Brett Kavanaugh

Republicans Attack Democrats, Not Ford, Following Her Testimony Against Brett Kavanaugh

We didn't get another Anita Hill hearing. Let's consider that a small silver lining.

|

screenshot/CSPAN

If anything is more clear after today's Senate testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, it's that Republicans are using this to lay the groundwork for future attacks against Democratic leaders, and not against Ford.

All of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee ceded their questioning time to Phoenix-area prosecutor Rachel Mitchell. And Mitchell's most thorough lines of questioning centered not on Brett Kavanaugh's alleged attack on Ford in high school nor the events immediately surrounding it but on how involved liberal leaders and lawyers were in the process of her coming forward.

It's not a bad strategy. To go tough on a woman recounting an assault on national television would play badly with audiences far beyond the #BelieveAllWomen crowd. And while that may be cynical way to look at it, the outcome was nonetheless a positive one: Mitchell refrained from repeating some of the worst sins of previous political forays of this sort. We didn't get another Anita Hill hearing. Let's consider that a small silver lining.

But what did we get? The way the questioning was set up—five minutes from the conservative side, five minutes from the liberal side, repeat—turned into a series of grandstanding speeches from Democrats like Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris interspersed with meticulous and detailed questions from Mitchell about just how Ford had decided to come forward, when, and what happened since.

Who suggested she take a polygraph? (Her lawyers.) Who paid for it? (Her lawyers.) Who was paying for her lawyers? (They're working for free.) Did she tell Sen. Dianne Feinstein or any other Senate Democrats to make her name public? (No.) Does she know who leaked her letter? (No.) Why didn't she choose to have the committee come to her in California? (She didn't know that was a possibility.) Why didn't her lawyers tell her it was? (She couldn't say.)

Though Mitchell made no explicit arguments, her whole process today seemed designed to elicit support for an argument that Democrats and their pet lawyers had manipulated the Supreme Court confirmation process for their own political gain. After the hearing, Republican lawmakers made it explicit. "All I can say is that we are 40-something days away from the elections and their goal, not Mrs. Ford's goal, is to delay this past the midterms so they can win the Senate and never allow Trump to fill this seat," Sen. Lindsay Graham told reporters.

Mitchell's questions also helped prop up the right-story/wrong-guy theory (as previously, and clumsily, advanced last week by Republican strategist Ed Whelan and fleshed out today with two men coming forward to say it was them, not Kavanaugh, who had assaulted Ford).

That's also politically smart: Republicans can now at least nominally claim belief in Ford as a victim—and explain why so many people are finding and describing her as credible—without conceding that Kavanaugh did it.

Democrats attempted to head this off at the hearing. "How are you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh]?" Feinstein asked Ford at one point.

"The same way that I'm sure that I'm talking to you right now, basic memory functions," Ford replied.

"So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?" asked Feinstein. Ford replied, "Absolutely not."

But that didn't stop Republicans like Graham from perpetuating the mistaken identity theory afterward. "I don't doubt that something happened to her," Graham told reporters. And again: "Something happened, I don't know what." Then he suggested it might be a good idea if Ford go "talk to someone" about her issues.

It's maddeningly disingenuous and patronizing, of course—oh, sure we take you seriously, we just don't believe you're capable of getting the most crucial and basic part of your own story right! But Senate Democrats taking this opportunity to prostate themselves on the belief altar was its own form of disingenuous and patronizing, too.

The hearing itself ended on Mitchell doing her own patronizing grandstanding, about the proper and "trauma-informed" way to interview victims. Seeming sympathetic to Ford's plight, she waxed on about how the process today had been far from ideal ("Would you believe me if I told you that there's no study that says this setting, in 5-minute increments, is the best way to do [trauma-informed interviews]?") and that a closed session in Ford's home state of California would have been more appropriate. Ford seemed grateful for the olive branch. She laughed. She agreed.

Mitchell continued: "Did you know that the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talk to you one-on-one in a private setting and let you do the talking?" Ford said it made "a lot of sense."

Then Mitchell had a follow up: "Did anybody ever advise you, from Sen. Feinstein's office, or Rep. Eshoo's office, to go get a forensic interview?" Ford said no. "Instead," asked Mitchell, "you were advised to get an attorney, and take a polygraph?" Ford said many people advised her to get an attorney, and the attorney recommended the polygraph. Mitchell finished up:

And instead of submitting to an interview in California, we're having a hearing today in 5-minute increments, is that right?

Whether this was meant as a knock on Ford and/or her lawyers, the implication was clearly that Senate Republicans weren't to blame for the day's frustrations.

NEXT: Dick Durbin Argues That E-Cigarettes Will Cause an Increase in Smoking

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh for Pete’s sake! It’s been blatantly obvious right from the start, including Feinstein sitting on the letter until the last minute, that the Democrats were using her story as a political attack on Republicans.

    This has been partisan from minute 0. The nomination was going to get no Democratic votes even before Trump had a shortlist, heck right from the minute Hillary conceded on election night.

    1. In fact, the only surprise at all is how legit Trump’s two nominations have been. The Democratic reaction was fore-ordained.

      1. I don’t think Trump really has an opinion about the justices. But he is smart enough to know that picking conservative ones is an easy way to reassure his base and also stick it to the Never Trump conservatives who were convinced he is a secret Democrat.

        1. He’s not a ‘secret’ Democrat, he was explicitly a Democrat for much of his life. That the Democrats left guys like him behind leaves little alternative than the Republican party.

          1. Yes. that is true. But Never Trump conservatives are morons who convinced themelves of all kinds of absurd and often contradictory things about Trump.

            1. I think there are a lot of reasons people are Never Trump ‘conservatives’ and that many of the reasons involve them not being conservatives at all. Of course, some of those reasons are also because they are conservatives.

              It’s a function of Trump not being particularly good for a whole host of reasons.

              1. No. It is a function of nearly all of the beltway conservative community being fine with being in charge of an ineffective opposition and more interested in virtue signaling and class status than actually accomplishing anything. We didn’t end up $19 trillion in debt and at war all over the world because the leaders of the conservative movement were worth a shit or interested in anything except getting jobs talking out of their asses for a living, taking cruises, and partying at ConCon or whatever they fuck they call that orgy they have every year down at the National Harbor.

              2. Of course, some of those reasons are also because they are conservatives.

                Not being argumentative, but what NTers do you think are truly conservative? I’m thinking back to the NT ediction of NR, everyone I can remember is either a neocon or a nut.

                1. Trump has increased per capita government spending above what it was under Obama, and cribbed his trade policy from the left-wing fringe of the Democrats.

                  The answer to the question “what kind of conservatives oppose Trump” is “Tea Partiers who were actually serious, and not just anti-Obama”.

            2. There are two types of Never Trump conservatives, basically. The minority is as you describe. The majority is specifically appalled about his disrespect of the DC establishment. Foreign policy especially has them utterly furious.

              Though I suppose even this can be seen as a species of the “deluded about what Trump is” narrative. Because his administration has actually changed a lot less than they imagine it has. He may actually be “stronger” on Russia than Obama was.

              1. I suppose the part that causes me disagreement is that there really are only about half a handful of people in Washington that I would even consider ‘conservative’ in the first place, while most of the rest of them are all statists of one stripe or another. The votes on spending make this fairly clear in my view.

              2. Yes, the George Will set wants us to be dignified to the end, even as progressives march us into ovens.

              3. “He may actually be “stronger” on Russia than Obama was.”

                Was this really that high a bar to clear? After the hot mic incident I mean…

            3. Trump contradicts himself every 5 minutes. He seems to have few true free market or libertarian beliefs (which makes sense for a life-long democrat and entitled bully).

              Hmmm. My pizza just got here. Rather eat than waste time writing more.

              1. MAGA pizza. Delicious?

            4. As a NT, I voted for Johnson, but find Trump’s actions make him the most Libertarian president since Reagan. He’s doing what he can, but picking a fight with the establishment in Congress (the RINOs that dominate the GOP and the Democrats) is a battle he can’t win, so he’s not fighting them much – but he is pushing the RINOs to vote as they promised (tax cuts, repeal Obamacare). He significantly moderated his immigration position, and in spite of his rhetoric, he’s now stated and is fighting for free trade and against protectionism. He’s allied with the military (as he has no other friends in DC) but he hasn’t started any more wars, and he’s decimated ISIS by freeing up the military to do so (so unlike Obama). Unless voters actually vote in more real fiscal conservatives, there’s little he can do.

              As for Flake, his call for decorum is belied by his not calling out the Democrats who attack conservatives and freedom, and instead he attacks Trump’s plain spoken rhetoric where he defends our freedoms against the lying MSM and Democrats. Frankly, I suspect Obama’s NSA/CIA spied on a bunch of real conservatives (Flake, Gowdy, Roberts) and blackmailed them, which is why Flake and Gowdy are quitting. The record shows Obama would do that, as he did it to Trump.

              1. The psycho ward has been emptied. (lol)

        2. Generally speaking I’d agree with your assessment regarding Trump’s opinion of judges. He probably wasn’t involved in drafting the short list of qualified candidates.

