Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh Accused of Sexual Misconduct By a Second Woman

Claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale party 35 years ago is less convincing than Ford's alleged rape, but suggests a pattern.


Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Another woman who knew Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh three decades ago has come forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct.

Deborah Ramirez attended Yale University with Brett Kavanaugh. They were both present at a party in a dorm room their freshman year, Ramirez told The New Yorker's Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. They sat in a circle with other students, consuming alcohol, and Ramirez became extremely drunk. She was "foggy and slurring her words," according to The New Yorker, when a male student exposed himself to her. She pushed him away, touching his penis in the process, she said.

Ramirez now claims this man was Kavanaugh, though she admits there are "significant gaps in her memories." She was "reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty," according to The New Yorker. "After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party."

The New Yorker got in touch with several other students who confirmed they had heard this story—and that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator—but none who could confirm that he was actually present at the party, which sounds awfully familiar: Everyone supposedly present at the party where Ford was allegedly assaulted has similarly denied Kavanaugh was there. What's more, a host of second-hand sources disputed Ramirez's story:

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn't see it; I never heard of it happening."

Ramirez's lack of confidence in her own memories means that this accusation seems less convincing on its own than the one made by Christine Blasey Ford, who has alleged that Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom and held her down, muffling her screams as he attempted to rape her. Farrow and Meyer's story does include comment from a former girlfriend of Mark Judge, the conservative writer who was friends with Kavanaugh in high school and was allegedly present for the attempted rape of Ford. (Judge has denied everything.) The former girlfriend, Elizabeth Rasor, disputed Judge's contention that he never sexually abused women, though she had no specific knowledge of misbehavior involving Kavanaugh.

There's no smoking gun here, so anyone hoping for an immediate resolution to the Kavanaugh mess in either direction is bound to be disappointed. But the existence of a second accusation probably makes Ford more credible, at least in the eyes of the public.

Ford and Kavanaugh are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

NEXT: From a 'Due Process' Perspective, the Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Will Be a Farce

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. There is a pattern here.

    Do you know what it is?

    1. Robby is a useful idiot?

      1. "Useful idiot" is granting him too much credit.

        Is there a such thing as a "useful ignoramus"? If not, I hereby trademark the term.

      2. Robby's just scared of a lynching for wandering off the narrative reservation.

        1. This is probably true for anyone in media. The Twitter hit squad with their goons have made swift work of many a writer to wander off narrative.

          I would use a pseudonym if I was coming on up as a media type, personally.

          I'm any event we will look back in these times of #MeToo in the same light as we do the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, the Satanic murdering cults of the 80s, etc some day. All fucking bollocks.

      3. not all that useful, truth be told

      4. For a start.

    2. Reason is hell-bent on destroying its credibility?

      1. It lost any credibility around election 2016.

        We learned that Reason was not a Libertarian centric website..

        1. Because they didn't fall in line and dared to criticize Trump?

          1. Their credibility was already rapidly swirling down the toilet before that when they spent the previous eight years mostly sucking off Obama's cock.

        2. The fact that trolls dont know why Americans dont trust the a shocker!

      2. Actually reading this? If you go beyond the headline even a short distance, the reporting seems evenhanded, and It does an extremely good job of presenting while disproving it. To the point that If I was to give a bias, it would be for Kavanaugh, not against him.

        Moreover, this undermines the initial story. More vague and quite possibly false accusations weaken the case, not enhance it.

        1. You think the anti-kavanaugh crowd reads beyond the headline? Farrow basically admits he couldn't corroborate the new story and has more "there's no way kavanaugh did this, we would have known" responses than "kavanaugh did it" responses. But look at all of the headlines, they are simply kavanaugh did it. Studies have shown most people don't read past the 2nd paragraph on a news stories.

          1. Yep, the most exposure most voters are going to get to this is a 30-second soundbite on the evening news about how Republicans are struggling to confirm Brett Kavanaugh after multiple women made allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

            This is the same pattern with the Trump pee pee dossier: "This is obvious bullshit, but once somebody publishes it we can cover it because 'people are talking about it!'"

          2. Studies have also shown that 88% of all statistics are only 50% accurate.

      3. Notice how it's a select few writing all this?

        Nobody else is saying anything, no agreement, no equivocation, no disagreement. Certainly no mention of the multiple libertarian principles or ideas that are being trampled.

        No. They are not Hell-bent on destroying their credibility. Everyone else has gone silent during this effort to derail Kavanaugh in order to maintain plausible deniability so that they might continue to claim credibility.

        Six weeks from now when someone is writing about juvenile justice reform and they get called out on it, the response will be "wasn't me."

        1. Elizabeth of two, Elizabeth Proctor, party of two

    3. # of accusers grow like Fibonacci #s?

      1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 ...

    4. A pattern of unsubstantiated accusations. Not just unsubstantiated, accusations actually contradicted by other witnesses. That's the pattern.

      1. Yes, that seems to the pattern Robby was referring to. I'm just not sure he completely understood it.

    5. Robby and the Lefties will do anything to stop the rollback of their Socialist bullshit.

      Fuck them. VOTE. It does not matter what kavanaugh or other witnesses say, these crazy women will lie to get what they want.

      1. Get what they want!?!? What would professor Ford want a to stop a political nomination she opposes while guaranteeing herself an endowed chair at any university she wants?

        1. Don't forget the book deal.

          1. Anita hill got a million dollar book deal after Thomas and now makes hundreds of thousands a year on the speech circuit. Why would anyone come forward under those conditions?!?

      2. Licking red ass

      3. Licking red ass

      4. Licking red ass

        1. This isn't that kind of fetish site. Not since Crusty stopped coming around, anyway.

      5. Trolls licking Blue ass. What a shocker!

    6. A pattern of righteous butthurt?

      1. I thonk everyone knew you were going to be the idiot on this.

        1. At least until Cathy and the "Reverend" weigh in.

          1. Don't forget collectivistjeff

    7. Is it "Being someone the Demonrat Party wants to destroy"?

    8. Yes... unsubstantiated claims. From the actual New Yorker article...

      "The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party."

      The article of the new accuser literally states she took 6 days to try to recover her memory. 6 days... memory recovery is bullshit. This is just democrats being democrats. Fuck the truth.

      1. That was six days of consulting with her lawyers to make sure that her accusation had just enough detail to make Ford look more credible, but with enough wiggle room to keep her from getting sued for defamation. "It was probably him, but I'm not really 100% sure because I was so drunk."

    9. People making shit up to delay a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination?

    10. Journalism by innuendo

      Robby never even has the stones to indicate just what "pattern" has been "suggested"

      Get Woke, adopt the journalistic standards of the Woke

    11. The left will not stop, so when the first dismal allegation goes nowhere they will not hesitate to bring up another. They are demented.

    12. Absolutely! Line up a bunch of female drunks who, after 35 years, can't see anyone other than Brett Kavanaugh handing down their abortion decision. Give them six days to think about it, and every guy who ever yanked one of their boobs is Brett Kavanaugh!

  2. There certainly is a pattern here, I'll admit that. As one accuser's story falls apart, there will be another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another.

    1. Yup. The Lefties are at war against Americans and the sooner normal Americans realize this the sooner Lefties will be ignored.

    2. This goes into what I've been thinking about a lot lately, which is Republicans should probably get ahead of this and work out a procedure for Congress to follow with accusations like this. Simultaneously define a way to deal with accusations, both serious and whatever these are, as well as neuter it as a tactic for stalling, while hopefully allowing the common American a feeling of transparency in government.

      1. Just laugh at these liars and eject them from the committee floor.

        Then vote.

        Ignoring liars like Tony infuriates them. They keep chanting "we will be heard". Ignore them.

        1. Well, then be ready for this to happen over and over again, and for it to be a shit show every single time. It has already been a successful tactic.

          1. If Grassley is now trolling the Left, you know these old Senators are sick of this bullshit.

            This week will see non-die-hard Democrats moving away from Lefties that are pushing this shit. Same thing happened with #metoo. The Democrat moderates shifted right.

            Falsely accusing people is over the line for most Americans.

            1. I think that considering the low stakes and the relatively long timeline available here, that they could have used this to define the procedure. This was wasted politics on the Republicans side. But that is not surprising as they are not particularly competent.

            2. It's hard to believe in the era of #MeToo, that there are still people insensitive enough to say that women make false allegations. Two women who have the courage to trade a man's life for a political win should be celebrated, not disparaged with the truth.

              1. Now this is good stuff, a little obvious on the nose, but I chuckled

            3. That is unfortunately dependent upon how most Americans hear this "news." For once I'll say that Robby mostly did a decent job reporting it neutrally. The outlets from which most people get their news will report this as being credible just like they have done for Russiagate and Ford's accusation.

              1. Ummm....

                "Claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale party 35 years ago is less convincing than Ford's alleged rape, but suggests a pattern."

                ... there was NEVER any rape.

                1. But Robby did a neutral report.... yeah right.

                2. hence "alleged"

                  1. Ford doesn't even allege rape... She alleges sexual assault. So Cy is correct here and Robby is lying.

                    1. The definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" vary, depending on which state law is cited. So what Ford alleges happened is called, depends on which jurisdiction the incident occurred in.

