Judicial Nominations

Politico Symposium on the Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Accusation Hearing

The symposium includes contributions by various legal commentators, including Bruce Ackerman, Mari Matsuda, Deborah Rhode, and myself.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Earlier today, Politico organized an insta-symposium on the Kavanaugh-Ford sexual assault hearing. Participants included a variety of legal scholars and commentators with widely divergent views, including Bruce Ackerman, Mari Matsuda, Deborah Rhode, Sai Prakash, Ilya Shapiro, and myself. Participants on both sides made good points. I fear, however, that symposium very much reflects the sort of ideological and partisan polarization that I decried in my contribution to it, and also in this post. Here's an excerpt from my Politico piece:

I thought Christine Blasey Ford was credible. It is hard to deny she genuinely believes that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her…..

Kavanaugh's anger and belligerence struck me as less persuasive than Ford's calmer demeanor. Some of his insinuations of being a victim of a left-wing conspiracy (motivated by "revenge for the Clintons," among other things) seem excessive and inappropriate for a Supreme Court nominee… That said, it is not surprising that a man who is falsely accused (or believes himself to be) would feel great anger, and might engage in rhetorical excesses that would not occur at other times….

More generally, we should be wary of judging the witnesses based on our subjective impressions of demeanor. Studies show that most people are not as good at detecting liars as they think they are. And we also should not dismiss the possibility that one or both witnesses' recollections of long-ago events could be seriously inaccurate even if they genuinely believe they are telling the truth.

Our judgment may be even more flawed in a case where it is likely to be compromised by ideological and partisan bias. One of the most striking aspects of commentators' reactions to yesterday's hearing (and the sexual assault accusations more generally) is the extremely high correlation between what people think of the allegations and whether they believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed aside from them. Liberals who opposed to Kavanaugh before the accusations overwhelmingly believe they are both accurate and disqualifying. Most conservatives who like Kavanaugh's jurisprudence believe that the accusations are false, or at least insufficiently proven to warrant rejection of the nomination. As a matter of logic, it should be possible to simultaneously believe that Kavanaugh is a great jurist, yet also likely guilty of sexual assault, or, conversely, that his jurisprudence is badly flawed, yet Ford's accusations are insufficiently proven to be disqualifying. The fact that these two positions have so few adherents is a strong sign that reactions to the accusations and hearing are heavily influenced by "motivated reasoning"—the tendency to interpret evidence in accordance with political and other preconceptions….

What can be done to improve the nomination process? I am not sure very much can. Most of the flaws in it are manifestations of the deep polarization and partisan hostility that have infected so many other political institutions. The system is already very effective at screening applicants for professional qualifications, and for potential flaws in their background that the FBI can identify and investigate in advance. On the other hand, the system is clearly terrible at handling accusations that arise relatively late in the process…

Note: The part of my contribution that criticizes the GOP's refusal to allow a more thorough investigation was written before The Republican leadership gave in to Sen. Jeff Flake's demand to delay the final Senate floor vote until the FBI is able to conduct an investigation for a week. It is not yet clear to me whether the time and scope of the investigation will be broad enough. But this is at the very least a step in the right direction.

NEXT: Here's What Congress Was Doing While You Were Watching the Kavanaugh Circus

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. Hi Ilya,

    What about the fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath about several “small” things…like claiming, “Judge–Have you boofed yet?” meant, “Judge–Have you farted yet?”

    Do you or any of you colleagues think it’s OK to confirm a nominee for the Supreme Court if the nominee lies under oath about “little things” like that?

    1. Slang is an amazing facet of dialect. I know many people in the Twitterverse and Googlesphere have been up in arms about what they believe is a lie after checking Urban Dictionary. Apparently, they failed to check with definitions #31, #44, #49, #87, #90, #91, and #100 of “boof” or with the entries on “boofah,” “boofa,” or “boofed it.” All of those definitions were added years ago. People have been using “boof” to mean flatulence for a long time.

      1. He lied. I am from those years more or less. It didn’t mean that. Nobody meant that, and it doesn’t make sense in context.

        He knew what Ralphing was. He knew what boofing was. He probably knows what cop a Louie was. As opposed to cop a Ralph, no relation to Ralphing.

        1. It could have meant anything to anyone at anytime. Definition 1C of slang in the Oxford English Dictionary (sign up for a subscription if you want to verify that I’m accurately quoting the definition) is:

          Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense.

          Unless you were familiar with Kavanaugh and Judge when they were at Georgetown Prep, you don’t know what they were referring to. I’ll also remind you that, instead of accepting Kavanaugh’s word that he referred to flatulence (which many people agree could have been possible), you are choosing to accept the most insidious option: that he lied under oath because it really meant X.

      2. “People have been using “boof” to mean flatulence for a long time.”

        Yes, but what teenager, in a yearbook post where he also claimed to be a “Renate Alumnius,” (i.e., to have a sexual conquest of a specific girl), asks his friend, “Have you farted yet?”

        Also, note that Mark Judge had the same question in his yearbook posting for “Bart”.

        I didn’t see the part of the hearing where Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in, but if he swore to tell, “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” I can’t believe that any reasonable and non-partisan person would think he did that.

        He said that, “Have you boofed yet” meant “Have you farted yet”…he said that “Devil’s Triangle” was just a reference to a drinking game, that “Renate Aluminius” was because Renate was a good friend…and that doesn’t even cover his testimony regarding his drinking habits, and the other lies David Nolan has pointed to (9/29/18, 3:45 AM).

        P.S. David Nolan, you need to check more carefully to whom you’re commenting! 🙂 *I’m* the one saying Brett Kavanaugh lied!

        1. >”Yes, but what teenager, in a yearbook post where he also claimed to be a ‘Renate Alumnius,’ (i.e., to have a sexual conquest of a specific girl), asks his friend, ‘Have you farted yet?’ Also, note that Mark Judge had the same question in his yearbook posting for ‘Bart.'”
          #1. Not to reduce this to memes, but here’s an appropriate one for you.
          #2. How do you figure “alumnius” means “to have a sexual conquest of a specific girl,” especially in this case? People are inferring something that may not have been implied. An “alumnius” only means that someone experienced something or graduated from somewhere. During the 1990s, my colleagues and I used the term all the time to refer to people who were present for our boss’s mental breakdowns. (This is also why she was fired for creating a hostile work environment.)
          #3. You never repeated a question back to one of your friends?
          #4. You assume that “Bart” refers to Kavanaugh and that the stories reflect reality.

          >”He said that, “Have you boofed yet” meant “Have you farted yet”…he said that “Devil’s Triangle” was just a reference to a drinking game, that “Renate Aluminius” was because Renate was a good friend…and that doesn’t even cover his testimony regarding his drinking habits, and the other lies David Nolan has pointed to (9/29/18, 3:45 AM).”
          I addressed this here and here.

        2. *I’m* the one saying Brett Kavanaugh lied!

          Hours after Nolan did.

          Here’s his time stamp
          David Nolan|9.29.18 @ 3:45AM
          Where is yours?

          I didn’t think so.

          P.S. Boof meant anal sex.at the time.

          More evidence.

          1. I was around at the time. I never heard the “boof” to mean anal sex.

            1. I link to proof.
              You never heard of it,
              (yawn)

        3. I would have asked him the rules to Devil’s Triangle.

          1. While I have no clue what his game might of been, here’s one that would work for the name.

            2 shots of tequila in each cup. 5 quarters. 5 rounds. You miss all cups, you drink one. You miss two cups, you drink two and get 1 point, you miss one cup drink all three and get 2 points. You get all three you get 6 points and eat a habanero pepper.

            1. It goes without saying that if the other players don’t think you’re trying you have to consume a penalty tequila shot that has a chopped habanero in it with the seeds crushed.

    2. He lied about being legal to drink at the time, the Maryland drinkng age increased from 18 to 21 before he became a senor, Ans she was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

      He also lied that the other four people had “denied” it happened. HE is the ONLY one to so deny. The others all said they could not recall, even Mark Judge, AP Fact Check

      And Kavanaugh REFUSED, twice, when asked if he was the out of control drunk described in Mark Judge’s book, identified as “Bart O’Kavanaugh” (wink wink) Was his refusal because he was under oath? Hmmm.

      So, Mark Bahner, I fully understand your sneering and attempted diversions from the facts.
      But Kavanaugh is the ONLY proven liar here.

      1. Go away “Hihn”. Go check into hospice so you can die.

      2. Interesting that the only objective fact that Ford seems to remember is that she had EXACTLY ONE beer. She can’t remember anything else with clarity, which puts in doubt the number of beers,

        1. The objective fact that I found that supports her allegation is that she was able to name Kav and two of his best friends.

          Did she know all three or was it a lucky guess or did someone fill in the blanks later?

          1. The latter, I suspect, given that she didn’t identify anybody back in 2012.

          2. The objective fact that I found that supports her allegation is that she was able to name Kav and two of his best friends.

            The ONLY person who said she did was her husband, not exactly an impartial source. The therapist’s notes certainly do not reflect it.

        2. She can’t remember anything else with clarity,

          Are you a humongous liar? Or totally ignorant?

      3. This is fake news. He said “Seniors could drink at the time. “. That means that him buddies could provide him with alcohol. He never said that he didn’t drink underage. This is journalists lying.

        1. YOU are the FAKE!

          He said “seniors could drink at the time”, … WHY?
          In response to a question on HIS drinking … another bullshit evasion — the drinking age was change to 21 before he turned 18.

          And he was only 17 at the time of the alleged assault.

          1. “He said “seniors could drink at the time”, … WHY?”

            Because that’s how underage high school kids used to get booze.

            1. You lose. Again.

              Kavanaugh said, “Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal” VIDEO PROOF

              1. You lose. Again.
                Kavanaugh said, “Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal” VIDEO PROOF

                According to the video, Kavanaugh said:

                “The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal.”

                In the summer of 1982 Kavanaugh was only 17, so how could he be claiming that he was legal at that time? He obviously was explaining how he got the beer, not that he was legal.

      4. “So, Mark Bahner, I fully understand your sneering and attempted diversions from the facts.
        But Kavanaugh is the ONLY proven liar here.”

        David, we are in agreement that Kavanaugh lied. (I appreciate and agree with your *additional* clear and correct examples of how he lied.)

        I would appreciate if you would correct your statement and apologize for your mischaracterization of my position. It’s quite offensive to me to be accused of “sneering and attempted diversion from facts.”

