MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brett Kavanaugh’s Sexual Assault Accuser Has Come Forward, and Her #MeToo Story Might Disqualify Him

The situation is a mess—and it's Dianne Feinstein's fault—but the public needs to take this accusation seriously.

BKJeff Malet Photography/NewscomThe anonymous woman who accused Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault has come forward. Her name is Christine Blasey Ford, and her allegation deserves to be taken seriously. It is an accusation of attempted rape, supported by some circumstantial evidence, and is potentially disqualifying—though the timing complicates the matter.

Ford told The Washington Post that the incident probably took place at a house party in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, and a student at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland. Kavanaugh, a student at the all-male Georgetown Prep, would have been 17. Ford said she went upstairs to use the bathroom, and was pushed into a bedroom by Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge. Kavanaugh forced himself on her, pinned her to the bed, attempted to remove her clothes, and put his hand over her mouth to stop anyone from hearing her screams, she alleged. Eventually, Judge intervened by jumping on top of the pair. This gave Ford an opportunity to escape, and she said she fled the house after hiding in the bathroom for a few minutes.

Ford made Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) aware of the accusation earlier this summer. Feinstein gravely mishandled the matter. She did not grill Kavanaugh about Ford's allegation when she had the opportunity to do so. Instead, she waited until the last possible minute to inform the FBI about it. This delay was a travesty, and has invited charges of political gamesmanship. It puts everyone—Kavanaugh, Republicans, the broader public—in an unncessarily difficult and uncertain position.

That's a shame, because the accusation itself—while still decidedly unproven—is not without supporting evidence. It is much more difficult to dismiss now that we know the name of the person making it.

Some are making a big deal out of the fact that Ford took a polygraph, and the allegation was deemed credible. This is actually a comparatively weak piece of evidence in Ford's favor. Lie detectors can be gamed, and the scientific community is conflicted on their overall reliability.

But other circumstantial evidence gives some weight to Ford's claims. Kavanaugh's friend, Judge, is a conservative commentator who strongly denied Ford's accusation when it was made anonymously. "I never saw Brett act that way," he said, according to multiple news sources.

Judge is also the author of two books that address his own alcoholism throughout his teen years—Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk and God and Man at Georgetown Prep. According to Mother Jones:

That book chronicles Judge's time as a teenage alcoholic. Like many works of the genre, it devotes a lot of ink to the kinds of debauchery that leads to AA and recovery. While there's nothing in the book that resembles the incident reportedly described in the private letter given to the FBI, Judge says his own black-out drinking while he and Kavanaugh were Georgetown Prep students "reached the point where once I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated."

He describes, for instance, what happened after a night of heavy drinking with friends at a Georgetown bar. "The next thing I knew, I was lying on a bathroom floor. I was curled up in the fetal position with saliva running out of the side of my mouth," Judge writes, explaining that he had inexplicably woken up inside a nearby Four Seasons Hotel. He writes that he called his mom for help getting home. "I must have come over here and passed out," he tells her.

Mother Jones suggests that Judge might simply not remember the incident in question. The article also draws attention to another passage from the Georgetown Prep book, in which Judge makes reference to friend, "Bart O'Kavanaugh," who "puked in someone's car the other night" and passed out on the way back from a party. And the Georgetown Prep yearbook entry for Kavanaugh makes reference to his membership in the "Keg City Club."

That the teenage Kavanaugh was a notorious drinker and party boy while in high school does not confirm what Ford has said about him. But it does make it somewhat easier to believe Ford's claim. It certainly sounds like Kavanaugh and Judge were not just typical underage kids who occasionally consumed some alcohol; there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to hint at a pattern of more serious reckless behavior.

It does not appear that Ford simply invented this accusation out of nowhere; in 2012 she told her therapist about being the victim of sexual assault, and she provided notes from the therapy sessions to The Washington Post. However, she did not name Kavanaugh when she spoke about the matter with her therapist, and it is true that memory can play funny tricks on everyone. By her own admission, Ford doesn't remember everything about the incident with perfect clarity; she's not exactly sure when or where it happened. (I might actually have been more skeptical of this allegation had she claimed to be able to perfectly recall every detail 35 years later.) The mind fills in gaps, and it's possible to misremember things that happened so many decades ago. The public has to weigh the likelihood that her memory is mistaken against the likelihood of this being exactly what it seems: a credible accusation of sexual assault against the person President Trump picked to sit on the Supreme Court.

Note that this allegation—as we understand it thus far—isn't akin to the typical campus Title IX case I cover for Reason. These often involve drunkenness on the part of both parties, and an encounter that started out consensual and then turned into something else. Ford, on the other hand, has claimed she was essentially jumped, and never gave Kavanaugh any reason whatsoever to believe he had license to initiate something. This alone makes the allegation much more serious. While it's tempting to say that a person's bad behavior in high school should not be held against them—or else we're about to disqualify a whole lot more people from ever serving in public office—what is alleged here is extremely heinous.

It's very difficult to adjudicate teen sexual misconduct cases, given that they often involve intoxicated participants with hazy memories and a lack of witnesses to the actual incident. In this situation, the sheer amount of time that has elapsed is a factor as well.

As I've repeatedly written, the fourth-wave feminist claim that we should always believe all alleged victims of sexual assault is wrongheaded. Just last week, I covered Asia Argento's sexual assault accusation against Jimmy Bennett, which everyone should regard as highly suspect. But we shouldn't automatically disbelieve victims, either. That Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court would be bad for the pro-choice cause isn't sufficient reason for the left to accept his accuser's account, nor is it sufficient reason for the right to dismiss this allegation out of hand.

Kavanaugh should be given the opportunity to respond to Ford and these charges, now that they are out in the open. So far, he has categorically denied them, though not since Ford identified herself, and not while under oath. The Washington Post story noted that Kavanaugh denied committing any sexual impropriety during his testimony at the confirmation hearing, but the question specifically pertained to acts he may have committed as an adult. Again, the decision not to pursue this matter until now—a decision for which Feinstein bears considerable blame—was a bad one.

It's impossible to say where this leaves things. Due process and innocent until proven guilty are standards of justice and good things in general. But they are not explicit requirements for picking Supreme Court justices. The decision to move forward with the nomination is ultimately a political one. On one hand, it's tough to say that Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court should be unilaterally derailed over an unconfirmed 35-year-old allegation made by a Democrat at the most politically opportune moment—this is the weaponization of #MeToo for partisan political purposes. I'm not naive, I see that. On the other hand, Republicans were taking advantage of political opportunity as well: the opportunity to find a replacement for Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy before the midterm elections.

There's always Amy Coney Barrett, I guess.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

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.

  • ThomasD||

    The last thing the public needs to do is take you, or her seriously.

  • ThomasD||

    There are many reasons why statutes of limitations exist. This kind of portentiously times accusations is just one of them.

    But you and your ilk don't care, you'll pull down anyone and anything standing in the way of what you want.

  • MoreFreedom||

    If Democrats cared about sexual abuse, they would have demanded Clinton's resignation. He was having sex with a subordinate, when Democrats were telling us that in that situation no sex is consensual. And Hillary and Democrats trashed every credible woman who accused Bill of sexual misconduct. Besides, their MO of bringing up poorly documented allegations at the last minute to derail their political opponents is really getting old. As for this being disqualifying, it brings to mind Jesus's telling an audience looking forward to the stoning of a prostitute, that the person who hasn't committed a sin be the first the throw the first stone. And we're supposed to disqualify someone who didn't even remove the alleged victim's clothes during an alleged drunken rowdy encounter at a high school party. How bad is that compared to Juanita Broderick's better documented allegations?

  • Tony||

    Whatabout Bill Clinton?? Another go-to today. I even heard it, in literally those words, on TV. The conservative pundit who said it was actually sweating.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    It's a legitimate question. Certainly doesn't prove anything regarding Kavanaugh, but it certainly bears repeating how hypocritical Democrats are.

  • Tony||

    If what you want is for us to denounce Bill Clinton for his past indiscretion and alleged indiscretions, do you really think it's that difficult for us to do it?

    You're right, liberals being hypocrites doesn't make Brett Kavanaugh not an attempted rapist.

    But it's downright hilarious that not only is whataboutism trotted out every time a Republican does something bad, but that it's almost always Bill Clinton. Republicans must rape a lot of people huh.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    "whataboutism" is one of the stupidest concepts of the modern era. And this is the era that gave us the concept of selfie sticks and eating Tide Pods.

    If we accept that "whataboutism" is a thing, it applies to pretty much every identification of hypocrisy. Very convenient for hypocrites.

  • Tony||

    So you're saying the mere existence of Bill Clinton makes Brett Kavanaugh not an attempted rapist?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    I explicitly said that it has no bearing on the Kavanaugh case -- but it is important to point out leftist hypocrisy.

    Going back to my policy of not responding to you since you're an obvious troll.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, we're saying Democrats' reaction to Bill Clinton basically disqualifies them from credibly claiming to care about sexual harassment until at least another generation has passed.

    There is, at this point, no actual evidence against Kavanaugh. Only an allegation.

    Allegations aren't evidence.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    So you're saying the mere existence of Bill Clinton makes Brett Kavanaugh not an attempted rapist?

    Nobody said that shit stain.

    Kill your self quickly.

  • MarkLastname||

    No, the fact that a crazy left wing professor made up an unverifiable story in the nick of time to smear a guy just to keep him off the Supreme Court makes him not a rapist.

    But you're ok with that. Anything it takes to win. Call it the Tawana Brawley approach: trot out any woman you can find that was in the same zip code as any politician you hate, have them make some shit up that conveniently long enouh ago at an unspecified time and place, you can derail anyone's appointment!

    And of course it's great because you know it won't work for leftists because the amoral shitstains that you are will happily vote for a rapist even as you whine about rape culture if it'll hadten the coming of the utopia.

  • Midnightrider||

    This^^

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You are such a retarded lowlife pile of shit.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    The only thing Bill Clinton's existence makes is a more corrupt world. But, of course, the same is true of Bush (both), Obama, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson - we could go on. But nothing "makes" Brett Kavanaugh an attempted rapist. Certainly no evidence that's been submitted to date.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Accusations of hypocrisy carry little weight when offered to exonerate similar bad conduct. You want to preserve the value of a charge of hypocrisy? Learn to confine the charge to the case in question.

    Also, "whataboutism." Wrong term. It's suffix "ism," implies an ideology, which over-dignifies it. The better term would be "whataboutery," which better de-legitimizes the weak arguments which motivate the practice.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Accusations of hypocrisy carry little weight when offered to exonerate similar bad conduct."

    That's true, but you have to demonstrate the alleged conduct actually happened, first. At this point Kavanaugh stands in no more need of exoneration than you are concerning that orphanage you burned down when you were 12.

  • fdog50||

    Of course it's not difficult for liberals to denounce Clinton--Now! Back in the '90s everyone on the Left was making excuses for him, even Gloria Steinam. But as late as 2016, prominent democrats were gladly taking his help in fund raising, even the always opportunistic Senator Gillibrand, who suddenly did a 180 when the dirt came out on Weinstein. The past is always easy to condemn. It was funny in 2016 watching Democrats getting outraged over a 10 year old tape of Trump talking about doing things that were things Clinton and JFK actually did while in the White House.

  • DJK||

    Tony, we don't even need to go all the way back to Clinton. Will you denounce Rep. Keith Ellison on the basis of the allegation made against him? All we ask is for the tiniest amount of consistency and intellectually honesty. I have a feeling we'll all be left waiting.

  • ThomasD||

    "Drag a hundred dollar bill endowed chair through a trailerpark university department you never know what you'll find."

  • Agammamon||

    do you really think it's that difficult for us to do it?

    His own wife, when publicly embarrassed by his shit, couldn't bring herself to do it.

    You certainly haven't been able to.

  • Fancylad||

    If what you want is for us to denounce Bill Clinton for his past rape and alleged rapes, do you really think it's that difficult for us to do it?
    Yes.
    Damn near impossible.
    The fact that Hillary colluded in covering them up will be impossible for you to acknowledge too.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If what you want is for us to denounce Bill Clinton for his past indiscretion and alleged indiscretions, do you really think it's that difficult for us to do it?

    We don't want that, you despicable ass.

    We want you to treat these endless Democrat and leftist rapes, assaults and harassment the EXACT same way you want them treated when someone on the right is accused.

    We want them treated like crimes for everyone--or no one.

    If it's okay when one of your fucking heroes does it, it's okay when ANYONE does it.

    Or not.

    But it can't remain what it is now--with leftists allowed to rape,grope and harass so long as they keep to the liberal orthodoxy and everyone else having to play by the arcane rules that make 'rape' whatever a leftist says it is for anyone who's not a leftist.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    I think Feinstein might have concluded that absent a willingness to testify, no investigation was warranted. Now that has apparently changed. So yeah, public disclosure does affect that conclusion.

  • tommyguns2||

    Feinstein publicly announced that the person who wrote the letter did it on condition of anonymity when she made its existence public and announced that she was sending the letter to the FBI.

    She had the letter three months ago, and didn't submit it to the FBI then because it would have given the FBI and the GOP time to investigate and fully address the issue. The point of doing it now was so that there would not be enough time to investigate, and thus the confirmation vote would need to be postponed.

    For that reason alone, they ought to hold the confirmation vote, and tell the Dems to complete the investigation and if it sticks we'll go forward with impeachment. A pretty good bet that once the vote happens and he's on the court, the Dems will lose their gumption on investigation because they know it's all unverified.

    The GOP need to learn how to fight. They let the Dems get them regularly with this type of nonsense, and they fall for it too often.

  • Midnightrider||

    Exactly

  • Midnightrider||

    Exactly

  • Seamus||

    If what you want is for us to denounce Bill Clinton for his past indiscretion and alleged indiscretions, do you really think it's that difficult for us to do it?

    Of course not. Bill Clinton is no longer useful, so it's easy to kick him to the curb. Of course, back when he was president, not so much.

  • Freelancelot||

    Tony, suck your thumb while watching porn much, do ya do ya?

  • Carter Mitchell||

    As of now - and with an alleged 35-year gap - there being zero evidence that Kavanaugh actually did anything bad, I'm not sure what your point is. And of course, there never will be any evidence. While I'd love to see this woman on the wrong end of a defamation suit, there is also no way to prove that she's lying, just as there is no way to prove that she's not lying. But given the timing, and the fact that Dems will do ANYTHING to achieve their ends, I'll give her a credibility rating of 1.5 on a scale of 1-100.

    What would be really interesting to learn is who actually concocted this scheme and put her up to it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This shit was resolved when Democrats attacked any Bill Clinton sexual harassment accusers.

    Democrats are losers and liars.

    Fuck them and rush the confirmation vote of kavanaugh. Or dont rush the vote. Who cares.

    Democrats are going to lose seats in the house and senate come election 2018.

    In 2019, Clarence Thomas will retire so Trump can select his replacement. Then RBG and Breyer will croak and Trump can select their replacements. Lefties will have to see Trump's stamp on government for decades after his 2nd term as president.

