Brett Kavanaugh

Swetnick Shifts Story About Kavanaugh at Rape Parties as Texts and Brawls Cast Doubt on the Judge's Own Claims: Reason Roundup

Plus: more transparency among California cops and less transparency among Instagram "influencers."

|

Screenshot/NBC

Red solo cups, hypno-research, and Yale bar fights with '80s pop-star lookalikes (oh my)—just another day in news about SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Let's try to make some sense of it.

Julie Swetnick walks back allegations. In a Monday interview with NBC News, the woman who last week suggested that Kavanaugh was involved in multiple high-school gang rapes admitted to uncertainty about parts of her story.

Julie Swetnick—who last week wrote that "during the years 1981-82, I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say 'No'"—now says that she merely saw Kavanaugh "giving red solo cups to quite a few girls. I saw him around the punchbowls. I don't know what he did."

Swetnick, who is represented by celebrity resistance lawyer Michael Avenatti, also walked back claims regarding Kavanaugh and his friends lining up outside bedrooms to take turns sexually assaulting the women in them. Last night, Swetnick said only that the high school boys "congregated together" outside bedrooms, laughing—something that could be nefarious but is also the behavior of high school boys and girls for time immemorial when one of their friends is hooking up with someone at a party.

She also said she couldn't be sure if Kavanaugh participated in her assault at one of these parties (a point that was also unclear in her original testimony). And as Reason's Robby Soave noted yesterday, Swetnick "borrowed a few key phrases from the story told by Christine Blasey Ford, the initial Kavanaugh accuser who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week," when recounting her alleged attack. Standing "in stark contrast to Ford, Swetnick was neither persuasive nor believable," writes Soave.

Judge for yourself here.

Conservatives accuse Ford of false memories. Kavanaugh supporters have been working to discredit Ford for serving as a secondary author on a research paper about hypnosis and therapy. Here's the general gist of that dispute in two tweets:

Friends say Kavanaugh threw shade—and beer—at Yale. After Kavanaugh doubled down on choirboy claims before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, his former friends started dredging up stories about the future judge not just "liking beer," as he admitted, but being an ornery drunk with a quick temper. Yesterday evening, The New York Times reported that Kavanaugh was involved in a 1985 bar fight rooted in mistakenly believing some dude was the lead singer of the band UB40.

Kavanaugh supporters say it's ridiculous to tar him for some dumb college bar fight. His detractors say sure, of course—but the fight story is noteworthy as part of a pattern of alleged antics from Kavanaugh, and as another point of contention between his self-portrayal and the tales that former classmates tell.

"So far, no evidence has emerged that Kavanaugh was arrested for a bar fight, cited for underage drinking or treated for alcoholism," notes The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler.

Moreover, no one has come forward to say they remember Kavanaugh, as a student, admitting that he could not remember what happened the night before. Instead, we have diametrically opposed recollections offered by friends and former classmates in media interviews – that he was either a social drinker who never went to excess or that he was a stumbling, sometimes nasty drunk.

Kessler parsed "six on-the-record statements critical of his drinking and at least three people who disputed it was a problem," finding there was "not enough consistent information to assign a Pinocchio rating, so readers can judge for themselves."

Deborah Ramirez-related texts could cause trouble. The other new Kavanaugh complication may also be open to interpretation. NBC reported last night that leading up to a New Yorker story on how Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to Ramirez at a Yale dorm room party, "the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim."

NBC's source for this is text messages another Yale classmate of theirs, Kerry Berchem, said she has been trying to get to the FBI and Senate Republicans, to no avail. The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, a mutual friend of both her and Ramirez, show that Kavanaugh "asked her to go on the record in his defense," according to NBC.

The texts also allege that Kavanaugh had "obtained a copy of a photograph of a small group of friends from Yale at a 1997 wedding in order to show himself smiling alongside Ramirez 10 years after they graduated." She was a bridesmaid in the wedding and he a groomsman. Testifying before Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 25, Kavanaugh said he was "probably" at a wedding also attended by Ramirez but "doesn't have a specific recollection" of interacting with her there.

That same day, Kavanaugh also told senators that he hadn't heard about the flashing incident Ramirez alleges until The New Yorker article came out, though he had heard before then that Ramirez was "calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it." So either Kavanaugh contradicted himself within his own testimony from September 25, or he heard Ramirez was asking questions about something but only filled in the parameters of what "it" was that Ramirez was asking about later. Without further pressing, we really can't say.

It's possible Kavanaugh really didn't know what specifically Ramirez would allege, either because he's innocent or because he's guilty but was blackout drunk. It's also possible he knew exactly what Ramirez was going to say and was texting classmates to get ahead of it. Like so many pieces of this puzzle, this is one that can easily be interpreted and wielded in many ways.

"Berchem's memo outlining her correspondence with Yarasavage shows there's a circle of Kavanaugh friends who may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry who may not be interviewed," noted NBC. "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already set in motion a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination on the Senate floor for later this week."

FREE MINDS

More police transparency in California? A law that will take effect January 1, 2019, will finally compel cops to release information about internal affairs investigations.

"For decades, California has restricted public access to information about police officer misconduct," writes Christopher Damien in the Palm Springs Desert Sun. The new state law authorizes "the release of information about internal affairs investigations into police use of deadly force, sexual misconduct, and dishonesty in investigative reports…. SB 1421 will allow the public to use the California Public Records Act to unseal internal investigation records related to when officers use weapons on people, commit sexual assault or lie in police reports. The bill will require the records to be unsealed 18 months after the incident."

The measure was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday (not on Monday, as mistakenly indicated in this post when first published). Scott Shackford has been covering the legislation for Reason; read more about it from him here.

FREE MARKETS

Markets in everything!

This penthouse apartment in Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood is awash in natural light, with high ceilings, gleaming hardwood floors and a rooftop deck. The living room area includes a sofa in the rosy hue known as millennial pink, the kitchen comes equipped with a floor-to-ceiling wine fridge, and the library nook is filled with books chosen for their appearance, not their contents. The white walls are spotless, and there is never any clutter.

Nobody lives here.

The 2,400-square-foot space — which rents for $15,000 a month — was designed as a backdrop for Instagram stars, who have booked it through October.

Read more if you can stomach it here.

QUICK HITS

AROUND THE WORLD

NEXT: Is Ford's Credibility Undermined by Her Refusal to Produce Her Therapy Records?

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. “This is a story about a cat rescue. It’s also a story about government bureaucracy.”

    Both like to toy with its prey.

    1. Hello.

      Kava-Nope!

      What a sad, banana-republic spectacle. Right up the DNC’s alley.

      1. Hold on to your Kava-Hope, though. Me, I’ll just drink some kava.

    2. Speaking of, RIP, Citizen X, who was probably killed by his cats, who finally executed their years-long plan to take over his household and pretend to be him.

    3. Ooh! What other comparisons can we draw?

      Both take a lot more than they give
      Both like to destroy your things just because they can
      Both are loved everywhere by crazy old ladies

  2. In a Monday interview with NBC News, the woman who last week suggested that Kavanaugh was involved in multiple high-school gang rapes admitted to uncertainty about parts of her story.

    OBVIOUS GOP FALSE FLAG OPERATION

  3. ‘I have argued to you that when you found that a judge was a perjurer, you couldn’t in good conscience send him back in a courtroom because everybody that came in that courtroom thereafter would have a real serious doubt’
    ? @LindseyGrahamSC (January 1999) pic.twitter.com/A5D3yx2iIS
    ? RetroNewsNow (@RetroNewsNow) September 28, 2018

    Just goes to show you that there’s a Lindsey Graham tweet for everything.

    1. Even for first contact? Is there a Lindsey tweet out there about aliens?

      1. Darn. I couldn’t find anything, but apparently Paul Krugman said we could boost our economy by staging a fake alien invasion.

    2. Although Kavanaugh did dodge a couple questions having nothing to do with Dr. Ford, there is absolutely NO evidence of perjury OTHER than the diametrical claims made by each (Ford: “It was Kavanaugh, 100%”; Kavanaugh: “It wasn’t me”).

      To prove perjury here takes at least another witness (oath against oath is not enough). So, if your implication is that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury, as of right now, you’re baying at the moon.

