The Northam Controversy, the Kavanaugh Controversy, and Long-Past Misbehavior

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

I think highly of Justice Kavanaugh, and I do not think he was guilty of what he was accused of doing. But—contrary to some arguments I've been seeing—I don't think that the demands that Gov. Northam resign because of his yearbook photo 35 years ago are particularly similar to the demands that Judge Kavanaugh not be confirmed because of what he allegedly did 35 years ago.

First, Judge Kavanaugh was accused of committing a very serious crime; Northam is accused of including in a yearbook a photo that was in bad taste, and that may (or may not) have reflected that in 1984 he had some racist attitudes.

Second, Judge Kavanaugh firmly denied the allegations against him, so if they were true, he would have been guilty of lying about them (eventually under oath)—which would have been current bad behavior, not just long-past. Northam had (at least when I had posted my earlier post) admitted the allegations, so the issue was his behavior in 1984, not today. Since then, CNN has reported that Northam is saying he wasn't in the photo (though he's not denying including the photo in the yearbook). If he's now lying, then that is quite bad, again because it is current bad behavior. But the focus should be on his current or at least recent behavior, not his behavior at age 25 now that he is 60.

More broadly, consider what standard we're trying to set for the future. If it's "people who are lying today about their bad behavior from 35 years ago shouldn't be in high office," that may be sensible. If it's "people who committed serious crimes 35 years ago, for which they weren't punished, shouldn't be in high office," that may be sensible. (Again, I don't believe that Justice Kavanaugh was guilty on those counts, but that goes to the particular facts related to those accusations, and not the general principle of what should have been done if the accusations were accurate.)

But if it's "people who said or did offensive things 35 years ago shouldn't be in high office," or even "people who expressed racist / sexist / anti-gay / anti-Semitic / etc. opinions 35 years ago shouldn't be in high office," that's a very different thing. It's tarring someone forever for minor misconduct (again, I note that major misconduct would be a different matter), without considering whether he may have developed better judgment and better views from age 25 to age 60. It's rejecting the possibility that people actually get wiser as they get older—that they grow up—that they improve their judgments, their beliefs, and their conduct.

And it's potentially depriving the nation of many valuable public servants because of a dumb thing they did long ago. Northam's specific past behavior (again, I'm setting aside the newly emerging denial, and whether it's a false denial) may not be that common. But consider all the other things that can be blown up into similar hurricanes. Maybe some people (black, white, or of any other race) quoted some sexist lyrics. Or maybe they expressed anti-gay views, which they may now regret. (Lots of people's minds have changed in 35 years about sexual orientation, as they have changed about what is so racially offensive that it shouldn't be said.) Or maybe they praised people who shot at police officers, or said nasty things about American soldiers. Or maybe they told jokes about Jews or gays or Puerto Ricans or men or women, whether or not those jokes actually reflected their own serious views about such matters.

Or maybe they did things that actually risked physically harming people, rather than just offending them. Maybe, for instance, they drove drunk—poor judgment, potentially very dangerous, not something we'd want of a sitting Governor—but doesn't it matter that it happened three decades ago rather than today?

If you want to go after Northam for his current views on abortion, go ahead. If you want to go after him because you think he's lying today about what happened then, go ahead. But calling for him to resign because of his bad judgment (or even his racist views, if you think he actually held such views then) from 35 years ago—what kind of country would we be creating if that were really adopted as the rule?

NEXT: Refusal to Testify = Being Accessory After the Fact

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. Let’s ask Ertel

    Link

  2. >>>>>>>>>
    what kind of country would we be creating if that were really adopted as the rule?
    >>>>>>>>

    Hate to break it to you but we’re kind of already there. There are groups on the internet devoted to trolling through the internet digging up old dirt on celebrities and politicians. Usually of the ‘ist’ and ‘phobia’ variety. And if you’re looking to apportion blame than the vast majority should go to the left hand side of the spectrum.

    1. Yeah, we are not adopting anything. Its already the rule.

    2. You took my comment!

      We already are at this point–I had a very mind-boggling conversation earlier today with a Marquess of Queensberry devotee who was convinced if the Republicans pushed on this issue, then “as a result” the next time there was a confirmation hearing…

      You see where this is going, right?

    3. ” if you’re looking to apportion blame than the vast majority should go to the left hand side of the spectrum.”

      Meh.

      The problem isn’t that groups who dig into the Internet looking for evidence, however thin, of unpopular things. The problem is that anyone pays any attention to it, usually by jumping to conclusions.
      That’s not an outcome limited to, or defined by, either partisan flavor.

      1. Isn’t the internet fun? Too much information and too much time.

    4. Not a very fair comparison. The allegations against Kavanaugh allegedly arose during his time in High School, with the exception of some highly dubious gossip related to his first year in college. The conduct at issue in Northam’s case is based on antics after graduation from medical school. That’s the behavior of an educated adult professional, after high school and after college. A different standard is absolutely required.

      1. True enough, and it’s hard to feel sympathy for Northam. He did something well-understood as crude stupid racist, did it as an adult, and then gave it place of honor in a publicly-dispersed yearbook.

        However there is a case to be made for reviewing Kavanaugh’s behavior as an educated adult professional. Special Counsel investigations don’t have a good reputation, no matter whose ox is being gored. They last way too long and abuse investigative / prosecutorial discretion past all reason. But only one of them was a complete fraud from beginning to end : Kavanaugh’s “investigation” of Vince Foster’s suicide.

        It was three years of pure political hackery, chasing tin-foil hat nonsense from the gutter-right press just to validate their agitprop. Was Foster a secret NSA spy? No, but Kavanaugh made a very public spectacle of “investigating” the question. He whined over his family’s suffering in the hearings, but put Foster’s family thru hell for the crudest political ends. Was Kavanaugh a frat boy thug with a contempt for women as a teenager? Well, he was a frat boy thug with a contempt for the law as a young adult…

        1. “But only one of them was a complete fraud from beginning to end : Kavanaugh’s “investigation” of Vince Foster’s suicide.”

          It wasn’t Kavanaugh’s investigation. The investigation was run by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. And Kavanaugh wrote a law journal article in 2009 indicating he had changed his mind on that issue, largely due to that investigation.

          1. (1) It was Kavanaugh’s investigation; he was the actual person who proposed the idea of investigating Foster’s death. Kavanaugh approached Starr with this business proposal, not the other way around. And after selling Starr on the idea – needless to say – he immediately offered to run it.

            (2) At the time there had already been three separate investigations : The Park Police and FBI looked at the matter for three weeks and concluded suicide. The Senate held hearings on Foster’s death and concluded suicide. Robert Fiske conducted a thorough professional investigation over six months, producing a definitive report which proved suicide. But Brett saw an opportunity….

            (3) Presumably you don’t mean Kavanaugh “changed his mind” on the facts of Foster’s death, because there are memos from BMK early in his “investigation” where he cheerfully admits Foster killed himself. Yet he still spent three years “determining” whether the Mossad was blackmailing Foster, or if Vince was having a torrid affair w/ Hillary.

            (4) Presumably you do mean Kavanaugh “changed his mind” on Special Counsel investigations. I can buy that. You’d be surprised how many ax murderers decide ax murder is wrong just after they drop the bloody tool.

      2. The conduct at issue in Northam’s case is based on antics after graduation from medical school. That’s the behavior of an educated adult professional, after high school and after college.

        I’m struggling to relate this to any actual medical student I’ve met.

  3. The issue is not that we disagree with you, it’s that the left WILL DO IT REGARDLESS to Republicans. As long as that is the case, we must insist that Democrats be treated the same way. You know the adage “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly?” That applies here as well

    1. This, unlike the ramblings of Bull Cow, Professor Volokh’s argument makes logical sense, HOWEVER, why does there get to be a double-standard? The media covers for Democrats in these situations, and they would be covering for Northam now if they didn’t have a Black Communist in the bull pen waiting to take his place.

      The media drives this SJW narrative, so whenever it gets to eat a RAT it feels good man.

      1. Yep, exactly.

      2. And if Kavanaugh’s nomination was withdrawn Trump would have nominated a different conservative judge.

        1. Remember the secondary (primary?) goal was to push a renominee past the election when the Democrats might have control of the Senate.

          A sad game but just noting both sides play it.

      3. You had me fooled for the first sentence. Then I knew I had to check that middle initial, or else the polar vortex had indeed extended to the gates of Hell.

        1. Ahem. It already has; haven’t you seen the weather reports from Hell, Michigan?

    2. ” that the left WILL DO IT REGARDLESS to Republicans. As long as that is the case, we must insist that Democrats be treated the same way.”

      So… it’s wrong, but YOUR SIDE isn’t wrong for doing it. Only THEIR SIDE is wrong for doing it. Because it’s wrong.

      1. No, it’s wrong. But if THEIR SIDE does it, it’s NOT wrong for OUR SIDE to do the same to them.

        1. Yes, this. JP, are you being intentionally obtuse?

        2. Yes, it is. Wrong is wrong. There’s no “But they started it” exception, even if your claim had any empirical basis.

          1. Actually, there IS a “But they started it” exception, in any domain where you’re actually trying to discourage the actions in question, rather than just punish anybody who doesn’t knuckle under.

            1. When in the history of politics has unprincipled behavior by one side deterred anything from the other side, absent actual civil war?

              I agree with Prof Volokh that the two situations are distinguishable, though I still think Northam has to step down, albeit for symbolic more than substantive reasons.

        3. It’s either wrong or it isn’t. What you’re saying here isn’t even a justification, it’s a pretext.

      2. Progtards are inherently hypocritical. Another reason they attract so many sociopaths like Tony.

        1. Says the obvious sociopath.

      3. It’s not optimal or nice, but game theory dictates that we do it to them good and hard until they back the fuck off.

        1. Watching America improve against their conservative wishes and efforts throughout their disaffected lives, and being forced to toe the line by obeying the preferences of the liberal-libertarian mainstream, seems to have made some right-wingers very cranky and whiny.

          1. No, seriously. The way out of “the prisoner’s dilemma” is something called “trust but punish”. At first, tust the other guy to do the right thing, so that, along with your right thing, both sides benefit.

            But if they abuse the trust to take advantage of you, you punish instead of happily going along.

            Then it can turn into an endless tit for tat ending with various nuclear options in the senate.

            1. Yeah, the problem with game theoretic approaches to politics, is that game theory mostly has to do with repeat games. The branch of game theory where one side can end the sequence of games when it’s on top is somewhat more pessimistic, I think.

              But that’s where we find ourselves: The right is playing the repeat game, and the left is playing to get on top once, and then end the game. They’re not anticipating an endless sequence of tit for tat. They’re anticipating “Game over!”.

              Or to quote Orwell: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” And the boot is planned to always be on the same side’s foot.

              1. What end game are you talking about?

                1. I believe he means full blown socialism

                  1. Socialism has a bunch of meanings these days. But none of them mean the end of politics.

                    1. Is it “the end of politics” when Party A elects a President and Party B immediately starts prosecuting him and his associates?

                    2. Is party B in this case the law enforcement officials appointed and empowered by party A, as opposed to the actual other political party which had no power to prosecute anybody?

                2. The one Lindsey Graham was talking about.

      4. So… it’s wrong, but YOUR SIDE isn’t wrong for doing it. Only THEIR SIDE is wrong for doing it. Because it’s wrong.

        It is one thing to argue that Marquesse of Queensbury rules are superior and more human to no-holds-barred rules that allow you to maim and break the bones of your opponent. It is another thing to claim one fighter has to follow the Marquesse’s rules while the other fighter gets to fight under the no-holds-barred rules.

        1. Your analogy is telling.

          Principles are not traditionally some arbitrary set of rules, they are supposed to be what you’re fighting for.

          1. Principles are not traditionally some arbitrary set of rules, they are supposed to be what you’re fighting for.

            “Principles” have to be held in common by both sides for them to thrive. Otherwise, it’s just a Trojan horse for the destruction of one in favor of the other.

            1. This is manifestly untrue – principles held in common don’t need to be fought for.
              Abolition, Civil Rights, the New Deal, the Second Amendment as an individual right…all of these were not shared principles, until they were.

              You are arguing for politics to be devoid of principles in every way that matters, and what is left must be pure faction. Way to kill the republic.

              1. This is manifestly untrue – principles held in common don’t need to be fought for.

                Well, that’s the nub of the problem, isn’t it? When one side continually claims, “It’s not _______ when we do it!” it’s not hard to understand why the other side would take that position out of sheer self-preservation.

                Abolition, Civil Rights, the New Deal, the Second Amendment as an individual right…all of these were not shared principles, until they were.

                You’re confusing policies with principles. The New Deal was hardly an individual right, and claiming otherwise is inaccurate, ahistorical pap.

                You are arguing for politics to be devoid of principles in every way that matters, and what is left must be pure faction. Way to kill the republic.

                Let me know when the left stops claiming exceptions for itself, and you might have a point. But as long as they insist on practicing the political equivalent of Calvinball, their opponents are under no obligation to be martyrs in the service of “principle”.

                1. Principles that are thrown away when external factors make it inconvenient? Those aren’t principles, those are hobbies.

                  Becoming what you believe the other side is? Even assuming your evaluation of them is objective (it’s not), that’s not self-preservation, that’s surrendering your ideology in service of tribalism.

                  The principles behind the New Deal have certainly been enshrined in our culture. You may not like it, but social security is here to stay, and it’s not just because olds are greedy.