  • DJK||

    That's an extremely red-colored glasses sort of way to look at the election. It takes some real cherry picking of polls to convince oneself that the GOP will keep the House. It could certainly happen, but the odds are not in favor of that. The GOP even has an outside shot of losing the Senate. This could easily become the last SCOTUS nomination that Trump has a prayer of getting confirmed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its gonna be a blood bath for Democrats in election 2018.

    Americans are sick of this stupid shit. Its also why Trump was elected by America.

    MAGA!

  • DJK||

    Uh huh. Keep up that optimism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties are scared and it shows.

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • Midnightrider||

    Lmao

  • ThomasD||

    "Whatabout Bill Clinton?? "

    Indeed. It seems like he'd be just the sort of person to ask about this situation.

    How much you want to be that nobody does?

  • Sevo||

    "Whatabout Bill Clinton??"
    He served two terms as president.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    What about keith ellison? I don't see any calls for his resignation or withdrawal from the AG race. And the accusations against him are more recent and far more credible.

  • DJK||

    Recently released 911 tapes of a second accuser from 2005. Fuck Ellison.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But that's totally different. Vox and NYT don't want Ellison derailed.

  • FlameCCT||

    How about a more relevant accusation then against DNC #2 and House Rep. Keith Ellison?
    There is far more evidence and confirmation than this sandbag accusation against Kavanaugh.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tomy, the de ocrats ar the party of sexual predators. Hell, the mainstream gay rights movment included a plank about reducing the age of consent for boys to 12 years old, and NAMBLA was part of the movement back in the 70's and early 80's. Finally the organizers wised up and figured out what a political loser that was and got rid of it, and NAMBLA.

  • DirkT||

    Your reference is a symptom of H.O.D.S. (Hillary-Obama Derangement Syndrome) ...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The statute of limitations is for criminal matters of the Proper Sort. Ancient he-said-she-said stuff has no statute of limitations, otherwise they wouldn't have any usefulness in the political arena.

  • Whorton||

    Exactly the point. If someone does not come forward with accusations within the statute of limitations, they forfeit any right to in the future. Otherwise, why do we have a statute of limitations?

    I would only caution the democrats that the same ideology could and should be used against all their picks in the future.

    Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford, two names that will go down in history after they did so in private.

  • Incredulous||

    Amen. ^^^^

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "That's a shame, because the accusation itself—while still decidedly unproven—is not without supporting evidence"

    What you mean by "supporting evidence" is apparently that it wasn't categorically impossible. This is just a sickeningly credulous response to what's becoming a standard Democratic tactic.

    Look, it's just too easy to level this sort of accusation, long after memories have faded, and alibis have become impossible to document. You want this sort of allegation to be taken seriously, make it at the time, or remain silent forever more.

    I will lose all respect for anybody who takes this seriously.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What you mean by "supporting evidence" is apparently that it wasn't categorically impossible. This is just a sickeningly credulous response to what's becoming a standard Democratic tactic.

    Says the birthers.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Tony||

    I am not aware that Brett Kavanaugh sent work emails on a private account, so what's the problem?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Look, if he killed the girl he would be senate material. Just ask the teddy kennedy.

  • Tony||

    The other classic whataboutism standard. Republicans could genocide 10 million people and get away with it because Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton existed.

    Do you ever feel small and pathetic doing so much butt work for the most corrupt political party in the civilized world?

  • Freelancelot||

    "Do you ever feel small and pathetic doing so much butt work for the most corrupt political party in the civilized world?"

    And, Tony, just how much time do you spend masturbating to mirrors? Remember, before you answer...this is for posterity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Tony, we're just pointing out what incredible hypocrites you shitbag democrats are in al ost every instance. You people will sweep pedophilia, rape, and murder under the rug for a party member in good standing. Then you turn around and invent some bullshit charge against an innocent republican and act outraged.

    "Whataboutistm" is just your phony outrage over getting called on your evil bullshit.

  • Midnightrider||

    Oh please

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, remember that dude you kissed years 30 years ago? Hes accusing ypu of kissing him while he was drunk.

    Youre going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison for it and you get no Due Process.

    Any comments? Shut up we dont care what you say you fucking baby rapist!

  • Tony||

    Thirty years ago I was a toddler.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You still are, you slobbering retarded Okie douchebag.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I thought Tony was an assistant glory hole attendant in CA?

  • IceTrey||

    Obama's birth certificate proves he's not a natural born citizen because his father was a foreigner.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    His mother was a citizen, so the fact that he doesn't have a US birth cert is irrelevant to the discussion of Tony's tribalism. Republicans are stupid, Democratics are evil, I don't have to pick a side.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • jdgalt1||

    Completely agree with Brett. Even if the attempt occurred -- which I strongly doubt -- the fact that it didn't matter enough to the accuser to pursue it as a police matter at the time, means it should not matter to anyone else either.

    And statutes of limitations are an important part of due process. Because not having them, or making exceptions to them, makes it impossible for accused people to defend themselves.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    You comment as if, absent proof to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt, everyone has a right to a supreme court appointment. I suggest that isn't an appropriate standard for evaluating an appointment to high office.

  • MarkLastname||

    Do you think that 'any woman who's been in the same building as you during your life who dislikes your politics enough to make something up to keep you off the court can do so' sound like a better standard?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Your comment does not support your preferred outcome. It does support an investigation.

  • Seamus||

    Preferably an investigation that drags on until the next Congress is seated, right?

  • Robert Crim||

    Speaking of investigations -- This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • hugh59||

    The supporting evidence consists of notes taken by a counselor during marital counseling. From a litigation standpoint, this is double hearsay and is questionable whether an exception applies. A person making a statement during the course of getting medical treatment for an injury or illness is less likely to lie or give incomplete information than a person seeking psychiatric or psychological therapy. And, the evidence is not for standard counseling (where the witness was seeking counseling) this was during the course of marital counseling where both of the spouses are telling their stories...there is even more reason for the witness to lie.

    Of course, senate confirmation is not limited to trial evidence. Still, this story is troubling because of how the 36 years since the event occurred - it is impossible for the witness to prove that the event occurred and it is impossible for Kavanaugh to prove that it did not occur.

  • posmoo||

    "The supporting evidence consists of notes taken by a counselor during marital counseling."

    correct me if I'm wrong but she didn't even name the postential supreme court justice until he was nominated. some would find that very convenient.

  • damikesc||

    The notes also reflect 4 boys...not 2.

    A 100% margin of error is bad

  • Seamus||

    The notes also reflect 4 boys...not 2.

    Was one of them named Haven Monahan?

  • Boomer||

    The follow on to this: Has Kavanaugh, throughout his distinguished career as a Federal judge, ever displayed any behavior that might support this allegation? The whole point of this allegation is that the behavior of a middle-aged man as far back as his teen years should be a consideration when evaluating his character, ergo people don't change. Proof should be easy to find.

  • Seamus||

    Has Kavanaugh, throughout his distinguished career as a Federal judge, ever displayed any behavior that might support this allegation?

    Sure: his lack of enthusiastic celebration of Roe v. Wade. Marks him as a stone-cold rapist-equivalent.

  • CE||

    The "supporting evidence" was that the only eyewitness said Kavanaugh never did anything like that.
    Doesn't seem all that supporting.

  • josh||

    I opposed him anyway. I'm still debating whether this would change my mind if I was on the fence. At the very least, Kavanaugh and his accuser need to answer more questions, and then maybe we can make a more informed decision. But as was true all along, no one in the U.S. Senate wants to make an informed decision since it would get in the way of making a political one.

  • BillyG||

    At the very least, Kavanaugh and his accuser need to answer more questions, and then maybe we can make a more informed decision.

    What questions? And what evidence, that is actually possible to provide?

  • josh||

    "What questions? And what evidence, that is actually possible to provide?"

    That's why you investigate. Maybe it leads nowhere, and if it does, fine. But how about starting by asking Kavanaugh his drinking and how it might relate to his ability to categorically deny this. These cases are hard to prove in the best of circumstances for sure, but it's a lifetime appointment, so I don't think a little curiosity on our part is too much to ask before we give him a job.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    But how about starting by asking Kavanaugh his drinking and how it might relate to his ability to categorically deny this.

    Title IX kangaroo courts are hiring, you know. Sounds like it would be your true calling in life.

  • josh||

    The difference is I don't think his inability to remember -if that's the case- indicates guilt or innocence. It's simply a starting point. There's a big difference in context between saying it never happened and because of x, y, or z, I don't know what happened.

    But if you're not interested in context, then maybe you should respond to those kangaroo court opportunities, rather than those who are.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    So if you've ever been drunk in your life, you can't testify in your defense and any denials you make must be summarily dismissed.

    Hell, if you've ever been asleep in your life, you can't deny an accusation that you committed a crime while sleepwalking (without specific time or place).

  • CE||

    I've been drunk many times, and I can remember clearly every stupid thing I did.

  • FlameCCT||

    Part of the problem is that she cannot identify a time, place, other witnesses, etc. which could be investigated. Then there are other issues like her parents apparently losing a case in court presided by Judge Kavanaugh (Brett's mother). Or he heavy involvement with Progressive political group in CA, not to mention it appears her brother worked for Fusion GPS.

  • FlameCCT||

    her not he...

  • JoeB||

    His memory is perfect. He says it 100% did not happen. Quit making crap up, liar. Hers is the dubious story.

  • DarrenM||

    I'm sure this investigation wouldn't take that long and would be complete next year some time. Maybe it could even get drawn out until February of 2021.

  • tommyguns2||

    I say hold the confirmation vote, and put him on the court while everyone does their investigation. This 12th hour disclosure isn't meant to establish truth, but to postpone the confirmation vote. Don't let it happen. Hold the vote, confirm him, and then have the investigation proceed. If there is anything there, they can impeach him.

    Bet any money that once he's on the court, the investigation fizzles out simply because there's nothing there. An allegation with no corroborating evidence. Notes from a therapist just 6 years old that don't even match the events she's reported in her letter.

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Evidence that Kavanaugh and the accuser were both present at a particular party, at a particular time, and a particular place would be a start. Testimony of the accuser's friends at the time, or since, if she mentioned the incident to anyone, could be corroborative. The therapists notes could be scanned for corroborative details, even if Kavanaugh's name wasn't in them. The alleged witness Judge could be examined under oath, however hopeless that might now appear. Perhaps Judge had something to say to another person afterward. Maybe that could be turned up.

    The better question is what justification can be found to press forward without investigation. We all know the answer, and it's an illegitimate one. Investigation could entail delay, and delay could prove politically consequential.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The therapists notes could be scanned for corroborative details"

    Totally not confirmation bias

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Evidence that Kavanaugh and the accuser were both present at a particular party, at a particular time, and a particular place would be a start."

    Absent any evidence that something illegal happened at that party, that still doesn't get you anywhere. Lack of an allibi is not evidence of a crime.

    Look, Feinstein sat on this for at least a month, and the logical presumption is that she was desperately searching for evidence. Since she's not presenting it, she didn't find any.

    "The better question is what justification can be found to press forward without investigation."

    Because until some actual evidence that anything happened is presented, (Again, an accusation isn't evidence.) there's no basis for taking the accusation seriously.

    You want to accuse somebody of something? Do it at the time, don't claim they did something to you in the far distant past, and you didn't remember it for 30 years.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Brett: Look, Feinstein sat on this for at least a month, and the logical presumption is that she was desperately searching for evidence. Since she's not presenting it, she didn't find any.

    I find it hard to believe fact or evidence matters to DiFi in going after BreKa. I am not convinced she would even look.

    Sen Dianne Feinstein to Brett Kavanaugh: "How do you reconcile [the position the AWB was unconstitutional] with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history?"

    The Mother Jones list of mass shootings since 1982 includes sixteen mass shootings at schools, six with assault weapons.

    Why search for evidence when you can use your position of authori-tay to make stuff up?

  • DarrenM||

    Playing for time. That's all it is.

  • Mark22||

    The better question is what justification can be found to press forward without investigation

    Both Democrats )in particular Feinstein) and Republicans have had this information for months. Neither thought an investigation was warranted. Public disclosure and MSM hysteria don't affect that conclusion.

  • FlameCCT||

    Unfortunately she has been unable to recall the particular party, particular time, particular place, particular people present, how she got there, how she left, etc.

    I would also not that the polygraph is worthless because it only confirmed a summary of the allegation, none of the particulars. It is easy to pass a polygraph that uses a summary instead of specific questions; if the summary includes one truthful item (i.e. she was assaulted) then the rest could be false yet still pass.

  • tommyguns2||

    Totally agree. The polygraph results are meaningless.

    If you want a real polygraph test, have her sit for one with the FBI while responding to specific questions relating to the allegations she's making.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I favor a Vulcan mind meld, or more drastically.............the Mind Probe!

    https://tinyurl.com/ya5wjfdd

  • Blahbloy||

    Her husband also needs to answer a LOT of questions. His statements reveal this entire episode was crafted as a political hit job.

  • josh||

    I have no problem with asking him questions. Basically, if the people making the accusations aren't willing to be cross examined, then you can think he did it all you want, you don't hold it against him. A letter and an op-ed ain't going to do it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shes a democrat.
    Shes a professor.
    She works at a college in commifornia.
    She has publicly admitted to being anti-Trump.
    She has publicl6 admitted that she will do anything for team Democrat.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She didnt disclose this when kavanaugh was nominated for court of appeals.
    She didnt report this as a crime...ever.
    She didnt report this for 35+ years.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Being anti Trump doesn't make you a liar. I would love for you to find a quote from her that said she would do anything for Democrats.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Making an unprovable accusation that something criminal happened 30 years ago, at a politically useful moment, does make you presumptively a liar.

  • Ben of Houston||

    I can see this being a final straw. She didn't report it as a crime way back when due to social pressure / legal issues (She was 15 and at a party where alcohol was served. Likely as not, she would be confessing to a crime to report it). Then, she sees him over the years in the news. However, getting the highest honor for a judge in the country is too big of a problem for people not to know about this.

    It's plausible. However, given the number of dirty tricks that have already been employed (including pretending that standard attorney-client privileged documents were top secret and that the Senator could get expelled for releasing them), I'm not believing anything with some sort of evidence.

    This is 7 times out of the statute of limitations. We should trust no one's memories of non-extreme situations after so long. Even for big events, people have a tendency to twist and fabricate memories that is well documented, and several times in the past, this has resulted in people remembering false crimes (remember the repressed-memory fiascos of the 70s and 80s?). Two of the three people involved have denied knowledge about the incident.

    I can't say it's clear cut either way, but barring some major evidence, I say we should not consider this in the nomination.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or she's just some crazy bitch being used by progressive democrats.

  • Benitacanova||

    I saw an article stating that Kav's mom was the judge in this woman's parents' foreclosure case. Conflict of interest?

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • NashTiger||

    No they don't. This is the lowest possible delay tactic excuse imaginable.
    There was plenty of time between July and the end of the Confirmation Hearings to pose such questions and get a response

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have an idea! Let's pretend that teenage misbehavior is not a sound basis for disqualifying people in their 50's who have behaved like reasonable adults for decades.

    Better still, let's tell the Progressive Left outrage machine, "Screw you, your horrible hag of a candidate lost, and we control both houses. We're confirming him."