      1. Kavanaugh claimed that he first heard of Ramirez allegation from the newspaper but it turns out that’s not true. Another example of a lie to cover up potentially damaging information. Should be over now.

  4. Kavanaugh supporters say it’s ridiculous to tar him for some dumb college bar fight. His detractors say sure, of course?but the fight story is noteworthy as part of a pattern of alleged antics from Kavanaugh, and as another point of contention between his self-portrayal and the tales that former classmates tell.

    Sure, he’s had decades of near perfect behavior and a lack track record of decisions. Let’s go back to high school and college to destroy him. That makes sense.

    ENB, would YOU survive this level of scrutiny? Would any person in history?

    1. No ENB would not survive such scrutiny. She and her cohorts are relying on never having to survive the ever shifting demands of the mob.

      When the ‘rules’ threaten them then the ‘rules’ will no longer apply.

      I’m just happy she has revealed herself to be a card carrying member of the growing ever desperate by-any-means-necessary crowd.

    2. No.

    3. I’m down for us only allowing fully Canonized Saints into federal office.

      1. Have you read Sex Lives Of The Popes, per chance?

        1. Actually, in the days of Martin Luther, Catholic priests were allowed to keep concubines (that was one of his theses).

          1. The Catholics should have taken his advice and allowed priests to marry, if nothing else

          2. Was that before or after his writings on defecation? Dude had issues with poop.

    4. Maybe I misunderstand the term, but I could have sworn that someone who has “blacked out” from drinking was unconscious. People who are unconscious tend not to engage in sexual assault, rape, theft, murder, or any other form of activity because they are, by definition, unconscious. Most people I know of Who have told me of not being able to remember things because of drinking we’re unable to remember because they had zoned out and were half asleep. I know it is very, very few people, if any at all, who plotted and engaged in sexual assaults and were totally unable to remember it because they had “blacked out.”

      1. I’ve blacked out many times but remained awake and continued to function. It’s kinda scary, but I’ve never been accused of inappropriate behavior–other than the one time I tried to drive home, crashed, and got arrested for DUI. Whoops!

      2. No, blacking our means to be so drunk you have no recall afterward of what you did while drunk.

        1. Sorry no. That’s a brown out

      3. Yes, you misunderstand the term. I have a friend who regularly lays a wide path of destruction when given anything stronger than beer and then has no recollection of the events which transpired.

        Sometimes I feel like I grew up in an alternate universe… one where excessive drinking was common, prep school culture violently defends its image, and drunken high school gang-rapes actually happen. I come here and see people acting like these things are unicorns and it boggles my mind. I’m not saying the democratic operatives aren’t lying when they accuse Kavanaugh, but the notion that those accusations are somehow outside of normal reality is laughable to me.

        1. I had friends in college who were hard partying Catholics, some in a frat, where I attended a lot of parties.

          There was a lot of excessive drinking, and if not rape, young girls who seemed to be hanging out at all the parties and letting the frat boys get away with a lot because of self-esteem and other unresolved issues.

      4. Brown state…

  5. finding there was “not enough consistent information to assign a Pinocchio rating, so readers can judge for themselves.”

    pinocchio ratings remain the most laughable part of this whole thing

    1. ENB should realize that there isn’t a libertarian outside of reason that takes pinocchio ratings seriously.

    2. The humor in this is all wooden.

      1. Listen I just want to take this opportunity to apologize, I learned last night that you actually are Special Needs, and I’m sure all the times I called you a retard were painful for you because you didn’t realize it was in jest, and probably thought I actually knew your background.

  6. Argento recalls sexual encounter with Jimmy Bennett
    Italian actress Asia Argento, who became a leading figure in the #MeToo movement after accusing powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of rape, admitted she had sex with young actor Jimmy Bennett, who claimed she sexually assaulted him as a teenager.

    During a television show in Italy on Sunday Argento, who had initially denied having sex with Bennett, recounted her relationship with the actor.

    ASIA ARGENTO ANGER’S ALL THAT KEPT ME ALIVE After Bourdain’s Suicide
    Tears streamed down Asia’s face as she revealed her initial reaction to her boyfriend’s death was anger. Anger because she felt he was “abandoning me, my kids.”

    1. Cheating bitch drove Bourdain to suicide. I hope she dies in a fire.

      1. I hope she does too. I don’t for the life of me see what he saw in her. She is just skanky looking and a bitch on top of that.

        1. Entertaining one’s trailer trash fetish never ends well.

          1. Aw, now I am all nostalgic for Crusty.

            1. So where is Crusty? Did something happen to him, or did he just disappear? Or did he get banned?

              1. He was nominated for a Federal office by Trump but the Democrats were able to block his nomination by smearing him as some kind of pervert using his username and old comments on H&R.

          2. If you drag a hundred dollar bill, covered in foie gras across a hollywood casting couch you never know what sort of detritus will come out.

    2. I always knew something was up with those parrot heads. Oops. I read that as Jimmy Buffet.

    3. That’s the popular opinion that’s going around, but they seem to really have had an open relationship.

      I just read Bourdain’s “Nasty Bits” book of essays, and it has several references to suicide and feeling suicidal from long before Argento. One reference I read just yesterday very specifically talked about how he might one day bang himself in a hotel shower.

      1. Hang himself.

        No doubt he has banged himself in the shower many times.

  7. Actually not strange; they’re really just two parts of one party, so this behavior is part of a collaborative effort to increase government power while convincing the Great Unwashed that they’re “scoring” against the “other team”. https://t.co/62hlZHLESM
    ? Maggie McNeill (@Maggie_McNeill) October 2, 2018

    If the voting public didn’t want to be hustled maybe they should wash up.

  8. he Stranger’s Katie Herzog pushes back against the firing of Mic staffer Jack Smith IV and #MeToo spinning “into a moral panic, in which poor but normal human behaviors take on the weight of crimes.”

    Am I supposed to care at this point?

    I’m supposed to MOURN fucking “reporters” caught up in this?

    Fuck your entire profession. If every reporter lost jobs over this, it’d be just delicious irony.

    1. What happened to Jack Smith is wrong, like most of the #metoo lynchings, but it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving liar. They eat their own. Everyone should know this by now.

      1. Robespierre never imagined he’d end up at the guillotine.

  9. 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!
    ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” ? meaning they exaggerated.

    1. Give it up. The science is settled.

      1. I recently saw an article somewhere about how instruments set up at the South Pole are detecting particles that should not exist and this is causing prevailing theories in particle physics to be called into question or revised.

        Funny how science is still evolving (as it likely always will be) in most scientific fields, with the sole exception of climate science.

        1. I Fucking Love Settled Science!

  10. Moreover, no one has come forward to say they remember Kavanaugh, as a student, admitting that he could not remember what happened the night before. Instead, we have diametrically opposed recollections offered by friends and former classmates in media interviews ? that he was either a social drinker who never went to excess or that he was a stumbling, sometimes nasty drunk.

    …down party lines.

  11. A statue of Roald Dahl’s Matilda staring down Donald Trump has been unveiled near the author’s old home in Great Missenden in Bucks

    what an incredible self-own

    1. That entire sentence had absolutely no meaningful information.

    2. A quintessentially British author’s creation is used to make a cheap joke about the American political scene, with a statue whose meaning observers 25 or 30 years from now will need to have explained to them.

      Were he able to see this unveiling, Dahl would have Roald over in his grave!

      1. Polite golf clap

  12. I learned last night that Chipper Morning Baculum was a Boofer Troofer.

  13. All members of the Canadian Armed Forces can now grow beards and smoke cannabis. But the beard has to be better than peach fuzz, and weed can only be consumed eight hours or more before duty, among other limitations. https://t.co/1T22Ciz5Nd pic.twitter.com/SN9LzEtvzn
    ? Kat Murti (@KatMurti) October 2, 2018

    Canuckistani forces conscripted from Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

    1. It is not as Canadian troops are going into harm’s way and need to be mentally sharp.

      1. They actually have the highest casualty rate of any armed force in the world. Unfortunately it is enitely from Moose attacks.