                3. Yeah that struck me too. Apparently Reason doesn't have any editors who can actually read. So Robby is forced to admit this latest accusation is bullshit but manages to accuse Kavanaugh of rape in the clickbait.

          2. " It has already been a successful tactic. "

            Has it? The Dems haven't actually stopped anything, amd look like idiots.

            1. Depends on whether you think bolstering the partisan hack vote is a success.

      2. Democrats don't follow patterns or rules of behavior. Didn't you see Spartacus?

      3. No, it's time for bloodsport. Slander, relentlessly, any Democratic nominee.

      4. Isn't that what the criminal justice system is for? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to throw another political football to the FBI given everyone's complaints about the FBIs involvement in the 2016 election.

    3. Well, Mitch says we're going to vote next week, one way or the other. And, if Kavanaugh goes down because of a Flake, that still won't save Clair McCaskill.

  3. "less convincing than Ford's alleged rape"

    Now *that's* impressive.

    1. I'm confused by that. Does he mean less convincing of malice, or less convincing that it actually happened?

      1. Impressive that they could find an accusation less convincing than the Ford one.

    2. I missed that. Once again, narrative creep rings its ugly head. Her accusations amounted to rebuffed sexual advances. Perhaps one can go so far as to say sexual assault or attempted rape. Even by her accusation there was no rape so talking about events as if that was even alleged is bad journalism.

    3. Ford didn't allege rape. She alleged attempted rape.


      1. And attempted murder

        1. And attempted credibility.

      2. And attempted truthfulness.

    4. Nobody was raped. Period.

  4. Only Nixon could go to China and accuse it of drunkenly almost tool beating him, so hopefully for credibility's sake Ms. Ramirez isn't a women's health activist.

  5. When in doubt, whip it out...a poorly-sourced charge, I mean.

  6. All I'm saying is that Brett Kavanaugh told me he would pay me $5k if I let him suck me off.

    Just sayin'. I didn't have the courage to bring it up until now.

    1. I have been telling everyone for years that Hillary got Tony to suck her dick about 30 years back.

      It was gross to see tony choke on Hillarys 2 inch herpes infested penis.

      You just cant unsee things.

    2. Just Sayin' was involved how, in this proposed mutually beneficial exchange? Some sort of pimp role?

  7. "There's no smoking gun here, so anyone hoping for an immediate resolution to the Kavanaugh mess in either direction is bound to be disappointed."

    If this is the case, then why did Robby tweet that Kavanaugh should just withdraw? I say this is somebody who isn't pro-Kavanaugh and who would love to see Amy Coney Barrett on the court.

    1. *say this AS

    2. Because Robby is running with the DC Beltway crowd now. He has to say it to be cool with the In Crowd, even though deep down inside he knows it's probably bullshit.

      You knew people like him in high school, the ones who sucked up to the popular kids in order to maintain their social status. DC is like that, because that's were most of those kids ended up.

      1. You knew people like him in high school, the ones who sucked up to the popular kids in order to maintain their social status. DC is like that, because that's were most of those kids ended up.

        ^THIS x1000^ Having lived in the DC area for nearly 15 years, you are spot on Spock

      2. This is called cronyism. It's not what you know, it's who you know.

    3. Because Robby is a cheerleader for witch hunts?

    4. Why set the pattern that a nominee withdraws after a few unsubstantiated allegations from 30 years ago?
      Pretty soon candidates are not only going to have to be legally brilliant and young enough to have avoided committing too many divisive opinions to paper, they're going to need a pristine past. How's that going to work when Google Archive has ever Twitter tweet ever tweeted, and the NSA has every snapchat pic ever texted?

      1. A pristine past won't protect you - apparently we have people like our dear author who will just assume that an accusation is sufficient and that a second accusation is just evidence of a pattern of your behavior.

      2. And that Kavanaugh is still pristine after this. Who the hell could possibly hold up if HE doesn't?

        THIS is why we have Trump.

        To believe that this wouldn't happen to any Republican nominee is foolish.

      3. Kavanaugh has a pristine past. He graduated Yale a virgin.
        What you will get are more Sociopaths

  8. Oh, Robby, Robby, Robby. If you had any clue as to how stupid this article made you look, then you would delete it immediately.

    In Libertarian World, no one says anything false about anyone else for any reason, and everyone tells the truth.

    1. "In Libertarian World, no one says anything false about anyone else for any reason, and everyone tells the truth."

      While there are no penalties for not telling the truth, since libel and slander are not a thing in Libertarian World.

      1. I think slander and libel are acts of aggression and clearly violate the NAP.

  9. This is ridiculous. She admits she was shit faced; how can anyone claim she has any credibility at all?

    1. I wonder if she is confusing her experience with that of Paula Jones's.

    2. It's easy: You just have to have no self-respect at all, and your mouth will practically open on its own to make the claim.

    3. Have you not met democrats? "Their Truth" over Real Truth. "Believe her" over believe the truth (unless you are accusing someone like Bill Clinton or Keith ellison). Democrats deal in lies. Politics is their new religion. They are zealots.

  10. "suggests a pattern"

    To be sure.

  11. This story doesn't make Ford more credible in any way. I am shocked at how many people can read vague 35 year old stories that are contradicted by every named witness and still consider them completely credible. My hope is that a second questionable story will open a few minds to the the idea that people make false accusations sometimes, and there's a good reason to withhold judgement before sufficient details emerge.

    1. These accusations should be smacked down and the senate should vote immediately.

      1. If we're operating in shoulds, and investigation into partisans obstructing senate hearings would probably be a better use of resources than a show hearing.

        1. Jeff Sessions will get right on it.


      2. Her lawyers should also be facing disbarment.

        1. Subornation of perjury is a crime.

  12. Due process is important in everything, not just criminal cases. It is an American value, which explains why the left trashes it so much. What they can't get accomplished because of our constitution, they will try as end-arounds.

    Look at the show trials on college campuses. "But it's not a criminal case!" the left would say. Yet but you are unjustly punishing someone, when they have no presumption of innocence, so right to cross-examine, etc. That;s immoral. But to the left, it's "social justice", proving how really evil that despicable ideology is.

    1. Seeing what they did to the word "liberal," it's not surprising what they did to the terms "social justice" and "due process."

      1. Where do liberals fit into this? Orangutans have more focus.

        1. Tony|9.23.18 @ 10:57PM|#
          "Where do liberals fit into this? Orangutans have more focus."

          No, libs have more focus, Orangutans have higher IQs.

        2. Liberals are no where close to classical liberalism tony. If you had actually learned anything in 8th grade maybe you'd be able to comprehend a fairly simply sentence and its meaning.

        3. They also tell more coherent stories.

    2. This is what I dont get about reason. Conservatives are often stupid, but the worst they are going to do now that they've figured out war rarely turns out how you think it will is maintain the status quo. The left in this country is anti-libertarian and, yes, it is an evil ideology.

    3. So, they turn it into Family Court style law then?

  13. Drumpf's presidency might not be over ? we'll have to wait until 2019 for that ? but his ability to pack the Court with dangerous right-wing extremists obviously is. And as a libertarian, I couldn't be happier. I'm still disappointed the progressive / libertarian alliance was unable to prevent Gorsuch from stealing Garland's seat, but when the Democrats are back in the White House we'll get several more RBG-style justices. It's gonna be great!


    1. How much is the DNC paying you to troll here OBL?

      1. It's just slightly over-the-top enough to be identifiable as satire...for the moment.

        OBL will have to keep one step ahead of reality, which will mean getting crazier and crazier, until he gives it all up on realizing that he can no longer manage to be crazier than a Demcrat.

        1. Yeah, here LibertariansForFeinstein hashtag kind of have it away. That was pretty witty, actually.

          1. OBL is pretty solid satire. That Mike Question guy the other day was pretty good too.

            1. I think Mark Question is Tony.

              1. Not a chance. Tony has never demonstrated that sort of talent for wit.

                1. In order for satire to work, you have to be self aware, something Tony is not.

    2. "#LibertariansForFeinstein"

      Lol wut? She is the worst of both parties.

      1. He's just trying to make the government as lousy as possible. Figures it will pump up our base.

    3. #LibertariansForFeinstein

      #LibertariansForHardcoreStatists or #LibertariansForFuckingSlavers would be a funnier formulation for this kind of over the top trolling.

  14. True story: When I was in college around 1990 or so, I come back to my dorm room and there was a girl who I didn't know very well passed out in my bed, one of several of my roommate's friends who were hanging out there drinking and probably smoking weed too. I didn't want to disturb her, so I slept on the couch, and wake up and shower the next morning. I come back and start getting dressed and she wakes up while I am naked for a few seconds. I don't even know if she saw me, but if she did and I were being consider for SCOTUS justice, I could be in big trouble.

    1. When your a man, youre always a rapist.

      1. Remember when even leftards disavowed that shit from Dworkin because they were afraid it would make them look ridiculous?


        1. I forgot about that fucking guy.

          Lefties have left ridiculous at the bus terminal. They are on full retard at 52mph and deaccelerating the bus.