          However, in this case, I do believe that he made the final determination of Kavanaugh over the other candidates based on Kavanagh’s views regarding investigating a sitting president. That Kavanaugh has very carefully presented his views as “how I’d like it to be” is a nuance I don’t believe Trump would pick up on.

          1. He probably wasn’t involved in drafting the short list of qualified candidates.

            I believe few presidents are. They’re handed a portfolio by a 20 year old intern with the world experience of an energetic kitten.

            1. Gotta give W all the credit for Harriet Myers though.

              1. Hey – he really looked hard to come up with her. He looked under his desk, behind paintings. Then he saw her pass by in the hall – “you there! You know anything about the law?”

              2. And look how far into the process she got. Those sexual assault allegations never had the chance to come forward.

            2. Fair enough.

              Let me clarify my view of how I think Kavanaugh’s nomination was different for Trump then previous ones.

              I believe that, in general, Trump bases his decisions on who to nominate for any given position on (A) who he wants to “reward”, and (B) personal interactions with the individual. Generally speaking, actual qualifications, merit, idealogy, beliefs and so-on just aren’t part of it. It’s entirely whether or not he wants to reward a specific person or, if he has no one in mind, how well he “clicks” with a given individual.

              Kavanaugh’s nomination was different in that, for once, Trump actually heard something about their performance-related actions/beliefs that he cared about, and that jumped Kavanaugh to the top regardless of Trump’s usual process.

              That said, this is definitely in the “beliefs weakly held” category. I think it’s a good hypothesis, but it’s easily disproven (in fifty years, after the papers and records from Trump’s administration are declassified and we can stick a pin in all the “he said/she said” tell-all books), and regardless it’s not that important to me.

              So if you disagree, great. I’ve put it out there, but I’m not invested in anyone else giving it credence, and don’t expect it to change anyone’s esteem of the man (good or ill). Just a personal theory of how Kavanaugh’s nomination process was different from his normal process for deciding between folk for appointed positions.

              1. I believe that, in general, Trump bases his decisions on who to nominate for any given position on (A) who he wants to “reward”, and (B) personal interactions with the individual. Generally speaking, actual qualifications, merit, idealogy, beliefs and so-on just aren’t part of it.

                I agree. I also agree that it seems to be different with Kavanaugh, as it seems to have been with Gorsuch. I would even go so far as to speculate that Trump’s attitude with judges seems to be different from the way he approaches other appointments.

          2. He didn’t put the list together. He deferred to the Federalist Society to assemble the list. The scuttlebutt regarding the actual nomination of Kavanaugh was that it was a brokered deal by Kennedy. Kennedy made nominating Kavanaugh, who was his former clerk, a condition for him voluntarily stepping down from the Court.

          3. He’s using a Federalist Society list.

        3. Keep in mind that his sister is a judge. He’s probably put a lot more thought into this than other DC minutia.

    2. And why bother attacking someone who hasn’t offered anything verifiable?

    3. The Democrats have a long history of bringing up, at the last minute, unverifiable sexual misconduct allegations against their political opponents. People should read showing Fords lawyers are unethically working for the Democrats rather than pro-bono for Ford (and check out the video of Shiela Jackson Lee passing those lawyers an envelope at the hearing posted elsewhere).

      It’s so easy to make plausible fake allegations that can’t be proven or disproven. Yet here there is evidence it didn’t happen (the 4 alleged witnesses’ sworn under felony penalty that it didn’t happen) and Kavanaugh’s calendar lacking any such entry (it would have been written in prior to the party). It’s also clear the Democrats threw Ford under the bus and forced her to testify publicly. Strange Ford was unable to say why her lawyers didn’t tell her Grassley offered to interview her and keep her identity secret (an ethical violation by her lawyers).

      I’d like the FBI to investigate Ford’s lawyers communications with the Democrats – that wouldn’t be covered under privileged client lawyer communications, because they supposedly are working (pro-bono to Ford’s surprise as shown at the hearings) for Ford. All kind of strange for a women whose brother is a lawyer.

      1. Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

        This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh’s high school was Jesuit)
        To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh’s own alma mater,

        The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

        It’s quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New “witnesses” are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

  2. Ford looks like Irish comedian Ed Byrne in a blonde wig.

  3. I think Mitchell’s assignment is (a) be a woman, so that we don’t get mean old Republican men interviewing the delicate victim, and (b) attack the Dems instead of the witness, because the public and the swing voters in the Senate would prefer it that way.

    1. Note for John – (a) was sarcastic

      1. why?

        1. I used the word “victim,” so I have to explain that the term “delicate victim” is what earthlings call sarcasm.

          1. Is John not an earthling? I don’t get it.

            1. I’m not as worked up as I was, but John was suggesting I somehow supported the attacks on Kavanaugh because I wanted Barrett to replace him. It was hard to follow the full development of his theory.

              1. Also, I only support Barrett because she’s Catholic, while Kavanaugh is obviously some kind of Presbyterian, look at his name!

                /sarc

                1. Anyway, Ford was initially saying she didn’t want a woman like Mitchell questioning her for the Republicans, she wanted TV clips of herself being baited by a bunch of male Republicans.

              2. Okay, I thought you were being sarcastic about the R’s assigning Mitchell because she’s a woman. Didn’t know about this back story with John.

                1. Never mind, it’s even sillier than I made it sound.

                  1. I apologize for my part in this spergfest.

                  2. The three men I hope you admire most are…..

                    1. Wait, wait, this could be a trick question…

                      Groucho, Chico, Harpo?

                      Larry, Curly, Moe?

                    2. The three men I hope you admire most are…..

                      The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost?

                      But they caught the last train for the coast.

                    3. Eric, Jack, Ginger

    2. To be frank, I think that a female attorney was a very valid choice made for quite reasonable reasons, and she is unquestionably qualified in the matter.

      There’s nothing to be gained from attacking the witness. Her evidence is extremely weak. So much that it’s not even a proper accusation, since she lacks a date and place. You don’t need to cross examine that. No prosecutor on Earth would put her on the stand lacking such crucial details.

      However, accusing the Democrats of misleading the public to create outrage is a good point, and one that will sit well with many people. You don’t even need to think Kavanaugh didn’t do it to get upset at the Senate’s handling of the matter.

      1. There is substantially more evidence that the Democrats gamed Ford’s story to cause delay than there is any evidence that Ford’s story is factual.

      2. Just because Dems are gaming this doesn’t mean Ford isn’t telling the truth. Both are likely true. When it comes to the nomination, Kavanaugh blew it when he went on his tirade which showed zero professionalism and, frankly, poor judgement. Which is pretty important for a judge. Lindsay Graham — and lots of people on these boards — would have you believe that no human being has ever had to deal with unfair accusations of this kind — How dare they? — which is ludicrous. Shit, just have coffee with a black guy, or one of his railroaded cousins, and you’ll get an earful of at least several episodes in his life that amount to false accusations of criminal activity. This kind of stuff just doesn’t happen to Georgetown Prep grads. That’s the difference. Frankly, I’ve met enough of these NE prep school types in my life to declare categorically that they’re all a bunch of fucking douchebags. No loss to anybody if he doesn’t get the nomination.

        1. Ford is a liar.

        2. Ford is a liar.

        3. I don’t know. I don’t care for his rulings.

          However, it is unreasonable to expect people to show no emotion when they receive accusations that could get them lynched, much less the fact that the media is treating these claims, none of which amount to a even a proper accusation (Ford lacks a date and place, the second lacked even an identification, and the third is just out there), as equal to convictions. You would have to be a true stoic to not lose your composure at some point.

          That being said, there are some things that he can genuinely claim are unprecedented. Kavanaugh has been subjected to more questions than any other Supreme Court nominee. Some people claim more than all of the rest of them put together. Then, they pull this after the hearings as a last-minute hail Mary? It’s not unprecedented, but it is a dirty trick.

        4. “Both are likely true.”

          Wow. That is about the worse possible thing that could be said about the Democrats. Because it means, while they actually believe Blasey Ford, they only used her as a means to delay or deny Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

          1. Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

            This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh’s high school was Jesuit)
            To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh’s own alma mater,

            The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

            It’s quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New “witnesses” are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

  4. But Senate Democrats taking this opportunity to prostate themselves

    Is this some kind of veiled sexist attack?


    1. Is this some kind of veiled sexist attack?

      Is this some kind of hidden sexist attack?

      Just kidding, I assume you set that up on purpose!

    2. It’s all ENB thinks about. And I’m ok with it.

    3. Bwahaha!

  5. The Democrats would not even look at Kavanaugh when he was categorically denied the accusations.

    They underestimated that Kavanaugh would fight.

    1. They underestimated that Kavanaugh would fight.

      Reason, in it’s commitment to jurisprudence and due process, published their firm judgement of Ford’s testimony before Kavanaugh was even done speaking.

      1. Reason doesn’t realize this yet, but they — along with the rest of the Media — are the biggest losers in this whole Kavanaugh mess.

        The next time H&R features a sob story about a male college student whose life has been ruined by false allegations, or some poor schmuck who was convicted on false testimony from a woman, and Reason editorializes about how awful it is, there will be a gold mine of quotes from Robby, ENB, and Gillespie to shove back in their faces.