        1. Is this actually true, or are you just making a joke?

        2. The Brits use to use them as cannon fodder. Or maybe I’m thinking of the Aussies.

          1. Gallipoli for the Australian soldiers, Dunkirk for the Canadians.

  14. “Matilda demonstrates that it’s possible for anyone, no matter how small and powerless they feel, to defeat the Trunchbulls in their own lives ? a message that feels more relevant today than it did 30-years-ago,” Bernie Hall, marketing director at The Roald Dahl Story Company, told The Independent.

    fair, though, i don’t imagine protagonists in Dahl stories to be very fond of the modern day Left, either.

  15. Swetnick’s tales are tipping the scales towards confirming BK

    1. Which explains the sudden shift of concern towards drinking, and ‘temperament.’

      The whole ‘perjured himself over 1980’s teen slang’ thing is comical. Everyone pimping that nonsense should lose all credibility for life (or, at least until the reach adulthood.)

      1. OBJECTION!

        That would involve Sen DaNang Blumenthal having credibility!

  16. BOOMERANG: Twitter suspends Georgetown professor who wanted to castrate GOP corpses

    “When I advocated that people be banned and censored, I meant people who said things against my political agenda, not in support of it!. What has gone wrong here???” The cry of censorship advocates for centuries: the people least capable of learning basic lessons.

    ? Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 2, 2018

  17. Re NBC. And people have the astonishing gall to call Fox ‘Faux News’.

    Call me crazy, but has Fox issues the same amount of retractions and corrections as the liberal legacy media?

    Speaking of Robby, whatever. He’s seen enough and didn’t sugar coat his belief Kavanaugh should withdraw.

    Oof.

    1. It is not even close. When was the last time Fox News had to retract some blatent lie?

      1. FOX LIES ALL THE TME THAT’S WHY!

        Trump has 4221 lies and counting!

    2. To be fair, I think a truly partisan network news division would hide someone so obviously unreliable rather than showcase her.

    3. The New York Times is no better than Fox News.

      1. The New York Times has had multiple instances of reporters being caught outright fabricating stories. I don’t recall Fox ever having that happen. Do you?

        1. Usually when people complain about Fox News, they’re raling against the editorial programming like Hannity (who’s honestly a blowhard that I can’t stand to listen to) and formerly Bill O’ Reilly, was a hack that literally challenged by pretending like tides were an inexplicable phenomenon that defied scientific explanation.

          I have big problems with both of them, but generally they’re pretty good about the news portions. I just think we’re in a world where people are recognizing that there’s a very thin line between news and opinion pieces.

          1. Those guys don’t pretend to be reporters. They are like the opinion page of a newspaper. Why people are too stupid to understand that is beyond me.

            1. What people need to understand is that every anchor sitting at news desk is bringing you stories based on their own bias. Whether it’s just the choice in what stories they’re highlighting, or the angle in which they present them.

          2. “”I just think we’re in a world where people are recognizing that there’s a very thin line between news and opinion pieces.””

            I think we are in a world where many people vested in watching shows like Hannity or Maddow do not understand that are watching opinion pieces. They do not understand the difference between news, and op ed.

      2. much worse if all you’re looking for is short dresses and blondes

    1. Man, that can’t be a real thing, can it?

      1. Niger please!

    2. The same city as Manchester United?

      Are the at least still allowed to riot at soccer games?

    3. Isn’t that discriminatory towards blind presenters?

  18. “Kavanaugh supporters say it’s ridiculous to tar him for some dumb college bar fight. His detractors say sure, of course?but the fight story is noteworthy as part of a pattern of alleged antics from Kavanaugh, and as another point of contention between his self-portrayal and the tales that former classmates tell.”

    Give. Me. A. Fucken. Break.

    Patterns my ass. I used to play sports, hang out at clubs, stand around chatting at a bar with future mobsters. Does it make me one?

    These people can straight fuck off and die because if it happened to them we know damn well they’d scream bloody murder – and rightfully so.

    1. This is so insane, I cannot believe this is not going to do real harm to them in the midterms. No one who is not Tony level stupid and hateful and already going to vote Democrat no matter what is going to think this is anything but insane. If even three months ago, I had claimed that the media would be claiming that because a guy drank and partied in law school and college he was disqualified from the Supreme Court, people would have said I was crazy. And yet, that is exactly what they are doing.

      1. How can anybody claim with a straight face that a man who said “sometimes I drank too many beers” never admitted to drinking too much?

      2. Whats odd is that the same behavior by Beto in Texas got Reason to say he’s cool enough to be in the Senate. Wut?

      3. I’ve really reduced my involvement in and discussion of politics the last 6 months or so, so I have zero pulse on the levels of motivation for either team. It seems unlikely that this will really motivate Dems based on prior experience. Do you see them really getting out for the midterms? What about the Republicans?

      4. The latest polling data suggest the Democrat antics are having a serious negative effect on Blue State Dems. Heitkamp is down by nearly double digits in ND, while McCaskill’s lead has vanished in MO.

        It would be hilarious to have Kavanaugh confirmed and then have the Republicans gain seats in the Senate as a direct result of the DemoMediaCrat smear campaign.

        1. Its gonna be a Democrat bloodbath.

      5. I think you are wrong.

        My whole group of liberal friends think this is equivalent to Merrick Garland not getting a vote OR believe Ford because “why would she lie”

        And they will defend it to the death

    2. I had a large group of friends in college. We had belligerent drunks, light drinkers, even a Mormon who didn’t drink. We had both virgins and sexual promiscuous men and women. The guilt by association thing happening here is absolutely sinister and ridiculous.

    3. Patterns my ass. I used to play sports, hang out at clubs, stand around chatting at a bar with future mobsters. Does it make me one?

      Did they tell you how the hit on Dino Bravo was carried out?

      1. LOFL.

        LOL.

    4. Patterns my ass. I used to play sports, hang out at clubs, stand around chatting at a bar with future mobsters. Does it make me one?

      I was assaulted and choked nearly to unconsciousness once while in the 4th grade at school. Rumor was that Chalk Wessell had been held back at least once and had just been transferred into our school. He didn’t last the rest of the semester. I wasn’t traumatized by it (I subsequently did far more dangerous and stupid shit voluntarily). Also, I know I told people about the incident because towards the end of my first year of college my brother, who wouldn’t ever have met or known about Chalk directly, brought him up asking if I remembered him. Apparently, Chalk and an associate shot and killed a handful of people before leading police in a chase across state lines. Chalk ended up dead in a cornfield with a bullet in his head and a gun in each hand.

      I can’t be certain because I don’t know all the intervening details nor do I have copious amounts of evidence, but I’d believe Chalk had a pattern of violent behavior. I continued to attend school with people who thought of Chalk as a friend and were present when he attacked me. I’d never say I was friends with them, but they were distinctly not the type of person I believe Chalk to have been.

  19. The media is now having a serious debate about whether a person’s drinking habits in college and law school should bar them from the Surpeme Court. Explain to me again why any of these clowns should ever be taken seriously or treated with anything but contempt?

    1. That Hilary might be a stumbling boozer never seemed to be a concern for Reason during the last election.

      Yeah, yeah. I know, ‘whataboutism…’

      Well, what about it?

      1. The fact that O’Rourke in Texas has a DUI conviction that resutled from a serious accident he caused and tried to flee the scene when he was 27, has not stopped Reason from giving him fawning coverage about how dreamy he is. But we are supposed to believe that Kavanaugh drinking in law school is a really serious deal.

        1. Back in the old days drunks that drowned woman in rivers became known as the lion of the senate.

        2. Caitlin hit (killed? Can’t remember) someone and the media fawned over her.

          Buckle up buckaroo!

        3. yeah but hes Irish. the bar is set a lot lower because those types of things are expected. Every irish politician has at least one DUI or domestic battery in their record.

          and I’m half-irish so I can say these things.

    2. ENB and Robby are leading the charge. ENB I assume because of abortion, Robby because he isn’t smart enough to think for himself or a place of principle.

    3. The old stereotype of reporters was being booze soaked. Though I suppose having a reporter’s temperament would be a disqualifying trait for any job with real responsibility.