      2. The feminist's answer to "Is he a rapist?": "He has a penis, doesn't he?"

    2. That's actually part of what bugs me about an allegation like this. We have a severe lack of context. Even taking Ford's accusation at face value we weren't told how it could have been a prank, drunken stupidity, or even possibly the culmination of perceived sexual tension. This second accusation is even weaker on a scale of whether I should care. They were all drinking and for some reason he pulled his dick out. Why did he pull it out and what did he do after exposing himself? If he pulled it out and shoved it in her unwilling face, then we have a problem that could be excused as drunken stupidity. I think it's possible that both events happened, but it's highly unlikely due to the way they're presented.

      1. Its a political ploy. The lefties tipped their hand.

  15. "Now, Ms. Ramirez and Judge Kavanaugh, there is some discrepancy between your respective testimonies. The question is whether Roberts showed you his wang.

    "This committee hereby orders that Ms. Ramirez give a detailed description of the appearance of Judge Kavanaugh's lil' judge. And the committee also orders that Judge Kavanaugh take out his Johnson for photographic examination to see if it fits with Mr. Ramirez's, not here, Judge, in the special room the Senate reserves such delicate examinations. The Sergeant-at-Arms will escort you."

    Thank God this isn't the British Parliament, or the joke would end with "Black Rod will escort you."

    Am I starting to sound like SQURELESY ONE? (sp?)

    1. LEAD INVESTIGATOR: "Now, Ms. Ramirez, I want you to examine this photo array and see if you can make a correct identification. Let the record reflect that Ms. Ramirez pointed to Committee Exhibit 69, which is actually the wang of Senator Schumer."

      SCHUMER: "Hey, we were supposed to be identified by pseudonyms!"

      LEAD INVESTIGATOR: "I'm so very sorry, Senator Schumer, I should have called you Senator C."

      SCHUMER: "If you keep this up, I won't be showing you my dick for photographing anymore."

      RAMIREZ: "Uh, I was actually trying to point to the photo next to that one."

      LEAD INVESTIGATOR: "You mean the photo of Senator EK's organ?"

      RAMIREZ: "No, to the right not the left."

      LEAD INVESTIGATOR: "That's from former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh back when the Senate was considering his nomination.*"

      *Editor's note - not really.

      1. LEAD INVESTIGATOR: "You know what, I move to strike that last joke as too tasteless even for this sketch."

        1. GRASSLEY: "We should never have hired an outside investigator to do the questioning. You're fired. Now, there's a common-sense way to settle this. I'll turn out the lights, the Judge and all the committee members will unzip and whip out our Senatorial gavels, and the Sergeant-at-Arms will shine his flashlight at our crotches, being careful not to reveal our faces."

          FEINSTEIN: "I'm not exposing myself to anyone!!"

          GRASSLEY: "I hadn't meant to suggest *you* unzip."

          FEINSTEIN: "You certainly did!"

          GRASSLEY: "I only meant that those with the appropriate equipment should unzip. I'm assuming that you don't..."

          FEINSTEIN: "Don't you assume anything!"

          GRASSLEY: "Fine, only the men unzip."

          FEINSTEIN: "You bigot, women can have dicks, too!"

          GRASSLEY: "OK, but given your objections, I rule that you are not required to show your dick."

          FEINSTEIN: "I didn't say I had one, I just said that you shouldn't be making prejudiced assumptions which marginalilize trans people, you cishet evildoer!"

          1. GRASSLEY: "OK, when I turn out the lights and let the Judge and anyone else who wishes to join in all get out of our seats and kind of move around, so when the lights go back on Ms. Ramirez won't recognize us by our position in the room. Now, when I give the word, the Sergeant at Arms will turn off the lights, those participating will unzip and shift positions in the room, and the the Sergeant at Arms will shine his flashlight. Ready, go!"


            POLICEMAN: "OK, this has officially become Too Silly. Turn on the lights, everybody re-zip in an orderly manner and disperse, or I'm arresting the whole lot of you."

            1. Only a few years ago this series of posts would have universally regarded as terribly unfunny and stupid. Today they seem to be a suggestion too reasonable to be seriously considered.

            2. Slow clap. This was entertaining.


          2. All I want to know is: If Dianne grabs for my gun but gets my shooter instead, can I bring her up on charges?

    2. I think I have a way out of this. We, uh, call the police, and we have 'em send over one of their sketch artists. And Miss Ramirez can give a description. We can put up "Wanted" posters all over America... "Have you seen this prick? Report immediately to the US Senate. Do not attempt to apprehend this prick, as it is armed and dangerous. It was last seen hanging out at Yale University.

      1. That was some funny shit when it came out. I was crying in that scene.

    3. If the condom fits, you must not acquit..

  16. Where's loveconstitution? I need to make sure he's OK.

    1. I have been laughing my ass off since saturday when ford agreed to testify.

      I knew this was not the end.

      You Lefties are going to get your ass handed to you election 2018. I was out watching football this weekend and when the news came on about the second allegation, women in the sports bar were so talking shit about this new lady.

      You Lefties have lost American workers. Then you are losing black voters by the day. Then women independents think these lies are despicable.

      The democratic party is done....son...done.

      1. At least there was alcohol around.

        Hope you didn't flap your dick in anyone's face against their will.

        1. Hillary put her dick in my face 35 years ago.

          I said no but she parted my hair with her 2 inch herpes infested dick.

          1. 1982 Hillary was actually pretty bangable.

            1. Bill wouldnt even bang hillary after the 1970s.

              Never put your dick in crazy and Hillary has been a crazy Lefty zealot for a long time.

              Plus, that snuke could off at any moment.

            2. 1982 Hillary was actually pretty bangable.

              She was a three bagger back then. One for you, one for her, one in case somebody walks by.

  17. The only pattern emerging here is shoddy fake memories.

  18. If this is a carefully timed Democratic plot, I will be impressed by Democrats for once.

    1. Dianne Feinstein didn't sit on this for months because of an urgency for every victims' story to be told.

      1. This is why I lean toward "Democrats aren't evil geniuses, he just happens to be a rapist," because that timing was hardly ideal. Maybe before the hearings are over would have been better?

        1. A classic example of the old "is she a political mastermind or is he rapist!" I love that one.

          1. If you guys don't know when it's time to jump ship, I'm going to have to start thinking Republicans are no longer evil geniuses.

            1. Are you okay Tony? Your side seems a bit desperate.

              1. Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

                1. Tony, I know you hate reading history or doing any learning of the sort... but read up on the Salem Witch Trials. They actually have quite a bit in common with the kavanaugh hearings and the patterns of accusations. That would require learning on your part, which I know is really tough for you. So maybe start at an animated (that means cartoons Tony) depiction of the trials and the hysteria on youtube. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Ask the nearest adult if you need help.

              2. Tony, your side has issued a new narrative. Check it out and get back to us.

            2. You know you're right. We should just ride the political wave all the way to a utopia where women don't need to rely discredited stories to ruin a man's life: they'll be able to simply flash thumbs down at the executioner.

              1. This is hardball politics for the supreme court. Let me get you the smellin' salts.

                1. It will be now. Boy, wait until Trump replaces Thomas, RBG, and Breyer. The GOP majority will just be igonoring lefties like you and confirming Trumps picks.

                  Old men like Grassley evidently have fight left in them to put you Lefties in your place.

                  1. I dunno. I kind of like Grassley, but it's pretty as precedent to let a give control of the Senate schedule to someone who has already delayed proceedings.

                2. Yes and truth and due process have no place here. I hope you think this is a terrible outcome of where we are at but my guess is that winning is all that matters to you.

                3. And hardball politics at SCOTUS is confirming him anyway.

                  Don't say you didn't ask for it.

                  1. I expect nothing less from Republicans.

                    1. Prediction: democrats will play hardball and get rid of the electoral college... right when it would have started working in their favor.

                      It's consistent with their pattern of "genius".

                    2. I don't disagree, but I'd feel absolutely awful supporting a party that gains power via antidemocratic means.

                    3. You've been pretty solid with your baiting throughout this Kavanaugh thing.

                    4. I'm sure you'll find a way.

                    5. Like Google controlling what people see?

                      Google is a bigger threat to American representative democracy than any other country save, POSSIBLY, China.

                      Who had a spy with Feinstein for only 20 years or so.

                    6. It's not even obvious that the EC IS working in their favor, since we lack elections held under a popular vote system to compare it to. It isn't as though you can mindlessly just evaluate the popular vote under an EC system, and assume it would have been the same if we didn't have the EC.

                      OK, I guess you can do it, if you don't mind embarrassing yourself.

                    7. Democratic party- the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim crowe laws, and segregation.

                    8. omg fucking god you misspelled "Jim Crow"

                    9. OMG fucking GoD, you misspelled "Jime Crow"

                  2. Guaranteed that kavanaugh leans more constitutionalist after this. He seemed kind of political with his legal positions during the hearings. This should have opened his eyes to what the Lefties are capable of.

                    These attacks on him with lies have taught him that Lefties are a clear and present danger to the Constitution and the USA.

                    1. Kind of like with Thomas: They pulled this shit on him, and the result was that he came out of the hearings not caring what the left said. If Kavanaugh survives this mess, he'll be a changed man.

            3. If you guys don't know when it's time to jump ship,

              Jump ship from what? Democrats have made such a mess and mockery of the process that Republicans might as well just confirm.