        1. Indeed. Robby’s “Title IX abuses are totes bad you guys” schtick is dead with this.

          1. Robby’s “Title IX abuses are totes bad you guys” schtick is dead with this.

            It should be dead with a stake through it’s heart and a few silver bullets in it’s brainpan. Unfortunately, as I pointed out before, this goes beyond just ENB, Gillespie, and Robby. While Sullum and Skenazy haven’t weighed in on the whole Kavanaugh issue, they have reported on teen sexting prosecutions and Romeo and Juliet laws right alongside Robby, ENB, and Nick.

            Remember the heartbreaking story about Corey Walgreen and how police threatened him with child pornography charges and he committed suicide? Robby’s only heartbroken if Corey promised not to grow up and become a Supreme Court nominee with an R after his name. After all, we definitively know that Corey and ‘the victim’ had sex and she only alleged that she *thought* he played it for his friends so…

            1. I don’t think Robby was ever against Title IX per se. Mostly, his criticism was always about Title IX not being implemented evenly.

              It’s the difference between libertarians being against Title IX on principle and Robby thinking everyone’s rights should be violated equally.

        2. Why do you think everyone else who writes here has gone silent on the matter?

          Yes, to be sure Froot Sooshi, ENB, and Pleather Jacket have burned this bridge to libertopia. But that just means they will ‘move on’ from any related beats and it will be other authors called in to write about things like Title IX, sexual assault allegations, juvenile justice, and/or the presumption of innocence.

          The rope a dope will continue.

    2. “They underestimated that Kavanaugh would fight.”

      To be fair, I think everyone was shocked to see Republicans actually fight back.

      I was.

      And Lindsey Graham? Yowza! That came out of nowhere.


  6. Democrats attempted to head this off at the hearing. “How are you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh]?” Feinstein asked Ford at one point.


    “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now, basic memory functions,” Ford replied.

    Basic memory functions like remembering where it might have happened at? Or who else might have been in the room or at the party?

    It seems absurd to rely on ‘basic memory’ when your basic memory is objectively selective about other surrounding details.

    1. She is Professor of Psychology, she knows how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.

      1. Bingo.

        This was an obvious lie in her supposed field of expertise. There is no way she does not know this.

    2. It would stand to reason…or maybe not…nevermind.

    3. Not really. I remember the first time I got a handjob really well — happened on a bus coming back from the ski hill. I remember the person (your mom) and the act. Surrounding details? Not so much. Dates? Nope. Who else was there? Couldn’t tell you. That’s basically how big events in life are often remembered. You remember the act, not the context.

      1. I remember all of that stuff pretty clearly, with the exception of exact dates.

    4. That does sound to me as a fairly straightforward contradiction in her theory of memory. But it does play to her base.

  7. “All I can say is that we are 40 something days away from the elections and their goal, not Mrs. Ford’s goal, is to delay this past the midterms so they can win the Senate and never allow Trump to fill this seat,” Sen. Lindsay Graham told reporters.

    Now THAT’S “credible.”

  8. It’s not a bad strategy. To go tough on a woman recounting an assault on national television would play badly with audiences far beyond the #BelieveAllWomen crowd.

    You can say that again. You have to give the Democrats credit here. Dig someone up willing to front some accusations– anyone and her story or credibility doesn’t really matter. Her story can be a shit show of forgotten details, vague assertions, recounting of events that strain credulity, then wait for one single person to question her directly and wait for the media to take a flamethrower to the questioner. So no one can really talk directly to the accuser and ferret out her story. It’s all kid gloves and hands off and light touch. Frankly, I’m impressed.

    1. They can only do that because our culture has apparently gone insane and is no incapable of having a rational discussion about anything involving sex.

      1. No, our culture is showing the benefit of patriarchy. If giving women their “equality” leads to the bullshit we see now — perhaps oppression was in all people’s best interests.

      2. Oh democrats can do anything they want sexually. Anything a republican does is rape.

        Just one more reason to get rid of the progressives.

        1. That’s not true. It’s been the left end of the spectrum that was hit particularly hard by #MeToo.

          1. (lol) Four from Fox Alone!

          2. Not in the democrat party. There is actual evidence and recent charges for REAL crimes against Keith Ellison. The democrats are ignoring it. Just like they do with all their rapists.

      3. Democrats have always been puritanical assholes.

        1. Are you fucking kidding? Republican women won’t even engage in threesomes OR do anal. I’ll take a Dem in the sack any day of the week. Plus, the GOP broad will take you to church on Sunday to talk to her imaginary friends, so you can’t sleep in.

          1. Puritanism in its general form is just about adhering to a totalitarian faith.

            You can let yourself be rutted by hogs and still be a puritanical SJW. Trans species sex can even be a rite.

            Hog live is pure! And beautiful! You speciest Nazi!

            1. That which is not forbidden is mandatory is an essential summation of the puritan ethic.

              It is a totalitarian form of existence.

          2. This is 100% not true of Republican women. Ask me how I know.

    2. I thought that from the very beginning. The beauty of this accusation is that it can never really be proven either way. It lets the imagination and the political pundits run wild. let the shit show commence!

      1. And it’s about fear and pain to a girl. Fear and pain that can be used again and again to silence anyone who questions her.

        Turns out “The Patriarchy” maniacally protects women over men. The Left weaponizes that care and concern as a club to beat men into submission.

  9. turned into a series of grandstanding speeches from Democrats like Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris

    It’s my understanding that Harris virtue signaled with more wattage than a Mexican radio station in the 70s.

    1. Is Booker still Spartacus?

      1. You racist, you’re calling an African-American senator a slave? Have you no shame?

        1. /sarc

          (the all-important tag)

          1. was unnecessary.

        2. Which black senator? The hyphenated-American senator or the hymen-American?

      2. He’s Commander Eddington now.

        1. If he’s Commender Eddington, amd I start hassling him, does that make me Captain Sisko?

      3. no… i’d say that after yesterdays finale that Lindsey Graham is

  10. “Just basic memory functions and also just the level of norepinephrine and the epinephrine in the brain that as you know encodes that neurotransmitter that codes memories into the hippocampus and so the trauma-related experience is locked there whereas other details kind of drift.”

    Does anyone disagree that this sounds insane?

    1. Hippos fine, but rhinos are cooler.

      1. Where do hippos go to school?

        The hippocampus!

    2. Sure, I’ll disagree.

      Giving a technical answer in a context where that clearly isn’t appropriate might not be prudent, but it’s a very common human habit. A way of expressing dominance and authority. The same way you might respond with “the ’79 cherry red mustang with the spoiler and nitrous add-ons” when someone asks “which car is yours?” The detail doesn’t really help, but it’s a way of showing off.

      So uncalled for, sure. But not really insane.

      As for the accuracy of the answer I can’t speak to that. The science of the brain isn’t my forte.

      1. It’s not actually an answer to the question though, unless “all traumatic memory is perfect forever” is the answer. Which is insane.

        1. I see it as a way of deflecting the accusation that since she can’t remember literally anything else about the circumstance at all her memory of Kavanaugh may be faulty, too. She’s saying that the traumatic experience can fix a certain particular detail in the brain forever while other details may fade away. Which can be argued, but in this context, Feinstein seemed to be using Ford as an expert witness backing up her own story, which is not really how that’s supposed to work.

          1. I get what she was trying to do. But it just comes off as some combination of tinfoil hat ranting and Big Bang Theory script.

            1. Yeah, I suppose it depends on the level of education or familiarity you have with the subject but rather than “Which car is yours? The ’79 fully blown V-8, cherry red mustang.” it actually comes across as “What kind of fuel do you put in it? Well it’s a turbocharged, fuel-injected V-8 with a four-barrel carburetor, so, you know, the good stuff.”

              1. “Are you going to make it all 220?”

                “Uh, yeah, uh, 220, 221, whatever it takes.”

                1. Hahaha. The perfect summation of this thread of comments.

        2. Which is insane.

          And wrong. Current evidence is that trauma actually weakens memory. Especially the part involved in identification. Which is one reason that so many of the people freed via the Innocence Project were originally convicted on the strength of eyewitness identification.

      2. A way of expressing dominance and authority.

        ^ This. I think the rhetorical thrust of the question and the answer was “I’m a scientist with specific and detailed physiological understanding of memory, so don’t come talking to me about why I remember some things and not others!”

        1. Well, it’s a good point. It’s like Mark Zuckerberg — or as the senators called him, Zuckerman — having to answer asinine questions from people who don’t know the first thing about tech. She undoubtedly does know much more about all of this than her questioners. All of them. I’m surprised she didn’t make them eat that fact a few more times.

          1. Are you saying she knew better yet tried to convince them incorrectly that trauma actually eyewitness identification when the actual research says otherwise?

      3. As for the accuracy of the answer I can’t speak to that. The science of the brain isn’t my forte.

        I’ll disagree with your disagreement. The “’79 cherry red mustang with the spoiler and nitrous add-ons” accurately answers the question “Which car is yours?”. The vague “er… uh… epinephrine… uh… neurotransmitters. Hippocampus.” answer doesn’t explain how memory gets encoded let alone the selective memory of Brett Kavanaugh. Epinephrine and Norepinephrine themselves are neurotransmitters and while they enhance the encoding of memory (neurotransmitters aren’t themselves encoded) they narrow the rational collection or interpretation of it. She’s a psychologist because she’s not professionally/academically rigorous enough to be a neurologist, biochemist, endocrinologist, psychiatrist, or similar.

