      2. And for that, the Tonight show staff was in tears at his mere presence? Are we really supposed to believe that?

        I remain unconvinced of the truth of this statement. I have seen Norm beclown some celebrities to their face and on air. I’m more certain that they were worried MacDonald might make Fallon look like a fool and their lineup would become infested with deplorables who don’t toe the party’s lion.

        1. I think they genuinely wanted to blackball Norm for his public heresy and being unbowed by political correctness.

          1. Dissent from someone the Lefties thought they had in line, garners swift and brutal retribution.

            Donald Trump is on the receiving end of that.

          2. That is certainly what it seems like.

            I am surprised that Fallon allowed this. He’s known Norm for decades, and undoubtedly they have at least some degree of mutual assistance going back over that time. It seems to be a pretty massive betrayal to me.

            1. He’s the funniest guest you can have. He makes the hosts look like they’re hilarious.

        2. Oh, and one of the few reasons I might suffer through Fallon would be to see Norm. Norm has been the funniest thing on late night talk shows for 20 years. He’s especially good with Conan.

  27. Just when you think the scummy vermin in the left can’t sink any lower, they manage to pull it off. They can’t even come up with original strategies, it’s just the same old bullshit recycled every generation.

    1. It’s really not surprising allegations of sexual assault are so common. After all, the United States is a misogynistic rape culture. For example, did you know 1 in 4 women will be raped in college?

      If Orange Hitler tries to replace Kavanaugh with some other judge, it won’t be suspicious at all if that nomination is also defeated by #MeToo.

      1. Bullshit

      2. It won’t, since the nominee will be the Pro Life Catholic Mom.

      3. did you know 1 in 4 women will be raped in college?

        Why are colleges, usually controlled by progressives and liberals, so hostile and dangerous to women?

        The dark cloud of the War Against Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

        Top Liberal Think Tank and Clinton Adviser Accused of Sheltering Sexual Harassers and Retaliating Against Victims

        Leading liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress (CAP), stands accused of sheltering sexual harassers and operating a toxic culture that made victims fear retaliation for speaking out.

        A heavily-reported expos? by Buzzfeed News on Tuesday documented those allegations?made by 19 former and current employees and staffers with the organization.

        One former union member singled out CAP’s president Neera Tanden… Tanden is a high-profile Twitter user, staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and the former secretary of state’s longtime advisor.

      4. …it won’t be suspicious at all if that nomination is also defeated by #MeToo.

        LOL, pitch perfect.

        If Republicans withdraw Kavanaugh, it will surely be a coincidence that every single last candidate after that will also have some accusations I’m sure.

        It’s hard to stop using a strategy when it continues to work, no matter how transparent it might be I suppose.

  28. “‘For me, we can’t vote until we hear more,’ said Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

    Flake has been looking to challenge Trump for the presidential nomination in 2020 for a long time.

    “Jeff Flake blasts Trump, stokes presidential-campaign speculation with New Hampshire speech”

    —-USA Today, March 16, 2018…..431870002/

    1. Flake should be ashamed of himself.

      Why would you need to hear more?

      The only way it has actual probative value is if you believe it reveals his true character and attitudes about sex, sexuality and consent.

      We have 3+ decades of actual adult life to go on for that one. We don’t need to play “what if” games with something from high school.

      Even if it was an accurate portrayal of what she experienced at the time (it isn’t, and can’t possibly be some 35+ years later), it doesn’t add anything to the evaluation of a jurist with this guy’s record.

      And Jeff Flake pretending that it does says plenty about his character and fitness for office. I recognize that we’ve developed a culture that says that you have to bow down and perform kowtows in the presence of any sort of sexual misconduct allegation or any sort of claim of racism (but only if you are a Republican or for some strange reason Al Franken), but at some point people have to stand up to this nonsense.

      1. He’s a politician. He’s acting like a politician.

        He’s setting himself up to be the old school, conservative challenger to Trump in 2020, and he’s setting himself up as a national candidate in 2024.

        This is what politicians do. They exploit their opponents’ vulnerabilities, every way they can, and hope for the best.

        He couldn’t do anything about spending when he was 1/50th of 1/3rd of the federal government. So he wants to sit in the White House, where he’ll have more influence. If you want that gig, you gotta jump through fiery hoops and bark like seal.

        1. +1

        2. Thing is, people like me would vote for LITERALLY anybody but him.

          Never Trumpers, for years, expected conservatives to support their preferred lame, loser candidates. Yet they refuse to do the same. Its been noticed.