              1. And Republicans haven't done anything that wasn't 100% cynically self-serving in decades, so that is indeed the question.

                1. And Republicans haven't done anything that wasn't 100% cynically self-serving in decades

                  I wish it were true. But they are learning.

            4. What, we're supposed to jump ship because false accusers find courage in numbers, and he's probably going to get hit with two more false accusations tomorrow?

              Until somebody comes along who has evidence, and isn't contradicted by every supposed witness, this doesn't mean anything. All it does is demonstrate why Grassley was a fool to delay the vote.

              Nobody is so clean that it's impossible to falsely accuse them of doing something 30-40 years ago, especially if the standard is that it doesn't matter if all the supposed witnesses say it didn't happen.

              1. I agree with you Brett. Thomas might have leaned more Constitutionalist after being attacked like this.

                Kavanaugh, I hope becomes more Constitutionalist because of Lefty lies too.

              2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg grew up in an even earlier time and nobody has come forward accusing her of attempted rape. Except Abraham Lincoln I mean.

                1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg raped me back sometime and somewhere.

                  The Democrats ignored my letter to the editor.

                2. Rbg just hates all minorities, that racist bitch. See her clerks.

              3. Except Hillary. Accusations against her with the same level of credibility are considered a product of a right wing conspiracy. She could have built an Email server and put it in the bathroom of her house, and no Dem would say there's something wrong or even odd about it.

        2. "aybe before the hearings are over would have been better?"

          You're making my point for me: if straightening this matter out was the top priority, why didn't she do it during the hearings?

          And the answer is "yes, it's not about that. It's about extending hearings past the midterms"

          See, it all makes sense once you stop assuming it away.

          1. I really hope that something can be done to Feinstein about this. No matter the truth of the situation, her action represents either a grave moral lapse or horrendous political manipulation.

            1. The Democratic party wants to get rid of Feinstein anyway. With the chaos they have created, it's win-win: Feinstein may get damaged, and Kavanaugh's nomination may get killed.

              1. With Feinstein, I hope it happens in such a way so as to discourage nonsense like this in the future.

                As for Kavanaugh, I don't feel strongly either way. I'll admit to getting caught up in the drama a bit, and the pretty eyebrow raising context of these accusations. When I take a step back I'm able to remind myself that I don't actually like Kavanaugh that much.

                1. The only way it's discouraged is if this latest bimbo gets charged with perjury on the basis of being contradicted by everybody else in the room.

                  " "After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney," she determined that if she was sufficiently vague and uncertain, she probably wouldn't face perjury charges". Time to prove that attorney wrong.

                  1. "she determined that if she was sufficiently vague and uncertain, she probably wouldn't face perjury charges"

                    Roll the tape of Hildog repeating "I can't remember" 100 times.

                  2. There's a better chance that Kavanaugh is lying.

                    1. HL, you've proven yourself quite the idiot. Don't get mad when I read you don't know statistics or likelihood either.

            2. Kavanaugh will join the SCOTUS.

            3. Well, she is already actively counting down to serving her one benefit to society --- fertilizing the soil.

          2. And really, even then, it doesn't rise to the level of genius, so not too worried about giving Democrats too much credit. But if you're impressed, then you do you.

        3. The timing was perfect. They knew it was shit and it was their hail mary after K didnt make an ass of himself in the hearings and they couldn't get their pet Republicans to vote against him.

      2. Guarantee there is a line of Lefty political activists waiting to perjure themselves for the cause.

        This is war ya know.

        Vote and confirm kavanaugh on monday. By Monday night the lefties will activate underground violence groups. Then election 2018 will go against Lefties and they will commit more violence. Then Trump will replace thomas, RBG, and Breyer which will get the
        LEft to really step up the violenct insanity.

        1. Grassley should have only one hour of hearings for the next nominee, and have the vote the next day.

    2. Mass hysteria would be a better description. Soon women from all over the world will be coming forward with shaky, drunken, unfalsifiable claims of spotting Bret Kavanagh in the woods and being groped by him like a rapey version of Bigfoot.

      1. Steve Smith is up for a SCOTUS seat?

        OK, that's probably bad.

  19. "After speaking to an attorney about the ramifications of this highly sensational information, sure to generate much publicity, and shade on certain political issues, and examining my drunk fog memories from three decades ago, I realized that, yes, the SCOTUS nominee did, in fact, slap me in the face with a dick! I want nothing but affirmation and support in response, please. Thank you."

    1. Hey, spare us the mansplaining! There are two allegations now. I mean, why would a woman make false claims in such a publicized situation after after seeing the outpouring of support and temporary control of the senate that Ford received? And speaking of Ford, after seeing the two high university jobs, book deals, and speaking engagements Anita Hill was subjected to, what possible reason could a Bay Area professor have to make a false accusation?

      It's clear that no woman would want anything like that, and it's beyond offensive for you to suggest that their stories aren't credible just because they lack details and we're universa discredited by witnesses.

      1. Good, but not quite OBL quality.

  20. "Claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale party 35 years ago is less convincing than Ford's alleged rape, but suggests a pattern."

    Yeah, a pattern of bullshit claims. That is what you meant, right?

  21. Is there any reputable law firm who would represent clients like this and take their statement public? This isn't "he said she said" where the rape occurred in an abandoned dark alley. All of the accusers named the site of the rape and even identified some of the witnesses. No one has confirmed their story.

    But conveniently, they all have hazy memory and or drunk. I guess that gives them some wiggle room when they make official statements under oath. "I said this and that happened, but I could be wrong, because I was drunk".

    The lawyers representing the accusers are resistance activists. If their clients weren't also from the resistance, I would guess they were being played as pawns. As it is, this is a coordinated political hit job. Feinstein sat on a rape accusation against BK for months and sprung it as a hail mary. This is the same women who let a Chinese spy drive her around for 20 years. The democrat party cannot be trusted in this process.

    1. Its all political lies and should treated as such. Ignored.

      Vote monday and get this over with.

  22. I went from thinking

    "they should have the accuser (Ford) testify under oath to ensure politics-by-smear is shown to have serious risks and costs"

    to thinking

    "they should have the fucking vote tomorrow"

    If they run a poll similar to the Yougov poll that ran last wednesday(?)... I assure you, the % of people that find *any* of this credible (forget splitting them out, because the entire point of multiple accusations is to reduce attention on Ford) will have dropped to mid-teens.

    No one with half a brain (which excludes robby), not-already-deeply-partisan-left, buys this shit at all anymore.

    1. Ah, the more accusations, the less credible they become. Makes sense.

      1. Hahha. You lefties don't even see what is coming.

        It all makes sense now. Your leadership knew the game is over this election 2018 so they decided to hail mary with outright lies.

        As with immigration, Americans tried to stay as neutral as long as possible until took a mile from the inch given. Same thing will happen here.

      2. When all the accusations have in common that they are unusually incredible?

        1. Sorry, I haven't had time to watch Tucker today. How are they unusually incredible?

          1. Maybe the common thread that all of the people the accuser said we're present have said the incidents didn't happen? Or maybe the complete lack of details? Or the convenient timing for allegations to emerge against BK for the first time ever? Or two 35 year old incidents that no one ever brought up before now. Take your pick.

          2. Sorry, I haven't had time to watch Tucker today. How are they unusually incredible?

            Should we start with every witness either woman named saying that it wasn't true at all? But, then again, the IDENTICAL thing happened with Anita Hill and people like you STILL believe her.

          3. Tucker said that Ramirez was contacting portential witnesses and admitting to them SHE wasn't sure it was kavanaugh

            Sorry, that was The New York Times

      3. ""Ah, the more accusations, the less credible they become.""

        Don't believe me? Watch for an update on that poll. The number of people who find any of this credible will fall.

        If Ford testifies and doesn't make a fool of herself, maybe that will change, but based on this nonsense? This is journalistic malpractice.

        The NYT just came out with a story saying they passed on even printing Ramirez's claims about "Dick in my face" b/c they did 'several dozen' interviews trying to corroborate that BK was even present at the time...

        ...and got *nothing*; meanwhile the same former-classmates said accuser wasn't even sure who it was.

        "The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."

      4. "Ah, the more accusations, the less credible they become. Makes sense."

        Truly, the late 1700s were a hotbed of witchcraft activity. We know its credible because of all the accusations at the time.

        1. Hey, the Jews really were terrible. The Gestapo had TONS of accusations....

      5. There were far more accusations during the Salem Witch Trials than now Tony. I bet you believe there were actual witches then. Or how about the various satanic daycare centers in the early 1980s. Totally true right?

        Tony, you realize you're a moron right?

        1. I predict that we're going to learn pretty soon that Kavanaugh dressed up as a bad clown to help Gerald Amirault sexually abuse preschoolers at Fells Acres Day Care Center.

  23. I have always put a pox on both houses of our leaderships but this non-sense demonstrates why the left is so much worse. The right at least has a line, a very low one, that it will not cross politically - the left has no such line. I hate repub's but I fucking hate dem's sums this up perfectly.

    1. Line they won't cross? Garland didn't even stick his dick in anyone's face.

      1. Garland banged kids.

        It happened 35 years ago. Some place, sometime, and with some kid.