                  MLK didn’t decide that the other side’s violence and hate meant he had license to become as violent as the whites in the South were. Do you think that made him a sucker?

                  No doubt the left has it’s double standards and hypocrisies. But as the reactions to Northam show, one thing liberals are not doing is tossing away their own principles and saying ‘anything goes to own the conservatives.’

                  How can you claim to fight for principles you have discarded so that you can fight better?

                  1. Principles that are thrown away when external factors make it inconvenient? Those aren’t principles, those are hobbies.

                    Principles sometimes have exceptions. “Thou shalt not kill” for example has a number of self defense related exceptions (including person to person self defense, policing, war and criminal justice.) The actual principle is subtler than the one line slogan.

                    In the form of warfare that is politics, playing by rules and norms is just such a principle. You should abide by the result of an election and let the other side govern, if they are also playing the game, to let you have your turn when you win. This includes allowing you to remain in shape to contest the next election. Which has to be a real one.

                    If your opponent is Lenin, or the Austrian fellow whose name might awaken the censorship bots, or Mao, or even a low grade heavy who just rigs his elections, like Maduro, you have no obligation to play by the rules. Carrying out a revolt to depose the “elected” Maduro doesn’t mean you have abandoned your faith in liberal democracy.

                    1. Yes, Lee, if the other side is literally Hitler then everything up to and including violence is allowed.
                      But we’re not in that realm here despite how many times I’ve been called Hitler or Stalin. And anyone who thinks otherwise is indistinguishable from Antifa.

  4. In the case of Kavanaugh, it was a crime he was accused of committing 35 years earlier with zero evidence that it happened. But we were supposed to pretend that she was credible solely because she was a woman making an accusation.

    His reputation was smeared, hers was assuredly not — and there is zero evidence that he did anything and ample evidence that she was lying.

    1. BINGO!

    2. a) Ford directly accused him under oath. That’s evidence.

      b) In therapy Ford described an assault committed by someone similar to Kavanaugh years earlier. Again that’s evidence.

      c) Ford named Kavanaugh to her husband years earlier. Yet more evidence.

      d) At least one other credible accuser came forward. More evidence.

      e) Numerous people have disputed Kavanaugh’s testimony with regards to his drinking and sexual terms used in his yearbook. That’s both evidence of perjury and evidence that he did something serious enough to motivate him to commit perjury.

      hers was assuredly not

      Are you now going to claim you’ve never read a right wing website?

      1. 1) An accusation isn’t evidence. Don’t know where you got that from. She also claimed she never coached anybody for ap olygraph yet an ex said that was untrue. Is that evidence of her lying?

        2) An accusation still isn’t evidence.

        3) An accusation, again, is not evidence.

        4) Who is this other “credible” person? That you think Ford was credible speaks poorly of this designation.

        5) People AT HIS SCHOOL have not. They independently verified his testimony. You need to provide proof that all of the people and his friends at the school who have verified his story were ALL lying.

        1. damikesc: A witness’s testimony that someone did something her certainly is evidence. People are convicted all the time based on such evidence. Now you might think that it isn’t sufficiently reliable evidence in this particular situation (and I would agree on that). But evidence it is.

          1. If we’re going to call an accusation ‘evidence’, we need to acknowledge that it is perhaps the most easily falsified evidence in existence. And the accused’ denial is not one iota less ‘evidence’.

            And, yes, I find convicting people based on nothing but their accuser’s accusation really dubious. It is just too easy to make up accusations, and too safe to make them if you take care to craft them to avoid any chance of being proven wrong.

            1. Watching birthers rant about exacting evidentiary standards is great sport.

              1. Unoriginal. Is that all you got, bitch?

              2. But how many of us are “birthers”? And do the Hillary supporters who brought up the issue in the first place, who were trying to derail Obama’s first Primary, count — or do they get a pass for being Democrat?

                1. Good point, Epison. The polling I recall put 40 to 60-something percent of Republicans in the birther camp, although I acknowledge that white nationalism has claimed some of the attention of right-wing malcontents in recent years.

                  1. The right defines “birther” as somebody who thought Obama wasn’t born in the US. By that definition there were never a lot of birthers, and their numbers imploded after Obama finally gave up fighting the release of his birth certificate.

                    The left defines “birther” as somebody who thought it possible Obama wasn’t born in the US, and thought the question should be taken seriously, and settled in a court of law. Most of the “birthers” by this definition thought Obama was born in the US, and just believed the matter should be judicable.

                    1. Weird how it’s only a judicable question with Obama, the only President I know who presented his birth certificate to public inspection.

          2. With all due respect, there is one other aspect to this matter that is ignored by your posting. Northam’s conduct was that of an adult professional. A graduate of medical school, who, one would assume, should understand quite clearly the nature of his conduct.

            1. What part of the argument did you not understand?

              F5, scroll up, and try again from the beginning.

              1. Sorry Jason, I think the comment speaks for itself but I understand if can be challenging for some to follow more than one issue at once.

                1. It did speak for itself.

                  You’re an idiot arguing that it was something he did 35 years ago, which happens to be one of the key points proving your position to be as stupid as it is.

                  Except you think the fact it happened 35 years ago when he was 24 actually doesn’t matter, and should be treated as though he did it yesterday.

                  Might I suggest you find a new website to visit, as this one is clearly above your capacity to understand?

                  Try https://www.sesamestreet.org/ instead.

          3. I still contend an accusation without corroboration, is not evidence.

            I will concede the point however and state that there is a lot more evidence it never happened. Kavanaugh provided evidence he wasn’t present. Provided evidence he was never at any party with Ford. Provided evidence he has never treated any woman, or man, in the way Ford portrayed.

            So the “evidence” is heavily weighted in Kavanaugh’s favor

            1. I still contend an accusation without corroboration, is not evidence.

              I think you’re overly hung up on the word “accusation.” An accusation is not necessarily evidence. If I say “Ted Cruz’s dad shot JFK,” that’s not evidence of anything (except my lack of sanity and/or decency), because it’s just an out-of-thin-air accusation.

              But a statement about what someone witnessed someone else doing is evidence. That’s what Ford’s accusation was. She’s a putative eyewitness saying, “He attacked me.” That’s certainly evidence. It may not be convincing, depending on the circumstances. It might not even be true. But it’s no different than a non-victim saying, “I saw him go into the store and point a gun at the clerk and then run out.”

              1. “But it’s no different than a non-victim saying, “I saw him go into the store and point a gun at the clerk and then run out.””

                I think it is very different, in that your non-victim may have nothing against the accused. The accuser, by definition, is a hostile “witness”. They’re not impartial.

                In this sense, the ‘testimony” of an accuser really shouldn’t be given as much weight as that of a random passerby. If they’re going to accuse somebody of doing something to them, they’re almost obligated to testify they saw it happen, the testimony is baked into the accusation, part and parcel of it.

                1. The testimony of a biased witness may not be very good evidence. But it’s still evidence.

                  But the Ford-Kavanaugh show was mostly composed of stuff that wasn’t evidence. Newspaper stories, including stories allegedly told by Ford, but which didn’t make it into the actual on the record, perjury indictments available, evidence.

                  There’a a yuuuuge difference between a story you tell the WP, and a story you tell Congress or a court under penalty of perjury.

        2. I sided with Kavanaugh at the end of the day, but don’t think it’s impossible Ford’s accusation was true (I think the gang rape parties stuff sealed the deal for K; another reason Dems should hate Avenatti). BUT, it is bull that Ford’s testimony, yes her accusation, is not evidence. Indeed, it is direct evidence (enough to survive summary judgment), in probably every jurisdiction in America (except for treason). Now you may attack her credibility and argue that the evidence should be given little or no weight, but it’s evidence under any legal definition I am familiar with.

          1. Typing while Eugene was also typing/posting I see. I won’t say “great minds think alike,” because this one was so easy.

          2. Of course it isn’t impossible that her accusation was true: She went to absurd lengths to make it unfalsifiable. By, for instance, not identifying when it supposedly happened, so he couldn’t produce evidence he was elsewhere at the time.

            To the extent she alleged anything that COULD be proven wrong, she was proven wrong.

            1. ^Yes. This right here.

              The story that Ford told was utterly unfalsifiable. No approximate date. No location. No witnesses — except those who didn’t remember anything about the incident. No remotely contemporaneous confirmation. There is no evidence that she ever mentioned BK’s name prior to 2018. There is no evidence that she ever mentioned an assault prior to 2012 and she will not release records to even substantiate that weak corroboration.

              Nick Gillespie’s Jacket: “I sided with Kavanaugh at the end of the day, but don’t think it’s impossible Ford’s accusation was true”

              I agree that it was possible that Ford’s accusation was true. It is also possible that Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi snuck into my house sometime in the 1990s and jointly molested my dog. But there is no evidence to support that charge either.

        3. 1) Sure, though fairly weak evidence. The other party disputes it, the ex could be lying, the ex could be misremembering or have misunderstood (ie Ford described how a polygraph worked to re-assure her friend), or Ford might have forgotten. People aren’t guilty of perjury for forgetting minor things from 20 years ago.

          1) 2) 3) Yes it is

          4) Ramirez. And Ford’s accusations came YEARS before Kavanaugh was nominated to the court. Claims of fabrication stumble greatly when trying to dance around that fact.

          5) Many of his Yale classmates dispute his characterization, including his former roommate. And how many of those High School classmates backed up that characterization when interviewed by the FBI?

          The biggest issue with the Kavanaugh process is it wasn’t properly investigated. If he is truly innocent that’s a great shame because it cost him an opportunity to clear his name.

          1. Ramirez? Who ALSO had no corroboration from anybody at the party. Seems to be a recurring theme. Nobody at a party saw him making her touch his dick at a party. Literally nobody. THAT is credible? How?

            The “credible” accusations, thus far, consist of “he raped me at a party, somewhere, at some point that nobody can verify. And he made a girl touch his dick at a party but nobody saw it. In what world is any of this credible?

            And evidence would have SOMETHING you can prove. Ford’s lacked that for the most part and what little was provable was shown to be not the case. Her testimony couldnt have had less evidentiary benefit unless she didnt say a word. Its so implausible I doubt she was assaulted ever.

            1. Investigations do not clear one’s name. That is not their intent.

              The intent of an honest investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of a crime by a particular person to proceed with criminal charges against that person.

              If there is insufficient evidence — which is clearly the case here — then the investigation reports that. It does not exonerate anyone.

              Moron.

              1. The “moron” comment was directed at Aluchko.

              2. A thorough investigation can clear someone’s name. Or at least lessen the suspicion of guilt.

                An obviously insufficient investigation that ignores witnesses and other lines of evidence just raises the spectre of a cover up,

                1. A thorough investigation can clear someone’s name.

                  That’s not their goal, so no, they do not. The Duke lacrosse investigation by the state of NC after Nifong’s criminal action was odd because it did utterly exonerate the boys — but only because Nifong et al intentionally hid evidence.

                  An obviously insufficient investigation that ignores witnesses and other lines of evidence just raises the spectre of a cover up,

                  Everybody said at the moment dishonest people like you claimed “we only want an ‘honest’ investigation” was that a) the FBI is not really the group to investigate this — that is a local police matter, b) They had investigated him REPEATEDLY for years for every new job he was appointed to, c) Ford provided nothing to investigate.

          2. 1) Sure, though fairly weak evidence. The other party disputes it, the ex could be lying, the ex could be misremembering or have misunderstood (ie Ford described how a polygraph worked to re-assure her friend), or Ford might have forgotten. People aren’t guilty of perjury for forgetting minor things from 20 years ago.

            Aren’t you accusing Kavanaugh of perjury for things that you THINK are false from 35 years ago, even though there is substantial corroboration for his claims about terminology and games played at his school? Just asking for consistency.

            The biggest issue with the Kavanaugh process is it wasn’t properly investigated.

            “I was assaulted. I don’t know when — 35 years ago at some point. Nor where. It was a house in Maryland I’m pretty sure. No, nobody will actually back up anything I’m claiming”. — please, how does one investigate THAT?

          3. Aluchko is a giant hypocrite. No credibility.

          4. Aluchko – The FBI report included brief summaries of the interviews with numerous witnesses.

            One witness described him and Ford engaging in an event which matches almost exactly Ford’s description of the event with the implication that Ford had mistaken him for Kav. The FBI deemed that witness not to be credible. ( it seemed to be a creation of a copy cat / attempt to claim mistaken identity)

            A second unrelated individual described how he was in the bedroom with Ford doing the standard smooching with Ford for several minutes before a friend came into the room and jumped on the bed. It was this incident that deemed credible –

          5. And Ford’s accusations came YEARS before Kavanaugh was nominated to the court. Claims of fabrication stumble greatly when trying to dance around that fact.

            That “fact” aka “that newspaper story.”

            Point us to the bit of her husband’s testimony to Congress where he confirms that story. Oh wait, he didn’t give testimony to Congress. And even if he had that would still have been in 2018.

        4. “1) An accusation isn’t evidence”

          Yes, it is. It usually isn’t going to be conclusive evidence, and you might not even find it credible. But evidence it is.