  • Ecoli||

    Yours is a judicious solution to the problem.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    It's a win-win for them.

    If the vote goes forward and Kavanaugh is confirmed, the leftist media is going to be screaming about the GOP not believing women and covering for a rapist from now until election day.

    If McConnell cowers back into his shell and delays the confirmation for an "investigation" of these "serious and credible allegations", that will be taken as a tacit admission that the allegations are credible. The leftist media will scream about Trump nominating a terrible rapist and the GOP Senate trying to protect him, until this courageous victim came forward and forced them to do the right thing.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    By "them" I mean the Dems.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At this point who cares what Democrats think.

    A,ericans are sick of the liyong by Democrats. Theyre going to get creamed in election 2018 and the Lefties know it.

    This is one of their last desparation moves.

    Lying is literally all they have left.

  • DarrenM||

    A,ericans are sick of the liyong by Democrats.

    Of course. That's why half of American voters for them, because they are sick of their lying. That makes perfect sense.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Half of Americans are also on the stupid side of the intelligence bell curve.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Anti-Fasciitis, it's worse than you suppose. If the appointment is now rushed to completion, that will also be taken as confirmation that these are serious and credible allegations. And it should be. Only even-handed investigation can remove what will otherwise become a permanent taint on the legitimacy of the Court. And the taint will not stem from the charges alone, but much more from the actions taken in attempting to ignore them.

  • Mark22||

    If the appointment is now rushed to completion, that will also be taken as confirmation that these are serious and credible allegations. And the taint will not stem from the charges alone, but much more from the actions taken in attempting to ignore them.

    After Thomas and Bork, do you think anybody other than hardcore Democrats cares?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    I'm not a Democrat at all. I'm a frequent critic of Democrats. I care.

    But is it your view that Democrats should not count?

  • Mark22||

    But is it your view that Democrats should not count?

    Correct. Democrats sat on this information for months, then timed the leak to just after the confirmation hearings and before the vote. That's why it shouldn't count. And you have to be a die-hard partisan or utterly politically naive to perceive this as other than mendacity and manipulation by Democrats.

    I'm not a Democrat at all.

    Well, I used to be a Democrat, and I left because I was tired of this kind of political b.s.

  • ThomasD||

    " If the appointment is now rushed to completion, that will also be taken as confirmation that these are serious and credible allegations."

    If the vote is held as already scheduled, you deem that 'rushed.'

    Which is confirmation that you are not credible.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Better still, let's tell the Progressive Left outrage machine, "Screw you, your horrible hag of a candidate lost, and we control both houses. We're confirming him."

    That's a great message, coming from the birthers, the bigots, the half-educated and superstitious goobers, and the backward yahoos of the right.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That implied threat at the end sure proves your enlightenment.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

    Kill you self as well revisionist.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Please die a horrible, miserable, painful death sooner than later.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland: So far as your betters permit, anyway."
    Spoken like a true Capital elitist to the denizens of the Districts.
    If that line is not in Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games it oughta be.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, if those of us you look down on decided you no longer had any business existing, you would find you and your ilk wiped off the map at a rate and brutal efficiency that would surprise you.

    Bottom line, you and your progtarded brethren continue to breathe because people like me to,erase your existence. If you live to see another sunrise, it's because we allow it.

    Don't ever think otherwise.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    I doubt they are going to confirm an alleged rapist until they get some more evidence he didn't do it

  • Naaman Brown||

    Used to be guilt had to be established by positive proof.
    Now guilt only needs to be alleged.
    Establishing innocence by proving a negative can be difficult.
    .

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's the democrat way. For non democrats. If however, you are a party member in good standing, like say, Keith Ellison, you can beat and rape any bitch you want.

  • FlameCCT||

    Is that you Justice Sotomayor? Have you decided to use fool instead of Latina?

  • NashTiger||

    OK, until they prove a negative, no confirmation....

  • buybuydandavis||

    I like the cut of your jib

  • DirkT||

    Oh, how I miss the days when the dominant narrative was that Obama was "a Muslim who was mentored by a domestic terrorist, didn't have a birth certificate, wanted to take away all our guns so he could put us in FEMA camps and subject us to Death Panels" ...

  • librich||

    A fascinating turn of events. Here's this guy who gets high marks from women during his adult life, but may pay have to face the consequences for a drunken episode in high school. Any sane person would be crazy to enter the political arena. We all have things we're ashamed of--laws we broke, injustices we committed, things we deeply regret. In private life, our skeletons stay in the closet. The Demos had to do a lot of digging to find something that could take Kavanaugh down. This may do it. Will they then behave similarly during the next Scotus pick? And the next? Will we have a situation where the Garland affair is repeated again and again, with the Demos hoping to unseat Trump in 2020 and make their own pick for the ninth justice?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What's facinating about it? It was roughly as predictable as the Sun rising in the East. I don't think there's anybody Republicans could nominate who wouldn't be subject to a hit job like this.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, if nothing else this is a warning shot at anyone else who might think about accepting a nomination from the Trump team.

  • TW||

    Or any Republican administration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans are just sick of this Lefty shit and will answer with shocking Democrat defeats come election 2018.

    Anyone who gives an accusation like this anything but a laugh is a real piece of shit.

    I would never ruin the careers of the chicks who drunkingly groped me or pushed their sexual agenda on me. I could not even remember their names after 1 year let alone 30 years.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Democrats should be cleansed from America.

  • creech||

    In doing research about a Civil War incident, I found a newspaper article about a speech a man made 30 years after the event. 14 yrs. old at the time of the incident, the boy had been hired to clean up around the Union army camp. He stated, 30 years later, that a number of men had died in camp and since, their names weren't known, were buried in unmarked graves in a local cemetery. Fascinated, I asked if the cemetery had any such records. No. Then I uncovered the actual, meticulous records of the camp hospital and the muster records for the entire camp. In the "Died" columns, there was no entry. So, I conclude it is pretty easy for a teenager to forget details over several decades, even when directly participating in the event.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    It could easily be a misremembering of her friend being accosted by a classmate of Cavanaugh's.

  • buybuydandavis||

    And it could be that she made it up like a good Lefty doing her bit for Lefty power

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Exactly. The timing of this is all too convenient.

    I'm surprised the #me3 movement isn't jumping on Feinstein for sitting on this.

  • JWatts||

    "I'm surprised the #me3 movement isn't jumping on Feinstein for sitting on this."

    I suspect that the timing is considered a positive to them.

  • Ben of Houston||

    False memories are a well-documented psychological phenomenon.

    If you want a frustrating and infuriating read, I suggest searching for "repressed memory prosecution" for a large number of tales about people making up memories of abuse on the influence of a psychologist, believing them wholeheartedly, and then trying to get people arrested for these crimes.

  • Rob Misek||

    If it wasn't considered a crime by the bitch then, why would it be now?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I love it when right-wingers voluntarily speak publicly about bigotry -- the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the gay-bashing.

    Mostly because I tend to prefer that the Republican-conservative electoral coalition continue to be branded as backward and bigoted, at least until the Republican party regains its decency and ditches the intolerance and ignorance.

    So keep up the fine work, Rob Misek, and keep talking, you bigoted rube. Some young people may not have heard you yet.

  • Blahbloy||

    Pretending that the GOP is the only afflicted party is just sheer ignorance.

    So let us just turn to facts, circumstance and legality here.

    This reeks of a political hit job, confirmed by the accuser's husband. The "documentation" here is no way names or describes Kavanaugh. In fact, according to reporting:

    "According to the Post, Ford contacted the publication through a tip line in July when it "became clear" Kavanaugh might become President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick and contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna Eshoo, around the same time."

    The therapist's notes contained no names. The accuser's recollections contained no names. The accuser's recollections contained no dates, or even a location.

    Only after there was a nominee she was politically opposed to - vocally, publicly and viscerally - does she fill in his name in the accusation.

    This is spurious at best. At. Best.

  • strangerthanfiction||

    Very well-said.

  • ravenshrike||

    10 bucks says it was in answer to an inquiry about why she finds intimacy with her spouse difficult. Out pops a story with no names, no date, and that she never told anyone about even though going to an all girls school and being gregarious enough to go to a random house party.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Blahbloy, you might be right. Investigation could confirm your speculations. But why should your assertions be accepted on a lower standard than the accuser's?

  • Sudden||

    I love it when right-wingers voluntarily speak publicly about bigotry -- the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the gay-bashing.

    Me ne frego, boomer. No one under 40 gives a damn about your isms and phobias because we all know it's not about care for anyone alleged victim group, it's about seething hatred for the founding stock.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties are lyng sacks of shit and should treated as such.

    If they want a banana republic coup, they'll get a banana republic coup.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    I truly hope someone murders you in the most violent and brutal manner.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to hint at a pattern of more serious reckless behavior.

    There isn't unless there's much more than has been laid out so far.

    If the allegations are true, then I'm going to have to conclude that I'm the only person in the world who has neither ever been sexually assaulted or am a sexual assault survivor. Unless, of course, when they stole my kidney they took liberties with my other organs.

  • Ron||

    Partying a lot at school is not proof rape and maybe the girl was drunk as well and only thinks it was kavenaugh. Lack of evidence is not proof of evidence

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Yes... Or after 35 years and countless therapy sessions has built a semi consensual incident into something sinister. Or maybe she was drunk too. Maybe it was a bad joke the guys set up and never planned to follow through with. Maybe it was a story her sister told her. Maybe it was Haven in disguise. Sexual assault is disgusting and evokes a violent reaction, but 35 years later? And via Feinstein? No.

  • Tony||

    Or maybe it happened as she described. Why make assumptions when it's the supreme court we're talking about?

  • Mark22||

    Or maybe it happened as she described. Why make assumptions when it's the supreme court we're talking about?

    The FBI looked at this, Kavanaugh's enemies looked at this, and none could find any more evidence. That's the end of it: there is no more evidence, and hence nothing to be done.

    If you have a claim against someone, you need to make it formally, within the statute of limitations and provide evidence. Outside those boundaries, it becomes defamation of character.

  • Tony||

    There's new evidence today. That's the whole point of this article. A named credible accuser.

    You don't seriously think Democrats are capable of making this all up as a political strategy? Don't I wish.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    An accusation is not evidence.

  • Tony||

    Witness testimony isn't evidence?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    She hasn't testified, and regardless, an accuser isn't a witness any more than a defendant is. Surely you wouldn't consider Kavanaugh's denial to be "evidence".

  • Tony||

    An accuser isn't a witness? She was there wasn't she?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    No, an accuser is not a witness. Is a defendant a witness?

    By your logic, it is impossible for an accusation to be without evidence, since the accusation is evidence of itself! Too bad, you were born a few centuries too late to be a witch trial judge.

  • SRVolunteer||

    No, an accuser is not a witness. Is a defendant a witness?

    By your logic, it is impossible for an accusation to be without evidence, since the accusation is evidence of itself! Too bad, you were born a few centuries too late to be a witch trial judge.

    Yeah, not buying this argument. An accuser can be a witness, or not, based on whether the accuser witnessed the event.

    If I watch my neighbor open my shed door and walk out with my hedge trimmer, I am a witness to the theft. If my hedge trimmer just disappears and I'm pretty sure my neighbor stole it and I tell the police that, I am an accuser who is not a witness.

    How to be sexually assaulted without being a witness? I guess one could be unconscious, or maybe be groped in a crowd in such a way that you can't tell who did it...

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "An accuser isn't a witness? She was there wasn't she?"

    Only if the accusation is true. Simply making an accusation isn't evidence the accusation is true.

    This "Accusations of rape are automatically true!" BS has to stop, it's garbage. Women are perfectly capable of lying.

  • Mark22||

    Evidence at this point is irrelevant. The statute of limitations has run out and Kavanaugh, therefore, is not guilty. He couldn't defend himself in a court of law if he wanted to because there is nothing to defend himself against.

  • Tony||

    I'm glad we hold nominees to the highest court in the land to the standard "The statue of limitations has run out on your sexual assault."

  • Mark22||

    There was no "sexual assault".

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    There was also no statue.

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    We assess nominees to SCotUS on what sort of judges they are likely to be. The best single source would be prior record as a judge. For Kavanaugh, we have his twelve years on the US Court of Appeals (DC). Some presumably object to his ideology, but no serious complaints have been raised about his temperament, integrity, or competence.

    Apart from this, we can assign gradually decreasing importance to the rest of their adult life going back decades, and sharply less importance to their record as children.

    Historical trivia: Carlos Salinas de Gortari (age 4) was one of three suspects in the shooting of their family's maid. The other suspects were a 5-year-old brother and an 8-year-old friend. Salinas was later chosen President of Mexico anyways.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Some presumably object to his ideology, but no serious complaints have been raised about his temperament, integrity, or competence.

    What makes all the complaints you are now ignoring unserious? Your determination to ignore them? I'm not only referring to these rape allegation by the way.

    If you believe in Kavanaugh's impeccable character, why wouldn't you want it demonstrated by investigation, to clear his tenure on the Court of any lasting taint? Do you suppose for a second that if this appoint gets rushed through, with calls for investigation suppressed, that won't lastingly diminish the goals you seek for Kavanaugh on the Court? Do you suppose only Republicans get to play politics in Kavanaugh's case, or that the game will end with his swearing in? Do you think a game like that will be good for the nation, if it goes on and on, down through the years, as it certainly will if no investigation is permitted?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You're a fucking retard.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Remember when Suprema Corte nominee Judge Bork admitted that he had inhaled a plant leaf product? Remember kids filling out a job application without pissing in a Dixie cup? This is high comedy!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We also don't hold democrat presidents to that standard either. Or buoyant senators.

  • strangerthanfiction||

    At this point it is a he said / she said argument. There is no corroborating evidence at all. There was no one named in her letter and no one named in the therapist notes. She is making an accusation, and an accusation is not evidence of wrongdoing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even if there was a witness, there was kavanaugh's friend as a witness, this is a bullshit hitjob.

    If Hillary Clinton refused to let her husband resign pver sexual assault and hillary refused to not run for office based on her attacking sexual assault accusers, then Democrats have zero credibility in this area when it relates to people up for nominations.

    Report it when it happened so people can defend themselves, or shut the fuck up.

  • Seamus||

    At this point it is a he said / she said argument. There is no corroborating evidence at all.

    Yeah, but who needs corroborating evidence? if we can put the confirmation vote on hold, and hold a set of supplemental hearings that can be made into a media circus, then the Dems can grandstand, and opposition to Kavanaugh can be whipped into a frenzy.

  • Agammamon||

    Not from 3 and a half decades on.

  • intolerantape||

    Because Democrats don't get to disqualify candidates they don't like by heaving fabricated rape allegations against them. If it turns out that there is evidence then fine. In the meantime, reasonable people will view this as an unsubstantiated allegation brought under extremely questionable circumstances.

  • CDRSchafer||

    If the Republicans cave on this they will never be able to nominate anyone to any position again. The Democrats will pull some lying loser out of the woodwork every time, with some manufactured, impossible to prove/disprove "memory".

  • MarkLastname||

    Yet you're asking us to make the assumption that he lmdid do it and therefore doesn't belong on the court?

