Brett Kavanaugh

Are Brett Kavanaugh's Denials Convincing? Watch for Yourself

Here's the full Fox News interview with the SCOTUS nominee and his wife Ashley.


Here's the interview that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh did with Fox News tonight with Martha MacCallum.

"What I know is the truth, and the truth is I've never sexually assaulted anyone," he says. Kavanaugh's wife Ashley also speaks, saying that the assault charges leveled at her husband bear no relation to the man she knows.

To be quite honest, this performance will provide comfort to Kavanaugh's supporters that he is being railroaded. And it will change none of his detractors' perspective. We have fully reached a point where the central question at issue cannot be verified with any certainty (unless there is some documentary evidence that surfaces). All that we know for sure is that decades of official lying, bad-faith argumentation and behavior on the part of public and private institutions, and worse have left us in a place where conversation is virtually impossible.

NEXT: How The New York Sun, Gone Since 2008, Explains Politics in 2018

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. What’s wrong Nick, couldn’t find a comment to claim the credibility of his accusers? Kavanaugh gets no off handed remarks on his credibility, only the accusers do?

    It’s over a dozen people, including what the accusers said were their best friends, who have denied hearing or being around kavanaugh. Too bad these women ended up with honest friends instead of political resistance members. That marks the accusers credibility even more, choosing evil honest friends.

    1. Too bad these women ended up with honest friends instead of political resistance members.

      these women are Hillary supporting pussy hat wearing feminists…

    2. Not only does that Ford get to smear a guy, she gets to do it pseudo-anonymously, in private where we peons won’t be allowed to determine for ourselves if she seems credible or not (only our “betters” on the senate judiciary committee will have that privilege).

      It’s very Star Chamber – like, but Star Chambers seem to be the order of the day in America.

  2. Let me be clear. Before I became aware of his #MeToo problem, I spent weeks on this website urging everyone to call their Senators and tell them not to confirm Kavanaugh. I cited CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin’s prediction that soon this country would have no abortion access, no African Americans at top universities, and no service for marginalized people at places of business. I even called Kavanaugh a key player in the plot to transform this country into the Handmaid’s Tale.

    But honestly, none of that affects how I’m approaching these allegations. Here’s what matters ? Dr. Ford not only passed a lie detector test, she also demanded an FBI investigation. That’s just not what someone would do if she made the whole thing up. And now this New Yorker piece? It’s so meticulously documented that it leaves no doubt Ramirez is telling the truth as well.


    1. Too obvious, C-

    2. ^^This,

      Bye-bye Republican Senate.

      Barry Goldwater was correct, predicting the Moral Majority (now Christian Taliban) a major threat to his party, as he and Reagan were aggressively defending gays in the 70s, two decades before Clinton shamelessly signed DOMA and DADT and nearly four decades before Obama “evolved.”

      1. Reagan didn’t say redefine marriage and lock up county clerks and bankrupt bakers, he said don’t purge gays from public schools – these are actually different issues, if you can believe it, not simply choosing between a button marked “gay lib” and a button marked “right-wing reaction.”

    3. A-

      I give you extra credit card for echoing Gilibrand with “… That’s just not what someone would do if she made the whole thing up.”, line. Jiltedbrand is entertaining.

      Well done.

    4. Oh, shit, all you had to say was all men are rapists, rapist enablers, and misogynists due to unconscious bias. Cut to the chase.

    5. Does anyone else think Kavanaugh looks like Cousin Larry from Perfect Strangers?

      1. Kavanaugh looks like the next SCOTUS justice.

        He fights the Lefties and that just made up for some of his weak posititons to protect the constitution.

      2. Looks like Amazing Larry from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, minus the feather headdress

        1. “Something you’d like to share with the rest of us, Amazing Larry?!?!”

    6. “Dr. Ford not only passed a lie detector test”

      Lie detector results are inadmissible in court. They are inadmissible for a very good reason, they are unreliable, worthless. True scientific testing of lie detector machines of all sorts shows one very simple result, the operator of the machine is no better at detecting lies with the machine than he is at detecting lies without the machine.

      Police and other government agencies continue to use them for interrogations and security screenings purely for the intimidation value.

      1. I’m fairly sure Ford believes her own story at this point. She had her “recovered memory” of being assaulted emerge during couples therapy, and then, years later, when Kavanaugh’s nomination came up, recalled that this “threat to women’s rights and health” was someone she likely socially encountered, and voila! The ideal symbolic candidate became the face of her attacker.