        Sincerely,
        Mark Bahner

        1. Ahh, sock puppet fight

      5. I have noted that partisans love to use the word, “lie” when the only claim that can be substantiated is that at statement is not 100% in conformity with the truth.

        David, you have no way to prove that the statement was a deliberate attempt to deceive. If I were to adopt your meaning, I’d say that many of the senators on both side are pathological liars.

        1. “I’d say that many of the senators on both side are pathological liars.”

          I thought that went without saying.

        2. If I were to adopt your meaning, I’d say that many of the senators on both side are pathological liars.

          So … you know absolutely nothing about libertarians, and what we’ve been for nearly 50 years.

          the word, “lie” when the only claim that can be substantiated is that at statement is not 100% in conformity with the truth.

          PROOF of the lies was provided.
          Deal with it.

      6. David Nolan: “He also lied that the other four people had “denied” it happened.”

        You are adopting a pretty limited meaning of “denial.”

        PJ Smyth stated: “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.” That’s as much a denial as a person stated positively to have been at such an event can plausible make.

        And, through her attorney, Leland Ingham Keyser denied being there. While, being a good friend of Ford, she says she believes her, but she denies being at such a party or even /knowing/ Kavanaugh: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” her attorney Howard Walsh wrote in a statement sent to the committee.” This is, again, as much a denial as a person positively stated as having been at an event and particularly about meeting with such-and-such a person there, can possibly make.

        (continued)

        1. (continued from above)

          As to the drinking — Kavanaugh was admitting to having drunk at age 17. He stated that the legal age was 18 when he was a 17-year old junior who drank. Maryland changed the drinking age to 21 on July 1st, 1982 (though it remained legal for /anyone/ to drink if parents, spouses, or teachers were present. Teachers???). Anyway, he admitted underage drinking, and he could legally drink at home in Maryland all the way through high school. In the District of Columbia, which is to say right next door, and which he also mentioned in his somewhat rambling response, the legal age for beer and wine remained 18 until 1986. He could have drunk legally as a senior in 1982 and 1983, depending on what address he was at and who was present. In the extreme case, Western Avenue is the boundary between Bethesda and Washington. Look it up.

          Kavanaugh might not remember the exact time and place of a drinking episode. That’s important, because it would be pretty silly to “lie” about something that anyone with a computer could check on in a couple of minutes (like I did).

          You think these are “lies”? Really? No — really?

          1. Anyway, he admitted underage drinking

            PROOF of your lie
            Kavanaugh said, “Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal” VIDEO PROOF

            1. And he was a junior when the alleged event took place.

        2. You are adopting a pretty limited meaning of “denial.”

          (lol) Denial means it never happened
          Having no knowledge means HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE whether it happened.

          1. So let’s see.

            Q: Were you there?

            A: No.

            Q. Are you sure?

            A: Is it possible I could have forgotten? I guess it’s possible. So let’s say I have no recollection of being there.

            By this standard, nothing that did not occur can be “denied.”

            [NOTE: though I’m not stating that it didn’t occur; these are still as firm as such “denials” could be]

    3. I observed in the 1960s that accusations often reveal more about the accuser than the accused.

      Evidently, some people know only one usage of the word “boof” and do not care that popular usage (Urban Dictionary, Wiktionary, etc) shows multiple meanings that change over time.
      (One reason I have avoided trying to appear “cool” by adopting slang from other times or subcultures.)

      boof – an impact or collision, the sound of an impact or collision (equivalent to Wham! or any other /Bat^^man\ visual sound effect), an error or mistake, a sex act (any), concealing contraband in the rectum.

      From the 1970s on: boof the hollow sound made by a kayak landing in a whitewater rafting maneuver analogous to ski jumping, the maneuver itself named from the sound it produces.

      (slang) To perform a sexual act with someone; especially, to sodomise, to perform anal sex on someone [with multiple samples dated 2000-2015 none earlier than 2000]

      Did teenagers in prep school in the 1980s in Maryland use “boof” as anal sex or did that clique in that time and place have usages for “boof” other than that?

      I have no idea what Maryland preppies in 1982 meant when they used the word “boof” joking with each other.

      This is like the bullshit that when Kennedy announced “Ich bin ein Berliner” he was saying “I am a sausage” because there was a sausage named after the city of Berlin (just as there is a sausage named after Vienna). Alternate definitions are not probative evidence,

      1. Oh I left out boof to puff put, increase the volume [multiple references to boofing hair starting 2002; maybe derived from bouffant]

        Is there an entomological study of the subculture of Maryland prep schoolers of the 1980s that records their slang usage (etymology)?

      2. Your comments are ridiculous. How could a yearbook entry–which also claims a sexual conquest of a girl, and a reference to “Devil’s Triangle”–contain the question, “Have you boofed yet?” and have it mean, “Have you farted yet?”…let alone, “Have you had an impact or collision yet?” or any other such nonsense.

        If a person is delivering a sworn statement, it should *not* be acceptable to lie merely because the truth is inconvenient. Particularly for a man who has been nominated to be a frickin’ Supreme Court judge! (And yes, “frickin” means “fucking”.)

        1. The idea that we should reject a nominee because of disputes over teenage slang in a yearbook is what’s ridiculous. You folks are really getting desperate.

          1. Boof meant anal sex at the time. His yearbook shows what he was at the time … HEAVILY into drinking.

            You folks have always mastered in diversions and evasions, Just like the master, Trump.

            1. I was around at the time and don’t remember the word “book”. You are arguing about teenage yearbook slang and accusing others of diversions and evasions? Now that’s rich.

          2. The idea that we should reject a nominee because of disputes over teenage slang in a yearbook is what’s ridiculous. You folks are really getting desperate.

            Did you find Judge Kavanaugh’s statements with respect to “FFFF,” “Devil’s Triangle,” “Renate Alumnius” credible?

            Did you find his description of a virginal high school choirboy and college student focused on church attendance, community service, and the like — with an occasional beer but never incapacitating drunkeness — credible?

          3. Have you ever heard anyone ask someone else, “Have you farted yet?” They might ask “Did you fart,” but there is no “yet” associated with it, because it’s not an event you await.

            Whatever “boof” meant, it didn’t mean “fart.”

            1. Have you ever heard anyone ask someone else, “Have you farted yet?” They might ask “Did you fart,” but there is no “yet” associated with it, because it’s not an event you await.

              Someone known for farting, particularly at inopportune times such as formal occasions or when parents and/or girls were present, might have it whispered to him in a needling way during one such occasion, “Have you farted yet?”

        2. What is your proof that what you’re saying is accurate besides your intense hopes and wishes?

          1. You don’t know what a dictionary is?

            The universe does not disappear if you close your eyes, cover your ears, and keep chanting, “La la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la … “

            1. You don’t know what a dictionary is?

              The dictionary in question shows both definitions, and does not supply a way to conclude which usage was intended here.

      3. Actually, when Kennedy said “Ich bin ein Berliner”, he was announcing that he was a jelly donut, a “Berliner” being a popular local fried pastry filled with fruit jelly or jam or preserves.

        1. Yeah, I have heard the “I am a jelly donut!” line a lot, but never heard it as, “I am a sausage.”

          My ex lived in Berlin (technically, in Spandau), and I smiled each time I saw berliners in pastry shops and in bakeries there.

    4. Kavanaugh lied because vernacular slang always and everywhere has exactly the same meaning.

      You do realize that making such an argument renders pretty much anything else you might have to say highly suspect at best?

      You sure boufed that up, didn’t you?

  2. Although many people have called for more investigation, no one has provided a compelling case as to what that would uncover. The only way an FBI investigation would be profitable is if they hotboxed Kavanaugh and Ford until one broke, but that wouldn’t provide us with a reliable confession, just undeserved clarity.

    1. Allutz – “Although many people have called for more investigation, no one has provided a compelling case as to what that would uncovered”

      Your statement highlights the obvious deficiency of a further investigation.

      The only additional corroborating evidence that will be forthcoming is some statements from friends that she mentioned the ‘ alleged attack sometime after 2012.

      The FBI will also find the following
      A) Ford’s actively being an impediment to the investigation
      B) Childhood friends of Ford that will attest that she was as ditzy/loopy in high school as she is now.

      But nothing to support the allegation

  3. I like how Somins and Co awkward scramble for pc neutrality end up making them sound like they’re in the bag for the accuser. Imagine if I were a fellow colleague sauntering into the faculty lounge. “Yeah that Somin, maybe he raped and killed that girl maybe he didnt. Who knows!”
    —————
    GOP’s refusal to allow a more thorough investigation

    ————-
    I’m honestly confused why nobody in the nation’s media and talking head gallery seem to fathom the idea of an investigation that goes on after confirmation.

    ——–

    It is not yet clear to me whether the time and scope of the investigation will be broad enough
    ——
    Lol of course this concession will count for nothing. Are you sure you’re in the neutral camp? You seem to be parroting nearly the same arguments as the anti kav side.

    ——
    What can be done to improve the nomination process?
    ——-
    I dunno maybe we could just say if someone allegedly grabbed your butt and you didn’t care enough to tell the cops for 4 decades or bother to keep evidence sorry but we have more important things to worry about? Honestly all the blood sweat and tears we’ve collectively shed as a species throughout herstory losing our minds over ultimately trivial insults against women’s honor we’d have colonists on Andromeda by now.

    1. Andromeda is a constellation or a galaxy, not a solid body. The closest star in either will take a minimum of 40 years to reach at light speed and we only found it last decade, so I really doubt we could have colonized it yet.

      1. Edwin Hubble discovered the Andromeda nebula was a separate galaxy in 1923.

        1. Andromeda is a constellation consisting of stars in our galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy is a galaxy. These are different things.

      2. Andromeda (a constellation of stars inside our Milky Way galaxy) is the foreground for Andromeda (a galaxy like our Milky Way far, far away, outside our galaxy).

        Reaching a star system in constellation Andromeda might be doable in 40 years at light speed, but galaxy Andromeda is 2,500,000 light-years from Earth.

        Despite Star Trek warp speed, I still suspect that if you reach the speed of light, the electrons, protons and neutrons of the atoms of your spaceship will become radiant energy particles.
        Etymology 5, Verb,

        1. Star Trek uses warped space technobabble and is travelling a shorter distance than the real space. They don’t travel through real space faster than light. Except for the episode Scotty had to cold start implode the warp engines to save the Enterprise from burning up, leaving them mysteriously traveling through normal space faster than light, meaning they were going back in time.

          We’ll skip the slingshot method, which is just stupid. Slingshot does not add infinite energy to get over lightspeed in normal space, while a warp engine implosion in mysterious enough to maybe do so.