      2. Tony - none of this came up in past BK confirmations and begs the question of legitimacy of the current claims and as usual you miss the point. Repub's are a slimy bunch just not slimy enough to concoct bs on this level.

        1. not slimy enough to concoct bs on this level.

          Really? Welcome to America. You must have just arrived.

          1. Tony, you are correct and that makes this a very sad day. It's a race to the bottom and the prog's have won.

            1. America wins. More and more Americans know that Lefties and the media are bold faced liars.

              Just in time to step back from the abyss where socialism has gotten the USA.

        2. The current president is the world's most prominent supporter of birtherism, I hasten to remind you.

          1. Incorrect. That was started by Hillary, not Trump.

            1. Breitbart is over there.

            2. Tony has been ignoring the truth for years.

              Tony is a liar's liar.

              1. Tony is a rapist. I know because his preferred sources told me so

        3. Tony... are you okay? Women are bashing the clear lies from Left.

          First women didnt buy that kavanaugh would gut roe vs wade. Then women were not supporting unsupported accusations by ford. Now women are not supporting the secomd lefty liar.

          1. You think polling means asking the people within 50 feet of you, is that right?

            1. Is that how Lefties thought Hillary would win?

            2. Tony... CNN, yes that CNN, even had a panel of women who basically all said, 5 for 5, that Ford was lying. Maybe it's you who live in the bubble.

              1. That checks out as scientific.

          2. The whole bar booed the second liar.

            You lefties are in such trouble.

            Its funny that you know it too. The lefty desperation is palpable now.

        4. *sigh*, sadly that will only last until the next time the D's have control. Then they'll do the same things, justifying it with 'they did it first' while the D's stand there screaming about how these things should never, never, ever be done for any reason whatsoever and YOU LIE! We didn't do the same thing last cycle!

        5. *sigh*, sadly that will only last until the next time the D's have control. Then they'll do the same things, justifying it with 'they did it first' while the D's stand there screaming about how these things should never, never, ever be done for any reason whatsoever and YOU LIE! We didn't do the same thing last cycle!

          1. Luckily, Democrats wont be in control anymore.

      3. I love this! You compare an obnoxious political stunt that Republicans didn't deny to discredited rape accusations that Democrats released in the run up to hearings...twice?

        1. The hearing is over. Do you want to revise your conspiracy theory, or does the bad timing not factor into it?

          Nothing is discredited. The Republicans wouldn't allow the investigation that would have proved that. What a dumb move on their part, since the allegations are obviously false, huh?

          1. Kavanaugh is getting confirmed immediately.

          2. Explain how an investigation could possibly have disproved these 35 year old allegations, especially when the accuser refuses to be questioned as part of it.

          3. Another hearing starts Thursday big guy.

            1. Way too soon for Trump's replacement nominee.

            2. RBG died already, so Trump gets another SCOTUS pick. Sweet!

          4. "Nothing is discredited."

            Sure it was. All the witnesses who were supposed to be in the vicinity of the "rape" did notcorroborate the details. There's no investigation because th police and the prosecutor have nothing to go on. If you tried to sue a company and things like discovery go wrong, your case won't reach trial. Why do you think none of the women filed criminal charges?

            Neither the GOP nor the senate are investigating bodies. If the FBI and DOJ decline to pursue a case, they can't magically launch a criminal and civil investigation all on their own. The GOP can't "investigate" Keith Ellison on rape charges and reach some conclusion that's separate from the prosecutor's office.

            You think the democrats will go out of their way to call the FBI to investigate Keith Ellison or Clinton if the republicans put pressure on them? Even if there's no grounds to launch a criminal probe? Yeah, good luck with that. The accusers have no criminal case, so now they want a bite of another apple, that being the hearing.

            1. "Neither the GOP nor the senate are investigating bodies. If the FBI and DOJ decline to pursue a case, they can't magically launch a criminal and civil investigation all on their own."

              While I think in general terms you're right, in this specific point you're wrong, Actually, the houses of Congress ARE legally capable of investigating things. They even used to have a jail cell in the basement for witnesses who refused to talk.

              They haven't used that power since the Teapot Dome scandal, but it's still there if they ever feel like using it.

          5. A story of two prominent Democratic operatives making up stories that none of their friends will support. Totally believable.

            A breakdown about the New Yorker and NYT articles: link

            The stories aren't credible unless you're a partisan dumb ass.

      4. Terrible analogy. GOP had a majority in the Senate and the constitutional right to refuse Garland's confirmation for any reason they chose, whereas the Dems are obstructing Kavanaugh's confirmation by unconstitutional methods.

        1. Pretty sure free speech is very constitutional.

          1. If delaying senate action on a SCOTUS nominee = suppressing free speech, you shouldn be furious with all this foot dragging

            1. Republicans are the only ones with the actual power to delay things. Ask them why they're doing it.

              1. Republicans have been delaying the vote because they are stupid. They should have forced Ford to testify within a day of making her allegations, either by having the FBI pick her up and interrogate her, or by subpoena before the Senate. This would also have discouraged other women from making bogus claims.

                1. They're delaying things because Jeff Flake would vote against Kavanaugh otherwise, and that would torpedo the confirmation.

                  Flake is auditioning to be the left's new pet Republican, and if he votes for Kavanaugh with undisproven accusations out there, that's going to be a black mark on his maverick resume.

            2. I predict that some lefty will set the,selfes on fire around the thursday kavanaugh confirmation.

              1. *themselves

        2. Tony hates the constitution and libertarianism.

      5. The GOP ignored Garland, which is just as bad as trying to ruin his reputation.

        1. Another parody account? Aren't there any serious commentators anymore?

  24. I have tried everything, getting drunk, slapping on the headphones and banging on my drum kit until I could not hold the sticks anymore, throwing myself into work, exercise, calling my 80 year old mom who will listen to everything, prayer, anything I can think of...



    Maybe a nice long vacation, somewhere far away, Patagonia sounds nice. That's it, Patagonia.

    1. Tell Hitler's brain hi for me.

  25. I'm scared for Ronan Farrow. He's not going to age well.

    1. He's the real victim here!

  26. This is hilarious!

    The Lefties are hoisting themselves on their own petards.

    Lefties are getting bashed by independents. Election 2018 will finally gut the democratic party this year.

    1. I was actually worried about Kavanaugh's chances Thursday before the second woman came forward. I thought if Republicans treated Ford with kid gloves and she pretty much staid silent, the political pressure might not give up and a couple Republicans might waver. But this second allegation is so ridiculous and was so quickly and resoundingly discredited that I think a lot of people who want to give "victims" the benefit of the doubt will see Ford's story in a new light.

      1. I dunno bout that. There are are a lot of people stupid enough to fall for "where there's smoke there's fire."

        You can bet the Dems have focus grouped the fuck out of this strategy.

        1. Focused group with Lefties.

          Its like Hillary having a guaranteed win. Lefties were wrong.

          Women voted for Trump and women see through this bullshit that makes actual victims look bad.

  27. That sleazebag porn lawyer is now playing the slandering game by stating he has "evidence" that Kavanaugh and Judge were part of a gang-rape ring that drugged women. The dems are never going to end this madness.

    1. You cannot reason with crazy and the Lefties have gone full crazy.

    2. Time for disbarment proceedings for him to begin as well.

    3. If the Republicans have ANY sense, they will call Creepy Porn Lawyer to testify

  28. You can be sure the Dems have a Pez dispenser full of rape accusations lined up after this one too.

    1. Lefties are fine with voting multiple times in elections, lying to further the cause, and committing violence to undermine the constitution and America.

      As Tony says, this is beginner Lefty politics.

      1. and if you start having trouble sleeping at night, you just convince yourself that you're fighting Nazi rapists, so the means always justify the ends.

        1. There are a lot of socialist rapists out there.

        2. The funny and mindnumbingly stupid thing is that LoveCons thinks Bill Clinton is a rapist and Democrats are Nazis.

        3. There are enough Nazis in the Democratic Party. Just like there are enough racists.

          Democratic Party- the party of Jim Crow, KKK, slavery, and segregation.

          1. There is nary a difference in how Democrats ran plantations in the 1800's and how they run their plantations now.

            Learned helplessness is their modus operandi.

            1. +1

  29. But the existence of a second accusation probably makes Ford more credible, at least in the eyes of the public.

    I wonder about that. This is a statement that can be checked. I wonder if the polling has been done yet.

    1. If only because nobody will read the piece. All they will see is "second sexual assault accusation", and not even hear what the accusation is. The Democrats are fully weaponizing the media bias here. The New Yorker headline, and all other headlines, are written intentionally to mislead, knowing that most people won't read the article.

      I haven't seen media bias this blatant and extreme since Romney's "binders" debacle. It is infuriating.

  30. When will that douchebag Avenati get debarred?

    1. I hope never. Every once in a while, when you have to interant with someone awful, it's nice to have a reminder that there's a guy out there who is infinitely worse.

      1. Did he rape anybody?

        1. Bill Clinton raped kids. Hes a frequent flyer on the lolita express.

          1. I believe it was Sophocles who said that the smartest people talk in tabloid buzzwords.

            1. Which somehow is supposed to erase the fact that he DID fly on it?

              1. And he did so repeatedly.

                But THAT accusation is just insane.