        Moreover, I don’t think more than a fraction of her supporters don’t sincerely believe her story. That’s seldom the way impassioned and bitter political struggles operate. Practically everyone who tramples the rights of others sincerely believes they’re doing the right thing.

        1. I’m fairly sure Ford believes her own story at this point.
          She has to. If she admits, even to herself, that her story is phony she loses some of the enjoyment her media hagiography brings her. These peoples sanctimony depends on self deception, and bien-pensant liberals can convince themselves of absolutely anything, particularly if it’s false.

          1. Thanks; you’ve expanded my meager vocabulary at least three fold this morning. Bien-pensant!

      2. Aldrich Ames passed multiple polygraphs so the must be reliable.

      3. A lie detector test that was administered by some anonymous “retired FBI agent”. Who, Peter Strzok? Where was it done, in his basement? And given that Ford’s lawyer paid for it, how likely is it the outcome would be anything but what the lawyer wanted?

      4. No, I think most of them are so fucking retarded they probably think
        lie detectors really work.

    7. “And now this New Yorker piece? It’s so meticulously documented …”

      +1, thread winner

    8. We’re all dumber from reading your post

  3. It is no up to him to convince you of his denial. It is up the accuser to convince

    1. It is the nominee’s responsibility to persuade the Senate that the nominee deserves the Senate’s consent, you half-educated goober.

      1. wtf is a goober?

        when someone accuses you of a crime, it is not up to you to prove your innocence, you lunatic.

        1. I think goober is a slang word for peanut. So pretty sure he is calling you a pea-brain.


          1. You know what’s ironic? Peanuts are not peas they are legumes.

            1. and they enrich the soil

        2. Goobers are chocolate covered peanuts. They are a good mix with Raisinets.

          1. Reverse genericide; A slang term got adopted for a product.

    2. It’s hilarious how everyone thinks they have to pick a side in this.

      1. Pick due process for someone accsued of a crime or pick railroading as a form of public debate.

  4. I hope his friend Mark Judge testifies. He is an addictions memoirist. This is the lowest form of humanity. They fake a ‘disease’ as cover for mischief. Anyone so closely associated with such a character is probably just as much a scoundrel.

    1. Mark Judge CANNOT be allowed to testify. One of his two books on his severe alcoholism, since high school, describes one classmate as so drunk he puked into a car and passed out. The classmate is “Bart O’Kavanaugh” (wink, wink)

      1. Thank god that never happened to me!

      2. Yeah, and if the accusation was that Kavanaugh got drunk in high school, that would be relevant evidence. But he’s not claiming he was a teetotaler at the time, he’s saying that he didn’t assault anyone.

        “We have fully reached a point where the central question at issue cannot be verified with any certainty ”

        And all ties are resolved in favor of the accused.

    2. You trolls are gonna earn your money when kavanaugh is confirmed. You will talk shit about for weeks until Trump gets to replace Thomas, RBG, and then Breyer.

      1. I advise Republicans to win elections if they wish to avoid enlargement of the Supreme Court to overcome anything Pres. Trump can do.

        Good luck with that, clingers.

        1. If FDR couldn’t manage to pack the court, what makes you think Booker, Warren, or any other Democrat grandstanding for 2020 can manage it?

  5. I won’t be satisfied unless they reconstruct Thunderdome in our Nation’s Capital, dress Kavanaugh and Ford up in clown outfits and let them fight to the death. If Kavanaugh wins he’s automatically confirmed, otherwise well he would be dead. Winner also gets to pick one Senator to be executed on the spot. Jerry Springer should be the umpire and there should be strippers.

    1. I might consider watching that.

    2. I like it. Can we circulate a petition, or something?

      1. I will only sign if Beef Supreme comes out of retirement.

    3. Sounds like the beginning of a SugarFree story.

    4. POTUS Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho should be in audience.

    5. Trial by ordeal; unfortunately it was outlawed by some religious council early on in the 13th Century.

  6. “We have fully reached a point where the central question at issue cannot be verified with any certainty”

    That point had been reached from the very beginning. Only physical evidence and witnesses could confirm any detail of the accusation. None of it exists. Not even Roy Moore was charged criminally. Anything that occurred 30 plus years ago will be difficult to prove. People’s memories are unreliable when dealing with things from that many years ago.