          1. In the TOS episode “By any other Name” we learn that at maximum warp, warp 5 at that time I believe, it would take tens of thousands of years to travel to Andromeda.

    2. I like how Somins and Co awkward scramble for pc neutrality end up making them sound like they’re in the bag for the accuser. Imagine if I were a fellow colleague sauntering into the faculty lounge. “Yeah that Somin, maybe he raped and killed that girl maybe he didnt. Who knows!”

      Not all accusations are created equal.

      An accusation from an individual who grew up knowing the accused, who originally made the accusation 6 years ago, and who is now a University Professor on top of it. That’s pretty damn credible.

      I’m honestly confused why nobody in the nation’s media and talking head gallery seem to fathom the idea of an investigation that goes on after confirmation.

      Because that’s an awful idea. “Oh he assaulted her and lied about it under oath after all! Hmm, so what do we do about that lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS we just gave him?”

      Lol of course this concession will count for nothing. Are you sure you’re in the neutral camp? You seem to be parroting nearly the same arguments as the anti kav side.

      The point of investigating is to find out things, if the investigation lacks time or scope it doesn’t really solve anything.

      1. They should just confirm him now. And instead of investigating BK, let’s start investigating prominent democrats for their possible past crimes. Many of them are rapists, thieves, collusionists, and Sen, Feinstein herself appears to be in league with China. And Keith Ellison is almost surely guilty of at least a few violent felonies regarding his very recent relationships with women.

        In fact, let’s start criminal investigations on every one of Bill Clintons many rape allegations. Those are far more compelling cases for potential prosecution than this nonsense about BK. Given the precedent the democrats are attempting to set, I see no problem with any of this. Especially since their party is full of violent perverted sociopaths.

      2. “and who is now a University Professor on top of it”

        That clinched it for me. Initial reports indicated that she was some kind of businesswoman, hairdresser, or janitorial worker or even a homemaker. But her credibility was instantly enhanced for me when I realized she was a *professor.*

      3. “Not all accusations are created equal.”

        True, some are accompanied by evidence, unlike these.

        She didn’t identify her supposed assailant back in 2012. So it’s not in any way evidence against Kavanaugh. Actually, using “I was sexually assaulted in High school 30 years ago, that’s why I want this goofy feature as part of our house remodeling.” as an argument back in 2012 just reinforces my impression that she’s a ditz. Using “I’m afraid to fly, please ignore that I do it all the time.” as an excuse to not show Monday. adds “bad liar” to “ditz”.

        1. I attribute it to her being ditzy – as evidenced by her testimony to the committee.

          I agree that she believes she was assaulted,

          However, her ditzyness on most everything else indicates that she can conflate things into something much different than reality. – Not knowing what a polygraph was – even though she had phd in psychology, not knowing who was paying for everything,

        2. “Not all accusations are created equal.”

          True, some are accompanied by evidence, unlike these.

          Sayeth the birthers.

          Carry on, clingers. So far as the bitter, rural, entitled, disaffected, intolerant, superstitious, stale-thinking, southern white male vote can carry you, I guess.

          1. As usual RAK – ignores the complete lack of evidence – to condemn to the people and the economic systems that has brought forth the highest standard of living in the world.

            RAK – let us know what forward looking progressive policies have actually improved the plight of the impoverished
            Communism in russia
            communism in china
            communism in the former eastern bloc
            socialism in Chile
            socialism in cuba
            socialism in Venz
            Socialism in Rhodesia
            Odd that the blacks in Zimbabwi want to return to becoming second class citizens in Rhodesia – Maybe because their life was better than life under the utopia of socialism

            In the mean time – What problem to you have with actual evidence.

            1. Is Dumbfuck Dallas saying RAK is a PROGRESSIVE????

              Bwaaaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaa

            2. I don’t take pointers on or questions about evidence from birthers.

              I also like America, seemingly better than do the people who can’t stand modern America with all of its progress, reason, science, tolerance, and liberty.

          2. “Sayeth the birthers”

            Excellent analogy.

            1. Not an analogy, but a damn good way to point out some serious hypocrisy.

              1. But that would only be hypocrisy for people who were actually spouting the birther conspiracy, and it doesn’t really say anything about people who thought was dumb and tired and yet still think this is dumb and tired.

      4. The “professor” is a blonde liberal woman. That makes her non-credible.

      5. “An accusation from an individual who grew up knowing the accused, who originally made the accusation 6 years ago, and who is now a University Professor on top of it. That’s pretty damn credible.”

        How did she get a Phd – she seemed pretty clueless ditzy about a lot of things.

        1. She is your better, you half-educated bigot. This seems to make you, and other left-behind right-wingers, angry. It makes some of you, like Brett Kavanaugh, cry.

          1. “She is your better, you half-educated bigot.”

            OH MY GOD! CAN THE REV. GET ANNY FUNNIER! He finds out that she is a “progressive” university professor and immediately concludes that she is, therefore, “better” than anyone to the right of Che Guevara. And he thinks he understands the meaning of bigotry! Amazing! Rev., you are the ideal blend of arrogance and ignorance. You really should make some Youtube videos, they would be hilarious!

            1. She did not present as a clueless ditzy. She was roundly perceived as a credible, earnest, personable witness.

              She is better than one who calls her a clueless ditzy.

              1. She also is better than the author of this:

                The “professor” is a blonde liberal woman. That makes her non-credible.

                1. “She did not present as a clueless ditzy. She was roundly perceived as a credible, earnest, personable witness.”

                  She presented that way to YOU, someone predisposed to believe her, and predisposed to believe that anyone looking for reasons not to believe her was necessarily her inferior. And THAT, dear Rev. Is both motivated reasonong and bigotry. And idiocy.

      6. She made the accusation 30 years after the fact.

        She still wont say where or when. The people she named as corroboration have all not done so.

        1. Liar

          She named NOBODY as corroboration.

          Assault victims often wait decades … Patte Davis did (Reagan’s daughter) Is SHE a liar.

          You people keep humiliating yourselves, in apparent desperation, from your ignorance.

          1. She named NOBODY as corroboration.

            It is neither vital nor terribly admirable to constantly refresh people on how little you know of the situation.

            Leland was named by her. Didn’t corroborate.
            PJ? Ditto.
            Judge? Ditto.

            SHE named those names.

            Assault victims often wait decades

            Yes. All of the time. The wealth of “he raped me IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!” stories are a dime a dozen.

            Patte Davis did (Reagan’s daughter) Is SHE a liar.

            I don’t buy it, no. The only plausible part is the industry in question. The left-wing entertainment industry is the only place in the country that ACTUALLY has a “rape culture”.

            But if you cannot get BASIC stuff down like WHEN the fuck it happened…no, I don’t believe you.

            1. Call her a liar.

              Push Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court.

              Enjoy the political consequences, clingers. I know I will.

              1. There are terrible consequences for the country — unless something unforeseen breaks — no matter which outcome occurs.

                Are we near a breaking point? How far are we from it? What does it look like and how does it turn out?

                No, I’m not kidding.

      7. “An accusation from an individual who grew up knowing the accused”

        There’s no evidence, outside of her claim, that she knew the accused.

        1. He’s denied it, but she is believed for…reasons.

          I’m just shocked that, somehow, Kavanaugh went from gang raping women in high school to living an exemplary life with no accusations that could ACTUALLY be proven false against him.

          1. He’s denied it, but she is believed for…reasons.

            IT MUST BE INVESTIGATED,

            Only conservatards claim certainty where none is possible
            And Kavanaugh is a PROVEN liar. Under oath.

            1. IT MUST BE INVESTIGATED,

              “Well, investigator, something bad happened somewhere at some point in the 1980’s.”

              Yup, CLEARLY needs investigation.

              Question: Let’s say “There is no evidence here”. Why in the world should anybody expect that you’d say anything besides” We need MORE investigatin'”

              Only conservatards claim certainty where none is possible

              Says the party convinced that he is REALLY a rapist.

              I don’t buy her story because she cannot find a single piece of corroborating evidence. Perhaps my standards are too high…expecting proof and all.

              And Kavanaugh is a PROVEN liar. Under oath.

              Only amongst imbeciles.

              1. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..(sneer)

                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..

                It’s over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

          2. I’m just shocked that, somehow, Kavanaugh went from gang raping women in high school to living an exemplary life with no accusations that could ACTUALLY be proven false against him.

            Question for misogynistic, gullible conservatives: How long did Bill Cosby have an exemplary reputation?

            1. “How long did Bill Cosby have an exemplary reputation?”

              As far as that goes, Cosby never had a background check. He didn’t have dozens of women he knew, dated, worked with, and employed vouch for his character. Sure young Kavanaugh could have done it, but his life doesn’t fit such a profile.

          3. He’s denied it, but she is believed for…reasons.

            His denial is a pile of crap. The guy is a belligerent, lying, asshole. I wouldn’t believe a word he says.

    3. I’m honestly confused why nobody in the nation’s media and talking head gallery seem to fathom the idea of an investigation that goes on after confirmation.

      Might it be your total ignorance of what “conformation” even means?
      Hint: it has no happened, or even been voted on.
      Try to APPEAR being even remotely connected to the undisputed facts here.

      Anything else?

      1. >”Might it be your total ignorance of what “conformation” even means?”
        Perhaps you can tell us all what “conformation” even means.

        1. Mine was a spelling error

          AmosArch’s was total ignorance. Amd we’ve all seen you don’t know the difference.

          1. In spite of the topic of this article, most still believe one should conform to one side’s memeplex or the other.

            1. That was dumber than JoeGoins.
              I assume you’re a Trumpster.

      2. Hihn you are so dumb.

        1. Hihn you are so dumb.

          If you mean Nolan, describe the lie. I will enjoy seeing him humiliate you.. Again. Since you “think” that Kavanaugh has been confirmed! (OMFG)
          IOW, stop acting line a 12-year-old on a hissy fit.

    4. ” time and scope of the investigation will be broad enough”

      The FBI has sufficient resources for examining the allegations of sexual assault. Whether everyone will talk with them in such a highly charged case in far from certain. And the FBI has no subpoena power in such background checks. They cannot compel testimony.

      1. The committee can compel testimony, using FBI reports to identify people the committee needs to hear from.

        But don’t hold your breath.

        1. …because the Democrats will vote no regardless.

          This is a waste of time. Fuck the Democrats.

          1. Open wider, damikesc. Your betters will soon have more progress — science, education, reason, tolerance — to shove down right-wing throats.