        1. Whether what she said was accurate or not, I think the point still stands that it was an answer whose message was “I’m an authority,” rather than the specific words that were spoken. What most people are going to here is “argle-bargle-sciencey-stuff- argle-chemical-names-argle-brain-parts” and go “wow! She understands all of this way better than little-old me!”

          1. Which in fairness is probably true given her specialty, but as you point out above one can not be an expert witness on the brain or memory in a case where she specifically is making an argument in her own favor. It’s a basic conflict of interest, and I can’t help but be amazed at how perfect her vocation is for this particular claim. It’s a staggering coincidence.

            1. Also, I should at least point out that she’s not actually a neurologist or other actual specialist on brains, but rather she’s the softer side of the ‘science’ which almost certainly means that she doesn’t know half as much as she seems to when examined by a layman.

            2. I pointed this out further down below. Even lacking a specialty, she has probably reviewed hundreds of case studies on sexual trauma victims. She is literally a person you might go to for an opinion on whether a particular accusation was credible based on what the victim remembered years later.

              Brett Kavanaugh would have to be the unluckiest wanna-be-date-rapist in the world to have groped her. And what are the odds of that?

              1. Ford the liar, said that she knew kavanaugh would be on the SCOTUS someday.

                Who fucking says that?

        2. It’s only “vague” if you know enough on the subject to know she said a bunch of argle-bargle. If you don’t, then it just sounds like she knows more then you.

          I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that for most folks, it’s the second category.

          1. I know jack shit about neuroscience, but it still sounded like argle-bargle to me. But I’m smart enough to know that could be my bias showing.

          2. It’s only “vague” if you know enough on the subject to know she said a bunch of argle-bargle. If you don’t, then it just sounds like she knows more then you.

            As a corollary to what BYODB kinda points out above, it also depends a lot on you or whomever taking the person’s claims as credible simply because they made them; how much you subscribe to credentialism, common sense and all that.

      4. “A way of expressing dominance and authority”

        Perhaps even… exculpatory dominance

    3. The trauma-related experience doesn’t include where or when said trauma happened, apparently.

      1. Again, this isn’t a valid criticism. See my hand job comment above. We can all remember our first lay, but I’ll bet there isn’t a single one of us who can name the date — or sometimes even the place — accurately. But I’ll bet you remember the person. And the embarrassment at cumming too soon.

        1. So your first lay was that traumatic? Is that where your ptsd is from? Explains a lot.

          And, no, you’re wrong. There is plenty of research now on how eyewitness identification is often wrong, especially under the attenuating effects of trauma. So, she was blowing smoke. It’s a common myth though.

          1. She was lying.

      1. LOL!! STNG episode?

    4. I don’t know about insane, but just contrary to what psychology knows about how unreliable memories are, *particularly* of traumatic events.

      She was lying *professionally* here.

    5. That the ” the trauma-related experience” must reliably include the name of any perpetrator, but can be entirely vague about other details like place or date, while unstated, is implied.

      Not insane, just gussied up horseshit meant to impress the unlearned.

  11. Though Mitchell made no explicit arguments, her whole process today seemed designed to elicit support for an argument that Democrats and their pet lawyers had manipulated the Supreme Court confirmation process for their own political gain

    Since that’s what the Democrats are doing here, that’s a perfectly reasonable strategy.

  12. Mitchell continued: “Did you know that the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talk to you one on one in a private setting and let you do the talking?” Ford said it made “a lot of sense.”

    Did Mitchell really have to explain this to a psychology professor????

    1. Sounds like a weird question for a rep for the Republicans to ask, seeing as that kind of investigation is the sort they’ve rejected.

      1. Rejected? It was Republicans who offered a closed session, right? Wasn’t it the Democratic Senators who insisted this had to be an open session, in order to increase the appearance that this woman was being persecuted?

        1. Yeah, it doesn’t take a political scientist to see the Reps treating the witness with kid gloves while taking the gloves up vis-a-vis the opposite party.

        2. Honestly I haven’t been following this all that closely because the truth of it doesn’t matter, so it’s possible I’m wrong.

          That said, my understanding was that the “closed session” offered was closed to the public, and would still be a circle of senators asking her questions with Kavanaugh in the room.

          The kind of one-on-one investigation that doesn’t involve senators grand-standing was never on the docket.

          1. That’s fair enough. The assumption is that in a closed session, without an audience, there would be no need for grandstanding. It probably would have happened anyway.

            They probably wouldn’t have followed the 5 minute alternating format in a closed session since there’d be less need for Democrats to get their remarks on the record, so it could have been a more formal interview. I don’t know if offers were made regarding other types of investigative interviews.

            It’s still true that there was insistence on the left that this happen in an open session. It allowed for more grandstanding and the opportunity to show photos of white Republican Senators grilling a potential victim of sexual assault.

          2. Grassley said they were willing to go to CA. Would that mean the entire committee, senate, or just the council?

            1. Senate Committee.

      2. Sounds like a weird question for a rep for the Republicans to ask, seeing as that kind of investigation is the sort they’ve rejected.

        THEY OFFERED THAT. REPEATEDLY.

        Her lawyers and the Dems (I repeat myself) said no.

        Are you fucking idiotic?

        1. Mostly not that invested in this.

          That said, please see my above response to A Thinking Mind regarding my understanding of what was offered. While disagreeing with me, they managed to avoid all caps and insults.

    2. No, she had to explain it to the audience.

      Did I say audience? That was disrespectful, it suggested that this was some kind of circus.

      Mitchell still hasn’t decided how she’s going to put this on her resume.

      1. No, she had to explain it to the audience.

        ^ This.

  13. “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now, basic memory functions,” Ford replied.

    “So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?” asked Feinstein. Ford replied, “Absolutely not.”

    Now I’m going to have to listen to her “eloquent” testimony on trauma and how it clouds memory.

  14. “Though Mitchell made no explicit arguments, her whole process today seemed designed to elicit support for an argument that Democrats and their pet lawyers had manipulated the Supreme Court confirmation process for their own political gain”

    That’s not an argument – it’s an established fact.

    1. No kidding. Does Elizebeth think they are not?

    2. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s an established fact, but I would say it’s an entirely credible accusation.

      1. What’s the spin zone answer for the flying thing?

      2. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s an established fact, but I would say it’s an entirely credible accusation.

        On its face even.

      3. Certainly more credible than the accusation itself.

  15. So we see why Ford, in addition to the green M in her dressing room, wanted the male Republican senators to question her instead of female counsel representing the Senate Republicans.

    Dreams of Anita Hill hearings danced through Ford’s head as she fantasized about some Republican *male* questioning her narrative, thus showing that the Republicans were waging a War on Women.

    So the Republicans showed they’re at least the “not as dumb as you think” party by hiring a female counsel and steering the questions toward the perfidy of the Democrats and away from holes in the “victim’s” testimony.

    1. Green M and Ms

    2. Think of all the lost fundraising opportunities! Think of all the lost opportunities for the swing senators to climb aboard the #MeToo bandwagon.

      The Republicans may be the Stupid Party, but they’re still the “minimum complement of functioning brain cells” party.

  16. It’s funny how we’ve ALL lost sight of the fact that no one can seem to oppose an appointee based entirely on their judicial views on the constitution, we now have to oppose them based on vague personal allegations. And those allegations seem to only come one way.

    I guess questioning a potential SCOTUS judge based on matters of law is hard.

    We’re a nation of Jr. High kids unfriending each other on SnapFace.

    1. You see it is all about “character”. You either have a good one or a bad one. The idea that people might not all be good or bad or that what are good character traits in one situation might be your doom in another is just not something our political and media class is capable of understanding. Every issue and every person is just an excuse for them to virtue signal about their moral superiority.

    2. The Dems knew they didn’t have the votes to win what they wanted – a vote for Roe v. Wade.

      So they shifted to finding points on which to attack the nominee as a rapist.

      It’s like the opponents of John Rutledge (1795) attacked his record on the Jay Treaty while also suggesting that he was too nuts to be on the Court.

    3. Yeah, the next time someone fucks their intern we should all calm the fuck down is what I say.

      1. Unless it was Clarence Thomas. Then, we… what’s the opposite of calming the fuck down?

        1. Losing your shit.

        2. Riling the fuck up. But please don’t do that. The fuck has high blood pressure, and it’s not healthy for it to get too excited. Let’s all work together to make the fuck feel relaxed.

  17. Kavanaugh is almost secondary now. The real purpose of this shit show is too terrify any potential future Trump nominee from accepting a nomination. If you think this was bad, wait until Ginsberg dies while Trump is still in the White House. The Democrats will have witnesses testifying that they saw the nominee at Auschwitz operating the gas chambers.

    1. Saying these chimpouts have a “real purpose” gives these people way too much credit.

    2. When Ginsberg dies they will nominate a woman. They will have to because any man nominated will be subjected to dozens or hell likely hundreds of completely false allegations he was a rapist and God knows what else.