    4. Because Kavanaugh’s drinking must be evaluated in context. It’s not like this ice-throwing incident is the first piece of alarming information we’ve learned about him. You also need to consider the credible allegations of sexual assault, the baseball ticket debt, the snubbed handshake, and the white power gestures. It all adds up to somebody clearly unfit for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court.

      #CancelKavanaugh
      #SaveRoe
      #SUPER-PRECEDENT

      1. The context of 35 years of absolutely spotless professional and personal conduct. I know you are spoof but it isn’t really funny to spoof an innocent man being slandered. Go pick some other topic.

        1. The context of 35 years of absolutely spotless professional and personal conduct.

          What kind of person slobbers over a career of partisan, authoritarian right-wing streetfighting, including a performance on the torture-and-endless-detention tour?

          An authoritarian, bigoted right-winger.

          Carry on, faux libertarian clingers. Your betters will shape the future while you mutter bitterly and inconsequentially along the sidelines.

          1. You are the dumbest troll ever to inhabit this board. You can’t even properly troll. It is terrifying how ignoran you are. Come back when you can argue a point properly.

            1. The Rev is too stupid to know he’s stupid.

              1. Why do people keep engaging him?

      2. There are no “credible allegations of sexual assault.” What exists is an allegation of misdemeanor assault by an admitted psychoneurotic who clearly no longer can recall key elements of her story and thus leaves us with the question of HOW MUCH she ACTUALLY remembers and how much she has INVENTED simply to fill in a blank.

        Calling this encounter an “attempted rape” is no more accurate than calling it “attempted criminally negligent hiomicide. On a motion for summary judgment (which obliges me to accept as true the FACTS Dr. Ford relates), there is NO MORE than a couple of bratty boys pushing her away from the bathroom and throwing her onto a bed as part of some plot to scare the pee out of her. That’s not acceptable behavior either, but it’s NOT attempted rape, nor is there any medical possibility it could have resulted in criminally negligent homicide.

        As a matter of law, one must separate ACTUAL facts from Dr. Ford’s (and Atty. Katz’s) characterization of them).

        This can be no more than someone making a mountain from a molehill.

        1. You are quite the forceful advocate for backwardness and bigotry, Robert Crim. Lots of unqualified declarations. Avid disregard for context. You must be a hit at FreeRepublic, Breitbart, Stormfront, and RedState.

          1. The meanest thing you can do to a troll is to simply ignore them. They shrivel up and die from neglect.

          2. Check out Arthur L. Hicklib playing Loser Progressive Bingo.

  20. “Deborah Ramirez-related texts could cause trouble. The other new Kavanaugh complication may also be open to interpretation”

    “Swetnick Shifts Story About Kavanaugh at Rape Parties as Texts and Brawls Cast Doubt on the Judge’s Own Claims: Reason Roundup”

    ENB’s coverage of this has been garbage, like her takes.

    1. The guy got drunk a few times in college. That is total proof he is lying when he claims he isn’t a gang rapist. Didn’t you know that.

      1. Suddenly the FBI investigation can’t be trusted to find the truth so leftists like ENB decide to play Encyclopedia Brown.

        1. Not Nancy Drew?

          1. No, that would be sexist.

      2. Remember when RGB fell asleep at one of Obama’s state of the Union addresses and she admits it was because she had been drinking wine

      1. Aw look everyone I pissed her off!

        1. tell yourself whatever you need to, sweetie. Rage clicks & comments still count toward my traffic

          1. Omfg I DID piss her off!!!

            SHE MAD!!!

            1. Omfg I DID piss her off!!! SHE MAD!!!

              She’s mad.

              You’re a poorly educated, stale-thinking, authoritarian bigot.

              Everybody has problems.

              1. “She’s mad”

                You’re stealing my gig.

          2. tell yourself whatever you need to, sweetie

            Look more like you telling on yourself, hun.

          3. It goes on her resume when she applies for that job at The Atlantic or Slate or some other ‘real’ publication.

          4. Do you realize that you work for a libertarian magazine ? I think people take issue with the way that you write, because you don’t really write about things from a libertarian point of view leading some to wonder why you are writing for this magazine.
            “Rage clicks & comments still count toward my traffic” offers good insight into your perspective.
            Look, you’re a great lady with unique interests and write about things I would never really be exposed to, but I, and I’m sure lots of people who read Reason everyday, are sick of reading about sex robots and prostitutes crying about how much dignity they have every morning.

            1. Speak for yourself. I love ENB articles on the whole. She isn’t perfect but she is by far one of their best writers.

              1. I agree that it’s easier to read ENB vs. Dalmia, Soave, Welch even, I’m only offering some gentle criticism because she replied to Tulpa with a goofy non-sequiter about “rage clicks”. Like write something that appeals to libertarians and then talk about your “raGing Clickz”.

                That being said, people take it way easier on ENB than on virtually any other writer at Reason and i think that will catch up with her at some point or another.

                1. She is well loved here because she is thought-provoking and does a good job. Her morning links are better than we’ve ever had.

                  She does deserve criticism on this point, but certainly should not get the Robby treatment (which Robby deserves).

              2. I’ll chime and agree that I usually like ENB articles. She focuses on good stories and generally has some very good takes, backed up with evidence.

                Her morning round-ups going around this whole story have been a lot more questionable, where she’s not portraying the kind of skepticism I usually see her from where sexual allegations are concerned. You can be sympathetic to potential victims while still defaulting into the position of being skeptical.

                1. Yeah, this is a problem that I see with her in regards to this. She is not being intellectually consistent on something that she generally is very intellectually consistent on. I hope she recognizes it, because while I don’t agree with her on everything, I always recognize and respect the point of view that she is coming from, except with this situation.

                  She doesn’t like Kavanaugh, which is fine, I’m not huge on him either, but that shouldn’t matter in regards to these allegations, and for a person that is constantly (correctly) shaming others for railroading people, it just seems quite hypocritical and out of character.

                2. Totally agree, well put.

                  I wasn’t trying to take shots at ENB. She does a better job of not letting her biases show than like 80% of the writers here, and like 99% of journoloz at large.

            2. Dont Tread On Womyn|10.2.18 @ 10:37AM

              I, and I’m sure lots of people who read Reason everyday, are sick of reading about sex robots and prostitutes crying about how much dignity they have every morning.

              Oh, the irony

            3. I’m sure lots of people who read Reason everyday, are sick of reading about sex robots and prostitutes crying about how much dignity they have every morning.

              Sure. And some of us are sick of reading comments from whiny Republicans.

              1. I’m not a Republican or a conservative.

          5. Incentives. Could it be that Reason writers piss us off purposely to drive clicks?

            I’ve wondered about that before, but thought Reason wouldn’t do that.

            It makes perfect sense though with them keeping dalmia and Chapman and with Robby being so prominent here lately.

            1. Incentives. Could it be that Reason writers piss us off purposely to drive clicks?

              In a way, yes. When those writers “purposely” invoke reason, tolerance, science, modernity, liberty, education, and the like, it triggers the spectrum-inhabiting faux libertarians who prefer superstition, right-wing authoritarianism, diffuse intolerance, dogma, backwardness, insularity, and the like. This drives the can’t-keep-up yahoos into a lather, attracting more goobers, increasing readership. The Reason writers observe the popularity and are inclined to mention even more progress, reality, decency, inclusivity, etc., and the cycle churns.

              1. Ooooh HE MAD TOO!!!

              2. You know, I’m always amazed at the level of douche-baggery you’re able to summon.

            2. It’s been pretty apparent for a while that they do this to some degree. They stopped supporting principles a long time ago. But then again, I guess in a way “for the clickz” is a libertarian principle.

              Of course I started using an adblocker here because of this attitude. So my clicks and comments are valueless to them. I’d suggest anyone else that doesn’t like this nonsense do the same.

          6. BOOOOOOOO

            You’re Welcome 😉

          7. Elizabeth Nolan Brown|10.2.18 @ 10:23AM|#
            tell yourself whatever you need to, sweetie. Rage clicks & comments still count toward my traffic

            We’re not impressed. Trolling and Reason intern sock puppet commenting also counts.

        2. Score!*

          *will this be interpreted as sexually implicit insult, lest I ever appear before a Senate body?