          1. To split hairs, an accusation is not evidence, but an accuser’s claim to have witnessed a crime is evidence.

      2. a) That’s an accusation, not evidence.
        b) That’s not evidence, especially when Ford won’t allow the notes taken at that time to be shown to anyone.
        c) This is a questionable claim, wrapped up in a lie: If she named anyone, there is no evidence she named Kavanaugh specifically, and she claims she told her husband about her “past events” during a discussion about how her “phobia” required a second door to their house. However, we know that’s a lie, because the second door was added as part of creating a second space that was rented out, including as an office to a friend. We also know that none of her previous boyfriends ever heard of these events.
        d) No other “credible” accusers came forward, although three people are facing criminal charges for perjury.
        e) First, irrelevant. Many people disputed his interpretation of contract law, but that has no bearing on Ford’s absurd accusations. Second, it’s not true – No one in Kavanaugh’s social circle has disputed his statements, either about the terms (dear God, you’re seriously harping on 1980s high school in-crowd slang?) or to his drinking.

      3. a) Sure, but not super credible

        b) Yes, in 2012. Not contemporaneously with the event, or even shortly after

        c) See b)

        d) If you’re referring to Ramirez, she was anything but credible. She claimed some nonsense about Brett chasing her down the hallway with his penis out. I can tell you right now, had that happened on my floor my freshman year, I would have remembered it. Yet not a single other student backed it up. Why is that?

        e) Let’s assume, arguendo, that he did lie about his drinking. So what? But in any case, he said he never blacked out. There’s zero evidence to contradict that. In fact, there couldn’t be, as whether or not one blacked out is known to one but the drinker himself.

        1. The fact she said it in 2012 pretty much destroys the narrative that she did it to kill the nomination… which never really made much sense to begin with. Why would someone up-end their life just to get a different conservative judge nominated.

          Either way you need another explanation for why she’s accusing Kavanaugh.

          d) Only other first-hand witnesses were lacking, which isn’t surprising since how many people would have wanted to come forward into that kind of media circus. Several people said they heard about the incident at the time.

          e) It’s lying to congress. Maybe in some circumstances you let that go, but for a Supreme Court Justice? That’s like the one position where you should take charges of perjury very, very seriously.

          Think about what that does to the integrity of the court system.

          1. “The fact she said it in 2012 pretty much destroys the narrative that she did it to kill the nomination…”

            She said she said it in 2012, although she says she didn’t name Kavanaugh. Is there any evidence of that other than her say-so?

            1. Notice how Aluchko accepts anything Ford says at face value. Yet applies the most aggressive negative scrutiny to Justice Kavanaugh?

            2. Ford’s husband corroborated her naming Kavanaugh in 2012, though he’s obviously not an impartial witness.

              1. He corroborated it, not on oath, in 2018.

          2. The fact she said it in 2012

            Her therapist’s notes do not include that, do they? I guess the therapist was lying, eh? You’d think the name of the assaulter would be a BIG deal, wouldn’t you?

            Either way you need another explanation for why she’s accusing Kavanaugh.

            Money. Attention. Your pick.

            d) Only other first-hand witnesses were lacking, which isn’t surprising since how many people would have wanted to come forward into that kind of media circus.

            She named people. They didn’t say “No comment”. They explicitly contradicted her claims. They didn’t have to come forward — she PUSHED them forward.

            Several people said they heard about the incident at the time.

            Name them.

            e) It’s lying to congress. Maybe in some circumstances you let that go, but for a Supreme Court Justice? That’s like the one position where you should take charges of perjury very, very seriously.

            Weren’t you just saying that people aren’t accused of perjury for not remembering insignificant things 20 years earlier?

            Especially when they have plenty of evidence that they are right and you, LITERALLY, have none that he was lying. You weren’t at his school or in his circle of friends.

            1. “Her therapist’s notes do not include that, do they?”

              Do we know what’s in the “therapist’s notes”? IIRC she never released them, except maybe portions to a wapo reporter. But there are no verifyable notes out there, unless something has changed since I last followed the story.

              1. I doubt the WaPo reporter would have written something to make her look bad, honestly.

            2. Why would the therapist ask the name? The therapist is there to help her deal with the issues that resulted from the assault, not conduct a police investigation.

              And have you seen any evidence that she’s after money or fame? Has she gone on a speaking tour or raised money beyond what was required for personal security as a result of the infamy.

              And they didn’t “explicitly contradict”, the ones who weren’t actually accused said they didn’t remember the incident. Which makes sense since it would have been unremarkable to them at the time.

              As for the people who corroborated Ramirez try reading a paper, I don’t know if they came forward with their names (who would want to at this point) but they talked to reporters.

              Weren’t you just saying that people aren’t accused of perjury for not remembering insignificant things 20 years earlier?

              A hypothetical conversation about a lie detector test is an insignificant thing.

              Sexual assault and years of heavy drinking are more significant and a lot harder to forget.

              And he didn’t “forget” the meaning of all that sexual terminology, he said it was explicitly something different.

              1. Why would the therapist ask the name?

                Why would they ask WHO was responsible for a major problem in somebody’s life?

                You know, that is a regular question they ALWAYS ask.

                And have you seen any evidence that she’s after money or fame?

                She’s lied about her issues. She got a good payday. Everything about her screams attention whore.

                And they didn’t “explicitly contradict”, the ones who weren’t actually accused said they didn’t remember the incident.

                That is an OUTRIGHT contradiction of her statement. I find it amazing that OTHER people verifying that Devil’s Triangle was a drinking game et al isn’t corroboration for you — but “I don’t remember that happening” isn’t a contradiction.

                As for the people who corroborated Ramirez try reading a paper, I don’t know if they came forward with their names (who would want to at this point) but they talked to reporters.

                The PAPERS said nobody corroborated her story. Try and do better, The only person who did ALSO admitted they were not there — meaning they could not.

                And he didn’t “forget” the meaning of all that sexual terminology, he said it was explicitly something different.

                Unlike his accusers, people CORROBORATED his claims.

                1. You know, that is a regular question they ALWAYS ask.

                  And she wasn’t comfortable naming him in the session.

                  Which is kinda what you’d expect if she were legitimately traumatized and planting a story for this hypothetical Romney nomination.

                  Or is your theory here that it was another person.

                  That is an OUTRIGHT contradiction of her statement.

                  Really?

                  “That never happened”

                  would be an outright contradiction

                  “I don’t remember that happening”

                  is just a failure to corroborate.

                  You surely understand the difference.

                  That is an OUTRIGHT contradiction of her statement. I find it amazing that OTHER people verifying that Devil’s Triangle was a drinking game et al isn’t corroboration for you — but “I don’t remember that happening” isn’t a contradiction.

                  Sure, some people did corroborate his usage of the term as a drinking game, and others contradicted and said he used it as sexual innuendo. Which was also the only known public usage until the hearing.

                  Too bad someone couldn’t have properly investigated.

                  The PAPERS said nobody corroborated her story. Try and do better, The only person who did ALSO admitted they were not there — meaning they could not.

                  They said they heard about it at the time of the incident. Which is why it’s worthwhile investigating their statement.

          3. However, she was put on the short list for Romney, so it could have been done to derail the nomination in the event that Romney won.

            d) So it was a media circus, created by the left, which excuses why no one wanted to corroborate. Very convenient.

            e) Yes, if you make that assumption.

            1. It’s clear that the democrat Party had Christine Blatant-Fraud teed up and ready.

              1. Wow, she’s quite the secret agent. Preparing a story for use in 2012 then letting it wait dormant for 6 years.

                Too bad they couldn’t get a second spy to give first hand corroboration of her story, you know a “oh! she told me Kavanaugh did it 35 years ago!!”. Considering they got Ford to upend her life for no apparent reason surely they could have brought in a half-dozen people to back her up.

                It’s also remarkable they let this sit for 6 years without a leak. The must be using the same people who arrange the millions of illegal voters without any of them blabbing to the press.

              2. Her well practiced little girl voice was quite effective however.

          4. “Why would someone up-end their life just to get a different conservative judge nominated.”

            /Not/ saying this /is/ the reason, because she may well be on the up and up, but a consistent part of the Democrats’ strategy on the nomination was to extend it as long as possible in the perhaps desperate hope that (a) it could be killed and (b) the Democrats would retake the Senate, making it impossible for Trump to get /any/ other nominee confirmed.*

            A sexual assault allegation might have filled the bill by giving wavering Democrats and wavering Republicans cover to oppose Kavanaugh and taking the process so deep into December that it wouldn’t be possible to get another candidate confirmed.

            * (Early in the process, FiveThirtyEight was giving the Democrats about a 30% chance of retaking the Senate.)

            1. Early in the process, FiveThirtyEight was giving the Democrats about a 30% chance of retaking the Senate

              Also bear in mind that the Ford allegations may themselves have affected the odds. The conventional wisdom now is that the allegations and the attendant clownshow may have helped the Rs, but I don’t recall that being the conventional wisdom during the show. The Ds may well have believed they had two ways to win – defeat Kavanaugh and postpone the battle to a time when they already had a 30% of controlling the Senate; AND increase their odds of controlling the Senate to 40% or 50%.

      4. Regarding b), she says she did. However last I checked nobody has actually seen said notes, we only have her word that they exist. Either that or she perjured herself as to whether she gave them to the news organization she talked to about them.

      5. No one has ever been convicted with an uncorroborated accusation.

        1. Sadly, outrageously even, you’re wrong.

          1. Your going to have to give at least one example.

            1. See Norma Padgett and the “Groveland Four” for an example recently in the news.

              1. Yep 1949 in the segregated south. A segregated south governed by Democrats and the Klan( but I repeat myself) Cops lying and corroborating each others testimony has been going on since the formation of civil societies.

      6. Hmm… Speaking of distinctions, how about this: there is a picture of the offensive conduct here. No need for spotty recollections and other questionably proofs.

      7. Just for the avoidance of doubt, as (b) and (c) were never presented to Congress as evidence, they remain mere newspaper stories. And y’all certainly do not want to be believing everything you read in the newspapers.

        Had the therapist come forward and given evidence to Congress (after having been given a release by Ford) or if Ford’s husband had given evidence at the hearings of the wheres and whens of his wife telling him about Kavanaugh, that would have been some actual evidence.

  5. The yearbook was a foolish prank many years ago.

    The governor’s endorsement of abortion on request for third-term pregnancies – just so long as a physician agrees that giving birth would harm the mother’s mental health – even for a brief period – is the real scandal.

    I’m trying to think of a scenario under the bill where a physician wants to do an abortion, but scruples to do so because (s)he doesn’t want to certify that the mother’s short-term mental health is at risk. I can’t think of such a scenario, can you?

    1. A foolish prank? By what means is a Halloween costume a prank?

      1. Does Halloween make it worse or better? I don’t know and don’t care.

        Within the past couple weeks, he supported broader legality for third-term abortions.

  6. The CLAIM is that 35-years ago blackface/KKK outfit is a sign of extreme racial prejudice, and THAT is disqualifying for office.

    Extreme racial prejudice might be disqualifying for office – racial prejudiced actions of office certainly should be. The opinion itself, without association actions… that’s for voters to decide.

    However, we’re in the days where “dog whistle”, “implicit bias”, and “disproportionate impact” are taken seriously in courts. If the law is punishing these behaviors, why shouldn’t politicians be forced to abide by those standards as well?

    1. You’re just partial toward anyone known as “Coonman.”

      Carry on, clingers. Not for much longer, though.

      1. Yeah, you’re one of those that will probably end up face down in a landfill. You just don’t know when to shut up.

      2. Hey Arthur, one of the co-hosts of The View was involved in a blackface incident in the 1990’s. Do you think she should resign?

      3. I have to hand it to the Rev, he sure sets off the snowflakes.

        1. Sputtering, stammering, whining, blustering right-wingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

  7. Again, I don’t believe that Justice Kavanaugh was guilty on those counts, but that goes to the particular facts related to those accusations, and not the general principle of what should have been done if the accusations were accurate.

    I’m curious about the specifics here.

    For the standard of evidence are you applying “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of the evidence”?

    And there’s more than one charge, there’s the sexual assault claims, for which there’s only the word of the accusers, but there’s also lying to congress about drinking habits and terminology in his yearbook, about which there’s a lot of additional evidence.

    For Kavanaugh I don’t think there was a sufficient investigation to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do think the preponderance of the evidence definitely supported both the perjury and assault charges (at least for Ford’s accusation).

    And I do think “preponderance of the evidence” is an appropriate standard to apply to his situation.

    1. “there’s also lying to congress”

      Indeed and there is verified evidence that Kavanaugh’s accuser did tell at least two lies to Congress.

      Who’s the kettle and who’s the pot?

      1. Indeed and there is verified evidence that Kavanaugh’s accuser did tell at least two lies to Congress.

        Really? I assume you’re not referring to this debunked story.

        1. No, we know she lied about being afraid to fly, and we know she lied about the second door to her house.

          She also changed her story several times, which means she lied in at least one of those tellings.

          1. You can be afraid of flying and still fly.

            And all I can find about the second door is some speculation she violated some zoning ordinances and/or there was a second valid use for the door. Which doesn’t contradict any of her testimony. Hey, if you’re going to put in a second door you might as well find a use for it.

            And I don’t know of any substantial changes to her story.

            I’m not going to bother with any more of these. I’ve wasted enough time with these supposed smoking guns that turned out to be broken water pistols.

            1. And all I can find about the second door is some speculation she violated some zoning ordinances and/or there was a second valid use for the door. Which doesn’t contradict any of her testimony.

              She had other houses that didn’t have two doors. Any explanation as to why? Just checking — is there ANYTHING that could disprove her story to you?

            2. She also waited three decades to publish the accusation.

              she also purged all of her social media accounts.