          1. Thing is, people like me would vote for LITERALLY anybody but him.

            Even Hillary?

            How about Bernie?

            1. Over Flake?

              I’d vote for Bernie. Not Hillary. I just wouldn’t vote.

              I can respect Bernie for at least being honest about what a fucking mind-numbed moron he is. Flake cannot do that. He is more dangerous. It’s why I can still buy an argument that McCain would’ve been a more disastrous President than Obama ended up being.

              1. Jeff Flake is a RINO and he acts openly how RINOs act in private.

                They dont want any way but the Lefty way but could not get elected as a Democrat, so they run GOP.

        3. He’s also not making the absolutely retarded move of ignoring a sexual assault allegation in a time when that issue is at the forefront of political debate. He likely sees himself as trying to save the GOP from morons like Trump.

          1. He’s also not making the absolutely retarded move of ignoring a sexual assault allegation

            …from an unknown time
            …at an unknown location
            …with an unknown number of people involved

            You know, the whole proof thing seems missing.

            1. Hence the request for more information.

              1. The most prudent course for folks on the right would be to let this play out and not just leap to Kavanaugh’s defense simply because it puts a right-winger on SCOTUS instead of a left-winger. That way, you don’t have to live down your support of an attempted rapist, if he did in fact do this. It would also be the intellectually honest course of action.

                1. The most prudent course for folks on the right

                  Would be to let the Democrats get their way again.


                  Always seems prudent to do whatever they want, doesn’t it?

              2. Hence the request for more information.

                SHE needs to provide that before another step is taken. No delays. No nothing.

                Detailed information.When. Where. And since she claims the therapist’s notes are wrong, ANY other person she ever mentioned it too. It’s been over a year of #MeToo and she’d have been a fucking hero amongst her circle if she made the accusation by now.

  29. ENB completely ignores the fact Kavanaugh’s mom issued a judgment against Ford’s parents, thus giving her a huge incentive to get back at him.

    Why am I not surprised?

    1. I dont even need that. Democrats are lying pieces of shit. They dont need a motive beyond that.

    2. It’s quite the leap to go from mom presiding over a civil case filed over 20 years ago to attempted rape allegations today. It’s certainly a possible motive, if the alleged incident indeed never happened. It could just as easily be an irrelevant coincidence. Best policy is probably to wait for all of the evidence to come in and not jump to conclusions based on a particular fact that is easily interpreted to support your preferred outcome.

      1. “It’s quite the leap to go from mom presiding over a civil case filed over 20 years ago to attempted rape allegations today. ”

        That you think so speaks to your character, or ignorance of the character of political actors. Or both.

  30. “Another Republican on the committee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said that the Ford story “demands a response” and told CNN that the committee “might have to consider” a postponed vote.”

    Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska, but she was born near a neutron star in the Andromeda galaxy.

    These are all Trump’s longtime enemies in the Republican party. Murkowski helped pull the rug out from under ObamaCare reform. Susan Collins is clutching her pearls, too, no doubt. Are any of these people up for reelection come November? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the answer is “no”.

    Susan Collins
    Jeff Flake
    Lisa Murkowski

    If John McCain were alive, he’d be on the list, too. These are Trump’s enemies in the Republican party, with those who ran against him in the primaries (Cruz and Rubio) still waiting in the wings to see if he stumbles but not willing to show America their daggers yet.

    1. Right on the money Shultz. One can not take Murkowski as honest. She’s figured out that she has a lot more power with the margins being what they are, but I’m hoping she sticks her neck out too far and gets it lopped off with this type of stuff.

  31. This is why Defamation is a civil law thing.

    You cannot just accuse people of crimes without proof and certainly not 30+ years later where they cannot possibly defend themselves.

    1. You can accuse people of crime without proof. For a defamation suit to succeed, the plaintiff needs to a) prove malice and b) prove damages.

      You’ll have a hard time proving by a preponderance of the evidence that this woman lied or did so with malice.

      Thank goodness that’s the way it is, too. It’s mostly that way so that our defamation laws conform to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment. In other former British colonies, in Canada and Australia, for instance, they don’t have the First Amendment, and you don’t need to quantify damages or prove malice. And that’s why politicians in both countries get away with suing news outlets for saying bad things about them.

      Thank goodness for the First Amendment.