      1. Ginsberg for Barrett would be a dream

        1. I’m sad Janice Rogers Brown will never be nominated.

  18. Holy shit. Kavanaugh is talking about his high school record and about being number 1 in his high school class.

    THIS is where we are in the nomination of Supreme Court nominees. Talking about his high school resume.

    1. both sides in football too! captain of hoops team! wtf. like phi delt rush instead of supreme court

      1. He ran track!

    2. To be fair, the Left made his high school years relelvant.

  19. Whether this was meant as a knock on Ford and/or her lawyers, the implication was clearly that Senate Republicans weren’t to blame for the day’s frustrations.

    How totally shameful. She RIDICULED the 5-increment hearing instead of a forensic interview. Said that’s what HER Prosecutors office would do — her website being the context. Even Fox Newss reports a debacle for Republicans! Chris Wallace, Britt Hume and Judge Nap.

    Did they also lose the Senate today?

    1. Shut up Hihn. Everyone knows who you are. You can’t hide the kind of crazy that you are. Just go away.

      1. Hihn – Ellis Wyatt = Sock Puppet

    2. So now fox news is a credible news site to you?

      1. So now fox news is a credible news site to you?

        No, dumbfuck moron.
        It’s a credible source to all the retards I’m ridiculing.
        Including your imbecilic question.
        WHOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

        Anything else?

        1. “” It’s a credible source to all the retards I’m ridiculing.””

          No. You’re claiming that even fox news is calling it a debacle and attempting to use that to give credence to the debacle claim.

          “”Including your imbecilic question.'”

          Stay classy

          1. It’s funny how that idiot thinks he is somehow intelligent. Maybe we’ll get lucky and he will die a screaming death. Possibly burning to death slowly, trapped in an auto wreck.

    3. 5 minutes question turns was the set up for the Waco hearings too.
      I suspect it was common format for other senate hearings.

      1. The five minute rule is just there to keep the politicians from grandstanding even more then they already do

  20. Whether this was meant as a knock on Ford and/or her lawyers, the implication was clearly that Senate Republicans weren’t to blame for the day’s frustrations.

    Were they?

    1. Totally,. Are you not aware who controls the Committee and its agenda, for this Kangaroo Court.

    2. Totally,. Are you not aware who controls the Committee and its agenda, for this Kangaroo Court.

  21. Kavanaugh just seems completely full of shit.

    1. He’s not coming off well in this. Democratic Senators are still coming off worse.

      This is a shitshow.

      1. Total shitshow. Kavanaugh and the women should be interrogated by a skeptical professional in a controlled setting in private and every witness should be examined and used in the questioning. This public airing is so clearly a whitewash. Mess it all up. Confuse things. Make it about emotion. It’s the Republican way. Complete fucking bullshit.

        1. This public airing is so clearly a whitewash. Mess it all up. Confuse things. Make it about emotion. It’s the Republican way.

          The Democrats pulled the 11th hour stunt, genius.

          1. Yeah, right. Next you’re going to say it was the Republicans who offered that she be interrogated by a skeptical professional in a controlled setting in private.

            1. The witnesses should examined in a deposition setting. All of them.

              1. Fucking Republicans.

              2. Nope. Straight vote friday instead.

          2. There is no 11th hour. The Republicans control the clock.

            1. lol

            2. Seriously. We solve murders 30 years after the event. You’re telling me we can’t get a few more details about this case? Bullshit.

              1. “You’re telling me we can’t get a few more details about this case?”

                Blasey Ford is free to file a police report in MD at any time.

            3. Voters decided that Republicans control the clock.

        2. All those Senators need to be put in a controlled setting, preferably with loaded weapons.

    2. That is some compelling logic and reasoning there

      1. This is a bunch of senators deciding to vote on whether or not Kavanaugh should be put on the SCOTUS.

        Logic and reasoning was never part of this.

        1. If it was, this nonsense would have been dismissed out of hand.

          1. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

            Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

            Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

            But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

            1. “Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!””

              But you don’t believe Fox news.

    3. Ford was completely full of shit.

    4. “Kavanaugh just seems completely full of shit.”

      No AmSoc, he doesn’t. Now go pay your mortgage you fucking deadbeat commie piece of shit.

  22. Holy shit, fuck Dick Durbin.

    “If you have nothing to hide, you should welcome a investigation. Are you afraid of an investigation?”

    1. “You’re a politician from Illinois, so the question is whether *you* could endure an investigation?”

      1. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

        1. Are you experienced?

          Have you ever been experienced?

          1. I have.

            1. not necessarily stoned, but beautiful.

          2. People who want to see slipperiness instead of a dork befuddled by the ruthless behavior of the Democrats, will see that. But I’m beginnning to think that John is right that others favorable to him will see what they want as well. It may be all confirmation. He may yet survive this.

            1. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

              Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

              Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

              But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

            2. Kavanauagh will be confirmed.

              1. I thought it likely Flake would vote no to screw Trump, but Graham’s outburst was pitch perfect to appeal to Never Trumpers muh principles. They’re all rallying around Truth, Justice, and the American way right now.

                1. Now if only we could take all the congressional democrats and put them in GitMo.

  23. “””So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?” asked Feinstein. Ford replied, “Absolutely not.”

    But that didn’t stop Republicans like Graham from perpetuating the mistaken identity theory afterward.”””

    Why would it, or should it? in mistaken identity cases, the person often feels like they are absolutely not mistaken.

    1. If she wasn’t sure, it wouldn’t be mistaken identity. Elizabeth seems angry the Republicans didn’t just take her at her word. That is really the heart of the matter.

      1. I don’t think it was mistaken identity. I think she made the entire story up. “By any means necessary”, isn’t that the College Professor mantra?

        1. I think she totally made it up.

          1. I think she had an actual experience and used that as a jumping off point so that her story would sound believable just change the name and you can carry on a lie as long as needed with few if any mistakes and the mistakes made are full honest mistakes relating to the original story as well.

            1. I think she had an actual experience that was a minor thing and may have involved inappropriate groping, may even have been quickly stopped when it was apparent she was uninterested. It was so minor she forgot about it and then “recalled” it later, and it became heavily embellished in the recalling.

              That’s what I’m led to believe, which is why she wouldn’t remember a date or location of the event-it was a minor thing that got embellished in her memories. I could be very wrong, though.

              1. My cousin was violated when she was 5 years old. She still remembers the two males in the room and what happened. Things like that imprint and don’t have to be found with “remote memory”. Was she hypnotized to find it? I think I recall an instance where a young woman accused her father of molestation, to later recant the story. The entire concept of her not remembering everything in great detail is really unbelievable. Having been questioned about the disappearance of a young lady, who told her parents she was dating me, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It was not the truth. But, it still has an effect. She showed up, unharmed. That was twenty years ago! Time to put the progressives in their place!

              2. Ford comes off as a fairly stupid person. Easily malleable by her progtard masters.

        2. A professional woman who discipline includes the study of memory and trauma. She has probably reviewed hundreds of case studies on sexual trauma victims. She is literally a person you would go to for an opinion on whether a particular accusation was credible based on what the victim remembered years later.

          I don’t think it is mistaken identity either. Kav would have to be the unluckiest bumbling-wanna-be-rapist-with-a-partner in history. I think she volunteered to play the victim.

          1. She probably had the idea that if Kavanaugh was confirmed, the SCOTUS would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade, so she had to sacrifice herself for the greater good.

            1. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

              Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

              Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

              But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

            2. Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

        3. Until the obvious lie about the infallibility of traumatic memories, I would been willing to something happened. Maybe even Kavanaugh, but more likely someone else.

          But she lied through her teeth, about her own field of expertise, to make her accusation more credible.

          Not what you do if you’re wronged and looking for justice. It’s what you do if you’re making shit up, and don’t mind making up more.

          The only possible corroboration to the story were the people she named, all who denied ever witnessing an event fitting the parameters given.

    2. Crystal Mangum positively identified several guys who did not rape her, including one who was DEFINITIVELY not there.

    3. It’s not like thing like DNA have ever proven the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

      But, remembering that would require some semblance of skepticism.

      And we can’t have any of that when blocking a SCOTUS pick is on the line.

  24. Fuck me, I’m agreeing with Lindsey Graham. What is going on with DC?

    1. Please! Little Lindsey was putting on a show for Daddy Trump. You mfers are blind.

      1. Commit suicide you fucking traitor.

    2. Mr Graham is changing my opinion of him!

      1. The asshole is lobbying to become Attorney General. The kind Trump wants. A dutiful assassin.

        1. Maga

        2. We could use one of those to lock up the Coup.

          Kavanaugh on the Court will give a solid constitutionalist majority. Just in time to lock up the Deep State.

          Need an AG to get busy on it.

          So much winning!

  25. If anything is more clear after today’s Senate testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, it’s that Republicans are using this to lay the groundwork for future attacks against Democratic leaders, and not against Ford.

    Ford is a pawn to the Dems. Why would they go after her when the Dems are the ones behind all of it, including paying for the lame-as-shit polygraph?