    I don’t understand why Reason seems to be mincing words on this case. The allegations against BK is as flimsy as any wrongful rape accusation against a student athlete.

    1. I disagree. Everyone knew Roy Moore did it despite his denials. More a question of if you really cared. It would not be that hard to show her allegations are plausible. I remember events from my high school days well enough to know that nothing like that ever happened at any event I went to. But at the same time if a classmate claimed it did, well I also know them well enough to know if they were lying. I say give her her day in court. If she refuses, then by all means confirm the guy.

      1. “Everyone knew Roy Moore did it despite his denials.” Based on what evidence? Feelz?

        1. For starters, you misogynistic right-wing twit, the recollections of his victims, his creepy inscriptions (as a 30-something) in high school yearbooks, the trolling for underage girls that got him banned from a shopping mall . . .

          1. Roy Moore was never banned from a shopping mall.


              1. You’re trying to hard OBL.

          2. You mean the creepy forged inscription that his accuser eventually admitted to having written herself?

        2. The go by the narrative for lefty HQ.

      2. “Everyone knew Roy Moore did it despite his denials.”

        For questionable values of “it”.

        Everybody knows he liked to date women just above the age of consent, which some people find icky in a middle aged guy. Democrats tried to leverage that into people believing that he’d sexually assaulted a minor. Complete with forged yearbook entry… But one does not equal the other.

  7. So is the goal to just scare all republicans from public life or all straight white men? I’m sure the left has millions of Abigail Williams’ out there to do their bidding. It’s funny how easy it is making someone guilty until proven innocent. Not surprising given the stupidity of the average person.

  8. i have to admit. They look like they’d be terrible neighbors.

  9. That’s like having Daily Kos interview Bernie Sanders! (lol)

    Q) Why are Republicans REFUSING to subpoena Mark Judge?
    A) Because he’d be HUMILIATED, and DESTROY public opinion.

    He has written two books detailing his severe problem with alcoholism. He describes his high school (for rich preppie males) as “awash with alcohol,” numerous examples of heavy drinking, wild parties and sex. The second book describes a classmate who who is so drunk that he pukes into a car and passes out. The classmate is “Bart O’Kavanaugh” (wink, wink)

    If he was that heavy a drinker, Dr. Ford suddenly has MUCH more credibility
    Republicans have REFUSED to seek the truth here. They also refused witnesses in the Anita Hill complaints (with the disgraceful actions of Joe Biden), , which would have corroborated Hill’s story.

    Shameful. But will cost them the Senate, and then impeach both Trump and Kavanaugh. (Kavanaugh, unlike Trump, will not also be imprisoned)

    1. When Democrats regain subpoena power, I expect them to have some Georgetown Preppers testify on the meaning of the “Devil’s Triangle” reference in Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbook, among other subjects . . . should be an interesting topic for Mrs. Kavanaugh’s review, among others.

      1. Good point.

        Brett’s yearbook confirms him in TWO drinking clubs — which also says a lot about his rich-preppy-male high school.

        1. Yeah, it says Dumbfuck Hihnsano is jealous because he believes Kavanaugh was scoring the high-quality tail in high school that he could only spend his nights jerking off to.

      2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano and Arthur L. Hicklib creating a stupidity singularity.

        1. Hihn – Annoying Asshole = Zero

    2. Hihn sure will be upset when kavanaugh is confirmed and Trump gets more good,SCOTUS picks to replace horrible RBG and breyer.

    3. If he was that heavy a drinker, Dr. Ford suddenly has MUCH more credibility

      Judge drinking means Kavanaugh attempted to rape somebody?

      Sounds totally logical.

      1. Absolutely. Heck, I got pretty drunk when I was in college. I don’t remember raping anyone, but that just proves that I was blacked out most of the time, and that my memory is worse than Deborah Ramirez’s. I probably raped more people than STEVE SMITH.

  10. Par for the course…..mears.html

  11. You say an issue cannot be verified, but in the original case, it’s literally one person’s word, who doesn’t remember when or where and only remember 30+ years later as part of therapy, vs the word of 4 other people all of whom deny it ever happened.

    And somehow it’s on the burden of the accused to prove it didn’t happen?

    1. let’s be real here. To the collectivist left, all white men and white people in general are guilty of something. So there’s nothing to prove when they think you are already guilty.