            If you’re lucky, they’ll refrain from positioning it sideways.

  4. The old saying that “a man is known by the company he keeps” is coming back to haunt Brett Kavanaugh.

    Democrats on the committee used Mark Judge as an anchor to sink Kavanugh. I think, if we are all being honest, everyone has spent time with someone who drank too much. Even though this strategy?demonizing addicts and those close to them?should have worked against them, it is proving to be a great political move. They are effectively making the public think Kavanaugh is guilty by association with Judge, a recovering drunk who described the high school parties he attended as being full of alcohol and sex.

    Unfortunately in this post-truth society, the question of did Brett Kavanaugh sexually assault Christine Blasey-Ford one time in the early 1980s has been completely ignored. Millions of sexual assault victims experienced empathetic responses to Ford and believe that she is telling the truth because they too suffered traumatic experiences. While I sympathize with these individuals, they have no idea of what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford yet they are willing to vilify Kavanaugh even though Ford has not produced any evidence that supports her claim. That is unfair, unjust, unwise, and unethical.

    1. Which again, demonstrates why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Their actions are entirely dictated by emotion and feelings, not logic or critical reasoning.

      1. This is the audience the Republican Party and Volokh Conspiracy have cultivated.

        Good luck at the polls, clingers.

        1. Why are you such a self-hating man?

            1. Did you forget to change sock puppet screen names?

          1. Most liberal men are weak pansies.

            1. I assume you cry like a . . . like Brett Kavanaugh.

              But fondling your guns while developing illusory friendships and social skills must ease your pain.

    2. Kavanaugh did more to sully Mark Judge than Democrats did. Kavanaugh’s repeated assertions about the severity of Judge’s problems stood out incongruously. Why did Kavanaugh go out of his way to develop that theme, and then return to it? What benefit could it possibly be to Kavanaugh to put that on the record?

      Suppose Kavanaugh knew Judge had damaging knowledge he could disclose. Would it serve Kananaugh to preemptively discredit Judge’s reliability? I’m speculating, because without an actual investigation by the FBI, followed up by committee testimony from Judge, speculation is all we’re allowed.

      What the majority plan is a coverup, not an investigation.

      1. Kavanaugh did more to sully Mark Judge than Democrats did. Kavanaugh’s repeated assertions about the severity of Judge’s problems stood out incongruously.

        The problems he has extensively written about? Yup, him having drinking problems was unknown until now.

        What the majority plan is a coverup, not an investigation.

        You’re adorable.

        Not clever, intelligent, or witty — but you ARE adorable.

    3. The company he kept were his high school classmates. School kids don’t have control of who their classmates are. And even if they did, 17-year-olds don’t make wise choices, as a rule.

  5. I have a question for the Conspirators: did Brett Kavanaugh’s opening statement in any way disqualify him from sitting on the federal bench? I don’t think he can reasonably present himself as an unbiased jurist after saying, among other things, the following:

    This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

    1. Ginsberg is a hero for ragging on and encouraging conspiratorial thinking about half of the population her whole career so he should be good.

      1. There were many on the left uncomfortable with Ginberg’s public comments about Trump. I’ve yet to see any criticism of Kavanaugh’s rant from the right (depending how you classify Somin).

        1. He’d probably smack you for using the left/right paradigm and give you a speech about how voter ignorance is ruing the country.

        2. Well, it isn’t as though Ginsberg is doing it in response to having multiple allegations of rape invented against her to keep her off the Court. She’s just doing it because she despises at least half the country’s population.

          At least Kavanaugh has a reasonable excuse for being pissed off.

          1. The ignorant, intolerant, and backward do not constitute half of the country. It may seem that way in the can’t-keep-up backwaters, but it is 35 percent, tops, nationwide.

        3. There were many on the left uncomfortable with Ginberg’s public comments about Trump.

          Can you name these people? I’ve never seen it.

      2. Do two wrongs make a right?

    2. I have a question for the Conspirators: did Brett Kavanaugh’s opening statement in any way disqualify him from sitting on the federal bench?

      Yet another diversion.
      His sexual abuse does. And his multiple leis under oath, aready documented.

      1. >”Yet another diversion.”
        Nope. I ran out of characters on my first post on this article.

        >”His sexual abuse does.”
        Let me fix this for you: His sexual abuse allegation does. The allegation has not been substantiated by any evidence outside of the accusers word for it. Her therapist’s notes, her husband’s statement, and her friend’s story? All as a result of what Ford says. I am a skeptic. I believe that is the only rational position to take because I wasn’t at the house during the time the alleged incident occurred. You should take that position as well. (Note: I’m not addressing the allegations by Ramirez or Swetnick because in a manner that would criminalize falsehoods.)

        >”And his multiple leis under oath, aready documented.”
        See my rebuttal.

        1. See my rebuttal.

          Mine had sources. You lose.

          1. Your ‘sources’ are journalists. Hardly respectable.
            At least one of them is factually incorrect – it is, and was, legal for a minor to drink alcohol in a private residence.

            Of course, I find it amusing that you think someone misremembering the implementation date of a law from 35 years ago by a few months is disqualifying, while at the same time promoting an accuser that has already ‘misremembered’ times, dates, number of people, a traumatic fear of flying, and a host of other claims.

            1. Of course, I find it amusing that you think someone misremembering the implementation date of a law from 35 years ago by a few months is disqualifying

              That’s NOT what happened. Shame on you AGAIN.

              accuser that has already ‘misremembered’ times, dates, number of people,

              Full of shit there, too.

              traumatic fear of flying,

              It’s claustrophobia. I’d ask who the hell are you to disagree, but you blew THAT also.

              Anything else?

              P.S, You also don’t know what a source is!!!

              1. According to Nolan, the law change in question was implemented a few months before the supposed date he was referring to. If that is, in fact, what he was referring to – Nolan’s telepathy not having being scientifically evaluated, it can’t be relied on.

                And Ford’s various testimonies are full of inconsistencies. If I’m wrong, you are welcome to demonstrate that when she changes the number of people present, or who did what, or what she heard, she was actually consistent… but since she wasn’t, it’d take a miracle.

                As for flying – if she has claustrophobia that prevented her from flying (as opposed to her statement that claimed she could not fly due to the trauma of this assault), why does she fly so much? Regularly on vacation, or to find a polygrapher… or to arrive at the very hearing?

                Finally – Nolan cited a column by a journalist, which in turn cited nothing. That means that ‘source’ Nolan is claiming to have is – a journalist.

                PS – If you grow up and learn what an argument is when you get to high school, please feel free to try again. Otherwise, go away and let the adults talk.

                1. Nolan gave a source on drinking age.

                  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

                  You lose. Again.

                  1. Read the article. What sources does it cite?

              2. Can you NOT remember to change your sock puppet screen names?

                1. Libertarians stick together,

              3. A phobia that conveniently only presents a major problem (not for other business or leisure trips) to a clinical psychologist when she’s going to testify about her tale that conveniently makes it difficult to verify her claims.

          2. >”Mine had sources. You lose.”
            Mine had original sources. Yours had news articles. You lose.

            1. You’re a fucking liar.
              Nolan wins,

      2. I missed the hearing because nothing factual can be established by people talking with other people looking for clues to claim they believe this one or that one, with no solid objective evidence just emotive tea leaf reading.

        “… his multiple leis …”

        Was hula involved? Maybe I shudda watched. Kavanaugh in multiple leis might have provided some much needed comic relief.

    3. This statement is plausible on its face.

    4. He was accuse of raping people falsely.

      Your claim is asinine.

      Its like punching somebody then saying “Why so mad, bro?”

    5. Every bit of the sequence of events has the earmark of a political hit once the Ford allegation is in hand.
      The availability of millions of dollars from the left to defeat the nomination is a fact.
      The extreme anger of the left concerning HRC’s defeat is a fact.
      The fear mongering of people like Hirono regarding “reproductive rights” and commentary on NYT and WaPo opinion pieces that imply that BK was nominated to prevent the indictment of DJT is a fact.
      The damage to BK’s family is obvious

      So why shouldn’t he be emotional and angry. Don’y criticize if you haven’t worn the shoes.

      BUT BK’s rude, evasive, and combative answers to D senators was unnecessary and damaging to his case

      1. BUT BK’s rude, evasive, and combative answers to D senators was unnecessary and damaging to his case

        Didn’t bother me. . . mostly because it improved the foundation for having Democratic Senators participate in enlarging the Supreme Court and relegating a Justice Kavanaugh to a long career of writing outraged dissents against reason, education, inclusivity, liberty, tolerance, and science.

  6. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies.
    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

    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 combined, and still shrinking..
    Their time has expired.

    1. 100% of Americans want you to die “Hihn”.

    2. >”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.”
      Your premise is false. Kavanaugh made a generality about the seniors?not himself?being legal.

      >”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.”
      #1. Judge told the committee “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.” Ergo, he denies Ford’s accusation: that he and Kavanaugh sexually assaulted For at a gathering.
      #2. Smyth told the committee “I have no knowledge of the party in question.” This is different than saying he can’t remember. The former implies that event didn’t happen while the second implies it could have happened.

      >”Check my sources.”
      Two news articles that don’t cite their sources? I think most people on here would laugh at you for calling them “sources” if they saw you in person. If you want to read an appropriately sourced article, check out this piece on Medium dated 23 Jan 2018 addressing the shortcomings of the AP Fact Check service.

      1. Cowardly evasion ..BOTH documented lies by Kavanaugh

        Your premise is false. Kavanaugh made a generality about the seniors?not himself?being legal.

        KAVANAUGH WAS A SENIOR!!!!
        YOU may have still be in high school at the age of 21 … but most of us were graduated several years earlier.

        Check out this piece on Medium

        (OMG) Medium is a news aggregator and free blogging platform.
        Your source is a NOBODY

        Anything else?

        1. Cowardly evasion ..BOTH documented lies by Kavanaugh

          Your premise is false. Kavanaugh made a generality about the seniors?not himself?being legal.

          KAVANAUGH WAS A SENIOR!!!!
          YOU may have still be in high school at the age of 21 … but most of us were graduated several years earlier.

          David – Kav may or may not have lied – Unfortunately, the items cited dont support your allegation

          FWIW – Work on you basic reading skills and basic analytical skills and try to follow what is actually written.

        2. Kavanaugh meant that his classmates could provide beer for house parties. Your side would love it if he lied about something easily verified, but you guys are just full of shit on this.