    Though Mitchell made no explicit arguments, her whole process today seemed designed to elicit support for an argument that Democrats and their pet lawyers had manipulated the Supreme Court confirmation process for their own political gain.

    1. Ugh this site.

      Sitting on the accusation since July showed their manipulation.

      1. Timeline and end game says all.

    2. “She made Democrats look bad” doesn’t have the same legs as “she attacked and re-traumatized a rape victim!”

  26. It’s maddeningly disingenuous and patronizing, of course?oh, sure we take you seriously, we just don’t believe you’re capable of getting the most crucial and basic part of your own story right!

    Would you rather they pick apart how she couldn’t remember key stuff from AUGUST of this year, nor a date or place for the “crime”? You’d say they were being “mean”.

  27. Everyone knows Democrats are only interested in power. Republicans are interested in principle. Another thing that came out today: It’s totally apparent that Republicans are the party of the little guy? like Brett Kavanaugh? and not the party of California elitist professors like Ford. Pee-one in Nebraska know what side they’re on.

    1. It’s totally apparent that Republicans are the party of the little guy? like Brett Kavanaugh? and not the party of California elitist professors like Ford.

      You understand that Ford and Kavanaugh grew up in the same neighborhood, were members of the same country club, and both went through the exact same sort of elitist preparatory institutions, right?

      Because I would hate to think knee-jerk partisanship was interfering with your ability to see things clearly.

      1. Kavanaugh is much more “elite” than Ford.

        1. How so? Legitimately asking – I didn’t know anything about either one until recently, but I don’t see any significant differences in their backgrounds.

          1. Kananaugh is the son of prominent parents, went to a big time 30K a year prep school in Washington, went to Yale undergrad and then Yale Law School, clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, then became a big wig in the Bush II DOJ and was appointed to a federal appealate judgeship with an eye to him one day being on the Supreme Court, which he is now nominated. You can’t get much more elite than that. Ford is a run of the mill PHD psychologists working at a regional college in California. Hell, most of people on this board are more elite than her.

            1. I suppose if you’re talking outcome, sure, with the caveat that it’s weird to describe Stanford as “a regional college in California.”

              But outcome aside, they both started in essentially the same place, no? I mean, sure, he did more with it, and maybe had marginally better family connections, but to portray this as some “east-coast elite upper-class persecuting poor marginalized west-coast non-elite” ignores that she, too, is from the exact same east-coast elite upper class as Kavanaugh, right down to the same damn country club when they were teenagers.

              1. She’s a professor at Palo Alto University. Not Stanford.

                1. She’s also pretty stupid.

            2. And I would say that nothing good has ever come out of Georgetown Prep, with the possible exception of Neil Gorsuch (who associates of mine have said is really a great guy).

          2. The truly elite stay in DC while the wanabees move to Cali and claim to be elites from DC.

            1. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

              Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

              Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

              But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

              1. He drinks very little compared to the average democrat traitor. Now go commit suicide you fucking moron.

            2. Announcing kavanaugh, the new SCOTUS justice.

  28. “If you want to talk about flatulence at age 16 on a yearbook page in this hearing, I’m game.”

    Shots fired.

    1. “what does ralph refer to” … in the fucking congressional record.

      1. Pretty sure it’s spelled ralf.

        1. ex.1 why not stenographer

        2. But it rhymes with “strafe.”

          1. dude in no universe is everything after the “a” silent in Ralph

  29. Whether this was meant as a knock on Ford and/or her lawyers, the implication was clearly that Senate Republicans weren’t to blame for the day’s frustrations.

    Which, mind you, is true. They very much offered to have staff fly to her.

  30. The hypothesis that it could be a case of mistaken identity should not have been rejected initially. Consider the rape cases of Steven Avery and Ronald Cotton, each of which were perpetrated by someone who resembled the wrongly convicted man. It is probably not a tenable hypothesis in this instance, because Dr. Ford is not arguing that this is a case of a complete stranger assaulting her.

  31. “It’s maddeningly disingenuous and patronizing, of course?”

    Surely you’re referring to what passes for rational thinking in a reason writer with that statement. Precisely how is it disingenuous to assert that she’s mistaken? You yourself note that two men have come forward and one has given written testimony to the committee. Whatbis disingenuous is to suddenly forgot how to use the word ‘credible.’

    1. I’m too cynical to buy that 11th hour confession of 2 men that they assaulted CBF 36 years ago. Just I’m too cynical to buy Dr. Ford’s 11th hour accusation of an assault that happened in a 2 month timespan somewhere.

      1. That is not cynicism. It is the proper and healthy level of skepticism when your brain is not addled by partisanship.

      2. And yet it’s at least as credible as the other accusations. In fact more so because it’s a statement against interest. It’s fine to be skeptical of both claims. The problem is that progressives in libertarian clothing who write here aren’t. They are incredibly impressed by accusations with no substantiation or even evidence against it such as every named witness disputing the account. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

        1. Show me some corroborating evidence and I’ll try to make up my mind. Give me nothing to corroborate, and there’s literally nothing to evaluate so no reason to consider it.

          Even if these men are telling the truth that they assaulted her at a party in 1982, it can’t exonerate Kavanaugh. There’s no reason she couldn’t have been sexually assaulted twice at a party, or at two different parties. That’s the whole problem-it’s 36 years later and there’s no physical evidence, and no way to even corroborate it because she can’t tell us the date or the location of the party.

          1. Wait a minute. We don’t need evidence. All we need is credibility. If you demand evidence then you have to admit that Ford’s accusation is meaningless.

            Or there’s a third way: You apply a standard of “credibility” to people you like who will give you the outcomes you want, and you apply a different standard to people you don’t like and will not give you the outcomes you want. We call this the Reason Standard.

          2. She hasn’t said she was assaulted twice, so I don’t think
            you are living up to your moniker here.

            1. We can’t decide that something is false based on what someone did not say. That’s a ridiculous standard.

              It wouldn’t even make her a liar, according to statements I’ve seen. Her only assertion is that she was once sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. She’s never said that she was never assaulted by anyone else in her entire life.

              1. So which is more plausible: two separate incidents which she did not report from the same time frame, or one incident which she’s confused about? This might help.

                1. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

                  Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

                  Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

                  But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

            2. Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

    2. Can someone clarify something? Did the two men that came forward to say
      they were the one(s) that may have been involved in the Ford “assault” case
      come forward together or at least in the sense that it was the two of them
      rather than Kavanaugh and Judge or are these just two separate guys
      that each say they might have been the “Kavanaugh” in the scenario?

  32. How customary is it in U. S. Senate, or the U. S. judicial system in general, for some people to come forward and say, “so-and-so is getting a bad rap, *I’m* the real rapist!”

    We’re told the SoL hasn’t even expired.

    1. if they can prove it was just horseplay that she voluntarily was a part of but got scared then maybe no crime no SoL.?

      1. Prove is not the right word for something 36 years ago
        based on memory alone.

        1. Plus, pretty sure there is a statute of limitations
          on what would essentially be attempted sexual
          assault or 2nd degree sexual assault. So, it’s
          not a crime no matter what IMO.

  33. Kavanaugh doesn’t seem to be providing good answers to the Democrats who are baiting him with that FBI thing. Of course I guess he can’t just come out and say, they’re playing games and playing for time, and I don’t deserve that because they shouldn’t be rewarded.

    1. EVERY Democrat is asking the same thing. Daring him to ask for the FBI investigation.

      1. They’re looking for a “gotcha” moment they can put on TV or tweet about.

        “Kavanaugh doesn’t want the FBI to investigate-he’s afraid of what they might find!”

        “Kavanaugh says he wants an investigation-we can’t vote before the midterms!”

    2. He should have said what all Republicans should say – we’re done with the witch hunts.

  34. During the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearing I think there was an honest effort being made by most of the committee to find the truth. Democrats were uncomfortable going after a black man and Republicans did not think this was their only shot. You can argue how you want about the way they went about it, but Biden and Spector would not have been the villains of the narrative if it had been otherwise.

    This hearing there is no way the Democrats on the committee want to get to the bottom of this, and the Republicans are convinced it is a plot against them. This is favorable to the Republicans since they are at least looking for a reason to cut bait and might be open to new information, but only if it confirms the charges. They are afraid of actually confronting the witness since they see no upside. So the reason nobody is attacking the witness is that they don’t care what she says.

    That is not an improvement. How you dispute a sex charge without attacking the sole witnesses credibility is hard to imagine, even if you had a time viewer so you could go and check up on it would be attacking the witnesses credibility.

  35. The way the questioning was set up?five minutes from the conservative side, five minutes from the liberal side, repeat?turned into a series of grandstanding speeches from Democrats like Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris interspersed with meticulous and detailed questions from Mitchell

    Unlike almost any other congressional hearing.

  36. “May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?,” Mitchell asked.

    “By airplane,” Ford responded.

    Peace out.

    1. “By train,” Ford responded.

      [Nervous laughter]

      1. Not much chance of that, they already knew she routinely flies. That “I’m afraid to fly since the attack” line was transparent bullshit.

      2. Cute.

  37. So Brett Kavanaugh might have been a sloppy drunk as a college freshman. Dear God we have to keep this man from the Supreme Court.