      1. It’s all just a means to an end, and that end is power.

      2. What about the Authoritarian Right?

        Left – Right = Zero

        1. Slightly better than Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

          Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s IQ = Zero.

          1. Come on be fair. Even a squirrel has a greater than Zero IQ. And Hihn is at least as smart as a Border Collie. He’s like a super genius compared to a squirrel.

            1. I seriously doubt Hihn has the brains to herd sheep or comprehend whistled instructions.

            2. As a Border owner, I am offended

        2. Wyatt – Hihn = fucking imbecile.

  12. pfft, who are we kidding. Brett Kavanaugh has only been accused by 2 women of trying to molest them when they were teenagers. Let me know when he racks of 20 or so and then goes on to run super cheesyExtremely classy beauty pageants so he can walk into teenies while in their dressing rooms. Then he might approach the level of greatness of President Trump. For now, he’s solely Bush League. Sorry Brett.

  13. I once watched as Brett Kavanaugh purposefully didn’t recycle something.

    1. I saw him use a plastic straw.

      1. Was he drinking a 32oz soda?

  14. “All that we know for sure is that decades of official lying, bad-faith argumentation and behavior on the part of public and private institutions, and worse has left us in a place where conversation is virtually impossible.”

    Again, this makes me think of the McCarthy hearings. Saying “Did you ever sexually assaulted anyone–as a minor?” comes across much like “Are you now or have you ever been a communist?”.

    No amount of denial seems to suffice, people can’t prove their innocence, and the implications of being asked such a question is what people seem to fear most.

    The fear of being called a racist, a homophobe, or a misogynist, etc. is like the fear of being called a communist was back during the Red Scare. People like Roseanne and Norm MacDonald are being treated like the blackballed actors of the McCarthy era. The stakes are high for the rest of us, now, though, too, because everyone is wondering if that time we called someone a “retard” or lost out temper on Facebook will come back to haunt us someday–and ruin their careers.

    The Crucible was written during the McCarthy era. Maybe someone should write a story about the PC Scare of today but set during the McCarthy hearings.

    1. The clerisy are purposefully moving and constricting the Overton Window, until any unapproved speech is socially unacceptable.

      1. Add one more. Clerisy. Spell check doesn’t even recognize it. You are like a work a day calendar!

        Just kidding by the way; agree with your comment, fancy words and all, fancyclad.

  15. What is Doc Ford going to say in her testimony to the senators beyond what she has already said? Haven’t the statements of the so-called witnesses already put an end to the whole allegation? It happened 36 years ago, if at all. Nobody but Ford has any recollection of it.

    The Democrats have been trying to end the confirmation hearing from the first few seconds of its opening, not to mention confirming that they are useless vermin. Ford is a Democratic hack. I think it is a made up lie to #resist.

    As far as I can tell the only authentic misogynists all live in the Hollywood left.

  16. After years of investigating crackpot conspiracy theories about Vincent Foster at the behest of the greatest legal mind of the later half of the 20th century, Ken Starr, it’s good to see Brett Kavanaugh finally get what’s coming to him… which is a seat on the SCOTUS, of course! THESE UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS ARE SO UNFAIR!!!


    1. That reminds me: I remember back when Democrats loves rape and told accusers to mind their place.

      Those were the days.

      1. Me too! Republicans really seem to care when Bill Clinton was involved. Even probably Tony would acknowledge that

        1. It’s unseemly to pry into a persons sex life.

      2. There was actual evidence for some of Bill Clinton’s shenanigans. At the minimum, the accusers remembered the times and places, and Clinton had actually been there. That gives investigators something to investigate. Ford has conveniently forgotten all the details that might possibly lead to disproving her allegations.

  17. I’m not even going to consider an article with that headline.

    The question is whether the *accusations* are credible – even assuming that we want a world where Dem hacks can pull out 35-year-old accusations at whim.

    1. Eddy|9.24.18 @ 10:07PM|#
      “I’m not even going to consider an article with that headline.’

      (I’m not Eddy responding to one of Eddy’s posts)
      Yeah, the headline is a sort of ‘when to you think he stopped beating his wife?’
      We have courts of law for a reason; if we are to bypass them for political ends, that miserable fucking hag would be in the slammer right now.

      1. Yep, as i’ve Said hundreds of times on Democratic Underground to a bunch of idiot libs the standard of proof in confirming a SCOTUS nominee on the court should be exactly as stringent as the standard by which we put someone in the electric chair. Maybe even stringenter!