            3. She claimed she was so afraid of flying she COULD NOT fly, and yet was flying on vacation during the same time period her accusations were being sent.

              As for the door, you obviously aren’t bothering to look. I don’t know, or care, about accusations of zoning law violations. She claimed that Kavanaugh so traumatized her that she could not live in a house without two doors. However, this was an explanation given years after the door was added, and it was added as part of a project to wall off and separate that part of her house, for rent to outsiders.

              She changed her story, including critical points, repeatedly. The year it took place. The number of people involved. The events that took place. The floorplan of the house she was in.
              At the same time, she “couldn’t remember” essential information – such as whose house it took place at, or how she got herself to or from the party.

              You may be tired of being proven wrong, and embarrassing yourself with all the lies and innuendo you are repeating. But your position is absurd and untenable – there is zero evidence of Kanavaugh doing anything at all like what he is accused of. On the other hand, Northam has already picture evidence, a confession, and now a twisted re-non-confession to a different blackface event.
              These situations are nothing alike, and all reasonable people know it.

              1. She claimed she was so afraid of flying she COULD NOT fly, and yet was flying on vacation during the same time period her accusations were being sent.

                Oh come on. She never said “she COULD NOT fly”. She said it was very difficult. And yes, being able to fly for a vacation but not a grilling with a prosecutor is completely consistent with a fear of flying.

                As for the door, you obviously aren’t bothering to look. I don’t know, or care, about accusations of zoning law violations. She claimed that Kavanaugh so traumatized her that she could not live in a house without two doors.

                Again I’ve never seen she claim that. I saw her claim that she insisted on two doors during the renovations.

                Whether or not there are alternate uses or those two doors are both exits from the main residence I don’t really care, it’s a phobia, as a rule it doesn’t have to make sense. That’s why her and her husband went to therapy over it!

                She changed her story, including critical points, repeatedly. The year it took place. The number of people involved. The events that took place. The floorplan of the house she was in.
                At the same time, she “couldn’t remember” essential information – such as whose house it took place at, or how she got herself to or from the party.

                Welcome to “How memory works 101”. People forget of confuse the secondary stuff all the time.

                1. Oh come on. She never said “she COULD NOT fly”. She said it was very difficult. And yes, being able to fly for a vacation but not a grilling with a prosecutor is completely consistent with a fear of flying.

                  The committee offered to fly to her.

                  it’s a phobia, as a rule it doesn’t have to make sense. That’s why her and her husband went to therapy over it!

                  Odd that nobody BUT her husband noticed that phobia over 35 years. And she did live with other people at the time in houses with only one door.

                  Ain’t that weird?

        2. nope.
          the front door story is a verified lie. City records.
          Her “fear of flying was shown to be a lie when she was testifying.

    2. “… drinking habits …”

      Is this about whether black out drunk means drinking to excess and either (a) not remembering what one did while drunk, or (b) losing consciousness and going to sleep?

      “… terminology in his yearbook …”

      Does that include the claim that “boof” in 1982-1983 Maryland highschool circles meant the same thing as found as current usage in Urban Dictionary?

      Checking the edit history and cited quotes at Wiktionary, “boof” meant different things in different subcultures at different times.

      1. The amount of drinking that is excessive is a matter of opinion not fact. Some college students may feel getting snot slinging pass out drunk only on weekends is not excessive, others may disagree.

    3. There are numerous clues which indicate Kavanaugh was not involved in the incident described by Ford

      1) Her degree and profession is psychology. A high percentage of professionals in that enter that profession because they are dealing with their own issues. Ford displayed may characteristics indicating that she was dealing with similar personal issues.
      2) The level of trauma from the alleged attempted rape was greatly disproportional to the actual level of trauma that would be experienced by the event described in her letter. For all practical purposes, the worst case event described in the letter was nothing more than a half ass groping session. As described, it was no where close to an actual attempted rape.
      3) At age 15, she described drinking beer on a casual basis. very few girls drink beer at age 15. Beer at that age tastes pretty nasty.
      4) There were 5 separate time frames that she place the event, The first two versions were in the late teens, , second two in her junior/senior year, and the 5th version at age 15.

    4. auchko: ” lying to congress about drinking habits ”

      I’ll bite. You mean when he admitted to liking beer, to drinking too much, and to underage drinking? You’ll have to do better than that, and I write this as a person who thinks Kavanaugh’s actions in the second round of questioning (after Ford’s testimony) should have disqualified him from serving on the Court.

  8. Mutual Assured Destruction is just not for nuclear war.

    Have we forgotten Romney already? His supposed anti-gay prep school behavior was an issue.

  9. It is fascinating to see the Left go after Northam. As the Rev notes it has “a Black Communist in the bull pen waiting to take his place.”

    Unfortunately Northam has now issued an absolute denial that is quite readily subject to forensic review. He did not need to do so, but he got carried away from his first statement today that he didn’t believe that he is the person in the photo. His other statement that he never saw the yearbook until yesterday is pretty incredible.

    Still the Right would be stupid to increase the pressure on Northam give the identity of the next in line.

    1. “Still the Right would be stupid to increase the pressure on Northam give the identity of the next in line.”

      No need, the pressure is coming from inside the house. Best to sit back and laugh.

      1. While a far-left “communist” replacement governor would be a temporary setback for Republicans, if he’s really that much of an arch-liberal, wouldn’t that seem to increase their chance next election?

    2. “His other statement that he never saw the yearbook until yesterday is pretty incredible.”

      I’m not sure I looked at even my high school yearbook, but I suppose I probably did. But who looks at (or even owns) a yearbook for graduate or professional school? I don’t even know if my law school had a yearbook (10 years before Northam’s Med-school yearbook, when, I guess yearbooks might have been more of a thing), and I’m sure I never looked at it if it did. That he wasn’t in high school any more is sort of damming on maturity grounds if that is his photo or even photo selection, but it makes entirely credible his statement that he didn’t see the yearbook.

      1. Agreed. And unlike a high school yearbook, which might well be given out automatically to the senior class, a college yearbook (or professional school one, though frankly I’ve never heard of such a thing) is probably something one has to buy. And one might very well choose not to buy it. In which case one might well never look at it. That he never saw it is one part of his story that’s entirely believable.

        That he apologized for being in the picture and then decided the next day that he hadn’t been… that’s another story.

      2. I have never seen my high school yearbook.
        Last yearbook I cared about was junior high.
        High school was a hell that still gives me nightmares.
        I wanted to get away from it, no good memories.
        I suppose I should look up, see what was in it, in case some woke democrat loon decides to blindside me and have me pilloried in the court of public opinion over something included by the editors or writ by third parties.

    3. Better to leave Northam in office and milk it over and over, asking every Dem voter in America to think about whether they support governor Blackface McMurder-Newborns.

      1. Every time intolerance is an issue in America that is bad for Republicans, except in jurisdictions that don’t much matter, so have at it, conservatives! Please continue to speak voluntarily about blacks, women, Mexicans, agnostics, Jews, immigrants, gays, Muslims, Hispanics, atheists, and the like.

        It has worked so well with respect to Italians, Catholics, Asians, the Irish, Jews, eastern Europeans, blacks, women, and others targeted for hatred and discrimination by successive waves of intolerance, ignorance, and insularity in America — why not continue?

        1. Sooo boring. I can’t believe you still crap out these boring posts.

          We all learned long ago not to read them.

          1. Kirkland is like one of those story-writing machines from “1984.”

            Turn the crank and watch the usual crap flow into comments.

            1. I’ve got to hand it to it though; the NPC programming is consistent and has a good 99.999% uptime.

              1. Bigots no longer like to be described as bigots. This is one of the best parts of the liberal-libertarian improvement that has made America great.

            2. Even Howard Schultz can’t stomach their hatred and uselessness any more.

        2. You used this post 17 days ago. Did you abandon your 30 day rule on your micro uses?

  10. I actually don’t care if he resigns or not. His replacement is worse on abortion and probably most other things.

    Its actually better from my point of view if he twists in the wind and stays. He can be an issue in the upcoming Va. legislative races later this year.

    But I am enjoying it and hopes he suffers quite a bit, either way. He falsely accused his GOP opponent of being a big racist, so this is good retribution.

    1. As BK said, “what goes around, comes around.”

    2. Couldn’t agree more. You hit all the high points.

    3. Couldn’t agree more. You hit all the high points.

  11. Dems and SJWs think offending specific groups is a horrific crime. That’s what this analysis is missing.

    If you aren’t in those specific groups, Dems and SJWs think offending you (and much worse) is justice because of things that your long dead ancestors might have done.

  12. I’m surprised that Arthur L. Kirkland isn’t in these comments yet calling Volokh a rabid racist, like he’s done in the past (aroundvtge sane time he was inviting Kerr to meet for ALK’s craft beer ? a bitter, I suspect). Maybe he hit him in response to the earlier post, I haven’t checked those comments yet.

  13. The only way this stuff is going to stop is if people start standing up to the internet mobs. People on both sides. Take away the satisfaction of the kill and the hunt becomes a lot more frustrating.

    Northam is resisting but still giving in – “this needs to the basis for a serious conversation about race”. He’s trying to bend without breaking. I’d respect him more if he simply said “It was a joke. Fuck off”. It would also help if he weren’t a total hypocrite on this kind of stuff, but he’s a politician so hypocrisy is in his DNA.

    If, over the period of a year or two, the targets of this kind of stuff (and other reasonable people) were to respond with total defiance then the mobs will eventually go away. I think. Or maybe it’s hope.

  14. I disagree in that I believe that the liberal opposition should be held to the same standards of past behavior that they hold any Republican to. Therefore, Northam should be immediately impeached good and hard.

    In general, though, I agree that digging through people’s lives for something that they said or did years ago is inappropriate.

    1. What is your limitation period on racism?

      1. For Bobbie “Sheets” Byrd, all was forgiven as soon as it was helpful to the usual leftist agenda to pretend that he was no longer a racist.

        1. Hey now, Robert Byrd was all about equality. He called white people niggers too.

      2. The Civil Rights Act passed in spite of opposition of Sens Fullbright, and Gore Sr. Among a whole slew of Democrats.

        What is the limitation period on Racism?

        President Trump has done more to lift up minorities and women in two years, than any Democrat in the last 100 years

  15. As Northam’s story keeps changing, the facts around the picture are not yet known ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ I don’t trust Northam enough, however, to bring it lower than ‘a preponderance of the evidence.’ Given that, I don’t think EV is giving enough weight to Northam’s current actions.

    This whole thing would be only partially about a racist act committed during the mid-80s by a 25 year old man . Perhaps more important is what it reveals about the current wisdom and judgement of the Chief Executive of a major state.

    First, the racism does matter but as in all things, specific circumstances matter. In 1984 Douglas Wilder was rising in State politics despite the vile racism directed at him over many years. At the end of the decade he would overcome that racism and become the nation’s First African-American to be elected Governor.

    What do you think?through the 80s, would a Ralph Northam who chose that particular image to be his representation in the yearbook be condemning the racist acts directed at Virginia Senator/Lt. Governor Wilder, or would he be committing them?

    Second, if this is in your past and you plan to run for office in the 21st Century (as Northam did in 2007), you need to get it out, apologize, and spend the next 20 years making up for it. And you need to do that BEFORE it is discovered by someone else.

    1. Perhaps most importantly today, his failure to do that would demonstrate incredibly bad judgement over a period of decades. If he was knowingly concealing what’s actually an easily discoverable secret that represented an existential threat to his career (political or other), he was at the least subject to blackmail.

      If a person is willing to be so reckless over a period of decades, what other reckless act is that person capable of today? Is he concealing anything else? Why should we believe his denials?

      I notice they’ve identified the yearbook editor and as of yet she’s declined to comment. Northam is now admitting that at a different time during the same year, he “used shoe polish to darken his face” as part of a Michael Jackson imitation in a dance contest.

      I’m not ready grant Northam the benefit of the doubt on anything he’s asserting. But if reasonably firm exonerating evidence comes out (someone admits substituting the picture as a joke?) and he can explain why he never saw it and no one ever told him about it, EV’s reasoning can apply to the less severe dance contest incident.

      That, however, seems unlikely. Given what’s known at the moment, Northam should and I predict will resign by early next week.

      1. I suspect that one’s response to the photo depends to some extent on the community in which one was raised. When I saw it, I thought it was unbelievably callous and insensitive for someone in medical school, who should be old enough to know better, to post on their yearbook page. But I’m from California, and nobody I knew in 1985, Democrat or Republican, would have dreamed of posting a photo like that. But I then spoke to a friend who grew up in the South, whose political views are roughly the same as mine, and he said that this kind of sophomoric humor was not unusual at that time in the area he came from. So perhaps one must make allowance for those cultural differences. Be that as it may, it seems to me that a Chief Executive of a state or country must be able to credibly claim that he or she can make a good faith effort to act in the best interests of all of its inhabitants. It is now difficult for Northam to do so.

        1. I attended a large southern state university in 1985. The only people who would have done such a thing were bona fide racists, or people who pretty much only associated with that crowd. Anyone else – anyone who had friendships, or regular social contact with black people would have known better. He wasn’t some freshman from the sticks, he was post bacc, and damned well knew that that was offensive and demeaning.