      2. Thanks for the giggles.

  21. Blah blah blah.

    Lot’s of blather that is irrelevant to the fact that everyone (including Kavanaugh) is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

    None of what has been said by any of his accusers remotely provides any actual proof of the allegations made.

    The burden of proof is 100% on them. It is 0% on Kavanaugh to prove he didn’t do it.

    The GOP made a big mistake enabling any of this to go on at all. They should have held their vote on Kavanaugh on the date that was originally planned before Feinstein leaked the info on Ford and stiff armed the Democrats entirely.

    1. I dont know. It sort of plays into the GOPs hands ultimately.

      I mean I’ve had a disdain for the Democrat Party for a while, but this has wholly convinced me that the party needs to be destroyed.

      And with Reason’s completely unprincipled stance on this whole situation, I’m even had thoughts of going libertarian-Republican. Reason and Cato and the LP (Sarwick) are making an embarrassment of libertarians.

      1. Yeah, well, I’m gonna go start my own Libertarian party! With Tom Woods! And the Mises Institute! In fact, forget the party!

    2. The more unhinged the opposition becomes toward BK, the more it might help GOP turnout.
      Dems are likely already at peak turnout for their voters, so GOP is still doomed to the usual midterm pendulum swing regardless.

      1. Trump is still filling stadiums wherever he goes. I think these midterms end up with both chambers roughly the same.

        1. I think the Republicans might pick up some Senate seat due to there being so many Dems up for re-election in Trump supporting states and the fact that the Democrats may have managed to find a Democrat so horrible he can’t win in New Jersey.

    3. You don’t hold a vote you think you will lose. You talk to the wavering swing votes and get them in your column.

      1. In this case I would still hold the vote, but you are right in general.

    4. everyone (including Kavanaugh) is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

      This is a legal standard only, not a standard that should be enforced in every single interaction.

      For example: If I invite you onto my property, and then change my mind and want to kick you off, I don’t have to presume you are innocent of some presumed offense against me. I can just evict you.

      Beware of wanting to enforce legal standards on everyone and everything.

      1. This is a legal standard only, not a standard that should be enforced in every single interaction.

        No it is not just a “legal standard”. It is called the benefit of the doubt. Do you really believe anything that is said about someone regardless of the circumstances or the credibility of the allegation? I am mean hey, “presumption of innocence is a legal standard” and we wouldn’t want to mess with any of that. Right?

        The question here is why would you believe an allegation without further this far removed in time, without any allegation or really any specific details when it is contrary to the entire known character of the person accused? No reasonable person would.

        1. Do you really believe anything that is said about someone regardless of the circumstances or the credibility of the allegation?

          No. But I am free to use whatever standard I wish in evaluating my own situations, aren’t I? Should I *always* give the benefit of the doubt? Should I *always* believe every accuser? No, and no. That’s my point.

          It’s a job interview. He doesn’t have to be guilty of a crime in order to be unfit for the position. Plenty of people who have done nothing wrong have been rejected for promotions.

          1. No. But I am free to use whatever standard I wish in evaluating my own situations, aren’t I?

            Yes, you are free to be a complete moron and believe allegations based on the politics of those involved and what you want to be true. You are free to do that. And those of us who have any sense at all, are then free to consider you an idiot for doing so.

          2. Immigration is just a job interview. They don’t have to be guilty of a crime to be unfit for the position.

            Knight to *squawk balls!*

            1. Oh look, it’s Skippy my ankle-biter here to throw more grenades into the discussion.

    5. Innocent until proven guilty is the bar for a criminal trial.

      The question being considered with Kavanaugh is whether there is anything that makes him unworthy of appointment.

      1. “”Innocent until proven guilty is the bar for a criminal trial.””

        More than just criminal trials right? We do spend time talking title IX procedures at colleges and what’s wrong with them.

        1. More than just criminal trials, but not judicial appointment confirmations.

  22. “but the beard has to be better than peach fuzz”

    I don’t know what that means exactly. No sissy beards?

    1. I think they’re just saying that it has to look good.

  23. Beware of people who support the ‘right kind’ of character assassination as public sport. Torquemadas always have to begin somewhere.

    1. Hey, Torquemada, walk this way
      We got a little game that you might wanna play
      So pull that handle, try your luck
      Who knows, Torq, you might win a buck!

      The Inquistion, what a show

      1. I never expected that!

      2. But you can’t torq him outa anything.

    2. Tomas de Torquemada gets a bad rap that really isn’t justified. Mostly Protestant myths made to scare people away from the RCC and justify political alliances during the time-period.

      1. Is there something history has not borne out about Friar Tomas? Please elucidate.

  24. It is somewhat pleasurable to watch a draftee of the Patriot Act squirm and have his private life revealed in front of millions of citizens who had their 4th & 5th amendments decimated in part because of him.

    “Kavanaugh referred to the Patriot Act as measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach” – Per a freedom of information request.

    1. If the Senate were to refuse to confirm him because of his being a part of the various legal screwups of the Bush DOJ, I would think they were doing the right thing. But to turn him down over this bullshi? No way. Fuck the Dems. They should have made sane arguments agains him, which there were many.

      1. True, the Democrats could care less about constitutional law. This show trial is sickening.

      2. I’m OK with Kavanaugh being given a close and very personal look at what it feels look to be unjustly accused by politicians and government agents determined to destroy one, and how the 4th and 5th amendments are needed as a defense to such accusations and abuses of government power.

        1. This.

          The whole situation has made me far more comfortable with Kavanaugh on the SC. He will remember who exactly he will be giving power to

          1. Terrific! Let’s put Kavanaugh on the bench, even though he hates the Fourth Amendment, because he will be predisposed to rule against leftie arguments!

            Is this where we pretend that conservatives are the only ones who are pro-Constitution?

            1. No, it’s where we see the difference between conservatives who *aspire* to constitutional fidelity even if they don’t achieve it, and liberals who don’t think it’s even something to aspire to.

            2. While Conservatives are debatably pro-constitution, Progressives are certainly not pro-constitution. So, yeah, him being predisposed to rule against lefty arguments is a positive.

      3. “Put an opponent of the Fourth Amendment on SCOTUS in order to own the libs”

        1. No. Don’t allow people to be slandered and have their careers ruined regardless of what you think of them otherwise. Doing the the right thing for the wrong reasons can be just as bad as doing the wrong thing.

          Jesus Christ you are a moron.

          1. 1. Can’t slander a public figure
            2. Kavanaugh’s career is not “ruined”, even if rejected, he goes back to being a federal judge, not fired
            3. Yes, you are intent on owning the libs even if it means supporting someone who will take away your Fourth Amendment rights
            4. Pretty much the logical result of Trumpism – vote for a guy who supports most of the Democrat platform anyway, but since it makes the libs cry, then MAGA BABY

            1. 1. Can’t slander a public figure

              Yes you can. Slander is just telling a lie. You most certainly can slander a public figure. If you are talking about NYT v. Sullivan, that is just a different standard for proving slander against a public figure.

              2. Kavanaugh’s career is not “ruined”, even if rejected, he goes back to being a federal judge, not fired

              Yes it is. If he were denied the seat, he would be remembered as the guy who didn’t get a seat because he was a rapist. Do you really think “well he still has a job so that makes this okay” is anyting other than vile?

              3. Yes, you are intent on owning the libs even if it means supporting someone who will take away your Fourth Amendment rights

              No. My intent is to not reward people for slandering those in public life they don’t like for fun and profit. If you were anything but a craven partisan or this were happening to someon you liked, you would share that goal too.

              4. Pretty much the logical result of Trumpism – vote for a guy who supports most of the Democrat platform anyway, but since it makes the libs cry, then MAGA BABY

              No this is the logical result of being fair minded and having a commitmen to the truth you God damned craven idiot. You are prefectly okay with an innocent man being slandered as a rapist because TRUMP!! You are as vile and stupid as Tony.

              1. Yes it is. If he were denied the seat, he would be remembered as the guy who didn’t get a seat because he was a rapist. Do you really think “well he still has a job so that makes this okay” is anyting other than vile?

                You’re shifting the goalposts here. Getting to keep one’s job is not having one’s “career ruined”. Being rejected for a promotion is not having one’s “career ruined”. Unless of course you think that Kavanaugh is somehow entitled to the promotion. Is that what you believe, John?