    I saw you rape three little boys at a party many years ago at an unspecified time and place.
    Maybe I should call every employer you apply to for a job and tell them and, get, why not believe me? I mean, it could've happened as I describe it, right? It's not impossible, so we should take it seriously.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You're asking us to make an assumption: That there's enough to this to treat it seriously.

    Well, no: My standard rule concerning evidence free allegations that are suddenly made decades after the alleged conduct would have taken place is that the BS. Regardless of who makes them against who.

    You want an accusation to be taken seriously? Make it at the time. Or produce evidence. Lacking either, I don't care what you say.

  • damikesc||

    Or maybe it happened as she described. Why make assumptions when it's the supreme court we're talking about?

    1) We have literally zero proof that they were at a party together
    2) We have literally zero proof that anything happened.

    How about she work on those two issues?

    I don't see you upset about Ellison's issues. And they occurred much more recently and do have authorities involved at the time.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    On the other hand, Kavanaugh is a liar -- about trafficking in stolen memoranda, about receiving unprofessional messages from Judge Kozinski -- so maybe he's lying about his younger years, too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Every democrat is a liar, which is why most Americans ignored Democrats.

  • MarkLastname||

    Oh look, two things you completely made up

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    And maybe you're not a useless turd who should be beaten mercilessly.

  • NashTiger||

    Because people never misremember or misinterpret events from long ago in therapy...

  • Ben_||

    Also, no rape occurred.

  • Eddy||

    Bear in mind that Feinstein pulled this out at the last minute not out of concern for women's rights but because she wants to kill unborn children - including female ones.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    You know who else pulled out at the last minute to kill unborn children...

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Luke Skywalker, after during his photon torpedoes?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Won't someone think of the stormtrooper maternity ward?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Onan

  • Rat on a train||

  • Vernon Depner||

    I learned about the Bible the old fashioned way—in the streets, from teenage hoodlums and old weirdos.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Nah, that wasn't attempting to kill someone. That was for fraud. Onan could have refused to do his duty (marrying his brother's widow and siring a child for his dead brother) and accepted public shaming (Deuteronomy 25), but instead he tried to have his cake and eat it to by only pretending to fulfill his duties.

    Don't quote your bible unless you know your bible.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If you like your bible, you can keep your bible.

  • Rat on a train||

    UN Peacekeepers?

  • Fats of Fury||

    Not Hitler. He didn't even pull in.

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    I believe Feinstein sat on the accusation because, as an experienced person of the World, she knew it was garbage. She changed her mind and disgorged it because she faced a far-Left election opponent, and in this year even the most lightweight Left-wing challengers are winning upsets against experienced and respected Democrats. (The Republicans have had similar difficulties for a couple of years now.)

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    I believe Feinstein sat on this accusation because, as an experienced person of the World, she knew it was garbage. She later changed her mind, pandering to the progressive base, because she recognized a national trend of lightweight insurgents pulling upsets against experienced and respected Democrats. (Republicans have had a similar problem for a couple of years now.)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the other Democrat tricks didnt work. Lying is their last gamble.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Feinstein is also running against another Dem in CA's Soviet-style election in November.

  • CDRSchafer||

    You have two choices in this election, comrade! Stalinist or Trotskyite! Choose carefully . . .

  • IceTrey||

    My first question is, how would you even have known his name?

  • Ron||

    Thats a valid question considering the were frim seperate schools and only meet at this party. Or were there more interactions?

  • Fats of Fury||

    She knew him as Pinto and his friend Flounder.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Why Flounder?

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Why Flounder?

  • CDRSchafer||

    Why not?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I couldnt name 10 people from my high school today.

    I certainly couldnt name 10 chicks that pushed up on me in my younger years.

  • earthandweather||

    Robbie....Your work / perspectives continue to disappoint.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He's pushing for Barrett. Which is fine with me.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    That's a shame, because the accusation itself—while still decidedly unproven—is not without supporting evidence. It is much more difficult to dismiss now that we know the name of the person making it.

    What a fucking joke!

    The "supporting evidence" you offer is that Kavanaugh is alleged to have drunkenly puked in a car once, and "notes from a therapy session" whose authenticity and provenance has not been verified and which do not

    Kavanaugh should be given the opportunity to respond to Ford and these charges, now that they are out in the open. So far, he has categorically denied them, though not since Ford identified herself, and not while under oath.

    Which has what to do with anything? Ford didn't make the accusations under oath, so why must Kavanaugh make his denial under oath?

    That Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court would be bad for the pro-choice cause

    I keep hearing this but it makes no sense. Roberts stated that RvW was settled law during his confirmation hearings. Him plus the 4 leftists makes a pro-Roe majority.

    And what happens if the confirmation is paused for an investigation, which comes up with nothing, and then another letter from another anti-Trump leftist social work professor comes to light? It's not like there's a limited supply of those. Is this a new rule for nominations, that the process has to stop whenever a vague accusatory letter shows up? Will that still apply when the Dems take the white house?

  • Eddy||

    I think Volokh (or a colleague of his) discussed the technical meaning of "settled law" on his blog - it means it's precedent...until it isn't.

    Of *course* the Dems are worried about Roe. It can't sustain itself by the force of it's own impeccable reasoning, because the reasoning sucks. The Dems need other Dems, or milquetoast Repubs like Kennedy, to keep this monstrosity as a precedent.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Even if RvW were overturned, abortion bans would not happen in any state. They are simply not politically viable at this point.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You underestimate the backwardness, authoritarianism, superstition, and misogyny that animates a number of American states (mostly states currently controlled by Republicans, particularly our southern and rural backwaters).

  • Eddy||

    According to the right-wing goobers at The Atlantic, Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You underestimate how many people would celebrate if they found out you were repeatedly run over by a garbage truck.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Don't mischaracterize it. The religious right views abortion as the murder of an unborn infant.
    I think we can all agree that infanticide is evil.

    There's nothing complicated or evil about it. If you believe that a fetus is a separate human being, banning abortion is an inevitable conclusion. Just because you don't agree with a conclusion doesn't mean you can't follow the logic.

    And yes, it would be quite possible to pass an abortion ban in much of the country. I would guess that most of the South would return to the Pre-Roe requirements of for rape or medical necessity only.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    You and your thesaurus are correct. Our society needs the more intelligent elite (my self included) to control the ignorant masses before they upturn our benevolent government. Unfortunately, you will not be on the deciding committee.

  • FlameCCT||

    The Progressives are worried about Roe because if applied like 2A Constitutional law then abortion can be limited. They are really afraid that women will only have 3 months to decide instead of throughout their entire pregnancy, up to and including partial birth abortion.

  • Incredulous||

    No, this should not be taken seriously.

  • Don't look at me.||

    What we need are more lawz to stop this kind of thing.

  • Tony||

    Conservatives are telling me today that due process means we have to confirm him to the supreme court quickly before we know all the facts.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    And leftists are telling me today that due process means we have to stall his nomination indefinitely until the Dems take back the Senate.

  • Tony||

    Sauce for the turkey neck.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Sauce for the turkey neck.

    Is what your father said when you were conceived?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Can you imagine what his parents think to this day about producing such a useless shit stain for a son?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, He's getting confirmed.

    Then were putting homos immediately back in the closet and putting women back in kitchens...barefoot and pregnant.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Samwitches for every good ol' boy!

  • FlameCCT||

    Don't forget the beer!!!

  • Mark22||

    Conservatives are telling me today that due process means we have to confirm him to the supreme court quickly before we know all the facts.

    We know all the facts: in four decades, nobody has been able to bring a case against Kavanaugh; both the FBI and Diane Feinstein thought there was not enough evidence to pursue this further. End of story.

    You can't defame a public character like Kavanaugh, but in principle, the accuser should be dragged into court for defamation of character.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    but in principle, the accuser should be dragged into court for defamation of character.

    Your familiarity with matters of principle seems weak.

  • Mark22||

    Your familiarity with matters of principle seems weak.

    I'm quite familiar with the principles you embrace (authoritarianism, propaganda, defamation of character, arbitrary justice), I simply reject them.

  • Tony||

    defamation of character

    Lock her up! Never forget the victims of pizzagate!

  • Mark22||

    Well, yes, Hillary should be investigated, tried, convicted, and sent to prison.

  • Tony||

    Lol.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hillary ruined the attack on conservatives as a viable political tactic. Americans don't believe Lefties anymore.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Never mind pizzagate, send the Clintons to Haiti to answer for their embezzlement of relief funds.

    -jcr

  • John C. Randolph||

    Never mind pizzagate, send the Clintons to Haiti to answer for their embezzlement of relief funds.

    -jcr

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Your familiarity with the degree to which the human race wishes you were beaten repeatedly about the face seems weak.

  • Brendan||

    Due process means investigating relevant facts. There are no facts, and the age of the alleged incident renders it irrelevant.

  • MarkLastname||

    Actually what they're telling you is that a half baked, deliberately withheld, 35 year old, unverifiable accusation from an unspecified time and place brought up at the last minute doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

    Feinstein knew about this during he hearings; she chose not to bring it up during the time for fact finding. That's a vote if no confidence; confirm the guy.

    If a prosecutor deems a witness not credible enough to put on the stand, then in their closing argument says 'but there was this one other witness who totally saw him do it that I just realized I had,' the jury disregard it entirely.

  • Mark22||

    The situation is a mess—and it's Dianne Feinstein's fault—but the public needs to take this accusation seriously.

    No, the public should dismiss the accusation as unproven and irrelevant. Furthermore, in general (though not in this case), men should be able to bring successful defamation of character lawsuits against the accuser if such accusations are made after the statute of limitations.

    By repeatedly misusing accusations of sexual misconduct for political purposes, the accusers have achieved that no such accusations can be taken seriously anymore unless accompanied by clear and incontrovertible evidence.

  • Tony||

    What did Garland do to deserve no hearing at all?

  • Eddy||

  • Tony||

    So surely you aren't bitching about hardball tactics by Democrats.

  • Mark22||

    Republican tactic: "We have control of Congress and we aren't going to bring him up for a vote."

    Democratic tactic: "Try to find some women who will accuse the candidate of rape; truth or due process not important."

    Yup, that's why I left the Democrats.

  • Tony||

    We can have all the due process you like. Nobody's saying we shouldn't. In fact, due process would be not to appoint someone to one of the most powerful offices in the world until we have this sorted out.

  • Mark22||

    The statute of limitations has run out. Hence, due process has been served and Kavanaugh is not guilty and will never be found guilty. There is nothing more to "sort out".

  • Tony||

    I've never been convicted of sexual assault. Where's my supreme court nomination?

  • Mark22||

    You're simply not qualified.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Most would find it hard to believe you've ever found someone willing to submit to your sexual advances, except maybe the family poodle.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    It's sorted out. The Dems chose not to ask about it at the hearings, and now the hearing are over.

  • Brendan||

    Agreed.

    There is a reason for the 4th amendment exclusionary rule. It doesn't matter if the object in question has the defendant's prints and DNA on it along with the deceased, the police willfully failed to follow the rules about search and seizure, therefore the item is excluded from consideration in court.

    This doesn't excuse murder, it just means the rules must always be followed when it comes to things like search and seizure.

    This accusation should be treated the same way - it was brought up in an improper fashion and needs to be excluded. The alleged victim failed to report anything until 2012 (a mere 30 years after the alleged incident) and gave no names or dates at that time. The Democrats had 7+ weeks to address the issue in multiple hearings and failed to do so.

    Prosecutors don't get to introduce new evidence after the trial has concluded, and would probably face consequences of some kind (we can hope) if they tried to reopen the trial with evidence they sat on since the beginning of the trial.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Sorted this out." God you're terrible.

    There's. No. Corroborated. Evidence. There couldn't be. The only two other people in the room - one the accused - deny it. There's nothing more to be found out about it.

    It's he said she/said, and the she is a mentally ill leftist who even Feinstein doesn't seem to believe, and all the time in the world won't change that.

    Personally though, I hope they drop Kavanaugh and confirm Barrett instead so maybe idiot leftists can learn to stop kicking themselves in the faces.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "The only two other people in the room - one the accused - deny it. "

    Even that exaggerates the degree of evidence. There's no reason to suppose the two of them were in a room together, even.

  • DarrenM||

    It will never be sorted out, or rather it will be drawn out for as long as humanly possible. That's not "due process", as if that's really relevant.

  • Eddy||

    "So surely you aren't bitching about hardball tactics by Democrats."

    No, and I don't bitch about the scorpion's sting, either, I just try to keep out of its way.

  • Mark22||

    Nothing. Garland simply wasn't even considered.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Garland wouldn't have been confirmed anyway, regardless of whether he got a hearing.

    If the Dems wanted the ability to block a Supreme Court nomination, they had two options:
    (a) win the Senate fair and square, or
    (b) don't make a rule against the fililbuster on judicial nominees in 2014.

  • Tony||

    Or find a credible attempted rape accusation. Don't pretend that there are rules anymore other than raw power grabs.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Does this new rule extend to future nominations by Democrat presidents? All it takes is a letter making allegations a couple of days before the vote, and the process has to stop.

    Don't pretend that there are rules anymore other than raw power grabs.

    I'm not. Quite well aware this is a case of the Dems making an unjustifiable power grab, but you are the one who seems to be pretending it's about something else.

  • Tony||

    Apparently all it takes is for the nominee to be nominated by a Democrat, no rape needed.

  • damikesc||

    Kagan and Sotomayor weren't approved for SCOTUS seats, in spite of both being imbeciles?

  • Mark22||

    Or find a credible attempted rape accusation.

    Well, they didn't do that at all. There was no rape even if the story were completely true.

  • Tony||

    Because she escaped.

  • Mark22||

    So you agree then: no rape. Worst case: some awkward, fully clothed, drunken teenagers together on a bed for a minute.

  • Tony||

    No, tha'ts not the worst case. You left out the physical force and gagging and attempted rape.

  • Mark22||

    You left out the physical force and gagging and attempted rape.

    Your sexual fantasies really aren't relevant here.

  • tgrondo||

    Hey, Tony.....I was there...I saw the whole thing....the person who actually assaulted that woman at that drunken teenage party was.........Merrick Garland....!!!!

    (yes, I know...it's hard to believe....but true...!! really, it is....)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Merrick garland is a rapist.

    I have a secret document that I will show thr FBI?.

  • tgrondo||

    Well....I may have a secret document....
    But..... all will be reveled with the release of my new tell-all tome....

    "Yeah, I was there...so buy my Fuckin Book!!!!!"

    (available everywhere for the low, low price of $9,99,99,99)

  • MarkLastname||

    Go learn what credible means; but first, stop eating lead paint chips.

  • Bruce D||

    "What did Garland do to deserve no hearing at all?"

    Nothing, except that he was anti-gun. No one "deserves" a hearing. It's all politics. The Republican controlled Senate did not want an anti-gun Supreme. It was within their constitutional power to decide who they'd hear and who they wouldn't. The Democrats would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed. If Obama had wanted to have his nominee confirmed, he should not have chosen someone anti-gun. He should have made like Reagan who nominated a centrist like Kennedy after Bork was borked.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He was not Trump's SCOTUS pick.