      1. He’s a public figure, so she will get away with it.

        In Georgia, she would be liable for Defamation per se:
        Special damages for defamation are available under Georgia law. Specifically, Georgia Code ? 51-5-4 states:
        Slander or Oral defamation consists in:
        -Imputing to another a crime punishable by law;
        -Charging a person with having some contagious disorder or with being guilty of some debasing act which may exclude him from society;
        -Making charges against another in reference to his trade, office, or profession, which is calculated to injure him therein;
        -Uttering disparaging words productive of special damages which flows naturally therefrom.

        If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed.

        The four general categories are:
        Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
        Indications that a person had a “loathsome,” contagious or infectious disease
        Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
        Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

        1. Under defamation per se, in most states, damages are PRESUMED. The plaintiff need not plead nor prove that he sustained any economic injury as a result of the defamatory conduct.

  32. Funny. Reason seems to always opine that doing what the Democrats want is the prudent solution.

    1. It’s just a coincidence.


    2. Doing otherwise would have them disinvited from a lot of fancy cocktail parties.

  33. Team Blue better be careful. They are trying to sink a guy who said he won’t overturn Roe. If his nomination goes down, Trump nominates the Catholic mother of 7 and Roe is on the chopping block.

  34. From the Slate article:

    Can journalists on the right honestly fact-check journalists on the left? That question erupted this week in a fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The fight, as promised, has exposed media bias. But in this case, the bias is on the left.

    Ha! That is hilarious!

    This says everything you need to know to understand just how much people insulate themselves into their own little bubbles.

    This time, the media bias is on the left.

    Holy crap….

    1. Ok, in defense of the Slate writer, he says this further down:

      So the Standard’s fact check is correct. By itself, that’s a small point. But ThinkProgress and its allies have made the dispute into something much bigger. By attacking the fact check as biased on the grounds that a conservative magazine published it, they’ve proved the opposite of what they intended. They’ve confirmed that the press is full of left-leaning journalists who sometimes can’t see or acknowledge congenial falsehoods, and they’ve demonstrated how these journalists unite, when challenged, in a tribal chorus to accuse conservatives of trying to “censor” them. In sum, they’ve demonstrated why we need conservative journalists to help check facts.

      Further, the real crux of the kerfuffle is Facebook labeling posts as “false” based on factcheck organizations. Apparently they’ve found themselves a conservative voice to counterbalance the liberal ones. And the left is not happy about it at all.

      But then didn’t seem to learn the true lesson. Instead of questioning Facebook’s censorship, they just protest the inclusion of conservative factcheckers in their system.

      1. Instead of questioning Facebook’s censorship, they just protest the inclusion of conservative factcheckers in their system.

        Well, sure. Because including conservative voices violates Sarah Jeong’s “Internet of Garbage” principle that anything not perfectly aligned with the current neoliberal social consensus is illegitimate by its very nature and existence, and must therefore be suppressed.

        And yet the MUH PRINCIPLES crowd still thinks these lunatics are going to be won over by reasoned arguments for intellectual diversity.

  35. Confirm him and move on. Democrats will merely continue their attack dog ways no matter what the Republicans do. We KNOW if the Dems were in control they would steamroll through all this and dismiss “old news”. Recall the ACA? A stripped House bill reinvented in the Senate so it worked as a reconciliation budget bill. Fight fire with Fire. A 35 year old case that came to light in counseling? Please. People invent their own life stories and they are never quite truthful. We all do this as a self protective mechanism. Confirm him!

    1. This comment is a perfect microcosm of everything that is wrong with American political culture.

  36. What happens in high school doesn’t stay in high school.

  37. Wow, such a clear and obvious political attack disguised as a rape allegation. I guess Ford saw the writing on the wall and decided to cash in with a book deal. Wise move on her part, perhaps, since ultimately there is no repercussion for false accusations of crimes that can’t be prosecuted anymore.

    Anyone who believes her is by definition an idiot given the timing. If people want to be taken seriously they might want to consider not timing the release of accusations with confirmation hearings.

    In fairness, it could be Feinstein playing this game but if it was her than she should be immediately impeached. The fact she won’t be tells you how absolutely morally bankrupt she is and by extension her party. That this is deemed fair play, and in fact their modus operandi, is disgusting.

    Not that Republicans are some sort of upstanding moral paragons, but this same story is getting old and I have no reason to believe any accusations anymore. They’ve simply cried wolf too many times, and I can’t be bothered to go check if they’re being eaten any longer. The left has done that to me, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.