        1. The thing is, OBL does a decent parody of a progressive, salted with just enough satire that *most* readers know it’s a joke. Even so, there are those who think he’s for real.

          In your case, you can’t do a good parody because you really don’t get what makes a Trump supporter tick.

          Like everything else, progs have ruined humor.

          1. A couple of days ago, this POS leaned on the Vietnam war as an example of US perfidy and addressed me as “general”.
            I’m saying that’s a tell for the POS formerly posting as ‘stalin something or other’ (commie-kid) who bailed on his mortgage and bragged about it and claimed moral superiority since s/he was born too late to be drafted for the Vietnam war.
            Hey, commie-kid! Pay your mortgage and STFU.

            1. I was only praising your service and commenting on the intelligence of those who taught in our grand endeavors in Vietnam and Iraq. I’m not doing anything more than saluting you sir, ok and honoring those that have protected my freedom from Iraq. Thank you, again! If I was old enough I would have gladly volunteered to bomb Hanoi in order to incinerate babies who would have no doubtedly become commies. An important mission, to say the least.

              1. You see, who is actually going to be fooled into thinking you’re an actual Trump supporter, the way OBL gets people thinking his schtick is real because it echoes what real progs say?

                OBL studied the prog in its natural environment and makes satire based on that.

                1. How many more times can I say “Thank you for your service” before I convince you that I’m an honest-to-God libertarian and supporter of the Constitution that mandates that we have aircraft carriers in the Black Sea to protect my liberty. I mean {shrugs} what the fuck do you want from me? My two Purple Hearts? Geesch.

                  1. If you weren’t actually a far left troll, you’d understand that “deplorables” don’t actually think like extremist progs think they do.
                    You’re basing your character on left-wing parody, rather than your experiences with actual deplorables.

                    1. see Johnathan Haidt

                    2. Man, LTAL reminds me of that Seinfeld episode about George and the Jerk Store. Some guy throws an offhand insult at George and later in the day George thinks of the “perfect” comeback. So the rest of the episode is him awkwardly trying to get the same conversation to happen again so he can use the comeback. The irony, is that he makes himself look 10x as pathetic trying to force the situation. Then when he gives his zinger, the other guy comes right back with a response that leaves George feeling even worse.

                      LTAL is like George Costanza- a bit slow on the uptake, and painfully awkward to watch as he tries to play a game that is 3 or 4 levels above his capacity. And every time he posts, the responses are far better zingers than what he originally said.

      2. She’s in a prison of despair and alcoholism.
        (single tear rolls down cheek)

  18. Under Democrat Progressive Communism, you’re guilty unless proven otherwise.

    However, if other factors are involved; these shall be discussed in private with Central Committee under the provisions of the Communist Constitution as written by Comrade Karl Marx.

    1. They dont call them “purges” for nothing.

  19. This entire thing has been a circus run by clowns. Perhaps now would be a good time to ponder what a functioning confirmation process might look like. Or even to ponder what is the point of the Senate anymore. Why not just move to a parliamentary form of government?

    1. No, it’s not a circus run by clowns, because clowns know what is proper for a circus and with the experience would be more likely than a Senator to run the enterprise correctly.

      Plus clowns conduct themselves with more dignity.

      1. Speaking of clowns, has anyone heard from Crusty lately?

        1. He’s been representing Stormy.

    2. I don’t really see what good a parliamentary form of govt would do, unless you could cite which parliamentary governments you’re holding up as examples.

      1. Meh. There would be definite advantages to a parliamentary form of govt for third parties like the libertarians, greens, etc. However, due to the electoral college, small parties in the US have a natural incentive to join one of two big parties. I never understood how the founders didn’t realize that they were setting up a duopoly. Or maybe they did, but, because the States were so leery of a central government /other states having more power than their state, didn’t see any way out of it. I’m pretty sure the constitution wouldn’t have been ratified without the EC, nor can I imagine any other system for a Federation of sovereign States.

        1. My first reaction is that some sort of instant runoff voting would embolden people to vote for third parties, with major-party backup candidate if their third party loses.

          With the assurance that you can vote 3rd party and still designate a preference among the duopoly candidates if your candidate loses, it’s possible you’d get more 3rd parties without having to centralize power in a single legislative body with power to choose the executive.