                3. Yes, you are intent on owning the libs even if it means supporting someone who will take away your Fourth Amendment rights

                No. My intent is to not reward people for slandering those in public life they don’t like for fun and profit.

                We are saying the exact same thing. Promoting the privacy-hating Kavanaugh is okay if it means stopping the libs.

                1. You’re shifting the goalposts here. Getting to keep one’s job is not having one’s “career ruined”

                  Being thought of as a rapist ruins your carreer whether you lose your current job or not. No one is shifting any goalposts.

                  We are saying the exact same thing. Promoting the privacy-hating Kavanaugh is okay if it means stopping the libs.

                  No we are not you moron. Allowing Kavanaugh to be slandered and denied hte post because you don’t like him is not hte same as denying him the post for a legitimate reason. Doing it by slander creates the precident that it is okay to slander people to destroy their public careers. That does more damage to the country than anything Kavanugh could on the court. But you think it is okay because you don’t like his politics. That is disgustingly amoral.

                  1. No, chemjeff, what people are saying is that denying him the post due to slanderous, unprovable, 36 year old allegations is wrong.

                    Fucking dipshit. God you’re stupid.

        2. If the 4th Am were the only issue, and if the liberal justices (beyond Sotomayor) were sound on the 4th Amendment, then I’d say reject Kavanaugh and hope for a liberal replacement.

          But we know that’s hardly the only issue here. Not by a long chalk.

          Kavanaugh, based on his career, is too deferential to the National Security State. But let’s not pretend that’s a peculiarity of conservative judges. A liberal or squish who gets confirmed instead of Kavanaugh could be just as bad on the 4th Amendment.

          And more basically, a liberal or squish who gets confirmed instead of Kavanaugh may be like Anthony Kennedy (whose seat is in question here) – viewing the Supreme Court as authorized to amend the Constitution in the guise of interpreting it. And amending it in ways which the people, if consulted under the Article V process, would rightly reject.

          In contrast, Kavanaugh hasn’t shown a predilection for amending the Constitution, and any predilection he may have is probably extinguished by now as he sees the face of the Left, and thus won’t be tempted to play footsie with them as Kennedy did.

          1. Kavanaugh is not the best choice but he is not the worst. I don’t see any reason to think the next choice would be any better than him.

            1. I’m thinking there’s a risk any replacement will be a *lot* worse – Anthony Kennedy level worse at least.

              1. You are probably correct. Better the devil you know.

          2. And while in the abstract it would be good for the soul if one remains impassive and stoical in the face of attacks on one’s character, I’d love to see the judge’s critics follow their own advice, just to show us how it’s done. We know they don’t hold *themselves* to any such standard, to their babbling about judicial temperament is so much nonsense.

          3. In contrast, Kavanaugh hasn’t shown a predilection for amending the Constitution,

            Well, except for getting rid of an amendment here or there.

            and any predilection he may have is probably extinguished by now as he sees the face of the Left,

            Because only lefties want judges to amend the constitution, amirite?

            1. Only leftists admit to having a whole anti-constitutional philosophy, when right-wingers do it at least (to paraphrase Scalia) they have the decency to lie about it, and they can get called to the carpet for failing to abide by their own standards.

              But what does one say when a leftist judge misapplies the Constitution? What principles of his do we appeal to? He thinks it’s a feature, not a bug, that his philosophy allows the Constitution to be changed and “updated” by interpretation.

    2. I had this same thought. It would be fitting if the FBI had secretly wire-tapped Kav and found some damning admission through a FISA warrant.

      In all serious, I’m guessing he won’t get the larger point out of all of this. The Patriot Act is apparently being used for political purposes to do exactly what the Dems are trying to do to him in this case. They might not be using secret courts in this case, but it has already happened in the 2016 election.

  25. And there’s Chuck Schumer on TV demanding that the Senate Dems be allowed to look over the FBI’s shoulder as they conduct their investigation into whatever, which demands to know what’s going on with an ongoing investigation I’m pretty sure are Article #1 in the Dems Articles of Impeachment against Trump, under Attempted Obstruction of Justice.

  26. Did Ford’s renovation choices have nothing to do with trauma and everything to do with to evading the NIMBYs?

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/y85o322f

  27. “A U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona set more than 45,000 acres of land on fire in a baby “gender reveal” fireworks stunt gone bad.”

    So . . . I guess we should get rid of the Border Patrol then? Is that what we’re supposed to think?

    That kind of logic would be embarrassing to open border people. I know because I am one.

    That would be like arguing we should get rid of the Second Amendment because someone used a gun to rob a liquor store last night.

    1. Where did ENB conclude that we should eliminate the Border Patrol? I must have missed it.

      That would be like arguing we should get rid of the Second Amendment because someone used a gun to rob a liquor store last night.

      Or like arguing that we should deport all illegal immigrants because one of them killed someone in Iowa.

      1. I asked a question.

        Why was this incident brought to our attention?

        What are we supposed to conclude from the observation that a border patrol agent started a fire?

        Meanwhile, are you unaware that I’m an open borders guy? Did you read what I wrote? Yeah, deporting all illegal immigrants because one of them killed someone in Iowa–by itself–doesn’t make any sense. And I want the president to negotiate and the senate to ratify an open borders treaty with Mexico.

        Does that change your perception of what I wrote? If so, why? Did criticizing the USSR make Orwell a bad socialist or an honest one?

        1. I don’t presume to know why the link was here. It could be that a federal agent (I assume who carries a sidearm) irresponsibly blew up some tanzanite and started a giant fire. And he still has a job. Seems like something that libertarians (who are generally critical of authority figures) might find interesting.

          Good we can agree that arguing for actions against entire groups of people based on individual actions is anti-libertarian and irrational.

          1. I suggest you keep an eye our for the kind of logic I’m describing in the future. See how often it comes up.

        2. You’re clearly right, Ken. Mentioning something stupid that a Border Patrol agent did is part of the vast open borders conspiracy to shove open borders down everyone’s throats with dishonest emotional arguments, and can’t possibly be just an opportunity to point and laugh at the bumbling fools.

          Good Lord. Stop being so paranoid.

          1. Assuming that there’s a libertarian reason why a libertarian journalist posted something is actually giving her the benefit of the doubt.

      2. We should deport all illegal immigrants because they are breaking the law and deporting them is the way to enforce the law.

        1. I’d argue that immigration is within the proper purview of democracy, like declaring war, which is why the Constitution gives congress the power to set the rules of naturalization in the same place that it gives congress the power to declare war. Just because I disagree with a particular war that congress properly declares doesn’t mean I have to pretend that the war is unconstitutional, and just because I disagree with the laws congress has implemented on immigration doesn’t mean I have to pretend that they aren’t the law or that immigration is outside the proper purview of democracy.

          Because I support the Second Amendment doesn’t mean I have to pretend people don’t use guns to commit crimes.

          Because I’m an open borders guy doesn’t mean I have to pretend that a Border Patrol guy starting a fire means we should open the borders either–if that’s what’s being argued here.

          1. “Constitution gives congress the power to set the rules of naturalization”

            But naturalization isn’t immigration. They are separate, which is something the Democrats and Republicans never seem to realize (or admit). People can be allowed to cross our border, work here, live here, contribute to society and NEVER be granted citizenship. They are only tangentially related. No libertarian that I’m aware of is arguing that Mexicans be given access to citizenship, carte blanche.

            Even Judge Napalitano argues that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority over immigration.

            1. But naturalization isn’t immigration. They are separate, which is something the Democrats and Republicans never seem to realize (or admit).

              Arguably, the issue is that they *aren’t* separate, e.g. non-citizens can show up for public schooling the same way citizens can.

              1. But that’s an issue with the way we make children eligible for school, or welfare, or whatever other red herring is out there.

                The path forward on immigration, if Republicans really wanted to be for limited government, is to put together a bill that allows for unlimited access to our private markets (the ability to live here, work here, etc), but denies access to federal welfare and the ability for states to deny access to state welfare.

                And then watch the Democrats back-peddle on whether they really want immigration because of the individuals who are seeking a better life or because of the perception that it will help the Democrat Party.