    1. “Intercepted!”

      1. That was one of the ugliest character flaws ever revealed of a politician!

    2. Then that’s makes him a liar as well.

      1. No it doesn’t. Maybe he doesn’t consider himself to be a sloppy drunk. That is a totally subective description.

        1. I’ve known actual alcoholics, and spoilers none of them considered themselves an alcoholic. So yes, it’s completely subjective. Ask a puritan or devout Muslim what they think about someone that has a beer every night after work, for example.

      2. His response that such statements mischaracterize him might be a lie. And if he might lie about that, who knows what else he might be lying about. What is he hiding and why is he afraid of the truth?

  38. This is like a trainwreck and I can’t stop watching.

  39. The new media line, or rather two: First, that if any woman went in there and started screaming like that she’d be dragged out there in a straitjacket; Second, that his screaming shows the kind of anger that comports with the stories of him being a mean drunk, that he seems to be the kind of male that might be violent with women.

    They seem to show no awareness of the bizarre juxtaposition of these two points. Or maybe they do, and they know they can get away with it.

    1. “Second, that his screaming shows the kind of anger that comports with the stories of him being a mean drunk, ”

      Also comports with his being seriously pissed off at having his reputation deliberately smeared for political purposes.

    2. Of course if Kavanaugh had calmly explained his case, the media line would have been “look how cold and calculating he is”. It is so transparently partisan and idiotic.

    3. he may as well scream at them, whats there to loose, they won’t vote for him anyway may as well show he is a passionate man whose life and family has been dragged through the mud

  40. How dare the Republicans being in a woman to question her! Are they implying that Dr. Ford is not strong enough to handle questions from a man?

    Sexist pigs!

    1. This was a woman who was gang raped at parties, repeatedly. Do you know how much courage it took to keep showing up to those parties?

      1. You’re conflating Ford with Swetnick. Swetnick is the one who made the gang-rape claim.

        1. Both have the same amount of substantiation, so what difference does it make? It’s not as if the woke millenial squad is interested in even pretending anymore.

          1. Both have the same amount of substantiation, so what difference does it make?

            The gang rape allegation is so outlandish that a lot of people on the left thought it was a false flag done to discredit the whole thing.

            Ford’s accusation falls within current discussions of sexual assault “gray areas,” where what most people would regard as “behaving like a teenage male” rises to the level of “sexual assault,” which I suspect is where her sense of sincerity comes from.

            The gang rape story is just UVA-level silly.

            1. The gang rape story is just UVA-level silly.

              Not according to Robby.

              1. To be sure.

        2. Sorry, it’s hard to keep all the allegations straight.

        3. So wait a second, the woman who wasn’t gang raped has PTSD so badly they need to put in a needless extra front door on the house?

          1. I’m assuming that she only flies on planes with extra front doors too.

          2. So wait a second, the woman who wasn’t gang raped has PTSD so badly they need to put in a needless extra front door on the house?

            Well . . . yeah. But they were able to get some extra income by renting out that other part of the house that they had to separate off for totally psychological reasons.

            1. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

              Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

              Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

              But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

              1. Maga

              2. Hihn is losing his edge. Just repeats the same comment a dozen times.

                He should date RBG. They could nap together.

    2. “being in a woman?” That would have been a magnificent hearing. Some R senator railing a woman while that woman questions Ford…

  41. ENB’s assessment wasn’t entirely awful.

    Looking forward to Reason’s assessment of Kavanaugh’s appearance.

  42. Ha! Those–including John–who thought Sasse was going to be a squish have another thing coming! He was almost as righteous as Graham!

    I can’t see this through a woman’s eyes; maybe they will react differently. But I think Kavanaugh may have done well enough to confirm his prior supporters. This means Shelley Moore Capito, an alumna of Ford’s prep school and WV Republican not up for reelection, if women are not thinking so differently from me, will not defect as some have been talking. I think Collins will. Flake cannot in good conscience but who knows. Murkowski, who knows.

    Collins will give the Red Democrats some cover, but not enough to save Manchin because WV will be FURIOUS if he is the deciding vote. Ditto the Indiana guy. I hear Tester was already leaning No. If they end up needing multiple Democrats each may have a bit of cover so they may all get together to agree to vote No.

    1. That does not surprise me now that I think about it a bit more. Sasse is a total elitist and is no doubt pissed off the Democrats are pulling this shit on a member of his class. Being slandered as a rapist is something in Sasse’s mind that happens to deplorables not Yale men who worked for DOJ and were appointed to the federal bench

    2. I’m a woman and found Kavanaugh convincing.

      As a mother of two boys, I’ve been watching the Title IX bull and trying to figure out how to convince them girls have cooties and there is no cure (oldest is 9), but unfounded allegations where you can’t even place the two in the same room ups the game.

      Not ok with that standard.

  43. “It’s maddeningly disingenuous and patronizing, of course?oh, sure we take you seriously, we just don’t believe you’re capable of getting the most crucial and basic part of your own story right!”

    Do you mean details like where or when? What’s maddeningly disingenuous and patronizing is journolists calling commonly known facts crazy conspiracy theories. What’s the accuracy of eye witness testimony again? (low) how well does that age over 36 years? (not very well) Can memories be altered by later events (yes).

    Most of the people covering this mess (and everyone at Reason) have all of the credibility of the National Enquirer…wait, they broke the John Edwards story so that bar is too high.

  44. Since again the last splinter of the mask is off, I am so glad that the “comity” of the process is out the window. Great call–I guess the only call really–on Kavanaugh’s part to pull the mask off the process and end the farce of politeness and the pretense that he’s part of anything apolitical or even legitimate.

  45. The new line is that it was Kavanaugh, with his violent toxic rant and aggression toward the questioners, has been what has destroyed the process and turned it into something partisan and ugly and farcical.

    This will allow Senators–including a Flake or something–to get up and declare that by voting against Kavanaugh, he will be casting a vote against the new farcical, hyperpartisan process.

    The Left is also likely to overreach, once again by failing to see out of its bubble. They are overreaching by linking Kavanaugh’s toxic masculine behavior to Trump’s, because in their foolish myopia they think that is the kiss of death. This will spook the red state Democrats, whom they desperately need to provide cover for. They should be doing everything they can to put a wedge between suppport for Trump and Kavanaugh.

    1. The are pretty desperate. Saying a guy with his record is some violent drunk is not going to fly with many people outside the media bubble. Notice how further away they are getting from the original allegations.

  46. Both sides agree that Ford’s memory is not reliable. They differ in how unreliable they think it is.

    We have no way of knowing what happened. I think that Ford genuinely remembers being attacked by Kavanaugh, but that doesn’t mean she was. E.g., she could have been attacked but not known who did it, later suspected it was Kavanaugh, and over time come to “remember” it was him. This happens with eyewitness testimony over the course of days, let alone decades.

    1. I’ve always assumed that she spent a lot of time at a lot of parties and was very likely fondled numerous times.

      1. I believe she said that this incident messed her up
        for 3-4 years after, i.e. her high school years. So,
        I would assume she did not attend many parties
        after this and was more careful.

        Then she tried to forget about it, repressed it
        and then it resurfaced in therapy in 2012.

        Or at least that is my recollection of what I have
        read she is reported as saying.

    2. Any woman who is traumatized by a boy trying to skip 2nd base for 35 years is nuts. There’s not much point in speculating exactly which kind of nuts she is.

      1. A 15 year old held down with a hand over the mouth
        could (and should?) have been legitimately scared.

        It may have just been horseplay by drunk boys but
        I have never doubted that this incident could have
        happened and strongly affected her. Just not so
        clear if she did not write it down or tell anyone it
        was Brett Cavanaugh for 30 years whether she
        can really be sure it was.

        1. A 15 year old held down with a hand over the mouth
          could (and should?) have been legitimately scared.

          And once it was clear that he wasn’t intent on raping her, that would’ve been the end of that. Unless she’s nuts.

          1. Ford almost raped me with her testimony.

      2. I have two possibilities.

        One, she was a total party girl, who got around more than a fair bit.

        The other option is that she’s somewhere on the spectrum (that adolescent behavior during the hearing may have been an act, or it may be a long standing habit when under stress), and was socially awkward trying to fit in around a bunch of toney hard partying private school kids.

        Either way she ended up in enough questionable circumstances to leave a mark. Maybe in some she was purely the victim, maybe others she felt like she was partly to blame. This leads to tremendous guilt, often repressed. The Kavanaugh incident isn’t entirely factual because its mostly an amalgam of multiple events condensed down for her own psychological needs, but also as a method for conveying trauma in a concise way during the marriage counselling.

        The name got put to the ‘event’ for any number of reasons – but mostly because it came up at the right moments, and jived with her political and social preferences.

  47. She lied about her airplane issue. Clearly “worth hearing”.

  48. Cory Booker like most Dems overreaching. Doing everything but, “Have you stopped raping women yes or no? It’s a simple question, Judge Kavanaugh. Why won’t you answer.” It’s too obvious. Dial it back guys!

    Hawaiian lady a surprising snooze and disappointment. But Booker may be the most over the top. He’s like a caricature of a hack. Fuck confirmation bias in this case; you’d have to be his mom to be impressed by him at this point.