          1. Under Maryland law, it would have been illegal for him to drink alcohol in a private residence unless it was given to him by, essentially, a parent. Unless you can prove that his parents provided him with the alcohol, he drank illegally. Fortunately, he never lied about his personal drinking being legal. As I said above, he made a generality about it being legal for the seniors to drink alcohol at that time.

            1. Yup.

            2. As I said above, he made a generality about it being legal for the seniors to drink alcohol at that time.

              As I’ve noted several time, you’re either ignorant or a liar.

              That was in response to why HE was drinking.
              OR … you’re commenting on testimony you neither heard nor read.
              Like a Trumpster.

        3. >”Cowardly evasion ..BOTH documented lies by Kavanaugh”
          I didn’t evade anything. You ignored what I wrote.

          >”KAVANAUGH WAS A SENIOR!!!!”
          Yes, he was. I’m not disagreeing with your premise that he drank illegally. Our only disagreement is over whether or not he lied about it. He made a generality about the seniors being allowed to drink. He didn’t address whether his own drinking was legal.

          >”YOU may have still be in high school at the age of 21 … but most of us were graduated several years earlier.”
          I guess your hypocrisy doesn’t bother you.

          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.

          >”(OMG) Medium is a news aggregator and free blogging platform.”
          Everyone knows this.

          >”Your source is a NOBODY”
          #1. This is the internet. Everyone is a nobody.
          #2. This is an ad hom. Since when does a well-sourced article need to be written by someone big?
          #3. The author isn’t a nobody; he has a doctorate in psychology.

          1. He made a generality about the seniors being allowed to drink.

            When asked WHY he was drinking. Stop all the diversiomns.

            The author isn’t a nobody; he has a doctorate in psychology

            So Does Dr Ford. (smirk)
            YoU DID NOT CITE HIM ON PSYCHOLOGY

            1. >”YoU DID NOT CITE HIM ON PSYCHOLOGY”
              Actually, I did. Biases in fact checking is a valid topic of inquiry for social psychologists. It was the basis of the author’s dissertation.

              1. You lie about his words,
                And are bat-shit crazy on the rest.
                My first time here, and I spotted you as a blowhard within 10 minutes.

                1. Hihn, you have been here for years.

                  You come across as seriously deranged.

                  1. So you cannot challenge me on the issue!

      2. Liar! Pathetic liar

        Your premise is false. Kavanaugh made a generality about the seniors?not himself?being legal.

        IN RESPONSE TO WHY *HE* WAS DRINKING.

        (VOMIT)

        1. That makes it an evasion, not a lie.

  7. “I thought Christine Blasey Ford was credible. It is hard to deny she genuinely believes…”

    How much did she rehearse her testimony with handlers who told her everything she said was true?

    “Kavanaugh’s anger and belligerence struck me as less persuasive than Ford’s calmer demeanor.”

    That’s what the Democrats wanted… This was all about theater: the mean man and the pitiful woman.

    If a “thorough investigation” is needed, why didn’t the Democrats call for it when this accusation was first supplied to them? Why didn’t they raise this question during his testimony before the committee, or during the hours of individual interviews with Senators? Why did they wait until the committee vote was imminent?

    This whole affair stinks to high heaven. It’s like a notorious political stunt practiced in the 1800s: ambushing a candidate with black children, who would rush up to him shouting “Daddy! Daddy!” The truth didn’t matter, as long as the target was embarrassed. (As Lyndon Johnson said when his henchmen balked at circulating rumors that his opponent had carnal knowledge of livestock, “I don’t care whether anyone believes it, I just want to make the sumbitch deny it.”)

    Any concession to this disgraceful tactic will merely reward it. That includes Sen. Flake’s insistence on a week’s delay “for investigation”, your concurrence in that suggestion, and Prof. Bernstein’s suggestion that Judge Kavanaugh withdraw in favor of a different Trump nominee.

    1. >”How much did she rehearse her testimony with handlers who told her everything she said was true?”
      Every client gets briefed by their attorneys on how to give testimony regardless of it being in a court or senate hearing. This is nothing new.

      >”That’s what the Democrats wanted… This was all about theater: the mean man and the pitiful woman.”
      I see it more as a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t. If he was calm, democrats and the media would have questioned why he was so calm and insidiously implied that it was because he had answered questions about sexual assault before this ordeal.

      >”This whole affair stinks to high heaven.”
      You can blame democrats all you want, but it doesn’t effect the veracity of Ford’s claims. Either she’s lying, she’s misremembering, or she’s telling the truth. That is completely independent of how the claim was handled.

    2. If he floats he was a witch.

      If he drowns that proves his innocence.

      /Democrats

    3. Compared to this episode, Thomas’ “high-tech lynching” was mere child’s play.

    4. Compared to this episode, Thomas’ “high-tech lynching” was mere child’s play.

    5. How much did she rehearse her testimony with handlers who told her everything she said was true?

      She wrote the letter several months earlier. Do you know ANYTHING about this?
      And it’s in her therapists notes
      .

      1. She wrote the letter several months earlier.

        August is “several” months ago?

        1. No. But that has nothing to do with the letter. Skippy.
          It was written in July — the one to Feinstein. This is September,
          If you are paying attention, she first wrote to her own Congresswoman for advice.
          And, of course, described it in 2012.

          It’s kinda funny watching you folks desperately spewing such lame excuses.

          You lost. Move on.

          1. It was written in July — the one to Feinstein.

            Ah, yes, July 30.

            Which is still not “several” months ago. It isn’t even TWO months ago.

            So, again, SEVERAL (your word) months ago? You’re such a liar.

      2. In 2012, she told her therapist about a vaguely remembered incident from 30 years before. She couldn’t remember what year it was, where it was, or any of the surrounding circumstances.

        In August, she wrote Feinstein with her suspicion that the boy who groped her was Brett Kavanaugh. Feinstein sat on this for six weeks. Meanwhile, Ford was prepping.

        There is a long history of witnesses who remembered clearly and testified sincerely to what the prosecutor or plaintiff (or defendant) wanted, but broke down under cross-examination, or were proved wrong.

        When interviewers tell a witness that his testimony to some claim of fact will be essential to achieving justice; repeatedly encourage him to be specific and precise in his recollections; ask leading questions, and praise him for giving the right answers; the witness will, quite sincerely, “remember” and testify convincingly to what his side in the case wants.

        Thus Ford’s apparently convincing demeanor is not evidence of anything except thorough preparation.

  8. The little girl voice was enough for me.

    1. Yeah, it was enough to convince me even she doesn’t believe it.

      1. That and the fact that she lied about being unable to fly to Washington

        1. How many psycho lies can you folks fit on a single page, in all your desperation?

    2. Cluster B is as Cluster B does.

    3. The little girl voice was enough for me.

      That high-pitched tone from Kavanaugh while he was crying?

      What does that have to do with it?

  9. By waiting 36 years to come forward, Ford irreparably prejudiced Judge Kavanaugh, and made it impossible for the Senate to judge him fairly. Her allegations should be set aside for that reason alone.

    Alternatively, we could become a society which destroys people based on unsupported allegations from decades ago, creating a war of all against all…

    1. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating 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..

      It’s over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

      1. Goddamnit. I see that it’s time for someone to crash the hihnswarm autosock’s server again.

        I swear, I will never understand why someone wrote a ‘bot to shitpost on Reason and sodomize baby goats. It’s really one of the worst pieces of tech I’ve ever seen.

        Go choke on /dev/zero, ‘bot.

        1. COWARDLY DIVERSION
          Cyber-bully

      2. Does one become a senior at the completion of one’s junior year….or on the first day of classes in the fall? Is Senior year a year long? Is the whole terminology somewhat less than exact? Back to one of the points of the article – are we hearing what we are predisposed to hear

        1. Does one become a senior at the completion of one’s junior year….or on the first day of classes in the fall? Is Senior year a year long? Is the whole terminology somewhat less than exact?

          What are you babbling about?

          1. The law changing the drinking age went into effect during July between his Junior and Senior years of high school. He is being accused of lying under oath about the drinking age when he was a Senior….

            1. (lol) You just confirmed the lie!
              YOU just said the drinking age was 21!!
              He was 17.

              How does that have any relevance at all??

      3. “Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..”

        This is a lie. Anybody who went to high school when the drinking age was 18 knows that 18 yo classmates provided booze. And her witnesses did, in fact, deny the allegation, to the extent that anyone can deny an allegation. No one even claims that the two knew each other.

        1. You “refuted” — as a lie — something I never said

      4. What was the legal age to drink beer in a private setting in Maryland in 1982?

        In checking Maryland law I have found age restrictions on purchasing and possession in public. And that “Alcohol may be possessed or consumed by an underage person in a private residence so long as it is furnished or allowed by a member of that person’s immediate family (typically a parent)”.

        Personally i am not cool with parents allowing parties where high school students drink, but some parents have argued with me that they would rather allow it that way; because the other option being the kids drinking elsewhere anyway.

        1. What was the legal age to drink beer in a private setting in Maryland in 1982?

          Useless diversion

      5. Since you love that “lie” word, you must be livid about Hirono’s constant stream of lies.

    2. Yeah. I’m really looking forward to this imperial clown parade happening again every time an Executive Branch appointment comes up for the rest of my life.

      1. Don’t kid yourself. This principles applied here will cease to be valid once the principals change. Any attempts to argue otherwise will be met with cries of ‘whataboutism’ or ‘hypocrisy.’

    3. Somehow I don’t imagine “retains lifetime tenure as a judge on the second most powerful court in the US” as “destroyed”.

      Have you ever seen a person actually destroyed? Like, having lost members of their family, lost their jobs, their houses? What the hell is this crocodile tears for a man that, at the very worst, will still have a prestigious and well paying job and go back to nice VA home and wife and family.

      1. So you wouldn’t particularly mind worldwide coverage of allegations that you tried to rape a teenage girl, that are so vague that you can’t really rebut them? It wouldn’t upset you at all that your friends and children had to continuously hear rabid partisans and biased media damning you for something you know you didn’t do, just because they didn’t agree with your views? Yeah. Right.

        1. I would mind but I would still have lifetime tenure at a prestigious and well paying job.
          I would be upset, but I would still have a wife and family in good health.
          I would not be so out of touch to consider myself destroyed.

          I think the privileged folks here have no idea what that word even means or have ever actually known someone whose life was actually destroyed. Not every bad thing is the same as losing everything.

          1. Nonzenze, ” crocodile tears ” would be false sympathy, like, maybe, you pretending to care about the damage to Kavanaugh’s reputation by these accusations.