    He was never entitled to be confirmed.

  • buybuydandavis||

    He failed to keep the Republicans from taking the Senate

  • Seamus||

    Be nominated by a lame-duck president during his last year in office, when the Senate was controlled by the opposing party. You know, the kind of thing that Bush nominees who failed to make it to a vote did.

  • Vernon Depner||

    In many states, statutes of limitations for sex crimes against minors have been eliminated. That was a mistake that needs to be corrected.

  • Blahbloy||

    Largely false, especially if the alleged perpetrator is also a minor.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Nope, true. Here's where you can check state by state:

    https://apps.rainn.org/policy/compare/statutes.cfm

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We'll just put kavanaugh in juvey then.

    He was a minor when this fake crime 'happpened', so kavanaugh gets to be subject to the laws of 35 years ago.

  • Tony||

    In which scores of libertarians show up to defend the authoritarian Republican nominee of a senile orange fascist and forget that people are watching.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony and Lefties are very upset.

    They are clinging to anything sinking that they can.

    Kavanaugh will be confirmed and Trump will win reelection in 2020.

  • MarkLastname||

    Defending someone from having their reputation tarnished by frivolous accusations is indeed a libertarian thing.

    If it makes you feel better, I don't think Clinton raped anyone either.

    See, not everyone is an angry sociopath like you who is fixated on forcing his idiotic ideas about how people ought to live on everyone else by any means necessary. Some of us have principles.

  • buybuydandavis||

    In which our resident commie wants to burn the heretic because a woman from the past says she saw him cavorting with Lucifer decades ago

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Keep up your reputation as a drooling retard. It suits you well.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, you say the allegation should be taken seriously, and then neatly lay out all the reasons why it should NOT be taken seriously. Thank you for refuting yourself so that we don't have to.

  • ThomasD||

    Maybe someone could punch Rico in the nose then lay out all the reasons for not punching him in the nose.

    Or vice versa, I'm flexible.

    Either way it would be about as libertarian as Soave is.

  • Horny Lizard||

    That lie detector result is damn good evidence. The FBI uses them for administrative purposes and to help sort suspects in tough investigations. Just because the results aren't admissible in criminal trials doesn't mean they aren't useful in criminal investigations.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The FBI and intelligence agencies use polygraph tests primarily to test agents' ability to pass polygraph tests. The ability to appear to be telling the truth whether or not you are is a valuable skill to them.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    It's not a "lie detector". It's an external stimulus reaction recorder.

  • ThomasD||

    Evidence is anything generally considered admissible in court.

    Polygraphs ain't evidence. At best they are an investigatory tool.

    They are also tremendously variable based upon who performs the test and the exact questions asked.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Polygraphs are worthless. They dont detect lies.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Just because the results aren't admissible in criminal trials doesn't mean they aren't useful in criminal investigations.

    An FBI agent's hunch and intuition are "useful in criminal investigations" too -- that doesn't make them evidence. If polygraph results are "evidence", why are they not admissible in court?

  • Naaman Brown||

    Polygraphs measure signs that can be interpreted as lying in the average person: sweating, pulse rate, breath rate.
    A psychopath can lie without sweating or raising their pulse or breath rate.
    A person who honestly believes they saw a UFO, or Big Foot, or Nessie, can come across as "truthful".
    And some people telling the truth under stress will sweat, breathing hard with a racing pulse.
    Polygraph results are not accepted in court because they are not reliable indicators of true or false.
    Polygraph results might be acceptable in job applications where there are a large pool of job applicants where failing a test does not carry the possibility of jail time.

    But eventually someone will mandate that failing a polygraph test should be added to the NICS background check database of prohibited persons (which increasingly is used for things other than gun sale checks).

  • DarrenM||

    Well, we can't allow people in government that don't know how to lie convincingly.

  • snowhawk||

    PURE BULLSHIT!!!!! Why didn't she bring this up when it happened? If it happened at all it must not have been much an an ordeal. She didn't tell a parent or a school counselor. What about best friends?She never mentioned a name to her Therapist? How would that have even become public? Being a Therapist and it being public I'd like to know what the issue was that drove her to seek the help of a therapist in the first place.
    So she see's some guy's picture on the news she saw at party's in High School and he all of a sudden becomes the image of all her woes?
    You think if I claimed I was molested 50 years ago by a conservative the pile of criminal commie waste Dianne Feinstein would get back to me with something more than the form letters I've received since she became my excuse for not paying taxes?

  • Tony||

    Lots of people don't report attempted rape until it's time to bring down a supreme court nominee. Sometimes you let it slide because it's not important to the future of the republic yet.

  • ||

    Lots of people don't report attempted rape

    Ms Ford did not report it, either; she shared her concerns about him.

  • Mark22||

    Lots of people don't report attempted rape until it's time to bring down a supreme court nominee. Sometimes you let it slide because it's not important to the future of the republic yet.

    So you are saying that lots of women don't give a fuck that rapists run around and will rape other women, until they think that the personal benefits (ideology, career, etc.) outweigh the inconvenience of reporting the man.

    Yes, you're right: that is probably an accurate representation of the kind of reprehensible beliefs a lot of the #MeToo women hold.

  • Blahbloy||

    Show one single incident of any of Kavanaugh's life that remotely parallels your passage please. You continue the political hit job by tossing in "rape" as a de facto accusation here. Then listen to the woman's hisband's own words; this entire revelation was crafted as a political hit job by a partisan and orchestrated by a Senator who couldn't stop a nomination even by breaking the rules of the Senate.

  • Mark22||

    Show one single incident of any of Kavanaugh's life that remotely parallels your passage please. You continue the political hit job by tossing in "rape" as a de facto accusation here.

    "My passage"? "Political hit job"? What the hell are you talking about? Are you drunk?

  • Tony||

    You'll have to ask rape victims why they don't always report. It's not a big revelation.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Their excuses are unacceptable. Justice requires prompt reporting.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    RBG raped me.

    Lets impeach her before she croaks.

  • MarkLastname||

    You realize there are more credible accusations of rape against Obama than this one. #listenandbelieve

  • Mark22||

    You'll have to ask rape victims why they don't always report. It's not a big revelation.

    I don't have to ask them, any more than I have to ask gluttons why they overeat: doing the morally right thing is often hard. And while I think their choice is morally wrong, it is understandable and we should show compassion for such women.

    What I object to is that you want to turn women who make that choice into heroes, or rob them of agency or responsibility, or, worse yet, want to celebrate them when they come out decades later and try to use their morally wrong choice for personal gain.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    If I get beaten to a pulp by a guy, I have to report it within 48 hours to press charges of assault. Regardless of how embarrassed I might be about getting my ass kicked. After that period, the cops will laugh at me if I try to report it.

    Women are either equal to men or not. If they are, they must be held to the same standard of reporting things they might be embarrassed about. If you think they are not equal, by all means make that case.

  • Tony||

    She's reporting it now. What do you want?

  • Mark22||

    She's reporting it now. What do you want?

    And it has been properly investigated and adjudicated, and the conclusion is that it isn't even worth bringing charges.

    So what do you want?

  • Vernon Depner||

    We want timely reporting that allows those accused to defend themselves. "Justice delayed is justice denied." Sex crimes are not an exception.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony was aginst all the Bill Clinton accusers reporting sexual assault.

  • MarkLastname||

    30 years too late.
    Sorry, but you don't get to wait till all the evidence is gone to report your crime.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, now imagine that you get beaten to a pulp by a guy, in a shady part of town where a respectable person like you isn't supposed to be at, and oh by the way the guy who beat you up is actually your gay lover.

    Still gonna report the assault?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Several parts of that hypothetical could not possibly apply to me, but yeah, I would probably report it. If I didn't, but 30 years later decided to tell my story, I'd have only myself to blame for not being believed.

    Also you're adding a bunch of "facts" to the analogy which there is no reason to believe apply to the accusation against Kavanaugh. What she alleges is that two strangers attempted to hold her against her will and rape her. No shady part of town, not involving a lover, etc. All that's left is the claim that "rape victims have their own reasons why they don't report, and nobody can question that." The prime purpose of this principle seems to be to make it impossible for accused to defend themselves against decades-old accusations.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    but yeah, I would probably report it.

    Sure you would.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    OK, now imagine that you have emotional issues and sit on an allegation for 30 years but then tell your therapist about 4 guys doing this to you and later claim that the notes are incorrect and it was really just one and not your belated remembrance.

    Why, the credibility positively oozes.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    So you ask me a hypothetical question and then dismiss my answer? Fuck you with Scalia's dead dick.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Now imagine that some former acquaintance from long in your past claims he was your gay lover 35 years ago and reports that you assaulted him then in a shady part of town. Should you be expected to defend yourself against that charge after all that time? Should you be ostracized and your career ruined by the mere accusation?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Should you be expected to defend yourself against that charge after all that time? Should you be ostracized and your career ruined by the mere accusation?

    Well, no and no.

    So what is the solution here?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Clutching more pearls, obviously. The "solution" is that there is no evidence of a crime beyond this woman's assertions. What would you propose we do in that situation?

  • Vernon Depner||

    The solutions are statutes of limitations and severe defamation judgements against those who make these allegations long after the fact.

  • Mark22||

    The solution is that we ignore unprovable accusations of misconduct from decades ago.

    We might go a step further and consider such delayed, unprovable accusations as defamation of character.

  • damikesc||

    jeff, without knowing when this allegedly happened or where --- how, precisely, would Kavanaugh be able to defend himself?

    Mind you, the Dems were already pissy when he wouldn't give an immediate answer to a question about talking to a lawyer in a firm with 300 until he actually researched the names to give an accurate answer.

  • Mark22||

    Whatever I decide at the time, I'm not going to hold a grudge for 30 years. "Speak now or forever hold your peace" applies here as well.

  • MarkLastname||

    If not, then you have no right to be indignant when no one believes you and the guy goes free.

    People lie. It's a fact if life; smart people demand more than an accusation, but evidence to condemn someone. You waited till no evidence possibly be collected? Tough shit.

  • damikesc||

    Okay, now imagine that you get beaten to a pulp by a guy, in a shady part of town where a respectable person like you isn't supposed to be at, and oh by the way the guy who beat you up is actually your gay lover.

    Still gonna report the assault?

    If I was assaulted, yes. I had my ex-fiancee arrested for assaulting me when I left her. Even though it was a girl beating on a guy, I still did it. Partially because she was making it difficult to pack up my shit and leave and also because lessons had to be learned.

  • Agammamon||

    This is a guy who was advising the *Bush Jr administration* on how to surveill Americans, in America.

    Yeah, the time to bring the dude down 'for the good of the Republic' was 16 years ago.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Why didn't she bring this up when it happened?

    She was probably afraid it would come out she was high on cocaine at the time of the alleged incident.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I hope there is discussion with Feinstein, for political reasons or not if this crime is accusation is considered plausible, then there should be serious questions about her withholding it.

  • DJK||

    That is definitely the strangest thing about this whole episode. Feinstein could have asked Kavanaugh about this at any time during questioning.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Her Chinese spies advised against it.

  • Blahbloy||

    You have redefined what "circumstantial evidence" means for this article. There is no evidence, circumstantial or not.

  • posmoo||

    ^^

  • CDRSchafer||

    The evidence is both ironclad and imaginary.

  • Homple||

    Grassley statement:

    The committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination will proceed as scheduled, next Thurs. Here's what we know: Judge Kavanaugh has undergone six FBI full-field investigations from 1993 to 2018. No such allegation resembling the anonymous claims ever surfaced"

    As twittered here:

    https://tinyurl.com/ycgjfkxp

    The part about six previous full-field investigations over a quarter century suggests the accusation fail the smell test. But, hey, it's Spare Tire Robby and not OK stuff is problematic and troubling and needs further investigation stalling and obstruction.

  • DJK||

    That could be a really, really dumb move on Grassley's part. It pretty much allows Democrats to paint Republicans as not giving a shit about women right before an election. Grassley needs to think of the political consequences. Because he's a moron, he won't.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Like the Dems aren't going to do that anyway. Grassley's approach is correct. You can't win with the left and their media allies. If you're going to be damned, be damned for what you are.

    Not that it matters because Reason's senatorial stroke object, Jeff Flake, is going to block the vote anyway.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Kavanaugh: Bad for women, bad for America.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Feinstein: bad for ethics, bad for the free world.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Politicians posturing for their own benefit, bad for everyone.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hes fine. He will be confirmed.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    He's like a judicial coat hanger.

  • Brian||

    Eh, I'll let it slide.

    Apparently, Justice Thomas had some weird sexual deviancies, and he's a great Supreme Court Justice. Kavanaugh's not as good as Thomas, but, he's the nominee they have.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, I think the smear during his confirmation hearings actually made Thomas a better justice, by removing any capacity he had to give a shit. Hopefully this will do the same to Kavanaugh: Every time the Democrats insist he must rule their way or his reputation will be mud, he will think back to this and demonstrate that payback is a bitch.

  • Cy||

    Exactly... This is a terrible political move that wreaks of desperation.

  • damikesc||

    It also insured Thomas would never really "evolve" in office to a more progressive position.

    And Thomas also had equally laughable charges with even more absurd evidence used against him by an even more unhinged leftist.

  • SardonicOne||

    Things that can validate or enable independent fact-checking:

    1. Dates
    2. Locations
    3. Witnesses
    4. Public transportation schedules
    5. At-the-time reports

    All of the things that can be validated here are those of which the speaker has no memory, with the exception of Mark Judge. She cannot remember where the party happened, when the party happened, who else was there (other than Mark Judge), how she got home, and didn't file a contemporaneous report.

  • Ben_||

    Since there are no rules any more, Republicans should proceed on that basis.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Two justice enter, one justice leave.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Thunder Dome!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thunder Court!

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Don't underestimate RBG's ferocity. She's like a better-smelling Gollum.

  • ThomasD||

    They should hold a vote of censure for DiFi first - for failing to address the information she held in a timely manner.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Wouldn't it be funny if they did, and Feinstein lost to whoever the Democrat running against her in the one-party election is?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They should just just expel Feinstein from the senate.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    A nutless monkey could do the job of a justice! This guy needs to drop out and Trump needs to pick someone else off the list.

    Btw, the way you prevent blackout drinking is only drink light beer and eat a lot before and during your session! I love craft beer but be careful of their ABV.

  • DJK||

    Not sure that will work for the right. Kavanaugh was nominated just about 2 months ago. The left will presumably fight and delay a similar amount of time for the replacement nominee. So we're talking about confirmation after the election at the earliest. The left may have retaken the Senate by then. At that point, it gets even harder to get a confirmation.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I disagree, Republicans can get this done before the election but maybe they would have until the new senate is seated which is in early January.

  • DJK||

    Maybe. The optics get much worse if a lame-duck Senate confirms a nominee. I could easily see certain Republican Senators voting not to confirm in order to placate their constituents.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hes getting confirmed or RINOs are getting booted from the Senate.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Jeff Flake can block confirmation, and he is not running for reelection. At times it seems he is running for the Democrat nomination in 2020.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The right wing of the Globalist Uniparty is fighting to destroy Trump and the nationalist populists.
    As is the left wing of the Globalist Uniparty.