            2. Napoliatano has been wrong before, and he’ll be wrong again.

              And let’s not lose track of the conversation. The point is that because I disagree with our immigration law doesn’t mean I have to pretend that every bad argument that comes down the pike is a legitimate argument just because it seems to be pro-immigration.

              Bad arguments don’t suddenly become good arguments just because they support my position. In fact, bad arguments that support my position actually undermine my position.

              If anyone has did more to undermine socialism than Stalin, surely it was the socialists who felt like they had to support Stalin–because he was a socialist.

              1. There were legitimate reasons to oppose the Vietnam War.

                That doesn’t mean I have to go to go to North Vietnam and vouch for the good treatment of American POWs, who are actually being tortured.

                Doing that would actually undermine opposition to the Vietnam War.

                It’s all the same principle.

                1. I get the point Ken. Bad arguments for good causes are bad for the cause.

                  I’ve moved on because I take liberty with your point (I think) that regulating immigration is an enumerated power. Do you think the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution says that Congress can regulate who can come here, or more specifically only who can be citizens of the United States?

    2. This really pisses me off because everyone know that you won’t know the baby’s “gender”–as opposed to the baby’s “sex”–for a few years. It should not be called a “gender reveal party” but more accurately called a “baby sex party.”

      Off topic, but I’m thinking about having a true gender reveal party for my 13 year old son.

      1. Let’s call it a “here is the type of genitalia that my baby currently has” reveal party.

        On second thought, that name probably gets you put on a list.

      2. Why do the shower gifts need to be binary pink or blue?

        Maybe California should institute a law requiring that all baby products can only be sold in shades of purple.

      3. Off topic, but I’m thinking about having a true gender reveal party for my 13 year old son.

        I’m stealing this next time I get a limp-wristed, half-assed effort from one of my sons. Is this your way of telling me we should throw you a transgender coming out party?

      4. Good luck getting a cake baked for that.

      5. I think there are reasons of misundrstanding to not to refer to anything as a “baby sex party”.

  28. Wasn’t it already clear to everybody that if Kavanaugh was working to find witnesses and evidence to support his innocence, that this in no way suggests that he’s guilty?

    All the horseshit we see this week is Jeff Flake’s fault, and he has no business being the Republican nominee for president if he ends up costing the Republicans control of the senate.

    1. I think the implication wasn’t that he was looking for witnesses, but that he was pressuring potential witnesses who may have had no clear recollection into saying something on his behalf.

      I don’t really buy it. I suspect he was already trying to drum up support as soon as CBF came forward and he foresaw that it going to open the door for a slew of unsubstantiated bullshit like Swetnick, but that’s the implication people are going for.

      1. “I think the implication wasn’t that he was looking for witnesses, but that he was pressuring potential witnesses who may have had no clear recollection into saying something on his behalf.”

        It would be unreasonable to expect him not to look for witnesses that support his recollections, and I don’t see how he could do that without his critics alleging that he’s trying to pressure people into saying something on his behalf.

        Not just in the Kavanaugh hearings but in life–people who have been accused have a right to look for witnesses that support their version of events, and working to find testimony to establish one’s innocence is in no way an indication of someone’s guilt.

  29. A SCOTUS nomination has really brought out the fucking lying retarded cuntholes in this place. I haven’t seen more Republican shaft stroking since the Cleveland Hilton Garden Inn during the 2016 RNC.

    Sometimes Republicans rape people. Oftentimes, apparently. That’s something you idiots are going to have to deal with if you insist on defending that particular political party with every breath. Of course you guys could simply choose not to beclown yourselves in that way, but apparently the mission of the frequenters of this site was different from what I supposed.

    1. Kavanaugh isn’t even accused of raping anyone you fucking moron. Kavanaugh is going on the Court. And even if by some chance he doesn’t, someone just like him is going in his place. If pretending he is a rapist somehow makes you feel better and deal with the fact that your sorry ass religion isn’t going to rule the court anymore, well, you are nuts and stupid so we really shouldn’t hold that against you.

      1. The country doesn’t want what you’re selling. You only win by cheating. You know it and you’re fine with it.

        1. And your Democrats are striving to keep him off of the court by any means necessary, right? Yeah, that is some stand up stuff there.

          1. They learned it by watching Mitch.

        2. The Republicans hold more elected offices today than at any time since reconstruction. So, reality says otherwise.

          1. Y’all don’t quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger”. By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”?that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me?because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this”, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”.

            1. I wan’t alive in 1954 and the only peoplle running around calling people the N word were Demcorats. My family were pro integration Republicans.

              And how a bunch of Demcorats being racists 50 years ago makes it okay to slander an innocent person by accusing them of rape is something known only inside your sick and broken mind. Trump is making you as crazy as Hihn.

              1. How embarrassing that you aren’t aware of the central political strategy of the political party you soil yourself defending every single day.

                1. Tony you are accusing an innocent person of rape and believe it because your mind is so sick with politics. You are a derranged sick person.

                  1. At least I don’t endorse a policy platform designed to crush the middle class and sold on white racial resentment. What do you even want out of government? Pwning the libtards? Is that the legacy of Aristotle and Jefferson to you?

                    1. At least I don’t endorse a policy platform designed to crush the middle class and sold on white racial resentment.

                      You certainly endorse the former and it’s sold on POC racial resentment.

                    2. At least I don’t endorse a policy platform designed to crush the middle class

                      What reality do you live in, Tony? Your policy platform is anti-bourgeoisie, which, by DEFINITION, is the middle class you fucking idiot.

                      You’re far more unhinged than usual.

                    3. Good, Tony, GOOD! Give into the hate! Let it flow through you! It’s the world that must be changed, not YOU! The world! And by any means necessary!

            2. Actually I can say “nigger” any time I want (free country and all that). I just politely refrain from doing so.

              1. I think you’re missing the point by a lot.

        3. Ok, goebbels.

          1. And the defense of the Republican party continues with no apparent self-awareness. Is denying women the right to control their reproductive systems really that important to you?

            1. Is denying women the right to control their reproductive systems really that important to you?

              Only a complete moron would believe that Kavanaugh being appointed to the court is the end of Roe v. Wade, so it’s not a surprise that you’re on that bandwagon.

              1. So if that’s not it, what is it? Letting polluters destroy the environment with impunity? Free speech for corporations, prison for weed smokers? The wholesale establishment of Christianity as the official state religion? What do you actually think these people are doing for you?

                1. Now you’re just flailing about. Stop embarrassing yourself.

              2. I always pick the most obvious possibility. he is just dumb as shit.

                1. I pick blind, seething hatred. But “both” is probably as likely.

        4. Tony doesn’t care if he’s right or wrong.

    2. does it matter who the rapist votes for?

    3. Sometimes Republicans rape people. Oftentimes, apparently. That’s something you idiots are going to have to deal with if you insist on defending that particular political party with every breath. Of course you guys could simply choose not to beclown yourselves in that way, but apparently the mission of the frequenters of this site was different from what I supposed.

      Bill Clinton, Tony. The biggest sexual abuser in American politics, and his enabling wife, and you support them both because you’re Team Blue. No one on this site will ever take your faux moral outrage seriously. You will never live down your hypocrisy. You have no morals, no principles, and you are motivated by nothing but pure partisanship. Everyone knows it. You have to live with it.

      1. So it’s OK when a Republican does it? I don’t know what argument you’re making. I’ve never defended Whatabout Bill Clinton.

        1. The point is not about Democrats or Republicans, the point is about you. You in particular have no credibility when you say accusations against Republicans are true and important, or when you say accusations against Democrats are false or irrelevant. Everyone knows you don’t care about the truth. You’re motivated by sheer animosity against the tribe you believe is pure evil, and you’ll never accept seeing Democrats punished for anything they do because they’re fighting the evil ones.

          Those of us who are not partisan hacks can speak with some credibility about accusations against both sides. You could only be taken seriously by supporting accusations against Dems or opposing accusations against Reps, because that goes against your well known bias.

  30. The Canadian military probably only made those changes so that French Canadians can have those silly little French mustaches.

  31. “The New York Times reports that Brett Kavanaugh once kept a library book out past its due date.”