          It’s amazing, isn’t it? A couple weeks ago people were trying to ruin some fifteen year olds for a smirk and some MAGA hats. This time it’s chin tugging and contemplative tut-tutting, while pretending that the double standard isn’t plain as the noses on their collective faces…

          1. Perhaps I should explain that I fall on the left side of the political spectrum. Although my views coincide with yours on Northam and that kid wearing the MAGA hat, I’m guessing that we disagree on many other things.
            In my view, many people on both the left and the right have strong tribal instincts that affect their judgment more than they realize. I don’t agree with you that the double standard is as plain to them as the nose on their collective face; they’re truly unaware that their judgment is affected. To the extent that is less true of me, it’s perhaps because I spent most of my career as a judicial staff attorney, working cooperatively with some very smart people whose political views were very different from mine. I think that experience made me (and them) less tribal.

      2. The current variation seems to be.
        1) He saw the photo, remembered the Michael Jackson blackface costume, thought that was it and apologized.
        2) The he realized the photo wasn’t him, that it was probably put on his page by a screwup, and changed his story accordingly.

        I can certainly see him not knowing about the photo because honestly, I don’t even know if I had a University Yearbook.

        But the changing story looks a lot more like:
        1) He admitted to the photo thinking it would blow over.
        2) It got a lot bigger that he expected so he changed his story to avoid being forced to resign.

        At this point to avoid resigning I think he needs some evidence coming out that supports his version of events.

    2. Northam was unwise to make his denial “absolute.” Good forensics could prove him wrong. Then He’d be toast. He should have stuck by his original statement that he believed that was was not him in the photo. Then he has to tough it out.

  16. Every one of us did something when we were young and foolish that we would now be ashamed of if it were brought to public attention. If you deny that this is true of you, you are either a Saint or a liar. So, thanks, Prof. Volokh for making the point, even if Gov. Northam appears to be a flawed example of the principle.

    1. Volokh is right. Nevertheless, Northam is a progtard who helped create this situation and should burn for this on that basis.

      We’re fighting a war with these people. Showing them mercy is always a mistake. They will just use it against you.

      1. BTW you’re losing the war and have been for nigh 200 years.

        But you keep dreaming.

        Does that make you a, um, dreamer too?

        1. We’re only losing it because you continue to import 85 IQ Hispanics.

          1. I can see why bringing in so many such people smarter than you would be threatening to you.

            1. Hardy hardy har.

      2. We’re fighting a war with these people.

        And you are getting your ass kicked, to the point at which you must obsequiously comply with the preferences of your betters after losing the culture war. There just aren’t enough cranky, stale-thinking bigots left in America to enable you to anything more than mutter bitterly and irrelevantly.

        But you are welcome to whine all you want, so long as you continue to toe that line.

  17. The dems wanted this style of politics. As long as it served them, it was all A OK. Now that they are getting caught up in their own rules, they start the usual nonsense about forgive and forget and turn the other cheek. They decry the lack of civility only when it is dems getting blowback on their own incivility.

    1. That type of argument from the side of birthers and bigots is quite persuasive.

      1. Ah yes, the usual sniveling from low lifes being treated the way they treat others. Seems the bigots are on your side. Like Bill Maher and Jimmy Kimmel. Love how all you so called righteous people just couldn’t express enough admiration for a former Grand Wizard. Made him a party leader. Mentor to Hillary and all. The birther movement started in the campaign of Hillary.

        But you go ahead. You tell us all about how noble and pure of heart you are. You’ll have to tell us since it doesn’t appear it’s in any way true. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

      2. Arty, beyond your usual unoriginal sniveling, do you have any analysis to contribute?

        No, no, you never do. So weak and dull witted.

      3. You are a parrot, Artie.

        Give you a cracker and you spew the usual ancient dogrels.

    2. Goju,
      You are not telling the truth. My perspective is that Democrats have been MUCH more forceful about publicly coming out against the Gov and/or demanding that he resign. These people have been plastered all over various news media for the past 24+ hours. How is it possible that you have been following this story, but have missed the 750 (including repeated references on different networks) examples of Dems leading the “quit now!” call? I would think it would take a willful blindness/deafness to have overlooked all of those.

      1. What is it you think I am not being truthful about? Scroll down and you will see I did say the dems were the first ones to call for his head. My point is that the Gov unleashed the dogs in the campaign by playing the race card. He got bit in the ass when his own dogs swung around and bit him. It no longer matters what the full story is behind the photos. The mob has come for him and they won’t leave without some blood. I have zero sympathy. The mob and the rabid dogs are the dems and that is what makes this so damn funny.

  18. Volokh is a smart guy, but he’s missing the mark here. According to liberals, racism is the ultimate sin, not a minor transgression. That is why they use that to tar everyone who disagrees with them on anything (even if that disagreement has nothing to do with race). The point of people on the right demanding Northam resign isn’t because they agree with using ancient instances of race-inappropriate as reason to ruin someone’s life, it’s to hold Dems accountable to their own rules, in the hope they eventually learn how stupid they are as those rules start to bite them in their own azzes.
    If they aren’t held to the same accountability they hold people on the Right to, they will keep using this tactic with impunity.

    1. First ones to call for his resignation, right out of the box, were his fellow dems. He unleashed the rabid dogs and got bit in the ass by them.

      1. Some of the people calling for Northam’s resignation are just virtue signalling. They may not believe that his actions were so bad, but they want to create an image that they are ultra righteous and they don’t see any downside. This is like social network shame storms.

    2. Volokh is a smart guy,

      That is true, but he is shackled by fealty to stale right-wingery. It’s like going into an already lost war with lousy strategy, inadequate equipment, and substandard personnel.

    3. Volokh is a smart guy,

      That is true, but he is shackled by fealty to stale right-wingery. It’s like going into an already lost war with lousy strategy, inadequate equipment, and substandard personnel.

    4. Racism gave you, or if you prefer is intrinsically associated with, slavery, which gave you the Civil War, which gave you Jim Crow, the whole prison slave system, lynchings that number in the thousands, the genocide of Native Americans and the subsequent treatment of the survivors, to name but a few of its blessings, how the fuck is racism not a major transgression?

      1. Because the “racism” on display in the yearbook is not the same “racism” that gave us slavery and genocide? It is unfortunate that the charge has lost so much of its meaning?

        1. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that it’s a different form of racism that’s being made light of in the picture, not to mention the racism inherent in making light of it. The KKK murdered thousands, and the blackface was both a caricature of the people murdered and oppressed and represents their complete exclusion from areas of performance and entertainment. I think the assumption that white people making light of that sort of thing is acceptable, or harmless, not racist in itself, and something that should be accepted with no consequence, is itself an effort to deprive racism of its meaning.

  19. Trust a fucking law professor to know nothing about the actual, real world application of the law. What was the “very serious crime that Kavanaugh was accused of committing?

    That he and a friend drunkenly and rambunctiously jumped on a girl, and one another, until the dudes toppled to the floor, at which time the girl walked out of the room and house, and no one made any effort to stop her.

    Ford never claimed that the boys attempted to grope, fondle, undress or penetrate her in any way. She never alleged that they tried to touch her breasts or genitalia. She never claimed that they voiced any sexual intent or threat. If everything she actually claimed is true, she was the victim of an unwanted, drunken bounce house.

    Had she immediately called the police, no prosecutor of that era would have brought any charges at all. Had it happened today, the most serious charge one could hope to get would be a misdemeanor assault charge, assuming there were any witnesses, which there weren’t.

    Guess what, Professor. Misdemeanors are, by definition, not “very serious crimes. If you think drunken bounce house, without any overt sexual component, is a “very serious crime, give me a call. As a former federal prosecutor and now criminal defense attorney, I can show you files that will haunt your fucking dreams.

    1. Ford did claim that BK groped her and tried to reach under her shirt.

    2. Ford never claimed that the boys attempted to grope, fondle, undress or penetrate her in any way.

      I mean, actually, she did.

      She never alleged that they tried to touch her breasts or genitalia.

      I mean, actually, she did that too.

      She never claimed that they voiced any sexual intent or threat.

      Not in so many words, though she said that Judge was verbally urging Kavanaugh to continue. But I’m not sure how many would-be rapists say, “I am going to rape you now” outside of an afterschool special, so I’m not sure why that would be dispositive.

      There are several reasons to doubt Ford’s story in whole or in part, but denying that she said what she said isn’t one of them.

  20. “More broadly, consider what standard we’re trying to set for the future.”

    Ask the Florida Secretary of State. He did the right thing. Northam should as well.

  21. “More broadly, consider what standard we’re trying to set for the future.”

    Ted Stevens could not be reached for comment

  22. EV is right. The Florida guy should not have resigned.

  23. He is right! I have been reading on politics since my twenties, 50’s now, but would to serve in public office. Problem is I was wild in the 20’s and would never make it. 50 ppl would come forward saying “saw him snorting coke of a 18 year old stripper’s ass” we all do things in youth, but grow up at one point.

  24. One’s willingness to believe these kinds of allegations about past behavior and one’s opinion about the relevance of it seems to be entirely dependent on one’s current opinion of the person. I have to wonder if these kinds of allegations changes anyone’s mind. Did the allegations against Justice Kavanaugh change a single vote in the Senate?

  25. I wold argue the following;

    1) Kavanaugh was accused of behavior for which there was no supporting evidence. None. Northam is accused of behavior for which there IS evidence. Fairly convincing evidence.

    2) Kavanaugh was accused of behavior that ran counter to almost all other testimony as to his character. Northam is accused of behavior that (brace for Liberal outrage here) is entirely consistent with his position as an elected official of the Democrat Party. The Democrats were the party of the Klan. The Democrats were the party of the Confederacy. The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. The Democrats enthusiastically embraced eugenics before a certain Austrian put the stink on it. The Democrats enacted the policies that have destroyed the Black family. And the Democrats are the party that enthusiastically works to expand the availability of abortion…which is disproportionately the killing of Black babies.

    Should he resign for having bad taste in his youth? No.

    Should this open a discussion of why the Democrats – self-described as champions of poor minorities – come to back policies that hold so many in poverty and kill so many of their babies?

    It’s PAST due. The Liberal/Progressive elite who run the Democrat party are self-absorbed to an ostentatious degree, hold others to standards of behavior they have no intention of getting themselves, and are far worse racists (because more damaging) than any Grand Dragon.

    1. I would argue the following: anyone who would talk about the 21st century Democratic Party by talking about the Klan or Jim Crow is either too stupid or too dishonest (or both) to be taken seriously.

  26. It’s the Never Ending Saga of Double Standards that Only Work In One Direction.

    Leftists: These are the standards we demand you abide.

    Non-lefitsts: We reject those standards

    Leftists: Too bad We are going to force them on you.

    Non-leftists: Well, if you insist, then we insist you abide them as well.

    Leftists: Hypocrisy!!!!

    1. And speaking of hypocrites, has anyone heard from Radley Balko on this one? I seem to recall him being very concerned about Covington kids who, he insisted, appeared in blackface at some basketball games…

      1. ThomasD: Can you point me to the Balko article you’re referring to?

      2. ThomasD: Can you point me to the Balko article you’re referring to?

        1. He mentions blackface, tomahawk chops, racist signs, etc. in this twitter stream. It’s a ways down the page.

          Tweets

          Or you can search ‘Radley Balko Covington blackface”

          1. This. AFAIK it’s all in his Twitter stream.

      3. He and others called kids dressing up and painted black at a sporting event “a blackout” as being in “blackface” that is pretending to be black person. I mean people paint their face colors all the time for sporting events and sometimes its black. Still do so its not a dated thing.

        So it was a false equivalency. They were at a blackout they were not in black face.

        1. “…who, he insisted, appeared in blackface…”

          (emphasis added)

          While I cannot be certain that Balko understood the difference between blackface and covering yourself all in black because it’s part of your school colors, I can be certain that the difference was subsequently clearly explained to him. Just as the difference between a ‘white power’ gesture and the ‘three point shot’ signal was also very clearly explained to him.

          Making his failure to amend his prior accusations not merely a false equivalence, but actual slanders.

          He now knows what blackface is. He has never said actual blackface is not a problem. Yet he has been silent on Northam. Balko may not be a hypocrite, but his behavior is surely equivalent to one.

  27. Ford’s accusation was at most the most minor crime one can commit.

    If you are referring the wild wacko accusations, then let’s just talk about UFOs and Bigfoot as witnesses.

  28. ..and on that day, the Conspiracy discovered the “right to be forgotten”. Now you only have to explain it to S. Baker (good luck…)

  29. Yes but…
    I believe he is guilty of “current bad behavior.” His disingenuous race-baiting campaign ads certainly don’t demonstrate the same consideration you would extend toward him. And when viewed with the context of his self-documented …. insensitivity? we’re left with the world’s most ironic, if not worst, example of the pot calling the kettle…well, you know.

  30. RE: “If you want to go after Northam for his current views on abortion, go ahead.”

    Why would one want to? His current views on abortion are very sensible.

    1. I understand some people thought the Final Solution was ‘very sensible, too.

      1. And the Wall.

  31. Gov. Northam’s problem is not his enemies right now, his problem is his friends (fellow Democrats).

    1. In the British House of Commons the two parties sit, facing each other, on rising tiers of benches on either side of a center aisle. The government ministers sit in the front row, right opposite the oppostion party’s leaders sitting in the front row on the other side of the aisle. Other MPs of each party sit in the rows behind their leaders.

      Someone referred to “enemies” pointing across to the other party and was met with the reply (I forget who said it – probably Churchill) :

      We on this side of the House are not the Honourable gentleman’s enemies, we are his rivals. The Honourable gentleman’s enemies are behind him.