    All the Never Trumpers will be sabotaging the Republican agenda as they go out the door

    McCain thwarted the repeal of Obamacare that he publicly supported for years

    I won't be surprised in the least for Flake to use this as an excuse to Flake.

    And that wall funding "after the election"?

    It's not possible Trump is stupid enough to buy that. This is the test whether he's just been blowing smoke up the assess of his supporters all this time about the wall.

  • Mark22||

    Flake is trying to optimize his future job prospects and he thinks he's doing that with this kind of posturing.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    The only reason it would be a lame duck confirmation would be because the Dems stalled the vote. The GOP were ready to vote on confirmation before the election.

    Doesn't mean they won't lie and misrepresent to make it appear shady.

  • Seamus||

    After the election, no senator needs to care about optics. If they were up for reelection, then they'll already have won or lost, and their vote won't affect that, and if they weren't, then they'll have at least two years to work on the optics.

  • Agammamon||

    Btw, the way you prevent blackout drinking is only drink light beer and eat a lot before and during your session! I love craft beer but be careful of their ABV.

    Well, thank you for that observation. Except;

    1. You don't understand *why* 17 year olds drink

    2. Those of us out of college already know how to drink without blacking out.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, 99% plus of those of us IN college already know how to drink without blacking out. How common do you think accidentally drinking yourself unconscious is, anyway?

  • damikesc||

    ...well, amongst feminist students, the rate seems alarmingly high...

  • ThomasD||

    So it's now libertarian to - arguendo, and accepting that these claims have a shred of truth to them - punish people as adults for offenses they may have committed as a juvenile???

    Ok. Well, lets unseal everyone's Juvi record and re-sentence them as adults.

    Wow. It's like principles don't matter when the principals are problematic.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Robbie wants to have a career after Reason.

  • ThomasD||

    Other than being a stenographer for whoever is writing the #metoo narrative, what career exactly dose Robbie have now?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Vox-in-training.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Every Reason article is a job application to Salon

  • Mark22||

    The way Reason is going, that may have to be soon. How many paid subscriptions do they have left?

  • buybuydandavis||

    2 subscriptions left, but they're to the Koch Brothers

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    What do you want to bet, Democrat AGs will refuse to abide by any future SCOTUS decision that they disagree with where Kavanaugh was a deciding vote, on the grounds that Kavanaugh's confirmation was invalid.

  • Homple||

    That's a stunt the Democrat/Apparatchik party is likely to pull. It would set a welcome precedent if they try it, being a start at putting the court system in it's proper checks and balances position.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats like slavery by forcing others to work for them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Sounds too stupid even for them

    Even if the accusation is true, that wouldn't be legal grounds that a Senate vote to confirm him was in any way invalid

  • damikesc||

    What do you want to bet, Democrat AGs will refuse to abide by any future SCOTUS decision that they disagree with where Kavanaugh was a deciding vote, on the grounds that Kavanaugh's confirmation was invalid.

    Well, we know Ellison, likely MN AG and known respecter of women with ZERO baggage in that area, would likely refuse.

    Remember, the Confederacy was ALL Democrat.

  • Seamus||

    Remember, the Confederacy was ALL Democrat.

    Actually, a lot of were Whigs. VP Alexander Stephens, for one.

  • GlenchristLaw||

    So on the one hand we're not supposed to bubble-wrap and helicopter-parent our kids.

    On the other hand, the slightest act, or even the accusation of the slightest act, can destroy a life even decades later.

    I guess St. Francis Xavier was right, at least in a sense.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Indeed. In a few days Reason will feature yet another article from Lenore about how schools are turning incidents of stupid juvenile behavior into life-altering events, and how labeling teens as "sex predators" can effectively ruin their lives.

    It will be followed by another article by Robby or ENB or Welch about how baseless, politically-motivated allegations from over 30 years ago are justification to keep someone off the Supreme Court.

    This website is rapidly becoming a joke.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Becoming"... soave wrote up this story without laughing through the claim.

    The Left is trying a banana republic coup and should treated as the treasonous snakes that they are.

    They should be Laughed out of the room and when they become violent because everyone ignores them, return fire.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason is a clown show

    I only show up for my daily 2 Minutes Hate against the clowns who took over a once libertarian publication

  • Horny Lizard||

    The Republicans won't have nominated this guy had they known he was accused of attempted rape so why confirm him if you wouldn't have nominated him had they known? It's just tough shit for Republicans as far as I'm concerned. Find another judge. They're a dime a dozen.

  • Horny Lizard||

    Wouldn't have * I surrender, fuck

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nope. He will ne confirmed.

  • MarkLastname||

    The reason they wouldn't have nominated him is because they know enough idiots like you would credulously believe even the dumbest accusation and unfortunately can also vote.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Find another judge that we can make baseless accusations against"

    Nope

    Elections have consequences

    Republicans should accept that any Republican candidate of sufficient import will likely face some sexual accusation, unfalsifiable by design.

    They should decide up front whether to simply cave to Leftist power, or to continue fighting despite the inevitable character assassination. Those who choose to cave need to be culled from the party ASAP.

  • Seamus||

    Find another judge. They're a dime a dozen.

    And when last-minute accusations make *that* nomination untenable, then come up with another one, rinse and repeat. No thanks.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Need to take the accusation seriously, eh?

    Yeah I'll take it exactly as seriously as I took Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas.

    Which is to say I won't take it seriously at all.

  • OGREtheTroll||

    Every time I come here I swear that I will no longer be surprised by the idiocy and immaturity of Robbie.

    Yet again I have proved myself wrong.

    This woman's statement is not at all credible. I've practiced criminal law for over 10 years and have seen hundreds of witness statements; this is very typical of one that is fabricated. The statement will be vague as to anything at all that might confirm or deny the claims, while there are meticulous details added that paint the defendant in a bad light.

    Read her statement and the story by the girl about the UVA rape hoax. Notice the similarities in style and substance, where there are high levels of detail and where there are none. The resemblance is remarkable.

    Your posturing is again duly noted Robbie. You've done enough damage to Reason's good name. Please leave and go on to WaPo where you belong.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The statement will be vague as to anything at all that might confirm or deny the claims"

    Unfalsifiable by design

  • SIV||

    Her name is Christine Blasey Ford, and her allegation deserves to be taken seriously. It is an accusation of attempted rape, supported by some circumstantial evidence,

    ROTFLMAO

    She didn't tell anyone until reportedly 2012 and that was her therapist. She can't recall when it was and did not identify who it was until the "letter". The incident which we do not know actually happened, and if it did, who was actually involved could easily be considered "flirtatious horseplay" , not just back in the tolerant, libertine, early 1980s, but even in our uptight, sexually-repressed neo-Victorian present. Mrs. Ford may well have perceived whatever she shakily and hazily sort-of-remembers as such right up until her "couples counseling". Which, if we're going to "take this seriously" should be wide open, any and all therapy notes, transcripts as well as any of Mrs. Ford's relevant diaries, emails, text messages, social media posting, hearsay and anything else that reflects on what may have lead to her state of mind.

    Of course this is all totally unnecessary because we shouldn't take any of this seriously. The Senate should confirm Kavanaugh and Mr's Ford should resume her private life and recuse herself from the public spotlight she claims she didn't want.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    I'm curious as to who wrote the "therapy notes". Her therapist or herself?

    If they are her own notes, how can it be verified that she wrote them in 2012 as opposed to two weeks ago?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Roy Moore established that it doesn't actually matter who wrote the notes, or when. All it matters is whether the smear works.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The situation is a mess—and it's Dianne Feinstein's fault—but the public needs to take this accusation seriously."

    Thank goodness Robby is here to tell us what we should and shouldn't take seriously.

    Incidentally, no one should take Robby seriously.

  • ThomasD||

    This publication should just go ahead and change it's name to whatever word means "Shit We Are Willing To Accept, But Only As Our Desires Dictate."

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Makes you wonder who's paying for this piper, doesn't it, because under that prescription, they don't seem to be worried about losing the financial support of libertarians like us--in Robby's case.

    Have you read some of the shit Robby writes. If there's anything libertarian about it, it's only a coincidence.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    They better hope Trump stays in office for 8 years. Once he's out of the way, the anti-Trump donors who find value in putting a libertarian wrapper on leftist talking points are going to lose interest. And, barring a wholesale purge from top to bottom, they're never getting a dime or even an advertisement load from me again. Hopefully other real libertarians feel the same.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason is converged by SJWs. Their goal is to discredit libertarianism before they move on to Salon.

    Kochbucks will keep them afloat until then.

    SJWs never care about the institutions they inhabit. They are parasites that move from host to host.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep. I not only convicted him, I chose the sentence and enforced it too.

    Little old me, all by myself.

  • Homple||

    Nobody here convicted Weinstein of anything, the SJW PoundMeToo mob did that. Some here were glad to see him go, others were all Rhett Butler about it but none had a thing to do with his ouster.

  • ThomasD||

    It was me, dammit. I did it!!!! Why wont anyone believe me!

  • ThomasD||

    He's already had due process. There is no more process to be had. And you were explained that in no uncertain terms.

    Mendacity is your only suit, isn't it?

  • ThomasD||

    Unless you are aware of some secret legal punishment that he has received????

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Weinstein is getting a trial and you Lefties will make sure that is not fair either.

    You be treated as the treasonous snakes that you are.

  • Mark22||

    That isn't true. I caught a raft of shit from posters here for stating that HW deserved due process.
    and that his "rapes" were only alleged.

    It's pretty clear that both Weinstein and the women who had sex with him and then went public decades later behaved deplorably. What difference would it make to any libertarian or conservative whether HW is found legally guilty?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    There is no comparison between the many accusations against Weinstein and the one against Kavanaugh.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That would be your boldest lie yet. You finally achieved full tony status.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Franken is the benchmark not Weinstein.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Right state, wrong candidate. That would be Keith Ellison with credible accusations from two women of assault. He got 82% of the DFL committee votes and Reason has sent all of those accusations down the memory hole. Amazing how quickly the concerns disappear when it's a team blue candidate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony... I mean buttplugger is so desperate they are hoping lies work now.

  • Mark22||

    Many of the Peanuts here were quick to convict Harvey Weinstein without a trial.

    And many of us were critical of women who slept with him decades ago and only now came out to criticize him, and otherwise, we didn't care much about his guilt or innocence.

  • damikesc||

    I thought it was great watching #MeToo immolate progressives, but I said that the women fucked him for a career and they got what they wanted.

    I did find the disconnect between his PROFESSED beliefs on women and his actions was amusing --- but it is also par for the course for male feminists...pretty much ALL male feminists.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    As I recall, what I said of the matter is that, if the stories were true, his accusers were prostitutes: They were having sex for acting gigs, after all.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Based on the evidence so far, I don't think it's terribly likely that Kavanaugh did what he was accused of doing.

    But quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

    It is hilarious and sad to see many of the same people who dismiss all of Washington as being infested by swamp creatures, absolutely go to the mat to defend the honor and integrity of one of those swamp creatures if it means helping Team Red.

  • ThomasD||

    That might mean something coming from anyone whose middle name wasn't 'projection.'

    You're a disingenuous piece of shit Jeff.

    Go fuck yourself.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no I get it. Kavanaugh is innocent because Democrats play dirty.

    Washington is full of swamp creatures, until it's time for one of the swap creatures to serve a useful role for Team Red.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, that's exactly it Jeff. All you have is accusations based upon imputed motives.

    You've done it so much you don't even fucking recognize when you are doing it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And jeffy is concerned about principles until they affect his principals. Yes, we get it too.

  • ThomasD||

    Jeff cannot argue the topic at hand, so instead he'll stand to the sideline and try to snipe at the people offering arguments he doesn't like.

    It's his way.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats are liars and everything that comes out of their mouths are lies.

    Who cares what they say.

    The majority will confirm kavanaugh.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Yep

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't think that's it.

    I think too many of them really are just reactionary anti-leftists at this point. They will go to the mat defending Kavanaugh *only because* Democrats are playing dirty attacking him. Kavanaugh could declare tomorrow that he would forever vote to uphold Roe v. Wade and you would have the usual suspects here at Reason who would still defend Kavanaugh.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    You're full of shit. Nobody on this thread has said anything positive about Kavanaugh.

    A libertarian would not approve of unsubstantiated 11th hour vague decades-old accusations to become a viable tactic to stall confirmations or elections. Regardless of who the person is.

  • Seamus||

    A libertarian would not approve of unsubstantiated 11th hour vague decades-old accusations to become a viable tactic to stall confirmations or elections. Regardless of who the person is.

    Well, if it works in this case, I hope the message that the Right takes away from this is that it henceforth *is* a viable tactic and should be applied liberally against the crowd that introduced it. Mutually-assured destruction only works if parties are willing to follow through with a second strike.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'll bite. I doubt Kavanaugh is stupid enough to try to reverse the 1972 LP victory we call Roe v. Wade, and I doubt there is an iota of evidence in the accusations against him or Clarence. But he is allied with Christian National Socialists eager to bring back Comstock laws and shoot hippies, blacks and mexicanos over plant leaves. It's like those asset-forfeiture laws that allow GOP looters to steal "substitute" assets. This tool is being steamrolled with "substitute" reality just as sensible, just, honest and virtuous a bullying girls, kicking down doors and robbing bank accounts over plant leaves. HAHAHAHAHA!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I think too many of them really are just reactionary anti-leftists at this point.

    Thankfully you're not just reactionary anti-right at this point. Let's see, first it was such concern over the GOP only reacting to the dems, then it was fury that they didn't propose to fully repeal Barrycare (they promised!!!) but only saved $1TT in entitlement spending over 10 years (but you're a fiscal conservative!), then it was concerns about the right talking about censorship and why they aren't bringing forth serious proposals like the Dems. Finally, now it is more concerns about the partisanship on the right (but never the left).

    Oh those precious, precious pearls.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are right, Skippy, that I am harder on Team Red than I am on Team Blue at this point.

    Now why don't you tell us why you aren't.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You are right, Skippy, that I am harder on Team Red than I am on Team Blue at this point.as always.

    Fixed that for you.

    Now why don't you tell us why you aren't.

    Keith Ellison. Robert Menendez. Hillary Clinton. Wake me when the rules are actually applied and we'll talk. Since you are above the fray (You, in the back, stop laughing!) you will no doubt agree with that notion, right?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is your point? I'm not defending their behavior either.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I would have thought it obvious but you have to maintain the selective outrage pretense or the hypocrisy becomes so apparent even you can't deny it.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    False memories are a well-documented psychological phenomenon.

    Not defending is not the same as criticizing. You claim you're hard on team blue? Proof is lacking.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Is anybody here "going to the mat" for Kavanaugh's honor and integrity? Maybe somebody is shadowbanned and I can't see their posts?