                An alleged attempted rape at some point 30 something years ago, somewhere, and where no witness will corroborate --- THAT is an actionable accusation.

                1. I'm on record as opposing Bill Clinton's nomination to the supreme court.

                  Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

          2. Tony always liked Bill Clinton.

            Americans will pay, as Democrats will burn the USA to the ground for not allowing slavery to continue.

  31. Oh too funny.

    Good thing I didn't have my heart set on Kavanaugh.

    Is he innocent or guilty? I don't know. I'm not sure I even care at this point.

      1. That sounded more passive aggressive than I intended. So let me expand. Was there a point you did care? If so, what changed exactly?

    1. No, you had your heart set on Merrick Garland.

      1. At this point, I am GLAD Garland didn't get a hearing.

        Fuck him.

        Hope he dies of cancer.

  32. Kavanaugh: another good Trump pick to get the Lefties whipped up and do stupid shit like lie under oath.

  33. Geez, Trump did worse than this and he's the president.

    1. Trump's penis is a gift to all who see it though. Therein lies the rub.

  34. Since this seems to be a place a lot of Republicans hang out, I just have one question. How many more Republican penises will I be forced to imagine? Because I'm about at my limit to be honest.

    1. You're also imagining the "forced" part of it.

      In fact, you're actually a comatose patient in a long term care facility, you were in a really bad auto accident in '08. That's why your dreams are getting ever less grounded in reality.

      You'll probably wake when they start harvesting the organs, though.

      1. Goddamnit, why am I stuck in Tony's head?

    2. Depends. Are you at your limit because you're good for that long cold weekend, or do you just want Democratic penis from now on?

  35. Ehhh... To be honest I see a problem. President Trump has falsely been accused by 20 women of sexual assault and Brett Kavanaugh has only been accused by 2 women. Therefore, Brett Kavanaugh would have to be falsely accused 18 whole more times to reach the level of perfidy and lies that President Trump did at the hands of liberals and their SJW machine of lies. Do you really see this happening? Probably not.

  36. Listen, the only thing we know is that Leftists and Democrats don't really care about rape accusations and Kavanaugh. The only thing Democrats care about is power. We do know for a fact that Republicans and conservative really, really care about abortion though and the little Black baby fetuses that are being aborted. I know sincerity when I see it.

    1. Republicans have been much more consistently pro-life than Democrats have been anti-rape.

      Just sayin'.

      1. Republicans sing a different tune whenever they conceive a child by rape.

        1. Chelsea did get the Clintons to sing a different tune.

          1. Drunk sex was probably involved.

            Hillary couldn't figure out why Bill kept calling her Jennifer.

            1. Chelsea is a dead ringer for Webb Hubbell

  37. The cleverest Feinstein machination was forcing Trump to marry Kavanaugh by calling him the finest, most tremendous person.


    1. Fuck you ass hole.

      You and your whole fucking democrat progressive fucking communist party.

      This fucking shit is not going to end well for the smug fuckers.

      Mark my fucking words.

      1. This is what a cult looks like that doesn't even bother to stay in its own compound.

  38. A pattern of being accused of crimes that didn't happen?

    Is Reason actually trying to reduce its subscriber base to zero?

    1. It's the latest craze among media companies: Instead of trying for a wide general audience, you deliberately drive off most of your audience, in the process making the remaining customers fanatically loyal. It throws away the chance of being a big success in favor of being secure at a smaller size.

      1. They're a nonprofit. The bulk of their revenue never came from subscriptions or ads, so it was always propaganda on behalf of the Reason Foundation.

        1. But even a non-profit needs customers, unless it has a big enough endowment to just ignore whether anybody is listening. Just because you're a non-profit doesn't mean you don't have a payroll to make.

          1. As the saying goes, if you're getting something for free you're not the customer, you're the product.

            They don't need customers, they need donors. Wealthy leftists are throwing a lot of money around to oppose Trump, as are some wealthy neocons and wealthy cosmotarians like the Kochs.

            It's true that even propaganda needs to have an audience to be worthwhile. That's where they seem to be missing the mark. However, we may not be the intended audience. An article like this allows leftist media to create the illusion of "transcending party lines" by citing "libertarian magazine Reason" as agreeing with their position. Another dynamic that's at play is laundering propaganda through a "reliable source" for insertion into Wikipedia, which many people view with reverence and trust once reserved for the Bible.

            1. Ding ding ding

  39. Claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale party 35 years ago is less convincing than Ford's alleged rape, but suggests a pattern.

    But the existence of a second accusation probably makes Ford more credible, at least in the eyes of the public.

    So, a second accusation with no evidence to back it up is to be accepted without question? Because I don't see how it could point to a 'pattern of behavior' otherwise. But its nice to know that I'm not part of 'the public' - or whoever you've been hanging around with. Because the rest of us are a little dicey on the whole 'I read it on the internet and it confirms my pre-existing biases, so it must be true' thing you've got going on now.

    Where was this accepting attitude for 'Jackie'? Where's this accepting attitude for Karen Monihan?

    1. So, yeah - this certainly suggests a pattern. And its not complimentary to you.

    2. These looter v looter witch trials amuse me. If Kavanaugh were not committed to jailing teens over plant leaves or grain beverages and removing their Second Amendment rights for life, God's Own Prohibitionists would never have nominated him. They DO have priorities. So here is a case analogous to a teenager caught with some hemp seeds half a century ago and NOW deprived of rights and transformed into a focus for nationalsocialist opprobrium. This may not be about Kavanaugh as much as it is about the mystical bigots for whom the Republican platform is written and the laws they seek to keep on the books.

  40. Please if this leads to Amy Barrett on the Supreme Court I will laugh so fucking hard. Kav. was a freakin' establishment Republican those most on the right were not crazy about, and who most likely wouldn't vote to overturn Roe. Why would you fight like hell over an establishment republican replacing an establishment republican?

    If they are like this now, what happens with Barrett replaces Ginsburg?

    1. Armageddon.

    2. They take Trump's short list, and hand it to a hit squad. That's what happens.

    3. Democrats' enthusiasm in November has peaked. They already have the base all irate and ready to vote. The Republicans didn't, until now. All the Democrats are doing is reminding Republicans and right-leaning Independents why they hate them so much. They are driving up enthusiasm in the Republican base.

      The Democrats are going to take the House, that's pretty certain. However, the Senate is still in the air. They are throwing red state Senators under the bus here. And it is the Senate who approves judges, not the House.

      1. Anyone who fears being falsely accused will vote against Democrats election 2018.

        1. I think you're giving the average vote a little too much credit.

    4. If Barrett gets nominated, count on someone coming out of the woodwork and claiming that, during college, Barrett went through a period of questioning her sexuality, and that she once got drunk and sexually assaulted another woman. That way, not only are the Dems whipped up into a fury, but the well for homophobe Republicans is poisoned as well.

      Or maybe they'll just keep it simple and accuse her of having once used the n-word.

  41. You all realize what this means for the future right? If men are going to be accused of raping and mollywhopping every woman who could possibly have met them in their entire lives we are going to need to separate the sexes. Everything must be segregated and women must be "protected" from the public sphere. We can just make it so that unmarried men and women are never allowed to interact. Perhaps if women wore a shroud of some sort to protect them from the lusty gaze of men. As has already been shown, even the refined chambers of our nation's highest civic institutions are flooded with sexual predators and debauchery. Women must be protected from this by preventing them from joining in such dens of sin and vice.

    As for noticing a pattern, I think the pattern should be obvious to anyone: Alcohol. Alcohol turns your average and pleasant looking Brett Kavanaugh into the Yale Rape Monster. If it can do that to him, imagine what it does to the rest of our nation's young men who might not be so refined. The only answer is to totally ban alcohol (again). In the name of morality this is essential. Also, cops are pigs or something so we should probably ban pork or something.

    1. And the Saudis really caved to the feminist agenda by letting women drive.

      In the words of the Prophet, "women drivers, SMDH, amirite, guys?"

    2. I think we need to say mollywhopping more often.

    3. Good satire. The funny part is they don't see that they are making these same rationales

      1. Many here have been saying that the left are the new puritans for years.

    4. A solid 7 on the OBL scale.

    5. As I've said, nobody makes a better case for patriarchy than feminists.

  42. "Claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale party 35 years ago is less convincing than Ford's alleged rape, but suggests a pattern."

    RAPE? What rape? Even if Ford isn't lying, which is a stretch to begin with... THERE IS NO RAPE!

    1. The evolution of the narrative. It's intentional from those pushing it, but people like Robby are duped into believing the escalating terms. I'll admit that's easier to write than "unsubstantiated claims of sexual misconduct." The problem is that the media has a problem sticking to the facts and evaluating them logically based on what is known

  43. This is beginning to feel like some sort of Orwellian dream where people are guilty with no evidence or facts. 2+2=5

    War is Peace.
    Freedom is Slavery.
    Ignorance is Strength.

    1. Well, it did happen in 1984 -- or '82, or '81, or '83.

      Well, it happened SOMETIME!