            Maybe you would be undevastated by accusations of being a rapist and a liar, as long as you had a prestigious and well paying job, wife and family in good health.

            Who needs a good name and why care?

            Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
            Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
            Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
            ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
            But he that filches from me my good name,
            Robs me of that which not enriches him,
            And makes me poor indeed.

            1. Do you seriously not understand the difference between “harmed” and “destroyed”?

  10. For the first time in my life, I’m understanding how domestic violence really goes down. And I vow, from this point forward, if a man shoots his wife (and/or her lawyer) because of stunts like this pulled during a divorce/custody proceeding, and I am on his jury, I will find him not guilty.

    1. 1. Contends women should not be permitted to vote.

      2. Contends wife-shooters should not be convicted.

      3. Proud conservative.

      1. You push people hard enough, eventually they’ll snap. In that case, the fault is on the pusher, not the snapper.

        1. ‘All of this damned progress, tolerance, reason, education, liberty, inclusivity, science . . . the modernity . . . the uppity women . . . why, it’s enough to make a man snap!’

          1. Given that you consider giving “marriage” licenses to people who like to stick their penises into other men’s butts while letting men decide that they’re women one day to be “progress,” I’d hate to see what you’d consider regression.

  11. Ford’s letter to her congresswoman basically has three stories – which one is correct?

    1) He attempted to sexually assault me & thought he was going to inadvertantly kill me

    2) He tackled me and his friend were both playing king of the mountain when they kept jumping on the pile

    3) he really wasnt trying to rape me as evidenced by abandoning the attempt so easily when they were playing king of the mountain.

    1. Are you fucking crazy? Or a liar?
      A PSYCHO liar.

      Trumptards scurry in like cockroaches, with their lies and lame excuse.
      Hmm, just like The Donald.

  12. I’ve studied the subconscious and the sleeping brain for years. After watching Dr. Ford’s testimony it is my opinion that she isn’t mis-remembering or having a false memory, she is remembering an event from a dream. Events in a dream are temporarily stored in long term memory, bypassing the PFC and short term memory process, probably remain there for a few days or a few weeks until they are washed away in the daily consolidation process and for the most part are forgotten and. This explains the many arguments between people where they swear they told someone something or asked them to do something, when in fact they did not. For example: “I told you to pick the kids up at school today because I was at a meeting”, to which the husband swears she never said a word. Her brain probably thought about the upcoming meeting during sleep and even acted out telling her husband to pick up the kids. The dreaming brain thinks this is real, because the brain doesn’t know the difference between real and not real.
    So during the next day when she’s thinking about her kids she believes she told her husband to pick them up when she actually did not.

    1. Do we believe a PhD in psychology — as confirmed by several others?

      Or an OBVIOUS goober: You mother would be ASHAMED of you — for equating sexual assault with a routine conversation about the kisd.

      1. False memory has been proven science.
        Science has also proven how easy it is to plant a false memory in the subconscious

        1. Non-responsive.
          Cowardly evasion.

  13. continued
    Secondly: If a nightmares awakens the sleeper, however, the process is a little different because the person considers the events in the dream and starts the process of using one’s Executive and the short term memory process of evaluating it, tagging it and passing it over to long term memory. Every time something connects to the event it could reinforce the false memory, reaffirm it and cement it with even greater weight, which leads to PSD. Every night while the sleeping brain is consolidating memory (Hippocampus) and reviewing the day’s events, at the same time the pons is firing off random stuff that have no meaning. (Hobbson).
    In my opinion Dr. Ford dreamed about swimming and a party and being sexually assaulted and created a memory of the dream event; since the PFLC is not active, and there is no logic or reasoning in a dream, there is a strong probability that she dreamed random events, made a narrative (Left-brain interpreter) and stored it, even though it was just a dream.

    1. Interesting point and/or observation

      that would explain the complete lack of corroboration,
      the inability to place other facts into the picture, when, where, etc

      Her letter to the congresswoman also has three different stories
      A) Attempted rape
      B) roughhousing/king of the hill game
      C) no attempted and/or half hearted attempted rape – ie abandonment of the attempted rape in short order,

      Her testimony supported the three different interpretations of the event.

    2. Following up on your dream concept – there have been a few times I have woken up from a dream and had to spend of few minutes sorting through the memory bank to realize that the event was a dream and not an actual event. Based on my observation of her loopy-ness, she may have a much more difficult time sorting that process out.

  14. Good thing there are other Kav posts, and the comments for them are generally the same because this one looks like it’s gonna be full of copypasta and other crap from that one guy.

  15. continued
    As an example: Scott Adams in a podcast talks about a false memory of his mother shooting the neighbor’s dog. It’s my opinion that he dreamed about the day’s events of the neighbors dog which actually did happen, and while the pons was firing off random signals the event of her shooting it was an added in as an embellishment, because that part happened. Hence, him being in disagreement with his mother over the accuracy of the event.

  16. Mitch should drag this out a little more.
    Donnelly of Dem from Indiana and in a tough re-election fight, came out as a “no”, even before the investigation. I predict that makes him toast.
    Put as much pressure as possible on the red state Dems.

    1. The only reason he even won in Indiana was because his opponent made some ill-regarded comments about God’s plan for rape victims. Think on that a bit.

    2. One can be sure that these hearing will be used to stir up interest in republicans and other Trump supporters (say in Texas and Indiana) that they must vote.

  17. Just on observation –
    Anyone notice that Kavanaugh could only find future Democrat activists to rape and sexually harass.

    Couldn’t he find any young republican girls to abuse?

    1. Maybe those abused in their youth don’t end up joining the party of Trump?

      1. So why would they join the party of Clinton?

        1. Stockholm Syndrome?

  18. I am a very small minority. Assume everything Ford says is true, Is the guy a good judge? Does he follow the law and constitution? He was a knucklehead at one time. People grow up. What is he now?

    1. I agree with you. Maybe he was a pretty horrible kid, but he has led a sterling life as an adult and is a distinguished judge.

      1. He became a judge as a reward for being a longtime partisan and political streetfighter, not for being a scholar or accomplished private practitioner. The bar association questioned his temperament a decade ago; recent events indicate he continues to be intemperate in demeanor and casual with truth.

        1. Rev, are you a “liar” according to Nolan, because you did not tell the whole truth and include that the ABA found him well qualified this time around?

          1. I have mentioned elsewhere that the ABA rated Judge Kavanaugh “well qualified” despite the longstanding concerns about partisanship and temperament, a point that rebuts the right-wing claim that the ABA (like every other mainstream organization, it appears) is a partisan shill for Democrats, liberals, libertarians, moderates, and anyone else who is not a Federalist-Heritage movement conservative.

          2. I have mentioned elsewhere that the ABA rated Judge Kavanaugh “well qualified” despite the longstanding concerns about partisanship and temperament, a point that rebuts the right-wing claim that the ABA (like every other mainstream organization, it appears) is a partisan shill for Democrats, liberals, libertarians, moderates, and anyone else who is not a Federalist-Heritage movement conservative.

    2. Unless you believe in life in prison for every crime, including juvenile offenses.

  19. Applicable Statute of limitations –

    “In a letter, the police chief and state attorney in Montgomery County, where the assault allegedly occurred, said they would not investigate the incident without a complaint from Ford. They also noted they could do little to prosecute such a case ? assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors in 1982 and subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

    http://www.latimes.com/politic…..story.html

    I havent researched the applicable SoL’s but seems likely correct.

  20. Ford is only believable if you believe a person only remembers things that in no way could legally blow back on her or be nailed down to a time or place. Meanwhile every single possible detail that would have given concrete insight to to the events of 36 years ago or her actions and thought patterns leading up to the hearing itself from the last two months was met with some variation of I don’t recall. It beggars belief that this would actually be the case.

    1. Her testimony would be insufficient to win a civil lawsuit for battery.

      1. Her testimony would be insufficient to open an investigation (even assuming it was recent) by most if not all the police departments in the country.

  21. Whatever questions remain open about what happened in 1982, we have video and audio recordings of how Judge Kavanaugh reacted in 2018.

    The argument that he’s unqualified due to lack of judicial temperament strikes me as compelling.

    1. And VERY fierce partisanship.
      He acted like Trump!

      1. He likely was performing for Trump.

        1. Like Lindsay Graham selling his very soul, as he campaigned to become the next AG.
          Today’s GOP is a disgrace to Goldwater/Reagan/Friedman/Kemp et al

          Goldwater predicted that the Moral Majority was a major threat to his party.
          And Reagan crushed the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade

    2. Yeah, all the people who didn’t support him anyway are shocked at his demeanor when falsely accused of a sex crime.

      1. He responded to false accusations by making false accusations about Dr. Ford. Perhaps, in your view, his crying made that acceptable?

      2. He responded to false accusations by making false accusations about Dr. Ford. Perhaps, in your view, his crying made that acceptable?

        1. He didn’t. He went off and made accurate statements about the Democrats.

        2. Rev.,
          Once again I’ll use Nolan’s definition: you are a liar. But this time you display mens rea to deliberately falsify.

    3. ===The argument that he’s unqualified due to lack of judicial temperament strikes me as compelling.===

      Boy, people on both sides are hitting every single talking point. And nobody wants to talk about the role humans play as nonsentient actor cogs in this Turing’s Chinese room battle in the long ongoing war between evolving giant memeplexes for dominance.

    4. The argument that he’s unqualified due to lack of judicial temperament strikes me as compelling.

      ITT, people who are apparently not human posting shit.

      “How dare this guy Dems accused of raping girls in high school be angry!!”

      1. It’s one thing to mad as hell about a Senator probably taking a cheap shot at Kavanaugh (especially when there is no evidence to substantiate the claim). It’s another thing entirely for a Supreme Court nominee?who is presently a sitting judge?to condemn the entire Democrat machine and left-wing groups with which a large portion of the country associate.

        This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

        1. What is inaccurate about his statement?

          The whole Resistance!!! is based on revenge on behalf of the Clintons.

          This is just another chapter

          1. I’m originally from Ohio,
            Please stop disgracing the Buckeye State.

            Resistance are most often Republicans, including within the administration,. duh
            Democrats don’t need a “resistance”. They are the OPPOSITION Party. Seriously.

    5. Nerdy Fred is the kind of guy who watchs a black man be called a ni@@er, and then blames the black guy for being pissed.

    6. He should recuse himself from all cases where he has been accused of gang rape ? because he can’t maintain a judicial temperament in those situations.