          Looking specifically to the electoral college, we can imagine a situation where a 3rd party wins enough states to deny an electoral majority to any one candidate, in which case the House (voting by states) chooses a Pres from among the top 3 – and small-state 3rd party Reps would possibly be able to play kingmaker.

          The duopoly does seem to be acting as if IRV is threatening – that is, by not adopting it. Neither cheek of the duopolistic butt seems interested in taking up the idea, even as a weapon against the other cheek.

      2. Well, in a coalition government, the minor parties would have actual power, as opposed to now, when all they do is get promises of good behavior.

        So if the government were a coalition of Republicans and Libertarians (not outside the realm of possibility in a parliamentary system), and the Republicans wanted to go on one of their stupid spending sprees, the Libertarian contingent could threaten to bring down the whole government and call new elections if they went through with it.

        As to which particular system, I think they all have pluses and minuses. Probably the Westminster one is the one that would likely be a good starting point.

        1. I was thinking more in terms of which specific *countries* benefit more from the parliamentary form.

      3. It doubt they want parliamentary as much as proportional representation. The United Kingdom has a parliamentary government but still uses single seat plurality elections. The primary difference between presidential and parliamentary systems is the latter forms the executive from the legislature. Whoever controls parliament controls the executive.

  20. So, earlier today, we had an article about how Congress is about to shove more domestic spying down our throats. That article received 13 comments. Two of them were to point out an error made by the author.

    The article on pot got maybe 20 comments.

    But this article, yet another one on the Kavanaugh shitshow, and every article like it, gets over 50 comments, sometimes over 100.

    Can’t really blame the authors for posting article after article on Kavanaugh when they know this is the type of response that it gets.

    I guess people would rather talk about those Dastardly Dems than talk about losing yet more of our Fourth Amendment rights.

    1. To get up the comment count in the 4th Amendment articles, what we really need is dunphy or someone to say the right to privacy is overrated and our brave defenders in the government need the tools to defend our republic against the rising tide of criminality.

      1. (Didn’t dunphy claim to have accessed pharmaceutical records without a warrant at one point, or do I misremember?)

    2. Well, there’s a timing factor. I don’t when that article was posted, but I was probably at work. Part of the appeal of commenting here is the replies, so no one is going to post on an article that has gone stale.

  21. Maga!

    1. Fuck man… do it right! MAGA, BITCH

  22. “Are Brett Kavanaugh’s Denials Convincing? Watch for Yourself”

    Watch for myself? There’s no EFFING video link to watch for myself.

  23. I think its a pretty convincing denial. Takes some guts to basically paint yourself as a nun when your best friend in HS has published whatever fuzzy memories he retains as a HS alcoholic and you joined the Animal House frat in college and you spent your early career sniffing panties for political reasons (legally speaking only). But presumably it’s either true – or it will blow up craptacularly when Ford testifies.

    1. It takes guts to paint yourself as not going around sexually assaulting women when your best friend in HS reports you used to drink a lot?

      If Kavanaugh were claiming he was a teetotaler in HS you might actually have a point.

      1. Blackout drunk claims he fails to remember things. News at 11.

        1. You just think that’s relevant because you assault women every time you get stinking drunk.

          And there’s just as much proof for that accusation as there is for Ford’s.

  24. When Bill Clinton was accused of sexual misconduct, Democrats organized to convince folks to move on from the accusations.

    Wonder what they’ll name their organization that tries to convince folks to keep focusing on the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh?

    1. Perhaps Soros can provide start up funding for that, as he did for Moveon [$50K].

  25. You know who one of the least convincing people in the world is? Goth Fonzie trying to convince us that he’s a libertarian.

  26. I bet Ford doesn’t testify.

  27. We have fully reached a point where the central question at issue cannot be verified with any certainty (unless there is some documentary evidence that surfaces).

    Then, by all rational definition, he is innocent.

    The accuser is providing nothing.

    1. Every Kavanaugh skeptic is asking for a brief FBI background check. Every Kavanaugh supporter is saying it shouldn’t be done, the only possible reason for which is that they’re afraid they’ll dig something up.

      1. Democrats are demanding it and Republicans are refusing it for one reason only: it would delay the confirmation vote past the midterms.

      2. The FBI already did a background check – and five more for K’s earlier government jobs. What the heck do you want them to check? It can’t be an alleged party at an unspecified place and year…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.