  32. I propose a solution to this fierce outrage over long-ago insults, slurs, mean-spirited, insensitive humor, drunken boorishness and so forth.

    Let’s bring back formalized dueling to settle matters of honor and/or passion.

    In fact, I offer my services to be a professional stand-in for a challenger or a challengee in such a contest, as long as it involves dueling pistols. For a modest mid-six figure fee I will be your champion. You can watch the whole affair from behind bullet resistant glass, or better yet on CCTV.

    Now I will reveal my trade-secret business model for this outlandish proposition. I learned once from expert witness testimony in trial that a .380 bullet as launched from the 3-inch barrel of a common gangsta type concealable handgun will not penetrate 5.5 inches of “hard” body fat.

    Therefore, as long as I stipulate the pistol duel by conducted with .380 semi-autos, I would be unlikely to suffer fatal injury, as my vital organs are well protected with a thick layer of what amounts to ballistic gelatin. As long as I arrange to be matched against skinny opponents, the ease with which they can hit me (a big target) and the harder task of hitting skinny them (not a problem at my skill level) become false comforts to the unwary.

    It may seem brutal, but isn’t every legal contest this way? You don’t know what you are up against until you are at trial, or in the Super Bowl, only then do unwarranted assumptions and tricks get shockingly displayed.

    1. You’d also have to stipulate what ammo is used. There are .380 rounds that will easily penetrate 5.5 inches of hard fat.

      1. I’m pretty fat, but I’d have to be suffering from a pretty bad case of hypothermia for any of it to be “hard”.

  33. “… what kind of country would we be creating if that were really adopted as the rule?”

    What we have. Say you like Lovecraft stories, a frequent response is “That racist?”

    The World Fantasy Award (WFA) was changed from a bust of H.P. Lovecraft to a tree holding a golden disc in 2016.

    A lot (not all*) of controversy stemmed from HPL’s racial views (not extreme for 1920 and which evolved over his lifetime toward the liberal). His view was in part from being more comfortable among his own kind (Anglophile) and was bolstered by popular eugenics rhetoric in the 1920s that gave us the Virginia Racial Integrity Act. He considered Orientals more evolved than Middle Easterners who were more evolved than Causcasian Europeans (like himself) who were more evolved than Africans (the theme of the textbook at the heart of the Scopes Monkey Trial). His views changed over time: he wrote that he did not enter debates with a view to prove himself right, but with view to find out the truth. He also declared that the differences between individuals within races was wide enough that you could not judge the worth of an individual solely on their race. A lot of people today dig through his early writings to find things they find offensive.

    _________________
    * The old WFA was a caricature of Lovecraft so ugly (how ugly?) that Lovecraft’s friend Donald Wandrei refused to accept his 1984 Life Achievement WFA.

    1. I think the “Ferengi rule” means it’s OK to be racist against alien species, as well as ancient races of fish-men living in the depths of the oceans, etc.

    2. Lovecraft’s views were extreme for 1920. And 1930. He was a raging anti-semite, racist, a big fan of Hitler. The “more evolved” is a cute euphemism. He regarded blacks as little more than animals. And, no, he did not view Middle Easterners or Orientals more evolved than Caucasians. He viewed Aryans as the pinnacle.

      That doesn’t mean one can’t appreciate his stories. But don’t whitewash (pun intended) him.

      1. I have read biographies of Lovecraft, and read the five volume selected letters (mostly to his friends) as they were released 1968-1975. His positions evolved over time. He was open to convincing argument.

        Lovecraft dismissed criticism of Hitler as typical anti-German British propaganda (post WWI it was revealed Britain used a lot of fabricated atrocity stories in WWI propaganda).
        In 1935 a woman he knew and trusted returned from Germany and told him what she personally saw going on there. Lovecraft did a 180 degree on his opinion of Hitler in 1935 to his death in 1937 would go off on anyone defending Hitler.

        And Sonia Haft Greene Lovecraft, his wife, was a Jew. Odd for a “raging anti-semite”.

        The mercy and forgiveness you show is the mercy and forgiveness you deserve.

        1. Fascinating, and thanks for sharing.

        2. Lovecraft was a monster raving racist. Now, some people find it easier to forgive or forget monster raving racism in their favourite dead writers than others, but handing out his likeness as an honour is pretty insulting and cringeworthy and expecting in particular people of colour to act with politeness and grace upon receiving such a thing is frankly ignorant and presumptuous and an imposition. They were right to change it.

  34. Now in my upper 70s, I was born and raised in the Deep South in the ’40s and ’50s. I could have been considered racist.

    But I’ve tried for years to bring to our attention a racist act long-supported by liberals. See what liberals have done to blacks:

    “Why affirmative action failed black families where it matters most” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-families/

    This is not what you may think it is. It may be shocking for some.

    1. You might have been a racist while your community was lynching blacks, murdering Freedom Riders, denying citizens the vote based on skin color, and beating people who sat at lunch counters, but what’s really bothering you is liberals’ treatment of blacks and the problems generated by affirmative action?

      Thank goodness you will be replaced by a better, younger American in our electorate soon enough.

      1. I support trying to deny blacks the vote not because they’re black, but because 95% of them vote for Democrats. If they voted 50/50, I wouldn’t support any of those measures.

        1. Under the same principle, it is perfectly rational to deny ARWP the vote because 100% of the time, he will vote for the Rpublican, unless an even more revanchist, xenophobic extremist is available.

        2. I mean, you could try making the party more attractive to black people and less racist overall, rather than going complete fascist, but ok. Quiet part loud, there.

          1. I mean, you could try making the party more attractive to black people and less racist overall

            The trouble is that for some people the definition of “racist” seems to be infinitely elastic. Opposed to affirmative action on the ground that it harms the “protected” group and is unfair toward those who have done nothing to deserve it? Racist. Assert that an opposing candidate for the presidency was not born in the United States and so isn’t qualified? Racist. (Never mind that the exact same tactic is used regardless of the race of the person challenged whenever there is a sliver of a chance of success, as when it was asserted that since Ted Cruz was born in Canada he was not eligible.) Prefer that immigrants be required to comply with U.S. immigration law? Racist. Prefer immigrants with education and skills over those without? Racist. Believe that there should be no public welfare for people who are able to work? Racist.

            What are your favorite examples of Republican racism?

          2. I mean, you could try making the party more attractive to black people

            If black people as a group currently occupy a significant number of low-skilled jobs then why isn’t an immigration policy that opposes unlimited or greatly increased low-skilled immigration more attractive to black people? If minimum wage laws have the effect of reducing the number of low-skilled jobs that are available, as it certainly does since increasing the price of something obviously reduces the demand for that thing, then why isn’t opposition to minimum wage laws (originally instituted to keep blacks from undercutting the wages of whites) more attractive to black people?

  35. I know I am at odds with many of my conservative friends, but I strongly believe that demanding resignation of a duly elected ( or appointed) public figure as a remedy for any transgression, real or imagined, is a slippery slope. In the instant case, for example, listening to Joe Biden call for the immediate resignation of Northam because he has lost his moral authority to lead turns my stomach.

    I believe in the electoral process (including the Electoral College), the sanctity of the ballot box and that voters get the elected officials they deserve. The remedies for a failure of moral authority, an ethical lapse, or for an admitted or adjudicated felony involving the public trust is the ballot box or, for particularly egregious conduct, the impeachment process.

    An election is a democratic process. A lynch mob, bullying an elected official to resign, is not.

  36. The reason he needs to resign is that he is a fraudulently elected governor. Had the information been public he would not have won his primary. Had the information been public he would not have won the general election. He basically conned the voters and now that the con has been made public he needs to resign. He is not a bona fide public official.

  37. I agree that people can change and under some circumstances should be given a second chance, but a certain amount of schadenfreude appears to be natural given Northam’s race-baiting of Ed Gillespie in the governor’s race.

  38. The progs were in love with Northam because they saw him as the first opportunity to vote against Trump-thats how he racked up a massive war chest of contributions mostly from out of state to bury Gillespie with negative ads calling him racist, misogynist, anti-immigrant, etc. Otherwise, he was a rather uninspiring candidate-as are most Virginia politicians. Now, this same prog anger machine that got him elected, along with all the vagina voters who voted for him for Lt governor in 2013, must call for his head because intersectionality. When your political movement is driven by emotions, narrative, and symbolism, they will eventually consume and kill it. I suspect so many progs now want him removed because his replacement, the Lt governor, is further to the left of Northam, and African American too, so it would be nice symbolism for them. Whatever happens, the dems in Va are in serious trouble because they will either be left with an incumbent governor who can’t govern and drag their party down, or will be replaced by a lefty determined to soak it to the rich (see how long the limousine liberals in Loudon County and McLean will tolerate that for).

    1. Northam accomplished the Medicaid expansion so Fairfax can coast on the economy while for the rest of this term. Remember Amazon is moving to Virginia so even if we fall into recession in 2020 Virginia will have strong economic growth. He can see how 2020 plays out and if the nutty Progressives win then he can soak the rich. If they lose a winnable race like Gillum did in Florida Fairfax can move to the center.

    2. The problem is, where are they going to go? For many decades, if liberals in Maryland got too out of control, people could move to Virginia. If Virginia goes far left, the only option left is to move out of the area.

  39. The Franken rule is in play?does Northam resigning benefit Democrats by promoting a Democrat with higher upside??

  40. news since 2 Feb 2019

    Alan Suderman, Associated Press, “‘I am convinced that I am not in that picture,’ Va. governor says”, Kingsport Times-News, p 1A, 4A, Mon 3 Feb 2019.

    Northam on the 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook:
    _ had not seen the photo before friday
    _ was not involved in yearbook preparation
    _ did not buy a copy of the yearbook*
    _ does not believe he is either the man in blackface or the man in the hood**

    Critics calling for his head on a spike:
    _ both Virginia senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, Democrats
    _ Rep Bobby Scott, Democrat
    _ Virginia Democratic Party
    _ Virginia Legislative Black Caucus
    _ black protesters at the governor’s mansion

    Alan Suderman, Associated Press, “Virginia governor ignoring calls to resign”, Kingsport Times-News, p 1A, 2A, Feb 2019.

    “… nearly unanimous calls from his own party to resign over a racist photo …”
    _ chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus
    _ Rep Karen Bass (Dem, Calif) on “Meet the Press”
    _ “virtually all the state’s Democratic establishment”

    _____________
    * Walt Broadnax a black 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School graduate claimed he did not buy a 1984 yearbook either and did not see one until decades later. He claimed to know Northam is not a racist.
    ** I am entertaining the possibility that the editors of the 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook may have chosen that photo as their idea of humor.

    1. I suspect the Virginia Democrat Establishment has other reasons for wanting rid of Northam and the 1984 yearbook photo is just a pretext.

      1. Yeah, it can’t be what it looks like, that’d mean the Dems have some kinda principles!

        1. Yep, the guy’s views on abortion today ? the progressive propaganda pumps glossed over, but conduct (for which he expressed regret) many years ago . . . wow, some principles.

          1. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way,” Northam said. “And it’s done in cases where there amy be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

            Whatta lunatic!

            1. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. ”

              That is likely a homicide is all 50 states. So far.

              Its also illegal to kill a delivered infant under the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

              Telling you think advocating that is a sensible belief.

            2. And it’s done in cases where there amy be severe deformities

              You’re justifying ending the life of a viable person because that person has severe deformities. Club foot? Blind? Down Syndrome? Everybody knows which two local physicians will sign off on such cases. This is straightforward and unapologetic eugenics, with the added benefit that it will save the parents quite a bit of hardship and expense. Who speaks for the child?

            3. Swood, Bob: I agree the quote is a little cringeworthy, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt for any ambiguity when they are speaking extemporaneously, and that means noticing the “there may be a fetus that’s non-viable” part.

              Deciding how much heroic (and often unpleasant for the recipient) care to give for hopeless cases is something that patients, families and doctors have to do routinely.

              For my parents and parents-in-law, two elected to enter hospice care on their own, because they were mentally able to. For the other two, the family eventually made the decision to withhold all but palliative care when things were hopeless enough. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize those decisions as ‘we decided to murder our parents’. Similarly, parents of young children with terminal conditions may decide to withhold all but palliative care, and that’s not ‘murdering their babies’.

              Now, if he was suggesting that the doc would tell the parents ‘wow, your newborn has a nasty birthmark’ and the parents would respond ‘well, in that case, off the kid’, then yes, he’s a monster. But that’s not the most charitable reading of his comments.

              1. “But that’s not the most charitable reading of his comments.”

                Why give it a “charitable” reading?

                His words are his words, deliver the baby and then calmly discuss killing the baby.

                1. Bob, you straight-up skipped the context: in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.

                  That’s not a charitable reading, that’s just reading the text.

                  If your side is correct, you shouldn’t need to lie about it.

                  1. The problem, of course, is that the present law in Virginia, let alone the one that was proposed, doesn’t require that the baby have severe deformities, or be non-viable.

                    It just requires that the mother be upset at the idea of giving live birth. Presently you need three doctors to agree that she’d be really, REALLY upset. The proposed law would have reduced it to one doctor saying she was going to be modestly upset.

                    1. So the outrage is referred outrage about a statute, not about the statement everyone says has got them outraged? Nice subject change, but I am unconvinced.0

                      Also, I don’t see anything about the standard of mental health required changing, only the number of doctors.