  22. Here is something that is most relevant.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne…..story.html

    Legal experts doubt that a case could be made against Kavanaugh even if someone makes a complaint.

    For one thing, if attempted rape in the first degree was the most appropriate charge, that was a misdemeanor in the 1980s in Maryland. It did not become a felony in the state until 1996. Former Attorney General Doug Gansler, who also served as Montgomery County state’s attorney, noted that Maryland’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors for an offense committed in the 1980s expired long ago.

    Gansler, a Democrat, also noted Kavanaugh was a juvenile at the time, further complicating any investigation and prosecution. He said the type of acts that have been alleged are not ones for which juveniles are typically charged as adults.

    Even if charges could be brought, Gansler said that based on the accounts he’s seen, it would be difficult to prove an alleged assailant had the intent to complete a forcible rape and would not have stopped short of that.

    1. Sounds like he is unlikely to be charged criminally, which is good.

      How would a reasoning adult find that to be relevant to the confirmation process?

      1. Reasoning adults don’t dwell on 35-year-old unverifiable charges of juvenile hijinx where no one was hurt. Reasoning ceased weeks ago.

    2. “Even if charges could be brought, Gansler said that based on the accounts he’s seen, it would be difficult to prove an alleged assailant had the intent to complete a forcible rape and would not have stopped short of that.”

      Her letter provides ample evidence that it wasnt attempted rape – when he/they abandoned the attempted rape, If it was attempted rape, they likely would have tried to stop her after going out the locked door, after the 2nd or 3rd king of the mountain pile on.

    3. Umm, when the Statute of Limitations expires — there is no crime to prosecute!
      That’s what it means!!

    4. No reasonable prosecutor would attempt to press charges when the alleged victim can’t identify in which jurisdiction the alleged crime occurred.

      1. Umm,. this is not a criminal issue.
        And you’re full of shit (again) on the jurisdiction.

        1. “John Galt Jr|9.30.18 @ 5:55AM|#

          Umm,. this is not a criminal issue.
          And you’re full of shit (again) on the jurisdiction.”

          No Jurisdiction Issue- Defense attorneys would love to have you as the prosecutor – cases would be thrown out all the time.

          1. OMFG!
            First you concede that it’s not a criminal matter
            Then your example assumes …….. A CRIMINAL MATTER!!
            How many times can you humiliate yourself on this page, loyal Trumptroll?

  23. It’s blatantly obvious that the allegations are credible to people who are against Kavanaugh, and not credible to people who support him. It should be clear that this type of bias permeates our justice system. If the accuser is white, the allegations are credible. If the accused is black… you get the idea.

    1. And THAT is why Republicans were so WRONG to deny an investigation. Shameful

      1. Republicans seem likely to be paying for their handling of this situation for many years.

        McConnell’s calculation seems to be that the Republicans’ current circumstances and predictable prospects make it worthwhile to sacrifice an election cycle or two for a fifth seat on the Supreme Court.

        The proper Democratic response, if the Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House, would be to enlarge the Supreme Court.

  24. Hopefully after the confirmation, the court will sua-sponte order the dissolution of the senate.

    1. Your contempt for our Constitution is all too common among authoritarians,, be they left or right

      Left – Right = Zero

    2. “the court will sua-sponte order the dissolution of the senate”

      The regional governors can keep the states in line.

      1. GREAT SATIRE!
        But I fear many of the goobers here will think you’re serious!

  25. Everyone is so careful to correlate peoples’ opposition to Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court to their feelings about his “fitness” for the court, yet it is far clearer to correlate it eith say one’s views on abortion, guns, Citizens United, ACA, etc… This is a proxy fight and pretending it is about whether Kavanaugh is “fit” for the job is ridiculous. Things have reached this point by hypocrisy and evasion so I don’t see how more evasion is not going to solve it.

    1. And I say this as a big fan of evasion, hypocrisy, and motivated reasoning as human social practice, they have a lot to be said for them but eventually one reaches a point where virtue and truth are not even being acknowledged and you will not sway the hypocrite because they no longer even believe their is virtue in the cant they are spewing.

    2. Fitness includes fidelity to the Constitution, which judges (like other public officials) promise by oath or affirmation to support.

      There are plenty of judges who are more fit, in this sense, than Kavanaugh, but it’s highly unlikely any of them will be appointed if Kavanaugh’s nomination fails.

      There’s a strong risk that the replacement candidate, if Kavanaugh fails, will be even more hostile to the Constitution than Kavanaugh.

      If being groped and attacked at a high-school party 3+ decades ago is bad, imagine some of the even worse, unconstitutional things that Supreme Court judges have done, or permitted to be done, to people – take away your citizenship (Dred Scott), give you only limited citizenship (Plessy v. Ferguson), expel your citizen-relatives from their homes (Korematsu), steal your house (Kelo), let you be killed in utero (Roe), etc., etc.

      This is what the Supreme Court, including Anthony Kennedy whose seat is now under discussion, allowed to be done to Suzette Kelo’s house. If Kavanaugh gets rejected, what’s to stop another Kennedy from sanctioning similar crimes?

      1. Justice Stevens wrote the Keloe majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

        1. Against whom are you arguing? I said: “This is what the Supreme Court, including Anthony Kennedy whose seat is now under discussion” etc.

          Concurrence by Justice Kennedy

          1. Eddy – misread your original comment – I have met many a progressive that believed the majority in kelo was Scalia, Thomas Rheinquest, o’conner and kennedy. Many of those same progressive forget most if not all the justices in korematsu were roosevelt appointees.

  26. I browsed the contributions. No better than the hearings. It’s just a matter of time before they start beating each other with sticks again on the House and Senate floors.

    1. I would agree. They do pretty-much corroborate the attribution of “motivated reasoning”.

      For a lawyer, they do provide some consolation when one looks askance at the reasoning of some opinions – particularly when they are adverse to one’s client and one’s own arguments. If such presumptively eminent scholars can be so (at least selectively) obtuse, it justifies the lawyer in concluding that their arguments weren’t so ill-taken after all.

      The only one I found completely persuasive was that of Ilya Shapiro. With it I would fully concur.

      Ahhh, Charles Sumner and Bully Brooks … I didn’t expect this allusion. While I don’t expect it to get that far, with the rancor that seems to be accelerating it certainly is conceivable.

  27. Look up Spencer Cowper – as a young lawyer he was accused of killing a young woman and throwing her body in a pond. He was acquitted, and he ended up as a judge – spending the last year on his life on the Common Pleas bench.

    He was probably the inspiration for an M. R. James ghost story.

    1. “he was acquitted”
      Do you know what that means?

      1. You want to argue about the Sarah Stout case?

        1. “he was acquitted”

          Do you know what that means?

          You want to argue about the Sarah Stout case?

          COWARDLY EVASION!
          DO YOU KNOW WHAT ACQUITTED MEANS?

          IT MEANS HE WAS NOT GUILTY!
          SO … AN INNOCENT MAN BECAME A JUDGE! (OMG!)

          (This second ridicule is intended to be greater than my ridiculing your ignorance of what “acquitted” means)

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

    Now 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.

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

    1. Because he probably doesn’t remember. Do you remember every instance from your youth when you were drunk?

      1. That’s the point!

  29. I don’t how you can possibly say Kavenaugh is “yet also likely guilty of sexual assault”.

    By what standard could you possibly conclude he is likely guilty?

    Let’s apply the Obama campus sex tribunal standards to Ford’s allegations. The Obama guidelines just called for a preponderance of evidence, more likely than not.

    I would hope even the worst of these panels would say its unlikely to be true when the accuser can’t say when or where it happened and there was no contemporaneous report, and all 4 people she names including her friend can recall no such incident.

    1. Kazinski: “I would hope even the worst of these panels would say its unlikely to be true when the accuser can’t say when or where it happened and there was no contemporaneous report…”

      Ah, Kazinsky, you haven’t been paying enough attention. It’s a case of the first to report the “assault” is believed. There was such a case discussed at this site on May 11th, in Robby Soave’s blog, where a man accused a woman the morning after, and she suffered the consequences.(she argued that he wanted revenge because she had done the same thing to a friend of his, Yikes!)

      It’s a jungle out there, more so with the lack of standard judicial practices.

      1. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two blatant lies..

        1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinklign was legal …. at 17! … 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..

        It’s over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

        1. To be a lie, you have to prove he made the false statements intentionally. Is it possible he forgot when the drinking age changed? Certainly.

          Is saying that other people denied it happened the same as saying they don’t remember it? Arguably.

          1. Is saying that other people denied it happened the same as saying they don’t remember it? Arguably.

            To a functional illiterate.

            Umm, did he know at the time his drinking was illegal?

  30. Regarding reasons why Ford may be lying:

    1. She lives in the San Francisco area, a fiercely liberal area. According to media reports, opposition to the Trump administration has been intense there.

    2. If one looks at the history of the Clarence Thomas nomination, Anita Hill became a liberal hero.

    3. A person living in a liberal stronghold like the SF area is almost never going to experience any negative consequences from making the claims; like Hill, she will become a hero in her community.

    Taking down Kavanaugh is a high liberal priority. Taking down any Trump nomination to fill Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court is a high priority. It is impossible to prove or disprove Ford’s allegations; thus there are no possible legal negative consequences.

    Other things I noted. She testified that after the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, people told her she had to do something about it. When pressed, she did not give any names but said that these comments were made by “beach friends.” So, she first mentioned in 2012 that an unnamed person attacked her. By 2018, a wide range of people in her community apparently know that Kavanaugh was had attacked and attempted to rape her.

    Smaller details: she claimed she was pushed into a room and that the door was locked. Who locked the door? How was the door locked? Why was it so quick and easy to unlock the door and escape to a bathroom across the hall?

    1. “Smaller details: she claimed she was pushed into a room and that the door was locked. Who locked the door? How was the door locked? Why was it so quick and easy to unlock the door and escape to a bathroom across the hall?”

      That detail and the second guy jumping on the pile three times (king of the mountain game), both items noted in her letter demonstrates that the “attempted rape” was as best half-ass/ half-hearted.

    2. PHONY LAWYER!

      Smaller details: she claimed she was pushed into a room and that the door was locked. Who locked the door?

      One of the two guys ,… which is what she said, Gomer.

      Kavanaugh nomination was announced, people told her she had to do something about it. When pressed, she did not give any names

      Both of those are lies

      Why was it so quick and easy to unlock the door and escape to a bathroom across the hall?

      BECAUSE IT WAS QUICK AND EASY TO LOCK IT, Gomer.