  44. As expected, the Democrats have been cross-checking with their female faithful of a certain age to see if any have crossed paths with Kavanaugh during a period of time when they can make un-verifiable accusations, and are willing to do so. I would suppose there are more waiting in the wings with partial memories that can't provide dates, locations, witnesses, etc. but are sure it was Kavanaugh.

    1. Democrat playbook 101

  45. This shit is not going to end well.

    1. For Democrats. For the GOP and Libertarians, its gonna be a vote increase.

  46. "There's no smoking gun here, so anyone hoping for an immediate resolution to the Kavanaugh mess in either direction is bound to be disappointed. But the existence of a second accusation probably makes Ford more credible, at least in the eyes of the public."

    This is pathetic, Reason and Suave should be ashamed.
    Garbage journalism.

    1. The second accusation makes Ford look worse in my eyes, tbh. The second accuser identified six people being there (besides BK) and all six say it did not happen...

      Robby is right though, a pattern is forming...

      1. The only pattern here is a complete negation of basic principles of ethical journalism and American jurisprudence.

        Malicious, politically motivated smears from partisan hacks and Reason has jumped on the bandwagon, disgusting.

        The only decent reporting I've read on this is at the National Review.

        1. You know, Trump trying to open up libel laws --- I'm beginning to see the benefit of his idea.

          1. Trump's blatherings on this should be ignored for the nonsense it is.
            Trump has silenced no one, in contrast with Obama who actually did try to muzzle the press.

            1. Oh, yes, Trump has done nothing but criticize, which the media really hates.

              But opening up the media to libel charges? I'm getting on board with that idea.

              1. Then you should jump off, and quickly.
                Trump has silenced no one, Obama tried to and failed (thanks to our Constitution).

  47. Accusations are cheap. That's why due process is a right.

  48. Yes, it suggest a pattern of false allegations .
    I expect a lot better from Reason

    1. Yes that is the only thing it suggests.

      Democrats making stuff up and trying to make it stick - with help from the media which is really nothing more than liberal democrat subsidiary,

      And help from useful idiots like Soave.

      1. I'm so angry, there's not a single piece of evidence, not a scrap, not a smidgen that Kavanaugh is guilty of the actions he's being accused of, nothing that wouldn't get laughed out of any court in the nation and yet segments of our media (including Reason) are giving credence to this witch hunt to smear and destroy the character of a man for political ends.

        1. They tell us to use the ballot box for change. But when they don't like the guy we vote in, they set up a sham "investigation" to obstruct anything he does, scare anybody away from working with him, selectively leak damaging information to the press, and cover up their own wrongdoing. That's beyond their stacking the deck with voter fraud and selective pardons for felons likely to vote Dem.

          They tell us to use the courts for change. But then they race to pack them full of Obama appointees by removing the filibuster, and then block our appointees with this kind of shit.

          They tell us to use free speech for change. But then they use the excuse of "election interference" to ban us from the few platforms that control 95% of discourse in this era.

          So what implements are left to use for change?

          1. I didn't vote for Trump and have some serious reservations and disagreements over his policies yet many of his administrations's actions I'm totally onboard with. Anyone that thinks the nation would have been better off under Hillary is insane. If the GOP buckles to this Democrat-enabling witch hunt they'll have achieved a new low.
            They should vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation today.

            1. Democrats have no power to delay anything, so stop blaming them for Republicans' problems.

            2. Advice and Consent is whatever the Senate says it is.

              So yes, they should just vote right now.

              Further, when the next opening appears Trump should submit two names, and then the Senate should hold a vote. Whichever name gets the most votes becomes the next SC Justice.

              No more 'hearings' required.

          2. The Second Amendment.

        2. Republicans have a majority so why don't they just vote. If it's a smear job surely they will be vindicated.

          1. Because the unelected left-wing media will have a field day with that, Phony. Er, I mean, Tony.

          2. Tony, you have not read your Mao Tse-tung?

            "Let your enemy stick out his neck, then chop off his head!"

      2. Kavanaugh will be confirmed soon.

  49. Wave your dick in front of one woman, you are an rapist. Wave your dick in front of millions, you are a star. Wave your dick in front of them all, and you are God.

    1. I'll have to ask if Mrs. Ford remembers whether or not Jesus was exposed when he ascended to heaven. If it's a little foggy, I'm sure her lawyer or psychiatrist can clear it up for us.

      1. "I demand that the Second Coming be delayed until a thorough FBI investigation!"

    2. Don't wave your dick in front of any of them, you get smeared anyway.

  50. This one is already falling apart and it just shows the Democrats can bribe unstable women to make up lies. The Democratic Party has no morals, no decency and they are aspiring totalitarians. Every politician in it is a piece of rotten garbage and the Porn Lawyer is a perfect symbol for them, they should run him against Trump.

  51. This second accusation really leads credibility to the first one. Sort of like how, if your friends don't buy your conspiracy theory about the staged moon landing because of your utter lack of evidence, your best bet is to get a second conspiracy theory involving Lizard people. Then they have to believe you!

    1. The truth is out there.

      Even if the witnesses are as well.

  52. If you want to read balanced and fair coverage of this issue go to National Review online.
    Their reporters and writers are doing it old-school way, the right way.

  53. Well, other than the usual contrarian trolls Tony, buttplug, and chemjeff, I'm pretty impressed with the commentariat on this issue. Note that many of the people decrying this witch hunt are normally anti-Trump.

    Something tells me the comment section is going to go bye-bye very soon, as is the trend on sites these days.

    1. I have found it hilarious how site, after site, after site have all removed their comments sections, which were one of the biggest draws for a lot of people, because the commenters were poking too many holes in the shoddy propaganda pieces that were being written. Can't have your loyal brainwashed lemmings being exposed to inconvenient facts!

      1. ABC News has found a better solution: Just ban those who show them up.

        I know (I'm banned).

  54. I'm hoping Ford, the psych prof, can explain to the Senate what bearing spending 6 days recollecting a memory has on reliability in light of the latest academic research.

    1. LOL.

      Like she's ever going to appear under oath.

  55. Maybe the Democrats can call Bill Burkett out of retirement to produce some fake memos corroborating these stories and get Mary Mapes and Dan Rather out of retirement to amplify the story.

    Every day this grows more like the fake "Killian Documents" smear campaign against W Bush, the swiftboating of John Kerry, or the attempts to blame John McCain for the USS Forrestal fire. Partisan politics at its ugliest. Unfactual.

    After hearing Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh then 17, after six days of memory recovery and consulting with an attorney, Ramirez remembers a 1983 party when Kavanaugh was 18, legally adult and more responsible for his actions. New Yorker: "In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events ...." A high school friend of Ramirez stated: "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn't see it; I never heard of it happening."

    Debbie Ramirez
    Christine Ford
    Asia Argento
    Amber Heard
    ?The end of the Always Believe Her hashtag?

  56. I heard on 1010 WINS that Stormy's lawyer has is now claiming that Kavanaugh was involved in gang rapes.

    It's now in full circus mode. Never go full circus.

    1. Listen up, buster. We are going to stop Kavanaugh by any means necessary. If that means going full circus, then we are going full fucking circus.

  57. The only pattern it suggests is a person is no longer innocent until proven guilty. It is often said, you can indict a ham sandwich, but convicting it is a very different story. This is the same thing. A allegation is an indictment, not a conviction so to say there is a "pattern" is way out of bounds. The only pattern may be the left believing they can destroy Kavanagh as a nominee by false accusations and innuendo.

    1. Lots of people convinced that the accusations are false.

      That's an accusation itself. Are these women liars until proven innocent?

      1. Doubling down on that stupidity again?

        We already went through that.

        Denials are not accusations, unless someone specifically accused someone of lying.

        1. They are specifically being accused of both lying and participating in a conspiracy.

          1. Please cite those accusations.

      2. There are lots of ways an accusation can be false, Tony. It could be a lie. It could be an exaggeration. It could be a memory that has become distorted or recontextualized over time to the point of falsehood. It could be a "recovered memory" that is entirely false, but fully believed by the accuser. It could be that the event actually happened as described but the perpetrator is misidentified.

        Personally, I believe both these women are liars, but I will grant there's a possibility that Ford has told the lie to herself so many times that she now genuinely believes it. Not Ramirez though. Pure opportunism there.

      3. Well, it would be nice if we could find a claimant who denies being drunk at the time.

  58. She was drunk to the point of slurring her words and a "male student" exposed himself but she is positive it was Kavanagh? Seriously? Gee, nothing like assassination by unsupported innuendo.

    1. No, by a high, White Horse souse.

  59. I think in the perfect world, the #metoo crowd would be appalled at how their movement is being weaponized for political gain. It demeans their cause.

    1. The weaponization of metoo is likely a feature, not a bug.

      1. The ghost of Edmund Burke just swung by to say "well, duh."

        I might be paraphrasing that a touch.

        1. It was kinda long, and wordy. Something about Jacobins and dogs returning to their vomit.

          Not like was was drunk. Ok, maybe just a little.

          But no way I was drunk-drunk.