                    2. You are wrong on this. Re the mother’s health, the old version said “…continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”

                      The bill deleted “substantially and irremediably”.

                    3. Fair enough. As I said, I didn’t see it. Thanks for doing the digging.

                      I’d have kept the language in myself, but the amount it moves the line is pretty marginal. And the outrage from the right remains more about demonizing Northam than this bill.

                    4. This is exactly right. Of course they are going to emphasize deformity and non-viability, make you think of babies born with two heads, or no head. But even under the current law they can abort a perfectly healthy child right up to dilation and crowning, just because the mother decides that it will be upsetting to have it. And then if it survives the abortion kill it.

                  2. Bob, you straight-up skipped the context: in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.

                    Northam said: “and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.”

                    Is it the most reasonable reading of this that there is an “and” between the two examples? If the fetus is nonviable then what difference does it make that there are deformities? Are you claiming that the law under discussion would only apply to nonviable third trimester fetuses, or would it allow the termination of viable fetuses?

                    1. Why else is a fetus nonviable except for deformities? Failing to read a causal connection between those two clauses is not just a reach, it’s a lie. Maybe a lie you’re telling yourself as well, but it’s just not a reasonable parsing of language that he was listing two unrelated reasons.

                      He was describing the law as it would operate, so your question is changing the subject.

                    2. I am reading the “context”. Its two examples, severe “severe deformities” and “non viable”. You are reading “severe deformities” as modifying “not viable” which is not the way we usually list examples [“cases”].

                      Missing two legs would be a “severe deformity” but not affect viability.

                      Its illegal and immoral to intentionally kill an infant even if they have “severe deformities”, whatever that means.

                      Some people consider Down Syndrome a severe deformity you know. Iceland brags about eliminating it.

                    3. Modifying? No, I’m reading it as causally linked. Because, of course, there is causality one way, and they are in proximity, so to assume he was talking about aborting legless babies requires a leap away from reality.

                    4. “requires a leap away from reality.”

                      Viability and deformity are two separate concepts.

                      A 10 week old unborn baby is not viable but also does not have deformities.

                      A full term baby with deformities may be viable or may not be, it depends on the deformity.

                      You are linking them to confuse the issue and make pro-life people the bad guys. “What monster would want to keep non viable deformed babies alive?”

                    5. First, Northam was talking about late term abortion, Bob. There, viability is tied to deformity.
                      Trying to do away with context doesn’t do a lot of favors to the good faith of your argument.

                      Nothing in the rest of the statement makes any sense with deformity without viability, either.

                      I’m not making the pro lifers here the bad guys, you folks and your ridiculous parsing to gin up outrage are.

                    6. Why else is a fetus nonviable except for deformities?

                      Perhaps, but a nine-month fetus with deformities can clearly be viable.

                      He was describing the law as it would operate, so your question is changing the subject.

                      Are you saying that the “law as it would operate” is that a nine-month viable fetus with deformities could not have its viability terminated pursuant to a law of which Northam approved? Northam said: “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired?” Are they only talking here about resuscitating an infant that is non-viable? Clearly if that were the case there would be no controversy, but is that your understanding of what we are talking about here? What is the “subject” from which I am trying to change?

                    7. So you have causality in one direction, and one clause is right after the other, but you think the best reading is that actually it’s a list? That’s not reasonable.

                      I’m saying what we are talking about – Northam’s statement – explicitly has to do with how the law would operate. Your attempt to discuss the legal parameters of the law is not the same question Northam was answering. Attempting to pretend that’s what he was answering is great if you want to twist his words, but not if you want to discuss reality.

                      From the context, they are talking about resuscitating infants who are non-viable. You don’t need heroic measures with the viable ones!!

                    8. From the context, they are talking about resuscitating infants who are non-viable. You don’t need heroic measures with the viable ones!!

                      My understanding of this dispute is that it would allow a mother to be told, at eight months, that her child will be born blind and deaf, and if in the judgment of a single physician a continuation of the pregnancy would impair her mental health then she could be given the option to abort the fetus. If she chooses this, “Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.” Is that your understanding? Such a fetus can be aborted and if it still shows evidence of viability measures of life support shall be available? Do you support this law?

        2. There is no evidence he is either the one in blackface or the boy in the hood.

          There is no evidence he approved the inclusion of that photograph on the yearbook page.

          There is no evidence he even saw the page until Big League Politics website published it and Associated Press confirmed it was his yearbook page.

          Walt Broadnax a black 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School graduate claimed he did not buy a 1984 yearbook either and did not see one until decades later. He claimed to know personally Northam is not a racist.

          And the Democrats piling on and crucifying him does “mean the Dems have some kinda principles!”

          I’d rather believe they have ulterior motives than believe they had that kind of lynch mob principles.

          Personally I don’t even like Northam but fair oughta be fair. Not go straight to lynching without even a pretense of a kangaroo court.

          1. He’s changed his story about whether he’s in the picture, but even taking him at his word, dude admitted to being in blackface previously. He admitted to posting the picture on his yearbook page.

            Your Internet sleuthing isn’t super convincing. Plus, of course, the leak came from a conservative website not a liberal one, so your scenario doesn’t stand.

            I get you don’t agree with the left’s purity crusade – I’ll admit I’m a but uncomfortable myself (though not so much in this case). But maybe don’t go with the lynching analogy on this particular issue, either.

  41. Northam’s comments on abortion were enough for me . BUT apparently painting your face black 30 years ago is much more heinous than killing a new born baby that the mother decided during labor she didn’t want.

    That to me is much more disturbing than buckwheat and the Klan costume.

    I used to say we lived in weird times but its crossed the line into awful.

    1. That you think the relevant scenario is a mother changing her mind about wanting a child mid labor shows how divorced from reality these pro-life attacks have become.

      It is not a place of moral strength that has to make up crazy scenarios to validate itself.

      1. Deaf dumb blind or all three? The present liberal practice of denying events when we ACTUALLY Have video/audio is also disturbing.

        1. killing a new born baby that the mother decided during labor she didn’t want.

          You wrote that, I just reacted to it. Are you saying this is what’s happening with late term abortions? Do you have any proof?

          1. Sarcastro, the issue here is under what circumstances should it be permitted under the law to kill a baby. Such circumstances are called hypotheticals in these discussions.

            Didn’t you go to law school? Because your response — asserting without evidence that a hypothetical isn’t “happening” and demanding proof that it is — is so incredibly stupid that it hurts.

            1. ML, first, you are assuming it’s a baby. Second, you are eliding medical questions about heroic measures that happen regularly in medicine. Which is what this is about.

              You ignore wreckinball who appears to be denying it’s a hypothetical with his we ACTUALLY Have video/audio is also disturbing.

              And yet even if it were a hypothetical, it’s not a hypothetical in service of teasing out a legal or philosophical question. It relies heavily on a rather questionable motive of the mother that adds no light, but plenty of heat, to this issue. Which is not the sign of someone with a strong argument.

              1. He’s talking about the “video/audio” of Northam’s comments on abortion, I believe.

                Nice try at sliding into other arguments. The point here is that it’s on you to explain why the hypothetical is somehow OK, rather that just claiming it doesn’t happen.

                For the sake of the broader discussion, I will offer that I have seen the impassioned narratives shared on Facebook by both sides, which were real events but might as well be hypotheticals for policy discussion.

                On the one side, there was a woman congratulating herself for supposedly sparing a newborn from the pain and suffering of dying from suffocation shortly after birth, by terminating it shortly before birth.

                On the other side, a mother chose to give birth to the baby, at which point the newborn was laid on its mother’s chest, and for a few moments felt the warm touch and embrace and love of its mother and father, before slipping the surly bonds of earth. The newborn was administered morphine, so it felt no pain. Contrast that with the supposedly humanely terminated baby, which was torn apart limb by limb in excruciating pain, and would have screamed audibly but for being in the womb.

                1. They hypothetical is not useful, it is silly – ‘what if the mother is evil and does late term abortion as a sacrifice to Satan?’ ‘What if it’s baby Hitler?’ Don’t pretend every hypothetical is valid, or that the one I rejected was some clever trap; that’s just self-validating masturbation.

                  Your two scenarios certainly make me want to pick the latter (though YMMV about whether you want to bond with the soon-to-be-dead; I would want to, but won’d judge those who don’t want the trauma).
                  But you don’t get to choose. If your case is so good, you go and convince the mother and the medical community. Doctors don’t generally get into the profession because they love to cause pain.

                  But it must not be quite as cut-and-dried as you think, because those two scenarios haven’t become hospital policy or the overwhelming choice. And making an end-run to make what you don’t like illegal? That makes me further wonder.

                  1. “They hypothetical is not useful, it is silly”

                    You’re just being deliberately obtuse. What are you even suggesting? That we don’t need laws against murder, because why would anyone ever do such an evil thing? Are you suggesting that no woman would ever have an abortion for her own convenience, when the undisputed facts are that the vast majority of abortions are elective and only a tiny fraction of a percentage are for health reasons?

                    1. Did you forget the context again?
                      The number of that have a late term abortion at their own convenience is vanishingly small, yeah. That is, in fact, the point Northam was making.

                    2. The number of that have a late term abortion at their own convenience is vanishingly small, yeah. That is, in fact, the point Northam was making.

                      As I pointed out to you here (without reply), the proposed law allows a viable fetus to be aborted if the mother and one physician believe that a continuation of the pregnancy would temporarily impair her mental health. It would seem that such a declaration could be made at eight months if it is suddenly discovered that the child will be born blind and deaf, depending on the evaluation of the mother’s mental health, or at least this could not be excluded. The law would require that after abortion, measures for life support shall be available if the fetus is still viable. The reason that most abortions occur prior to viability is that heretofore it was considered murder to abort a viable fetus. No doubt with the relaxation of restrictions on late-term abortion their numbers will increase.

                      But are you arguing that it is necessary to permit a viable fetus to be aborted in order to avoid temporary impairment of the mother’s mental health, but that in fact no such abortions will take place? Why would it be necessary to allow it if it is never going to happen? Or are you saying that it will happen to only a few viable fetuses and such a small number is no cause for concern?

                    3. Check out ?18.2-74 of Virginia House Bill 2491.

                    4. It would seem that such a declaration could be made at eight months if it is suddenly discovered that the child will be born blind and deaf, depending on the evaluation of the mother’s mental health…
                      Good lord look at all the conditionals you had to jam in there to get to where you wanted to go. Certainly far from anything like how the law is going to operate, based on past experience with who gets late term abortions and why. As Northam said.

                      The reason that most abortions occur prior to viability is that heretofore it was considered murder to abort a viable fetus
                      Now you’re just speculating and calling it fact.

                      are you arguing that it is necessary to permit a viable fetus to be aborted in order to avoid temporary impairment of the mother’s mental health, but that in fact no such abortions will take place?
                      You are not making policy arguments, as can be seen by your superlative statements about whether something will never happen. That’s not the realm you use when passing laws, it’s the realm you use when arguing about them in court. Northam was in the first realm, you can’t keep out of the second and I’m going to keep holding you to the original arena.
                      By your logic we should never zone for two-story houses because someone might fall out a window and die.

                      And if you can’t see any legitimate reasons why a woman with a nonviable fetus would have trouble getting ahold of three doctors versus one, you are blinding yourself to reality

                    5. Sarcastr0:

                      Do you acknowledge that the proposed bill allows for the abortion of a viable fetus if in the view of the mother and her physician a continuation of the pregnancy would temporarily impair her mental health?

                      If so, do you feel that, nevertheless, such a law is appropriate?

                    6. You can’t keep out of the non-operational realm and I’m going to keep you from changing the subject.

                      Chances to talk about abortion laws abound, we’ll get to why I think that law is fine when it’s not a distraction from you lying about what Northam said.

              2. ML, first, you are assuming it’s a baby.

                You know what the difference between a baby and a fetus is? Whether the mother wants to actually bring it to term or not.

                1. Doesn’t sound very scientific. And also not according to the law, RRWP.

                2. “assuming it’s a baby”

                  Fine, I’ll bite.

                  It is a baby, and this is indisputable. Millions of people, particularly pregnant women, use the word “baby” to refer to unborn humans constantly. Words are defined by their usage. So, it’s a baby. But this semantic argument does virtually nothing to resolve the substantive moral question.

                  1. “Doesn’t sound very scientific”

                    “Baby” is not a scientific concept, period.

                    “Human life” is a scientific concept, and it is beyond any dispute that a living but unborn human is a human life.

                    “Personhood” is a legal concept, and not in any way a scientific concept. “Person” means a human life that has legal rights. Oftentimes you will see the circular argument that a fetus should not have legal rights because it is not a person. Rephrased, the argument is “a fetus should not have legal rights because it does not have legal rights.” This is the same sort of logic used to justify slavery, genocide, holocaust, etc. “They’re not persons.”

                    1. We’ve been around this Pro-Life tree before. Human and Life are scientific (ish. Each has edge cases).
                      Human life is a philosophical concept. Call it personhood if you want, but that’s the distinction here.

                      Certainly any pro-life argument is just as circular, except with more state force against women involved in it’s operation.

                      The pro choice argument is that the State does not know the answer to when personhood attaches, and, at least for a while, leaves this very personal question up to the mother, the closest one to the question.

                    2. “Human life is a philosophical concept.”

                      Wrong. Life and human are scientific concepts in this context, not philosophical.