      If you’re a lawyer, I’m the second coming of Jesus Christ. ((lol)

  31. Continued:

    Also, the cadence and style of her voice reminds me of a person I knew who was highly emotionally disturbed. Other people commented that she had a “little girl’s” or “college freshman’s” style of talking – very odd in a mature woman.

    As for the rage in Kavanaugh’s introduction, how would you feel if a woman you did not know slandered you in the one of the most awful ways possible in an effort to prevent you from reaching the top of your field? How would you feel if her slander was kept secret then exposed at the last moment? How would you feel if the people opposing your advancement praised the accuser and added on to the slander?

    Ford has become a liberal hero because of her allegations. Kavanaugh has become a laughing stock or an object of derision to a large part of the public. Anyone familiar with divorce law knows that people make all kinds of fictitious allegations when they are in a highly emotional conflict. To many people in the SF area, the Kennedy retirement created a highly emotional conflict to people on the political left. Looking at the Ford accusations this way, she has a lot to gain by lying and nothing to lose.

    1. the cadence and style of her voice reminds me of a person I knew who was highly emotionally disturbed.

      Haha.

    2. Anyone familiar with divorce law knows that people make all kinds of fictitious allegations when they are in a highly emotional conflict.

      Same with most any allegation

      Assuming argumento – that it was kavanaugh – the real story is somewhere in between. Highly unlikely to be an actual attempted rape –
      Ask any police investigator.

      1. Naw, Joe go with the ‘IMO she sounds like a crazy person, plus she’s from San Fran.’

        1. I agree that pretty much proves his innocence.

        2. “she sounds like a crazy person”

          Looks like one too. No shampoo in her hotel?

          1. She’s not the PROVEN LIAR, under oath.

  32. I sure wish the FBI has the balls to go after Ford’s Facebook history, which disappeared shorty before she opened this whole can of worms. Also those therapist notes. . .

    This whole theory that “you can’t put the victim on trial” is B.S. from the get go. We don’t have a victim yet because the trial is not complete. All we have is an accuser and I maintain that if that accuser has been a raving maniac on political issues on Facebook for some years that speaks to her state of mind and possible motivation for anything that issues from her mouth.

    Then there is the issue of False Memory Syndrome, which is a quite real phenomenon. After four decades people tend to associate the wrong faces with dimly remembered events, especially if they have other mental issues going on.

  33. Having looked through all the contributions, I find it terrifying how many supposedly intelligent people are willing to make decisions based on subjective impressions of “credibility” instead of demanding evidence.

    1. I agree, humans are pretty bad at overestimating the utility of eyewitnesses and the credibility of testimony.

      But that’s how our trial system is set up; we credit testimonial evidence about the same as forensic evidence. Probably because of the above overestimation.

      The sudden discovery by the right that this is problematic is great, but seems quite convenient. I would also point out that it is the right who is willing to make the snap judgement, and the left that wants the investigation.

      1. Not like you to paint with such a broad brush. Pllenty on the left have already formed a conclusion…

        1. No doubt. Tribalism is a helluva drug.

          But that’s not evident on the liberal comentariat here. But literally every commenter on the right here seems have.

          1. “But that’s not evident on the liberal comentariat here.”

            Your kidding right?

            Its all Perjury!!! and other left wing talking points.

            1. Bob, this thread is not talking about the little lies about his yearbook. We are talking about eyewitness testimony, i.e. Ford.

      2. It isn’t a sudden discovery for me.

        But I’m considerably more concerned with the left’s rejection of the presumption of innocence.

        The left doesn’t want an investigation, they want a delay. What’s supposed to be investigated? She says she didn’t tell anybody for 30 years, 4 witnesses have denied it, there’s no specific date or place, and he’s been through 6 FBI background checks already, you think they missed him running a gang rape club?

        How about investigating how it happens that HER yearbook was pulled off the net the day she went public, or what was on all those social media contents she deleted?

    2. Evidence? (lol)
      Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating 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..

      It’s over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

  34. There’s a new fake news allegation that he lied about not having any connections at Yale Law, when in fact he was a legacy. But of course having a relative at Yale undergrad doesn’t make you a legacy. The problem with the “small lies” argument is that half of the “small lies” are just journalists lying, and the other half are rank speculation, like “Devil’s Triangle”.

    1. It’s almost as if the delay was designed to give his opponents more time to find new charges.

      1. Yeah, Flake is all about that kind of a plot.

        The delay was designed to provide a fig leaf of respectability via a neutered investigatory process.

        Which is important; a perceived illegitimate Supreme Court Justice would be bad news.

        1. There is no way to tel what Flake’s motivation was.

          He is too flakey for that.

          Sometimes your name IS your destiny.

          1. Which makes Eddy’s conspiratoriating all the more unsupported.

    2. The rank speculation is pretty carefully reported at this point. Also notable is that the right has turned up nothing to rebut.

      What I am seeing in an attempt to rebut is increasingly crazy speculation about Ford. Which is telling about how hard it is to defend Kav.

      He may still get through because that’s how the Senate is, but it’s looking like there may be a political price to pay.

      1. “pretty carefully reported”

        What are you talking about? The media is running with every rumor, mindless speculation and slander against Kav.

        “it’s looking like there may be a political price to pay”

        Yes, every lefty is claiming this. Yet Trump’s approval is going back to its baseline and the Missouri senate poll shows the GOP Kav supporter winning. So we have to see.

        Anyone who predicts the impact of a single event on a series of races in a national election is being foolish.

        1. Yes, Fox is full of shit.
          And avanaugh is a proven liar, and REFUSED to deny that he is the out-of-control drunk in Mark Justice’s book, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh.”

          Why else would he refuse, twice, except to avoid perjury?

          You righties continue to be as gullible as lefties.
          Left – Right = Zero

      2. “The rank speculation is pretty carefully reported at this point. Also notable is that the right has turned up nothing to rebut.”

        What is available to rebut
        When – she dont know
        Where – She dont know
        She named three people at the party
        All three denied the event

        Tell us what Kavanaugh is supposed to rebut

        1. You guys keep switching between the question of Ford’s accusation versus the question of Kav’s testimony.

          This is about Kav’s testimony, Joe.

          1. Sarcastro – you are the one that keeps switching –

            Again – it is a basic concept that the person making an allegation of anything has the responsibility to present something supporting their allegation.

            You are making the claim that the accused is supposed to present something to rebut – But what is supposed to be rebuted

            Where – the accuser doesnt know
            When – the accuser doesnt know

      3. Carefully reported? What, that “Devil’s Triangle” is a threesome? So what? It also means the Bermuda Triangle, and I’m sure it means plenty of other things. There isn’t a scintilla of evidence that Kav was lying when he said it was a drinking game, other than the fact that people desperately want to believe this.

      4. “Also notable is that the right has turned up nothing to rebut”

        Wow. First we have to prove the Kav didn’t assault somebody on some unspecified date and time, and now we have to prove a bunch of kids didn’t call a drinking game “devils triangle” in the 80’s?

        How about, Judge refutes the allegation, and her best friend says she didn’t know Kav, even though they were supposedly at a small gathering together when the incident allegedly happened.

        What we have is a nearly disproven allegation being propped up by sheer willpower on the left.

        1. Check out the Current Affairs report. It’s pretty exhaustive.

          Yeah, if you want to prove Kav didn’t lie to Congress, you need to address how much what he said goes against common parlance.

          1. “Yeah, if you want to prove Kav didn’t lie to Congress…”

            Why would I need to prove that?

            “common parlance.”

            Common parlance, like “boof” or “devil’s triangle”? I’d never heard of either term before this.

            And I read the Current Affair article. It’s bullshit. Unless you can show that Kavanaugh is lying about the incident, you can’t say that the claim that “he never attended a gathering like this” is false. Perhaps he meant that he never attend a gathering where Ford was present. All the evidence indicates that this is, in fact, true.

            And the author of your article humiliates himself by claiming that Judge didn’t refute the accusation. That’s just a lie.

        2. Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, including repeats.

          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..

          It’s over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

          1. “He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. ”

            Quote him. My understanding is that he said seniors were, but wasn’t specific as to himself.

            “He also lied that the other four people at the party have “denied” the events. HE is the only one denying it.”

            That’s not perjury, that quibbling. All they can deny is remembering any such event. That’s denial enough when somebody says you were involved in an event at an unspecified place and time.

            1. Kavanaugh said, “Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal” VIDEO PROOF

              1. So you’ve quoted him telling the truth as evidence that he perjured himself?

          2. “Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it.”

            The AP fact checkers are lying. Judge denied that it happened.

  35. Take the vote away from women, and this problem goes away. It’s either that, or men will yank back power at some point, and it won’t be peaceably.

    1. I’ll kill you myself. Make my day, goober.

  36. What gets me, and this may be a guy thing: the idea that Prof. F didn’t know the date or even the year seems so incredulous that I do not see how anyone could give any credence at all to her statement.

    To me this lack of a date was an attempt to keep Judge K from defending himself. If they randomly gave a date he could have been at a football camp or even been out of the state. To not know the date seems to me to be way to clever a way to prevent her from being shown to be a lair by a good abilis once Judge K had the accusation.

    The law would not even start an investigation without a date– I don’t know how any media talking head could not be pushing this point– no date no credibility. Nothing else even rises to this level of dubiousness.

  37. The word “credible” is tossed around but it doesn’t mean very much beyond: not obviously or provably lying.

    What is odd, detailed in Rachel Mitchell’s report are changing details and increasing certainty. And little is so clear and certain to Ford beyond Kavanaugh’s role, whose name was only verifiably spoken when he was nominated. In her testimony, it was Kavanaugh who pushed her into the room. Yet she said maybe Judge pushed her too – she wasn’t certain BECAUSE he was behind her. It begs the question how she could be certain that the nominated person pushed her, but only maybe the other.

    She seemed to be guessing/inferring “where” (had to be near the country club) and “when” (she was both unclear and wavering on that until very recently) but presented it as her memory.

    The strange lapses in her recent memory and disprovable representations (eg aversion to flying or the reason for therapy having to do with a door) raises serious questions. Both representations were meant to show proof of an effect of the alleged assault, yet both claims are not credible.

    Her caginess/forgetfulness that Feinstein’s office recommended one of her attorneys was not credible. It’s concerning that her memory apparently became increasingly concrete in recent years and weeks, except for corroborating information, but definitely naming Kavanaugh as the assailant. Trauma can explain memory lapses but the very recent solidification of her story is something else.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.