  • damikesc||

    I haven't commented on how great Kavanaugh is. He is probably a decent fellow, but I don't know him. I've been lambasting the woman for making a claim that is utterly unfalsifiable with so little evidence involved as to be useless and Reason acting like this is something to take seriously.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Honor and integrity? in a looter knife fight?
    If Hizonner had been busted for a gram of hemp seeds in 1968 he could not today own a .22, much less bang a gavel. Nixon's party could have saved themselves the embarrassment!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Ah, the pearls must be clutched. Jeffy has concerns. Oddly enough those concerns never involve team blue, but he is always here to lecture on his "third way" which is oddly indistinguishable from the dem platform.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Heavens to Mergatroid! You mean, I believe Democrats aren't evil monsters, who occasionally have a few good ideas? No Way! This can't be tolerated! It's more important to oppose Team Blue than to advance any particular idea! It is known!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Heavens to Mergatroid! You mean, I believe DemocratsRepublicans aren't evil monsters, who occasionally have a few good ideas? No Way! This can't be tolerated! It's more important to oppose Team BlueRed than to advance any particular idea!

    Remember, they PROMISED to repeal!!! THEY PROMISED!!!! The GOP health plan proposal would have saved over $1TT which matters to a true fiscal conservative, but THEY PROMISED!!!!

    So much for your grounding in principles.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Notice how my ankle biters like Skippy here never get around to talking about what they are in favor of. They just endlessly complain and whine and bitch and moan about others.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's rich coming from you.

  • Mark22||

    It is hilarious and sad to see many of the same people who dismiss all of Washington as being infested by swamp creatures, absolutely go to the mat to defend the honor and integrity of one of those swamp creatures if it means helping Team Red.

    I couldn't care less about your beliefs about is honor or integrity, what I care is about (1) his jurisprudence, and (2) about his legal guilt or innocence.

  • MarkLastname||

    And here you are, pretending you're not as blue a partisan as they come. You literally admit that it's probably bullshit... then feel compelled to complain that conservatives also think it's bullshit?

    Yes, it's so ironic that they would defend one of their own against... something he probably didn't do. What assholes.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Washington is full of swamp creatures, until it isn't.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I have no idea what honor K has or does not have

    I don't need to
    I know a politically dysfunctional process when I see it

    Caving to unfalsifiable accusations in a political theater is political suicide
    To cave is to hand an invincible weapon to our wholly unscrupulous enemies

    We may as well just save time and shoot ourselves in the head

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know whether this should disqualify Kavanaugh, but I doubt we'll be get anyone more libertarian if and when the Democrats take the Senate, which is likely to happen in six weeks.

    Regardless, I will say this: Anyone who's serious about sentencing reform has no business holding a non-conviction from 40 years ago against Kavanaugh. How can anybody disqualify Kavanaugh on the basis of something he wasn't even convicted for, out of one side of their mouth, and, out of the other, say that we should be more forgiving towards convicted felons? Kavanaugh wasn't even prosecuted much less convicted. Is it that any evidence of sex bias--even from 40 years ago-- is unforgivable? Is there no statute of limitations on stupid things you did as a minor?

    Ah, but ostracizing convicted felons is awful!

    Let's put the cart before the horse. It may not be the partisanship alone that makes people look stupid--maybe it's that intellectually dishonest people are just more susceptible to making fools of themselves in that way.

    Let's keep our eye on what's really happening here.

    The Democrats want to stall on confirming a Supreme Court justice until they take control of the Senate.

    The Republicans want to confirm a Supreme Court justice now because they won't get someone more conservative if the Senate turns Democrat.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats see a chance to turn this into an election issue.

    The rest of what's going on here is bullshit--and really shouldn't be taken too seriously.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's [not] put the cart before the horse."

    Fixed!

    People are saying really stupid shit because they do or don't want Kavanaugh confirmed for partisan reasons.

    The Democrats are using this shit to try to make an issue of it come the midterms in November. Every issue gets turned into a referendum on Trump for the midterms, and Trump nominating and defending Kavanaugh will get turned into the same thing.

    That's all this is about.

    It isn't really about what Kavanaugh did or didn't do at a wild party 40 years ago when he was in high school.

  • Tony||

    There's a fair change Republicans gain Senate seats, so they could dump the rapist guy and hold out for someone even crazier.

    What the heart of the matter, though, beyond all the bullshit, is why they want crazy people on the supreme court. People who believe corporations are being oppressed and women have too much freedom with respect to their reproductive systems.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, crazy people.

    I'm surprised you didn't bring up Aqua Buddha.

  • Tony||

    He's crazy too.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Now flash the white power ok sign, tony, to prove that you're the sane one.

  • SIV||

    Tony's right. The Republicans are much more likely to gain Senate seats than to lose control. Their worse case scenario is 50/50 w/ Pence as the tie breaker but even that is looking extremely unlikely.

  • John C. Randolph||

    There's a fair change Republicans gain Senate seats, so they could dump the rapist guy

    You're confused. Bill Clinton has not been nominated to the court.

    -jcr

  • MarkLastname||

    The rapidity with which you've decided he's guilty (I mean he's a white male, probably raise someone if not her, right?) is..., well, entirely in keeping with your personality. I bet you'd believe the NKVD if they told you your neighbors disappeared because they were plotting against the people too.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Do you ever get tired of being a one-dimensional pointless retard?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    the Democrats take the Senate, which is likely to happen in six weeks.

    Nope. The House, maybe. The Senate, nope. Team Blu would have to damn near run the table on all the seats up for grabs.

  • DJK||

    538 gives the Dems a 1/3 chance of taking the Senate. It is not a far-fetched outcome.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its gonna be a bloodbath for Democrats and they know it,

    Expect more Lefty after election 2018 when Democrats lose seats in Houe and Senate and then RBG and Breyer get replaced by Trump.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *Lefty violence

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I don't know whether this should disqualify Kavanaugh"

    Any Republican Senator who lets this disqualify Kavanaugh will have tipped his hand as a Democrat intent on Leftist power.

    Flake will likely come out of the closet as a Lefty this way.

  • ThomasD||

    Regardless, I will say this: Anyone who's serious about sentencing reform has no business holding a non-conviction from 40 years ago against Kavanaugh. How can anybody disqualify Kavanaugh on the basis of something he wasn't even convicted for, out of one side of their mouth, and, out of the other, say that we should be more forgiving towards convicted felons? Kavanaugh wasn't even prosecuted much less convicted. Is it that any evidence of sex bias--even from 40 years ago-- is unforgivable? Is there no statute of limitations on stupid things you did as a minor?

    Ah, but ostracizing convicted felons is awful!

    Exactly this.

    Principals are once again trouncing principles here at Reason.

  • DJK||

    If Kavanaugh actually did sexually assault a woman, it is not at all unreasonable to hold that he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. That issue is independent of whether he should be criminally liable for such an action.

  • esteve7||

    Yes these things just randomly come up 40 years after the fact....

    so you can't be on the supreme court if you got drunk and did something stupid as a 17 year old, but Ted Kennedy is the Lion of the Senate. Yeah fuck all these media types.

  • DJK||

    The timing is odd and it may turn out to be nothing more than an attempted character assassination. That's certainly possible and maybe even likely. That's independent of whether an attempted sexual assault (if such an attempt did occur) should be a disqualification. Ted Kennedy shouldn't have been in the Senate because of what he did. Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be on SCOTUS if he did this.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    In Kennedy's case there's a woman buried in the ground recovered from a car he was driving. In this case there's a 30 year old set of therapist notes with critical errors and omissions and, contrary to Robby's credulity, no other corroborating evidence. None.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Should read *30 year old remembrances*

  • ThomasD||

    The timing isn't odd. The timing makes perfect sense.

    The timing makes the veracity suspect.

    That's called reasoning.

  • Mark22||

    If Kavanaugh actually did sexually assault a woman, it is not at all unreasonable to hold that he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

    Well, lucky then that even according to this woman, there was nothing even close to a "sexual assault".

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    One day, historians will point to this week as the beginning of the end for Drumpf's Russian puppet government. We in #TheResistance managed to #CancelKavanaugh, which is our biggest victory so far. And we're not done yet! In November, Democrats will take both houses of Congress in the #BlueWave. No more Supreme Court picks for Orange Hitler. And by this time next year Mueller will deliver his final report and Drumpf will be removed from office.

    This was a team effort, but I would like to especially thank Senator Feinstein for her skillful handling of this bombshell. Kavanaugh's other scandals (baseball tickets, snubbed handshakes, white power gestures) should have already disqualified him, but his luck had to run out eventually.

  • Ecoli||

    Good effort! I especially like the "other scandals".

  • buybuydandavis||

    I wish Reason had likes

    When will there be an Open Borders Liberaltarian twitter account?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Flake is a virtue signalling disaster.

    What amount of "investigation" will satisfy this asswipe, I wonder?

  • ThomasD||

    Flake is trying to line up his next paying gig - he wants to comment at either CNN or MSNBC.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jeff flake is a kid fucker. Disprove it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Sounds like a credible accusation to me

  • dchang0||

    Re: "But we shouldn't automatically disbelieve victims, either."

    That's assuming that the victim's claims aren't being used in a highly-politicized confirmation process.

    If this alleged victim had made her claims to the police not long after the alleged attack, certainly we should treat the claims neutrally, without bias in either direction.

    But now, decades years later, at exactly the right point in the confirmation process? Scientists have already proven in various studies that memories can be completely corrupted over years such that people remember the exact opposite of what really happened.

    And also knowing that the exact same type of alleged sexual assault tactic was used against Clarence Thomas, we can't take any future such claims by the Democrats at face value.

  • dchang0||

    Also, note that the alleged victim has modified her social media content to hide the fact that she is a Democrat activist:

    From the National Review:

    "Perhaps also of note is that Ford seems to have airbrushed all politics out of her online profile, including her professional bio on LinkedIn, though according to public records she has made small contributions to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Friends of Bernie Sanders."

    Mike Cernovich says he was tracking her social media edits before she came forward. I'm hoping he took screenshots to show what she deleted.

  • Ecoli||

    After reading through all the comments, I conclude that Schofield has it right:

    "Better still, let's tell the Progressive Left outrage machine, "Screw you, your horrible hag of a candidate lost, and we control both houses. We're confirming him.""

    Confirm K and be done with it. Wait for RBG to make the final slump in her chair and nominate another constitutionalist to the court. Make Democrats regret, for a generation or two, being such a despicable bag of racists, haters and commies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Us not taking Soave or this lady is how it needs to be.

    Democrats are losers and liars. Your tricks will not work anymore.

  • esteve7||

    How fucking sleazy can the democrats get? They are the biggest bunch of sore losers on the planet.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They did the same thing with Clarence Thomas.

  • Cyto||

    Anyone who watched Anita Hill fighting back tears as she recounted the horror of having Thomas ask "who left a pubic hair on my coke" and wasn't sickened by her ridiculous display has serious intellectual and moral failings.

    Anyone who was seriously disturbed a couple of decades later about a nothing joke (which is actually a black hair joke, not a sexist joke) needs in-patient care, not a public hearing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These Lefties are scumbags.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    If Thomas had been white, he would have been hosed. Once he played the race card in an extremely bold fashion (the "high tech lynching of an uppity n***" speech), the scumbag Dems like Biden and Metzenbaum and Simon, who had smelt blood in the water just a few hours before, immediately tucked their tails between their legs and backed off.

    Kavanaugh doesn't have that to fall back on. Even if this accusation is considered and rejected, they can just fabricate another one, and Flake will probably feel "uncomfortable" once again and demand an investigation. Then comes the "where there's smoke there's fire" idiocy, rinse and repeat.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I expect another accusation to magically surface

    And Flake, like all the Never Trumpers, is just looking for an excuse to thwart Republicans while Trump is in office

    If the Globalist Right loses control of the Republican Party, they'll do their best to bring it down

  • JWC||

    That a man should be asked to defend himself against an accusation nearly four decades old is the height of preposterous. That Robby Soave believes that Kavanaugh's reputed enjoyment of parties and liquor as a teen and young man qualifies as "circumstantial evidence" of Ford's unprovable assertion is not only ignorant, but dangerous. But, and it is an awfully big but, even if this accusation was based on real events, even if Kavanaugh himself admitted to activity as a teenager that was this objectionable, should he be disqualified as a nominee for the Supreme Court due to an error in judgment and behavior while under the influence of alcohol nearly 40 years ago when he himself was underage? Isn't that a ridiculous, outrageous standard to hold anybody to, especially somebody who, in the decades since, has proven himself an honorable and responsible person?

  • DJK||

    If he did it, yes, he should be disqualified as a nominee for SCOTUS. Just as Ted Kennedy should have been disqualified as a Senator for his abhorrent actions. What is so problematic about holding politicians accountable for their abhorrent actions?

  • JWC||

    Ted Kennedy was a 37 year old man when his actions resulted in the death of a young woman. Brett Kavanaugh was in high school when he may have been sexually aggressive and a bit rude to a fellow high school student. No, DJK, I do not view these as equivalent nor equally abhorrent. Sorry.

  • DJK||

    It's not at all clear that Kavanaugh's actions (if he did them - no one knows enough yet to say whether the accusation is true) were any better than Kennedy's. Firstly, Kennedy's actions were generally deemed a result of negligence. Kavanaugh's (if he did them) were intentional. Surely we need to judge malicious intentions more harshly. Secondly, calling the allegations "sexually aggressive and a bit rude" is being way too generous. If Kavanaugh did this, it was a violent crime and should be judged harshly as such.

    Even if Kennedy's actions were worse (they may be - neither I nor anyone else is in a position to know; understanding the limits of one's ability to even know the facts is important), two acts need not be equivalent for both to be condemned and for both to result in disqualification from ever holding a position on SCOTUS. Kennedy may have been worse. That doesn't mean that Kavanaugh should be on the bench (if he did it).

  • Eddy||

    Kennedy also failed to go for help, including at a nearby fire station, went to a hotel and tried to create an alibi that he'd been there all night, and also it was discovered right away, the subject of an inquest right after the events occurred, and it wasn't just someone else's word against his.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Kennedy was a complete and total ass, and wouldn't have been able to support himself had he a different last name.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kennedy was negligent in driving and homicide. Then lied about it.

    That is the Democratic Party every day of every month of every year.

    Americans are sick of it, which is why Trump is president.

  • Mark22||

    It's not at all clear that Kavanaugh's actions (if he did them - no one knows enough yet to say whether the accusation is true) were any better than Kennedy's.

    Your moral compass is completely busted.

    If Kavanaugh did this, it was a violent crime and should be judged harshly as such.

    Are you fucking kidding me? Two drunken teenagers making out on a bed fully clothed now constitute a "violent crime"?

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    "It's not at all clear that Kavanaugh's actions ... were any better than Kennedy's."

    Christine Blasey Ford remained alive in the immediate aftermath of Kavanaugh's alleged actions.

    Mary-Jo Kopechne? Not so much...

    Seems crystal clear to me.

  • Seamus||

    Firstly, Kennedy's actions were generally deemed a result of negligence.