                      “Call it personhood if you want”

                      Why would you do that? That’s obviously incorrect. Personhood is a legal concept, not scientific. Alternatively, you might define it as a moral concept.

                      “The pro choice argument is that the State does not know the answer to when personhood attaches, and, at least for a while, leaves this very personal question up to the mother, the closest one to the question.”

                      You could not be more wrong. You are diametrically opposite of correct. You should go read Roe v Wade, and try to have a basic understanding of what you’re talking about instead of looking like a fool. “”If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.””

                      So, it is the pro-choice position that has the State providing a definitive, absolute answer to the personhood question. The pro-life position, on the other hand, takes no position on that question necessarily, although it is probably typically associated with an affirmative answer on the personhood question.

                    3. Read my first line again, I already discarded your first argument.

                      Your increasing tendency to replace argumentation with insults doesn’t do any favors to how this debate is going for you. Do you think Roe is the pro choice argument? Switching from philosophical to constitutional just so you can call me wrong is also not a sign of a secure ideology.

                    4. ” Switching from philosophical to constitutional ”

                      Um, my very first statement about personhood was that it is a legal concept. So, I’m not switching. You should probably give up on this argument before embarrassing yourself further.

                    5. The pro choice argument is that the State does not know the answer to when personhood attaches, and, at least for a while, leaves this very personal question up to the mother, the closest one to the question.

                      The non-personhood argument of a viable fetus is a difficult one to make.

                  2. Millions of people also don’t use baby. So your semantic trump card cuts both ways. In other words, you still can’t assume even if you stick to the semantic argument.

                    Of course, I wasn’t talking about the semantics, but about the meaning behind the words – the assumption you made about what’s dying in an abortion.

                  3. Millions of people also don’t use baby. So your semantic trump card cuts both ways. In other words, you still can’t assume even if you stick to the semantic argument.

                    Of course, I wasn’t talking about the semantics, but about the meaning behind the words – the assumption you made about what’s dying in an abortion.

                    1. “Millions of people also don’t use baby. So your semantic trump card cuts both ways. ”

                      Uhh, No, it doesn’t. A well established usage of a word brings that use within the definition of the word. It doesn’t matter if that usage isn’t universal.

                      Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?

                      fe?tus
                      /?f?d?s/
                      noun
                      an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

                  4. “Millions of people, particularly pregnant women, use the word “baby” to refer to unborn humans constantly. ”

                    Of course, its “baby shower” and “we are having a baby” and “baby bump” etc, not “fetus bump”.

                    Fetus is just using language to de-humanize that which you are going to destroy.

                    1. Your choice of which set of people to poll is pretty biased, Bob.

                    2. Are you denying that “pro choice” people don’t routinely describe unborn babies as “babies” unless its in an abortion discussion?

                    3. Sarcastro you are just a dumb fuck. But you did get a bunch of people to respond to your idiotic replies.

                      Note to the re-pliers. He’s a dumb fuck.

  42. A crazy scenario perpetuated by alarmists seeking political advantage and crony financial windfalls would be what climate change fashionable hoopla has been all about. Trump golf courses are not going to be underwater in 80 years nor will any major coastal cities be flooded for the reason that the gentle warming and barely measurable rise in sea level since 1820 will continue and not accelerate for the reason of manmade carbon dioxide, although some other cause may well such a climate catastrophe or any other dramatic shift you can imagine.

    The fatal conceit of the fashionable propaganda bandwagon snow-job that initially was Anthropogenic Global Warming but morphed into vague climate change was that scientists perfectly understood ALL factors and inputs into climate change and could confidently rule out everything except humans burning things. What a hoot! What chutzpah! This arrogance perfectly illustrates why smug establishment elites and their self-serving ways are under assault by woke populists around the world.

  43. Too bad that Northam’s possible successor has been accused of a sexual assault covered up by the Washington Post.

    1. Suddenly uncorroborated anonymous allegations must be taken as truth, and any who don’t publish are covering it up?!

      Kavanaugh is gonna be pretty sad he’s lost your support.

      1. With all due respect, did you read the WaPo article printed today on it? It’s undisputed between the two of them that they had sex in the hotel room. (There’s more, but you can do your own reading.) She says it ultimately became non-consensual; he denies that. A witness who apparently knew them both believed that neither would lie about it. Given the other #MeToo allegations that were published, and the WaPo’s political leanings, it’s certainly a fair question as to why the WaPo didn’t publish it.

        1. Given the other #MeToo allegations that were published
          I don’t think #MeToo has changed journalistic standards. I follow The Hollywood Reporter (well, KCRW’s The Business), and corroboration is a very common problem they cite.

          And the Post investigated (as it should) and found no corroboration, unlike Ford’s therapist and correlated witnesses about Kav’s drinking.

          I don’t see a double standard, though I don’t expect that will stop the drumbeat. Don’t need to be completely on key for it to play to the choir!

          1. “I don’t see a double standard”

            Of course not, he is a Democrat.

      2. “Suddenly uncorroborated anonymous allegations must be taken as truth, and any who don’t publish are covering it up?!”

        “NEW: An extraordinary day turns chaotic as Fairfax suggests Northam is behind “a smear” aimed at blocking his ascent to the governorship and recounts a sexual encounter with a woman he said was “very interested in me.” Jonathan Martin
        ?Verified account

        “very interested in me” is very interesting language, like its ok if they are “interested” to do what I want. Very Trumpian, no?

        What happened to believing the woman?

  44. First off, a crazy notion might be to let this play out long enough to determine the actual facts and whether Northam is lying about them.

    But in the same 1984 for which a then 25-year old Northam is being called to account for his conduct, a 43-year old Rev. Jesse Jackson, referred to Jewish people as “hy***” and NYC as “hy***town” while he was running for the Presidency. Putting aside the argument that Rev. Jackson’s use of those epithets more strongly suggested a longer-time practice on his part, was it clear in 1984 that Rev. Jackson’s epithets were offensive? Should he have been disqualified from running for President?

    1. Running != winning or serving.

  45. Careers ought not be ended because of events long past unless there is some evidence that what is past is prologue, and the individual has not grown up. In Northam’s case, much, much easier to discredit him for youthful idiocy than to address head on the issue of very, very, late term abortions. The latter requires thinking.

    It is important, now more than ever in an illiterate society, to remember that a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and is many times more deadly. Every time someone wants to engage in a quick round of “whataboutism” a photograph of former President Obama is trotted out with everyone’s favorite man of God, Louis Farrakhan. Obama is wearing a forced grin, but no matter. The photo is proof positive of…I know not what.

    These are dim times.

  46. Moving on, though . . . one Justin Fairfax would be governor if/when Northam resigns.

    And drumroll . . . . he has a sexual assault allegation from 2004! You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Statement of Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax

    But instead of going buckwild promoting an uncorroborated allegation as “credible” , guess what the media did? They deemed it not even fit to publish or report on because of the “absence of any corroborating evidence” !

    Presumably, accusers must be believed. Then, the Lt. Gov. may need up to 7 FBI investigations to clear his name, after which most of the left will still believe the accuser. Right?

    Also, his angry reaction to this allegation is proof that he’s not fit for office.

    1. Presumably, accusers must be believed

      Who has the double standard now, ML?

      1. I’m speaking of their standard, not mine.

        Sarcastically, of course, because we all know it’s not a “standard” at all, just pure hate, hostility, lies and propaganda.

        1. Ah. So you are arguing, as liberals did about Kavanaugh, that there should be an investigation? You didn’t say that. And are you demanding the witness come forward and testify to Congress? I don’t see that either. Maybe think about what you think should happen here, and then compare this to what you thought about Kav. How’s your consistency doing?

          As for your only holding liberals to their own standards, it seems Bob has gotten a bit ahead of you on that and is believing this whole cloth. What do you think about the veracity of this story?

          pure hate, hostility, lies and propaganda.
          We all know, ML? You being a rageaholic that thinks the other side is just as hateful as he is doesn’t mean agrees with you.

          1. I’m not discussing how I think these things should be handled. I’m discussing how the left says They should be handled. The question is, were they genuine about this? Or are they just hateful liars looking to destroy the targets of their hostility? I guess we’ll soon find out (lol)

            1. Looks to me like the left wants an investigation in both cases. You, on the other hand, are playing coy.

              1. Link? I can’t wait to see the national outcry, prima facie belief of accusations, and over the top demonization of Justin Fairfax by the left.

                And most importantly, how his angry reactions disqualify him regardless.

                1. Read the WaPo piece.

                  And now you’re going to try and argue that the Washington Post’s lack of ability to act like the jacobin or whatever did during the Kavanaugh nom proves the left’s double standards? That’s just lame.

          2. “it seems Bob has gotten a bit ahead of you on that and is believing this whole cloth.”

            When did I say that?

          3. “So you are arguing, as liberals did about Kavanaugh, that there should be an investigation?”

            It’s hard to argue anything when the media won’t even report the allegation.

            1. WaPo said they did an investigation. Plus, of course, I’m seeing the uncorroborated story everywhere now. Not a very good coverup.

              1. “WaPo said they did an investigation. Plus, of course, I’m seeing the uncorroborated story…”

                The story has been corroborated by Fairfax. It shouldn’t have been hard for Wapo to find corroboration. Fairfax’s accuser, unlike Ford, said where and when it happened, Wapo could have verified that they were both at the convention. There’s no indication that they reached out to Fairfax, but Fairfax didn’t seem hesitant to corroborate the claim, admitting that the encounter took place but claiming it was consensual.

                1. The material element of the story has been categorically denied by Fairfax.

                  And the WaPo sure did talk to Fairfax:
                  Fairfax and the woman told different versions of what happened in the hotel room with no one else present. The Post could not find anyone who could corroborate either version.

                  And comparing this to Ford requires you to ignore the corroborating evidence that would seem to be the distinguishing factor based on what the Post writes:

                  The Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account ? in part because she had not told anyone what happened ? The Post did not run a story.

                  The Post reached out to the woman again Monday and she said she had hired a lawyer. The lawyer has not returned calls.

                  I know you really want to find proof of a double standard here, but re-read the Post piece and be careful you don’t let you wishes author your facts.

                  1. “The material element of the story has been categorically denied by Fairfax.”

                    That’s not what corroborated means. If, for example, Ford had remembered the date of the party, and other folks had said, sure, I remember Kav and Judge going upstairs, and seeing Ford come downstairs a few minutes later looking all upset, that would be corroboration. You wouldn’t say, well, the material element remains uncorroborated.

                    In the Kav situation, you have zero corroboration of anything, even that Ford and Kav had even met. Here, Fairfax himself corroborates being in a hotel room with his dick in the accuser’s mouth at the time of the allegation.

                    I know you want to argue that the Post is being consistent, but the Kav and Fairfax accusations aren’t in the same ballpark with respect to corroboration.

                    1. You are not using corroborated in a way that a newspaper would, then. The newsworthy part of the story is the part that needs corroboration.

                      The material part of Ford’s account as corroborated by her therapist, not by anyone contemporaneous.
                      Thusfar we have nothing like that in the Fairfax case. We shall see, though. This story appears to have legs, so your complaining about a double standard is looking more and more shaky.

                    2. “You are not using corroborated in a way that a newspaper would, then.”

                      We know how the newspaper uses it, that’s the problem.

                      Ford told the newspaper that she told her therapist that she was attacked. She shows Wapo purported therapist’s notes. The witness she said was there said it didn’t happen. Other potential witnesses remember nothing. Outside of her say-so, there is no evidence that she and Kav ever met. That’s a completely uncorroborated allegation, that Wapo published.

                      Fairfax’s accuser claims that Fairfax attacked her in a hotel, and Fairfax confirms all the details except non-consent. That’s a highly corroborated allegation that Wapo doesn’t publish.

                      Yes, there’s a double standard.

                    3. purported therapist’s notes

                      That’s a pretty selective skepticism you have there.
                      There’s no evidence when you preemptively discard all the evidence as insufficient.

                    4. “There’s no evidence when you preemptively discard all the evidence as insufficient.”

                      ?? My understanding is that she hasn’t released the notes, and no one has spoken to her therapist. She showed materials to Wapo that she said were her therapist’s notes, and Wapo has not verified their authenticity. Hence purported therapist’s notes.

                      This is a lot like the Rolling Stone claiming that “Randall” declined to comment on the UVA story because Jackie told Erdely that he wouldn’t comment.

                    5. Wapo has not verified their authenticity.

                      I’m pretty sure they were authenticated. Which is, of course, the distinction you are refusing to draw.

    2. “But instead of going buckwild promoting an uncorroborated allegation as “credible”

      Unlike the Kavanaugh allegation, this allegation is largely corroborated by Fairfax himself, who admits the relation but disputes the lack of consent. OTOH, there was no evidence that Ford had even met Kavanaugh outside of Ford’s claim.

  47. Remember when Northam claimed Gillespie & the GOP were racist, because they used facts in discussing immigration policy? LMAO

  48. I think ol Ralph has every reason to feel aggrieved, A bad taste jokey photo when he was 25 and he’s looking at the end of his career.

    Get drunk, drive off a bridge, leave a girl in your car to drown, lie up a storm and, er, use the family influence to make sure the local law, and press, plays ball, and hey presto you’re “Lion of the Senate.” The voters of Massachusetts didn’t seem to mind at all. And they carried on not minding for 40 years, waitress sandwiches an’ all.

  49. Let’s save time by disqualifying everyone from public office.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.