    1. I’m not very familiar with him, to be honest. I’m trying to assess how big of a buffoon he is. I think he had a kinda clever tactic in trying to force Kavanaugh to testify whether or not he believes Dr. Ford is a political operative.

      The problem is that it’s idiotic to expect him to answer that when he’s not even in a position where he can confront her, or where anyone is willing to effectively cross-examine her.

      1. I think he’s probably pretty smart, but I don’t think he executed the tactic you describe as well as he could. The way you do it is by acting civil and sweet–it’s not that hard–and twisting the knife with the other hand. Instead Booker sat there shouting “stopped beating your wife” questions at the poor man, and haranguing and badgering him like that.

        I think Booker is no dummy. But I think when the priorities of fucking Kavanaugh and producing fundraising clips for his presidential run diverge, he very decidedly chooses the latter.

      2. He may end up our next President so you may
        become very familiar with him. Just being pessimistic.

  49. Sweet Jesus, we are actually surprised to hear that high school and college students drink a lot? This is now sign of a character flaw?

    And Democrats are suddenly opposed to wealthy kids from privilege backgrounds who attended prep schools? Seriously?

  50. I refuse to say that Kavanaugh, for better or for worse, truly took the gloves off in this hearing. Blumenthal sat there and lectured him about credibility, honesty, and ethics; and Kavanaugh didn’t come back with a single quip involving Vietnam.

    1. God he should have. I would have. Too bad Kavanaugh isn’t a veteran. An actual veteran going after that dirtbag would have been awesome.

  51. Flake is up!

    1. Said nothing during his time, but made a brave stand for decency itself. Very moving.

      1. I will try to recover from this shock. But I am calling him as a very brave, brave, principled No. The kind of No you don’t see in Washington DC these days anymore.

        1. Then he’s neither brave nor principled. And that’s the kind that you see far too much of in DC.

        2. He already announced his retirement. That rules out the adjective “brave”, where politics are concerned. 🙂

      2. sarcasm?

        1. I don’t do the “/s”s but I’m surprised it wasn’t obvious.

          1. Gillespie & co. killed my sarcasm detector.

  52. Fuck you Dianne Feinstein, you worthless piece of shit.

    Fuck you and fuck all your useless and fucking pathetic supporters.

    Fuck all of you…………..

    1. Her career should have ended when Jim Jones flamed out and murdered his cult followers and Leo Ryan.

      -jcr

  53. we just don’t believe you’re capable of getting the most crucial and basic part of your own story right!

    Since everyone she named as witnesses said it didn’t happen, that’s the most charitable take possible.

    -jcr

  54. The Judge’s inability to answer the FBI question makes me call his competence to sit as an SC Justice into question. Being knowledgeable about and able to articulate the importance of procedure would be a pretty important piece of the job. He (and the Republican Senators) should have had a polished answer ready (this is off the top of my head): “No, I will not support an FBI investigation because of the precedent it would set. In the law there are (at least) two rules to protect the process from bad faith sandbagging to gain an advantage: 1) waiver – if an issue is not raised in a timely manner, merit is not a consideration, it is barred; 2) induced or invited error – if a party causes an error, it cannot later complain about it happening. I reject the FBI investigation because it would damage the system by inviting bad faith sandbagging of allegations for every future nominee, and the country will be subjected to the turmoil we have seen in the last two weeks if we set that precedent now. The FBI investigation should have been conducted when the ranking member became aware of the allegation. Doing one now would only encourage failures such as hers in the future.”

    1. Explaining Senate procedure to the Senate isn’t likely to help your case.

      1. I think reading a prepared statement along these lines every time the FBI was mentioned could have been good theater, at least.

        Dodging the question, as he did, actively hurt his case. He should have been ready with something.

        1. I really doubt that hurt his case among Senators.

          1. True. His audience was Collins, Murkowski, and Flake. I’d hate to think they made up their minds b/c he didn’t ask Trump for an FBI investigation.

            Still, he should have acted like he belonged and given a hardcore judicial answer to shut that line of questioning down.

  55. The hero, IMHO, was Lindsey Graham. His comments were so, so on point.

    I never knew what to think of Senator Graham and my earlier impressions were that he was somewhere just east of John McCain in his political beliefs.

    But, his comments today during his meltdown between hearings were excellent.

  56. The hero, IMHO, was Lindsey Graham. His comments were so, so on point.

    I never knew what to think of Senator Graham and my earlier impressions were that he was somewhere just east of John McCain in his political beliefs.

    But, his comments today during his meltdown between hearings were excellent.

    1. The hero was kavanaugh standing up to defamatory claims which he could not reasonably be asked to defend but he did.

      1. Except you’d expect Kavanaugh to defend himself. And well.

        Lindsey doing something useful was entirely out of left field. I give the gold star to the guy who rose above himself.

  57. I have to disagree with one major point: the right story/wrong man narrative ISN’T patronizing. Human memory is fallible enough for this type of mistaken identity to occur, and the fact that Christine Blasey Ford is a human does not make her stupid.

    Google “mistaken identification rape exoneration” and you’ll find numerous cases that illustrate the point. Look up Penny Beerntsen; she was a rape victim that picked out the wrong man with 100% certainty. Look up Jennifer Thompson-Cannino, who also picked the wrong man out of a lineup, and check out the book she wrote with the man she mistakenly identified as her attacker.

    The American Psychological Association has more information on how these vividly wrong memories are formed here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/201…..ntity.aspx I’ll note that this particular case has lots and lots of features that make it ripe for this type of misidentification.

  58. Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page’s book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

    Even Rachel Mitchell — the GOP’s designated questioner — RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

    But Trump’s bobbleheads are nodding.

    1. Ellis Wyatt – Hihn = Sock Puppet

  59. Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh!

    1. So much winning!

  60. “How are you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh]?” Feinstein asked Ford at one point.
    “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now, basic memory functions,” Ford replied.
    “So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?” asked Feinstein. Ford replied, “Absolutely not.”

    This was an absolute lie.

    A psychology prof cannot be ignorant of the research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, of a traumatic event, from decades ago, that hadn’t been discussed with anyone for 3 decades.

  61. “To go tough on a woman recounting an assault on national television would play badly with audiences far beyond the #BelieveAllWomen crowd. ”

    And this is a MAJOR problem. It is a simple fact that tons of people make false accusations of all kinds against people all the time. The fact that they claim a sob story crime where any normal person would feel bad for them, versus something less emotional like they damaged your property, is irrelevant.

    This isn’t a criminal case, or I would be super up in arms… But even in a situation like this, the person should have to stand up to scrutiny… ESPECIALLY when they have already damaged their own credibility with so many weird things and inconsistencies.

    It ALWAYS hurts to be the victim of a serious crime, but that doesn’t mean people don’t need to man up and provide real evidence, real justifications, defend holes in their statements, etc. If we allow that kind of BS to stand we might as well just believe every accusation by default. Coddling people, especially women, needs to fucking stop. Some things are more important than being “sensitive” and society at large needs to appreciate this, and accept that sometimes it will be tough on individuals.

  62. “It’s maddeningly disingenuous and patronizing, of course?oh, sure we take you seriously, we just don’t believe you’re capable of getting the most crucial and basic part of your own story right! But Senate Democrats taking this opportunity to prostate themselves on the belief altar was its own form of disingenuous and patronizing, too.”

    I thought the “I don’t remember if I had the polygraph the same day or day after my grandmother’s funeral last month” thing kind of reinforced the fact that memory can be incredibly inconsistent, despite anyone’s claims to the contrary.

    The Reps seemed to have, maybe, threaded the needle on this one, but the votes aren’t in yet. If he does get confirmed, Kavanaugh owes Senator Graham (can’t believe that one!) a really nice gift.

  63. “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now, basic memory functions,” Ford replied.

    As a psychologist, and not a neurologist, she appears to have no real understanding of how memory actually works. Or how human perception works. Or how easy it is to alter or manipulate memories. Or how ridiculous it is to claim some sort of infallible “basic memory function”.

    Or she does understand and is just straight up lying, like with the rest of her story.

    1. Do we believe a woman with two Masters degrees and a PhD in psychology? And literally hundreds of other abuse victims. Or an uneducated partisan hack,.

      Name one lie. (smirk)

  64. I watched the majority of the hearing (Thursday) and thought the Democrats were uncivilized, rude, and unprofessional for the most part. I thought Sen. Graham was spot on. This article seemed quite left-biased to me, and I am NOT a Republican, I am a Libertarian and have been since the early eighties. I thought Judge Kavanaugh was rudely and viciously disemboweled in ways that would never have been tolerated in a court of law. Ironic.

  65. It’s over Trumpsters. Deal with it. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating the same two lies..

    1) He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check my sources. If recent history on this topic is a guide, this will now be followed by the typical raging hatred and personal attacks by Trump’s loyal cyber-bullies NEVER any SUPPORTED challenge to the known facts.

    Because: Left – Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

  66. Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

    This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh’s high school was Jesuit)
    To this, add the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh’s own alma mater,

    The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

    It’s quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New “witnesses” are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

    At this moment, he’s likely to be gone, long before the FBI finishes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.