    2. In the hag-tag Me2topia, this weaponization is precisely what was supposed to happen from the start, TrickyIdiot.

  60. The Solomon Asch experiment showed that an ally helps an individual resist "consensus" peer pressure to fake reality; the reproducible difference is typically over 20%. What change the second accuser does in the Kavanaugh case, where the "consensus" formed by one sketchy accuser is bolstered by adding a second accuser no less flaky, may yet yield a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

  61. Another tail from the annals of underage drinking gone wrong. Her memories are, by her own admission, sketchy at best. But with enough groupthink, they all arrive at the same memory. The mind is quite suggestible, and wants to fill lapses in memory (and judgement) with 'facts' as they can be derived.

  62. I am just here for the Tony comments

  63. The Kavanaugh case raises some thought-provoking questions. The review process isn't a criminal trial. It's about worthiness of public trust. It's mostly about character assessment. And we are having to direct our attention, like it or not, to the divide between the perfect creatures we might like our leaders to be and who they really are. Kavanaugh was a kid of means at a private prep school and Yale, raised with a silver spoon in his mouth. He had no humility about that. He was a drunken frat boy and part of a gang. Not a street gang, not a criminal gang, but a gang nonetheless. Irrespective of the allegations of the women, to me he's an unsavory character. And he made himself a crony of G. W. Bush, who was one of our most unsavory presidents. My assessments are based on guilt by association. But you're known by the company you keep. No rational system of justice would judge Kavanaugh a criminal without solid evidence. But the review process he's going through has nothing to do with criminal culpability. Does guilt by association matter? Does it bear meaningfully on his character?

    1. Agreed comrade. The kulak should be purged.

    2. "But you're known by the company you keep..."

      Oh, yes, Democrass. You are.

    3. "But you're known by the company you keep. "

      So anyone nominated by Trump should be voted down, right?

  64. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries..

  65. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries.

  66. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries or issues.

  67. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries or issues.

  68. But the existence of a second accusation probably makes Ford more credible, at least in the eyes of the public.
    Actually it seems more likely that doubts generated by the flimsiness of the second allegation will taint the first allegation in the eyes of many.

  69. I was dumbstruck by the statement of Sen. Mazie Hirono that Kavanaugh doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence because he is against Roe v. Wade. They are no longer even attempting to pretend that this is anything other than a purely partisan political matter.

    1. Give them credit for keeping the mask on at all.

  70. Yes, there is a pattern here.
    Allegations without proof.
    But who needs proof when you have political correctness?

  71. If this is what passes for "sexual misconduct" on campus today, then college has become a lot more boring than it was when I went to school.

  72. I have been subscribing to Reason magazine since the mid-nineties. I have donated money to Reason Foundation. Now, after reading another inane article by Robby, I am just about ready to give up on Reason. It's sad, really, after all these years.

    I do enjoy the comments section.

  73. I would withhold conclusion as to pattern until some evidence was presented. This is 30 year old hearsay. It may be true but it's just as likely to be a Democrat communist plot.

  74. I also detect a pattern, Robby.

    This is at least your second article gobbling this bullshit up - I think you may have some issues. Did Kavanaugh stick his dick in your face too at some point?

    Here's another pattern one might be inlcined to detect. The Dems are deeply mired in a cocktail of desperation and delusion and regularly surpass even themselves in raking the bottom of the well for their tactics.

    1. Little Robby is the Reason staff Democrass.

  75. She was extremely drunk, but after six days of deliberations with her attorney, her memory or at least what she could carefully state without getting sued miraculously becmae clear.


  76. ""She was extremely drunk""

    Woman says she's extremely drunk we are still suppose to believe her. When a man says that he's never to be believed.

    Double Standard?

    1. "Candy's handy, but liquor's quicker."

  77. The "suggested pattern" is that women are fucking liars. Next guess, please.

  78. Jesus Robby not even WaPo would print this crap. Even the New York Times could hold its nose and run with it. Let me spoon feed you the story here: a couple of far left Democrats are smearing an innocent man with just enough uncorroborated allegations to run the clock out on Kavanaugh's vote while not fabricating enough detail to potentially purjure themselves.

  79. I believe her because he did it. He did it because I believe her.

  80. Suggests a pattern? Of what? Unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, patchy memories of less than unbiased Dems?

    1. Absolutely not! This comes from an unimpeachably high, White Horse souse!

  81. Ford has not alleged "rape". She has alleged "attempted rape". Can we please stop blurring the lines between words?

    That seems REASONable.

    1. She alleged attempted rape and a fear of potential negligent homicide. Even her description of events sounds more like drunk teens goofing off. They crossed the line a bit, but her description does not sound like rape was their intent.
      On a side note, why can only women get sympathy for any unwanted touching or interaction of a sexual nature from women. Women get away with all sorts of shit that would be considered a jail sentence if a man tried anything like it. Sometimes personal space is violated because one person doesn't respect another's boundaries. Often times it is simply due to nuances and miscommunication when people are in a sexually charged atmosphere or just goofing around.

      1. Five will get you ten that whoever tossed her in the bed and covered her mouth got her to giggle before she bolted the room. Whenever I see a sex-harassment lawyer trying to impose the kinds of conditions Ford's lawyer wants, you can be sure the entire claim is a hoax. I know: I've been there.

  82. That anyone, especially Reason, is giving attention to these two obviously bald-face liars is very disturbing. As a part of the public - who did not vote for Trump, BTW (Gary Johnson of course) - this second run by the liberal hit squads diminishes the (almost non-existent) credibility of Ford; it does not increase it.

  83. Even by the most generous standard, this allegation raises questions, it does not suggest a pattern.

    Perhaps even Reason has abandoned a presumption of innocence and an appreciation of the deep cynicism of politics.

    But honest people shouldn't.??

  84. Shouldn't Reason be supporting the right to get nude at a private party?

  85. "...this accusation seems less convincing on its own than the one made by Christine Blasey Ford"

    Neither of them is convincing because there is zero evidence of either (unless I've missed something).

    "Claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale party 35 years ago is less convincing than Ford's alleged rape, but suggests a pattern."

    Alleged rape is incorrect. It would technically be alleged attempted rape (again, unless I've missed some news).

    Does anyone else get the sense that Democrats are hoping the allegations are true, as in, 'Man, I really hope this guy is an attempted rapist and serial creep'? That strikes me as a tad evil. I don't know if he's guilty or innocent. I certainly hope that the man is innocent. Not because I'm a big fan of his or anything, but because generally I don't pray there be victims. Slogan idea: "Victims for Victory!" Ick.

  86. On my provability scale , Ford's claim seems neither provable or diaprovable , unless Kavanaugh was out of the country when it occurred. As for the second claim , it seems more disprovable than provable. As for the new claims that Avanatti says he is about to unleash , those seem like major felonies with multiple parties including victims and defendants that should be handled by local law enforcement. If they occurred in Maryland , there is no statue of limitations and if his client or clients are serious , criminal complaints should be filed. If they don't file those , the claims aren'tcredible

    1. Avenatti has been called to account by an internet site that says it conned him with the serial-rape account. Though Avenatti denies this, the burden now clearly is on him either to put up or shut up, and his manipulation of the timing only adds to the perception that either he is gaming the system or his witness is. Since I find it unlikely that Judge Kavanaugh could hide being a serial rapist from six FBI investigations, I'm predicting that, if Avenatti's witness comes forward, she'll make a splash for 24 hours and then be outed for just more of the same. When that happens, the entire smear campaign will collapse, and I can see the political ads now:

      "Dianne Feinstein: Liar, smear artist, gun-grabber, fraud!

      "Why would anyone want to give HER an even greater voice?

      "Vote NO on Claire McCaskill!"

      You can say that in 10 seconds and say it twice, at the beginning of the ad minute and the end (so viewers won't miss it by hitting the fridge for a beer).

  87. This is the best we can do? Drunk girl saw a penis once...but now thinks it was attached to this prominent conservative!

  88. Jesus. This is such a half assed hatchet job it's ridiculous! They couldn't even find someone to lie and say he actually raped them or something? And claim they remember it perfectly? I mean all you have to do is make up a story, and stick to the facts. It's not that hard! I was drunk, and he screwed me, and I never gave consent! That would get 'er done in 2018.

    I guess none of their liars are willing to make any falsifiable claims, because they're afraid they'll get busted on them?

    Such a joke.

  89. I disagree with your conclusion.

    If the second allegation establishes a "pattern", it's a pattern of 11th hour uncorroborated character assassination by women sympathetic to leftist causes, and managed by staffers of senate Democrats looking for a way to take down the Kavanaugh nomination because they failed to do so on the merits.

    I'm not a Trump supporter and I have my doubts about Kavanaugh. But this "advise and consent by mob rule" trend has got to be stopped, and frankly I'm shocked that Reason would be throwing in with the Left on this one.

  90. "But the existence of a second accusation probably makes Ford more credible, at least in the eyes of the public."

    And isn't this the whole point of this kind of campaign? Throw enough shit at the wall and sooner or later some of it just might stick. The real question is whether we are going to descend once and for all into a society where mere allegations, without supporting evidence or competent witnesses, are going to be enough to destroy a man's reputation and career (and I say this regardless of the nature of that person's career or his politics). That, apparently, is what the Asia Argentos and Dianne Feinsteins of the world want. But no thanks. I want a society in which reason prevails over passion. I guess that's increasingly too much to ask.

  91. Another "I can't recall any details" account by a high, White Horse souse.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.