    Not really, but soon.

  32. “If you can come up with a scenario where it makes sense for her to implant memories in her own mind…”

    Get your ass to Mars!

  33. Julie Swetnick is exhibit A of a lying piece of shit.

    1. Is there any chance that she’s a very, very clever Republican operative? I can’t see how she’s doing anything except drumming up GOP support for the midterms.

      1. >>>very, very clever Republican operative?

        she’d be the first.

          1. Dillinger wins the internet for today.

      2. Weirdly I think this could be a win-win if the Rs force a vote. If they do and Kavanaugh is confirmed its a win. If they do and Kavanaugh does not get confirmed it will be partially because of the redstate Ds.

        If they vote no most if not all of them will be toast. Manchin and Tester would be the only survivors maybe and some toss-ups would go R , TN and AZ most notably maybe even FL. Also a win since next nominee will be Amy and she’ll make it

        1. If the R’s pick up just one seat you don’t have to worry about Collins or Murkowski.

  34. >>> walks back allegations

    Can you walk back *written* allegations?

    1. Sure, you just plead guilty to perjury.

      1. lol, gracias.

  35. In regards to people implanting memories into their own minds, I’m reminded of Meredith Maran, a feminist who falsely accused her father of molesting her.

    “More than 20 years ago, Meredith Maran falsely accused her father of molestation. That she came to believe such a thing was possible reveals what can happen when personal turmoil meets a powerful social movement. In her book “My Lie: A True Story of False Memory” (the introduction of which is excerpted on Salon), Maran recounts the 1980s feminist-inspired campaign to expose molestation, which hit feverish levels in 1988 with the book ‘The Courage to Heal.” As an early reporter on the story, Maran observed family therapy sessions, interviewed molesters and steeped herself in cases where abuse clearly took place. Meanwhile, she divorced her husband and fell in love with a woman who was also an incest survivor. Maran began having nightmares about her own molestation and soon what had been a contentious relationship with her father turned into accusations of unspeakable crimes. Eventually, she came to realize the truth. She was the person who had done wrong.

    http://www.salon.com/2010/09/2…..interview/

    Steeped in a culture that canonized victims of molestation, she appears to have become convinced that she herself was molested. Ford wouldn’t be the first person to create memories for herself that way.

  36. Wow, ENB is sure obsessed with keeping Kavanaugh off the court.

  37. Reason morphed into the Women’s Christian Temperance Union so slowly I hardly noticed.

    “Lips that have touched liquor shall never speak from the Supreme Court”

    1. Women’s Christian Temperance Union. That is funny. And sadly more so because it is so true.

  38. Here’s the libtard case against Kavanaugh:

    Kavanaugh is a gang rapist.
    Ok, not a gang rapist, but a serial rapist.
    Not a serial rapist, but a rapist.
    Ok, not a rapist, but a blackout drunk.
    Not a blackout drunk, but an alcoholic.
    Not an alcoholic, but he drinks beer.
    Ok, he just threw ice at somebody once in the 80s.

    1. His own friends call him a mean, belligerent drunk. Surely the desperate GOP-humping defense is not that the most accurate portrait of Berty’s college days was what was reported to the senate judiciary committee.

    2. My favorite is “he got really angry when we falsely accused him of being a rapist so he clearly is both guilty and has the wrong temperment to be a judge”. Of course, if he hadn’t been angry, they would have claimed it showed how cold and calculating he was and how he couldn’t get angry because he knew it was true.

      1. Gorsuch wasn’t called so much as a shoplifter. You’re positing an extremely convoluted conspiracy theory here. (But what the fuck else is new with you people.)

        1. Gorsuch was also not considered to be effecting the balance of the court the way Kavanaugh is. Beyong that, just because Demcorats don’t slander everyone who comes up for the court doens’t mean they are not slandering Kavanaugh.

        2. “”Gorsuch wasn’t called so much as a shoplifter.””

          Sure about that? It hints that the republicans were more civil to a dem choice than dems are to a repub choice.

          1. They weren’t any way to him because they refused to even meet. Eight months.

        3. Tony|10.2.18 @ 12:45PM|#
          Gorsuch wasn’t called so much as a shoplifter. You’re positing an extremely convoluted conspiracy theory here. (But what the fuck else is new with you people.)

          WRONG
          Gorsuch Likely to Join Supreme Court, Despite Last-Minute Attack From the Left
          Did they think plagiarism would be the last straw?
          By Ashe Schow ? 04/06/17 3:30pm

          Gorsuch attacks

      2. The illogic of that argument is something. We do not expect judges to be dispassionate about cases they are personally involved in. We expect judges to recuse themselves from such cases (ahem, Justice Kagan).

        1. How unfortunate that Kavanaugh will have to recuse himself from whenever the Clintons finally get justice.

          1. Kavanaugh will be new SCOTUS justice.

  39. God this Kavanaugh thing is as dumb as shit.

    So Dumb Fuck Tony’s take is since they didn’t do this shit to Gorsuch it all must be real.

    1. It is a new low. Anita Hill was lying but it at least involved something that was professionally relevent. I honestly don’t know how much lower you can go than trying to drag someone down over whatever they might have done in high school. I guess maybe claiming they are guilty of the sins of their parents might be lower. So, expect the Demcorats to try that when RBG finally buys it.

      1. They need to stick to the vote this week. And if an R state Ds vote no, whether he gets in or not, that is the the #1 campaign message for the last 3 weeks, in ND, MT,TN,FL, WV, AZ,MO

      2. They need to stick to the vote this week. And if an R state Ds vote no, whether he gets in or not, that is the the #1 campaign message for the last 3 weeks, in ND, MT,TN,FL, WV, AZ,MO

  40. Canadian Armed Forces

    That’s a thing?

  41. Standing “in stark contrast to Ford, Swetnick was neither persuasive nor believable,” writes Soave.

    I Found neither believable. Ford was just ever so slightly better at emotional manipulation.

    1. Ford’s accusation is at least plausible. Sweatnik’s is a rape fantasy.

  42. If you can come up with a scenario where it makes sense for her to implant memories in her own mind

    She is a political activist and ideologue. Ideologues (and blind partisans) convince themselves reality is not reality on a daily basis.

    1. Since when is someone lying a special scenario.

  43. Jesse Walker is wrong.

    If you’re trying to recover memories through hypnosis, you will create artificial situations. It’s not either or. It’s both and.

    I guess Margot Cleveland’s emphasis on artificial situations is misleading, but not that misleading.

    This entire process has reeked of false memories being recovered. When she tried to recruit one of her best friends into corroborating her story and even her friend wouldn’t go along with the charade, that should have been a hint. She is interpolating disparate facts and events into horrific hallucinations.Somebody get this woman a butterfly net.

  44. Jesse Walker is wrong.

    If you’re trying to recover memories through hypnosis, you will create artificial situations. It’s not either or. It’s both and.

    I guess Margot Cleveland’s emphasis on artificial situations is misleading, but not that misleading.

    This entire process has reeked of false memories being recovered. When she tried to recruit one of her best friends into corroborating her story and even her friend wouldn’t go along with the charade, that should have been a hint. She is interpolating disparate facts and events into horrific hallucinations.Somebody get this woman a butterfly net.

  45. It is so strange that each party, once in power, acts as though the other party will not at some point regain the majority.

    In my lifetime (90s child), that has only been Team Blue. Right now they are acting in a manner that suggests that if they can’t control the system they will burn it down. We are witnessing the willful destruction of due process and innocent until proven guilty because Team Blue did not get their way in the last election, ffs. It’s time for Team Red to grow a pair.

  46. That same day, Kavanaugh also told senators that he hadn’t heard about the flashing incident Ramirez alleges until The New Yorker article came out,

    Since he was literally quoted in the New Yorker article denying it, and obviously had to been called for a quote prior to it being published, isn’t the only reasonable interpretation “he hadn’t heard about the alleged incident in the thirty years after it happened until now,” where now means “the run up to being published, including Ramirez starting to call around about it, friends told him about it, and the New Yorker called him,” not literally after it was published. His second sentence in that same testimony makes it pretty clear.

    1. That is likely exactly what is going on here John. They really are grasping at straws on this one.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.