    Driving off the bridge was negligent. Everything he did after that, including leaving her to suffocate while he figured out how to save his political career, was deliberate.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Claiming the results of Kennedy's actions are negligence, ignores Kennedy's choices to drive drunk, to cheat on his wife, and his choice to not get help for the woman who died. I find it hard to say drunk drivers are negligent - they made a choice to drive drunk. I wouldn't care if they only harmed themselves, but a woman died, who might have been saved if he chose to immediately get help.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    The most likely theory to my mind is Jack Olsen's theory that Kennedy wasn't driving the car when it went into the drink. According to the theory, he had gotten out previously, and walked back to his hotel so he wouldn't be seen with the chick. Unlike Teddy, she wasn't experienced driving that big car over that low bridge at night, and went the wrong way on it to her doom. It also explains why he acted surprised to hear about it the next day, and why the coroner didn't think the evidence was consistent with her being in the passenger seat when the car went down.

    Of course, it means he also lied his ass off to the cops the next day. Would have been better off telling the truth if this theory is correct.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ted was an unattractive poon hound. He took pussy where he could get it.

  • Mark22||

    If he did it, yes, he should be disqualified as a nominee for SCOTUS.

    If he was found guilty of a felony, he should be disqualified as a nominee for SCOTUS.

    Any other sense of "if he did it" is mere political posturing.

  • esteve7||

    To Reason, and all the other hysterical media out there --- when you say, 'believe victims', how do you know who the victim is?

    If someone accuses you of something, why are they the presumed victim? If their accusation is baseless, wouldn't you be the victim? You have no evidence that she is a victim yet you treat her like one.

    Reason in the 30's --- we must believe victims with no evidence

    pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/to-kill.jpg

  • buybuydandavis||

    The call to believe the victim is the call not to care who the victim actually is, but to simply side with the person with the vagina

  • Vernon Depner||

    Shouldn't we also side with women with penises?

  • buybuydandavis||

    I still haven't gone to Salon to see how the story about the "transwoman" in prison raping female prisoners shakes out with the Lefties.

    My guess is that the story doesn't make it to Salon, as too many heads would explode.

  • SIV||

    Assuming the incident even happened, and that the woman's memory of it is essentially factually accurate, it still does not rise to the level of sexual assault just because she perceived it to be so 35+ years later. She didn't tell any of her friends she was at a party with boys from Kavanaugh's prep school?

    "Those guys are creeps"

    "He was such as asshole"

    "I had to fight him off"

    or

    "Those guys are cool"

    "I think that guy likes me"

    "We wrestled around a bit but before we could do anything his drunk friend ruined it"

  • Cyto||

    This is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the world.

    Even taken at face value, there shouldn't be any concern here. The "we are concerned about this" argument would be that this is an individual not only of low character, but someone who is a serial sex offender who has routinely treated women as objects of forced sexual contact. If that wasn't the case, there would be no cause for concern.

    Well, we have a lifetime career where the unanimous consensus seems to be that this is a great guy, a model citizen and a genuinely good person.

    But that's not the math here. The math is "we are opposed to this guy because Trump appointed him and we need to defeat Trump". So anything goes.

    And they are pretending to be upset, offended and horrified. And they have cast around looking for something that can't be defended. "He's a rapist! (not really)". That's it! You can't defend him!

    And anyone who treats this seriously should be embarrassed and ashamed. People like Diane Feinstein are not serious - they are playing the game. But a lot of other people are actually treating it like it is a real thing... something to actually be upset about. And those people are dangerous.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They are dangerous because they are desperate.

    Democrats are losing so muc, so they are just blatantly lying now to save any power they can.

    All those Democrat senators that are up for reelection in 2018 are going to be shocked to get the boot from office.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They are dangerous because they are totalitarians

    If Hillary had won, their brutality to us would have grown and grown year after year

    They are not desperate, they are enraged at having their power thwarted when they were *so close* to permanent, uncontested rule

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • patskelley||

    The last minute politickin ploy of pulling "victims out of the hat" to cast spurious doubt because things aren't going your way got old 46 years ago.
    Rape Crisis Centers have been available for victims of rape since 1972. The National Organization for Women (NOW started one of the first two rape crisis centers, the D.C. Rape Crisis Center opened in 1972. Counseling to promote sensitivity and understanding of rape and effects on the victim is provided. Take Back the Night marches and events have been held from the 1970s to present day. Women have very well promoted and advertised resources, so why do these women not use them? The alleged assault took place 10 years after the support structure was well in place. People who are raped are NOT victims. We have autonomy, the right of self-government! Use it and stop playing games with 45 year old he-said, she-saids..

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have submitted to the FBI that Diane feinstein, doug jones, chuck schumer, kamela harris, michael bennet, jeff flake, richard blumental, chris murphy, chris coons, tom carper, bill nelson, brian schatz, mazie hirono, dick durbin, tammy duckworth, joe donnelly, elizabeth warren, angus king, ben cardin, chris van hollen, ed markey, debbie stabenow, gary peters, amy kloblucahar, tina smith, claire mcglaskill, john tester, catherine masto, jeanne shaheen, maggie Hassan, bob mendez, cory booker, tom udall, martin heinrich, chuck schumer, kirstin gillibrand, heidi heitcamp, sharod brown, ron wyden, jeff merkley, bob casey, jack reed, sheldon whitehouse, patrick leahy, bernie sanders, mark warner, tim kaine, patty murray, maria cantwell, joe manchin, tammy baldwin...

    All fuck kids. Disprove it.

  • Eddy||

    Little baby goats? Ewww!

  • esteve7||

    Feinstein and the rest of the Dems are completely despicable. Biggest bunch of sore losers, willing to do anything so low as long as it will get those evil Republicans.

    Those on the left, seriously ask yourself, do you really give a shit if this happened or not, and do you really give a shit that this all seems like a dirty cheap trick at the 11th hour? I would bet not, you really only give a shit about RESISTING and stopping Trump. Be damned if you railroad someone over 30+ year old allegations of when he was a minor in high school.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Feinstein, Schumer, and Harris are just playing political games. Despicable, but that's how the game is played.

    To me, Jeff Flake is by far the worst of the lot. Betraying his party, betraying his constituents, and betraying his supposed principles, all out of butthurt against Trump and/or a desire to win brownie points with the left so he can take over McCain's role as the left's pet Republican after he's out.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Betrayers are more despicable than outright enemies

    Once you could have believed that the Cucked Right was simply confused and pursuing poor tactics

    But Never Trumpers are clearly conscious betrayers these days
    If they're not going to rule the Right, they'll see it destroyed

  • esteve7||

    Is this game ever played by the right? Funny I don't think anyone on the left gave a crap about Clinton or Kennedy or Weinstein until 2 minutes ago when a Republican won the presidency.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Dear God Soave, did you actually write this? Angling for a regular WaPo gig, I see.

    You saw right through the Virginia frat rape hoax, and yet you cannot even see the obvious holes in this story?

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    On one hand, it's tough to say that Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court should be unilaterally derailed over an unconfirmed 35-year-old allegation made by a Democrat at the most politically opportune moment—this is the weaponization of #MeToo for partisan political purposes. I'm not naive, I see that. On the other hand, Republicans were taking advantage of political opportunity as well...this gives me what I want and so I will be as generous in interpreting the "evidence" as possible (look, Occam's Razor would obviously conclude that Judge had to be blackout drunk when he denies the incident happened--that is clearly the most likely explanation).

    FTFY

  • AFSlade||

    It was only traumatic when he was trying to get confirmed for the Supreme Court. Evidently getting confirmed to a Court of Appeals - the one largely considered second in influence only to the SCOTUS - wasn't as triggering for her.

    Totes Credible.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    In the CoA, he didn't have the opportunity to force himself on Ginsburg. You wouldn't want to see that happen, would you?

  • AFSlade||

    No, I wouldn't.
    No one could possibly want to see that... except maybe Crusty...(?)

    ;-)

  • Rich||

    I trust that the folks pushing to have Kavanaugh undone because of this are in favor of abolishing the juvenile justice system.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I remember a few weeks ago Reason's own Rainbow Warrior, Steve Chapman, quoted the Bible in his column to embarrass Trump.

    And he didn't quote some watery PC Revised Standard Version but the King James Version, the "homophobic" one with those problematic quotes about putting sodomites to death (Leviticus 20:13).

    Now we see Robby using an alleged, unproven criminal incident involving juveniles as justification for derailing a Supreme Court nominee some 36 years later.

    Arguing against the Statute of Limitations to own the Cons. This is the New Reason, folks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • ThomasD||

    This isn't just about the principles behind statutes of limitations, this is effectively arguing against the entire notion of juvenile justice.

    It's the New Puritan's version of a scarlet letter.

    Shocking, just shocking that the 'free thinkers' of Reason are ok with it all.

  • Kevin O'Keeffe||

    The mere fact Brett Kavanaugh liked to party when he was 17, doesn't even come close to constituting circumstantial evidence in support of these allegations. It's a little disgraceful that such a viewpoint was promulgated here.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Every day, it's a new low.

  • Sevo||

    "...because the accusation itself—while still decidedly unproven—is not without supporting evidence. It is much more difficult to dismiss now that we know the name of the person making it."
    Knowing a name is not "supporting evidence" of an accusation; it is an accusation which is no longer anonymous.

    "...Lie detectors can be gamed, and the scientific community is conflicted on their overall reliability...."
    Wrong. There is absolutely no independent tests which show a 'lie detector' to be other than that dog which actions are interpreted by the trainer. There is no conflict in any scientific examination, just among the L.O. dumbos.

    I read the entire article; there is no "evidence" there at all: "He said-she said" is the best anyone has.
    This, however is the money quote:
    "The decision to move forward with the nomination is ultimately a political one."

  • buybuydandavis||

    Note that she is a professor of Clinical Psychology
    That's the professional credential for knowing how to beat a lie detector test

  • Robert||

    No, I won't take this accusation seriously. Even if it were true, I wouldn't care. Like what this guy did as a teen should affect my opinion as to whether he should be in that job? I don't care if he tortured puppies or was part of the Manson family.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You should see all of my #MeToo allegations I'm storing up for juuuuuust the right moment.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You wont have to wait very long to use them on Lefties.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Anyone catch that fawning documentary on Ben Bradlee where everyone casually admitted that John F. Kennedy rape-raped that woman, but hey, camelot? I caught it too.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And incidentally, there is just as much evidence that Kavanaugh attempted to rape Christine Ford, as there is that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick.

  • Mark22||

    That is absolutely incorrect. Juanita Broaddrick claimed actual rape and there is plenty of corroboration. In addition, Clinton had a lifelong pattern of sexual abuse and harassment of women. And Clinton became president despite these allegations.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Good point. Which office has Bill Clinton been considered ineligible for, or even "subject to investigation" for, in light of the Broaddrick accusation?

    None? OK, let's go with that standard then.

  • AmosArch||

    Have evidence? Put up or shut up. BTW my wife says you raped her 50 years ago. If you don't agree to take us seriously and meet with the police you're obviously guilty.

  • Agammamon||

    Her name is Christine Blasey Ford, and her allegation deserves to be taken seriously. It is an accusation of attempted rape, supported by some circumstantial evidence, and is potentially disqualifying—though the timing complicates the matter.

    Keep in mind that I don't care about Kavanaugh one way or another - he isn't likely to be a net force for or against individual liberty.

    But no. No, this isn't potentially disqualifying. What we have here is a *35+ year old* accusation. Not only is this basically hearsay right now, its old hearsay, completely impossible to prove or disprove, and the man is not the person he was in high school.

    She didn't consider it important enough to pursue for over three decades. Three decades where he climbed the ladder in the Judicial Branch. Not important enough to mention when he was a senior advisor to the Bush Jr administration. *Now*, when he's in the news, she brings this up? Sorry, but your opportunity for justice has passed. Hell, the allegation could be attempted murder - from high school - and I'd say that its simply too late to deal with it anymore.

  • Mark22||

    What we have here is a *35+ year old* accusation.

    Actually, we have a six month old accusation for conduct that supposedly happened 35 years ago and apparently was never worthy of even an accusation before.

  • Agammamon||

    But other circumstantial evidence gives some weight to Ford's claims. Kavanaugh's friend, Judge, is a conservative commentator who strongly denied Ford's accusation when it was made anonymously. "I never saw Brett act that way," he said, according to multiple news sources.
    there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to hint at a pattern of more serious reckless behavior.
    It certainly sounds like Kavanaugh and Judge were not just typical underage kids who occasionally consumed some alcohol;

    Which you utterly fail to list. Not only fail to list, but make an assertion that you have no evidence to back up.

    This is, straight up, a shitty article Soave. You've done better. Your intro work when you joined Reason was spot on in terms of ferreting out *facts* and not making assumptions - let alone printing them - without facts to back them up.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, that was a fundamentally dishonest shift... from Judge's past to Kavanaugh's past.

    Judge says he had a rough patch in his early years with too much partying. He was friends with Kavanaugh. Therefore Kavanaugh was not just a typical underage kid who occasionally consumed some alcohol.

    That's not only libel, it is a logical fallacy and worse for a professional writer - lazy writing.

    When I was in Jr. High school my best friends all smoked pot. This was in the late 70's, so this was not unusual. Several of them did harder drugs too. As we moved into high school, my neighbor's older brother died in a fiery car crash that was because he was driving under the influence, another neighbor down the street died of a heroin overdose, and the kid across the street ran from police and killed himself in a rollover accident.

    Meanwhile, I am in my 50's and I have never had any illegal drugs (pretty lame for a libertarian, huh?). And I didn't have my first drink until I was 35. I still don't really drink... maybe once or twice a year I'll have a couple.

    So cut out the stupid guilt by association, dishonest context switches and pretentious wording to frame "unsupported and uncorroborated allegation" as "credible allegation with supporting evidence". It is terribly lazy for an HnR comment section, let alone a paid writer.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    The OP is an amazingly well-balanced walk through a fraught topic. If Robby Soave were made editor-in-chief at Reason, its quality would vastly improve.

  • SIV||

    B-

  • buybuydandavis||

    OBL, is that you?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Bwahahahaha! That is great sarcasm right there. Well done!

  • Byron Chiado||

    If you oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation because of his suspect positions on the 4th Amendment, as do I, then I would love to read what you have to say. Here, you venture to do what has become Reason's MO: say nothing and posture for the left.

    How can a libertarian of any shade engage in indulging this variety of accusation? Whether it's the state or the culture that organizes the lynching, this is a tool that can be used by any woman at any time to sick the mob on any man they resent or oppose for any reason. There is no other crime for which any libertarian-ish person would accept this kind of accusation.

    I oppose the arbitrary authority of the state because I don't differentiate between the state's initiation of violence against its subjects and a mafia clan's violence against civilians in a region it controls. One of the oldest tricks in the mafia book is to act as a "justice" resource for aggrieved spouses. The symbiotic relationship that evolved was one of dependence on both sides, by wives depending on the mob for superior force against their husbands and by the mob depending on the support of the people who depend on their services. Once that dynamic was set in place, this became a weapon for any viscous person who happened to be a woman against any sap that happened to be a man.

  • Byron Chiado||

    The libertarian position is rooted in the belief that favors to preferred producers or interest groups by an organization that holds a monopoly on the initiation of legitimate force are unethical.

    These accusations are impossible to verify, and whether it's the state or the cultural mob that prosecutes their targets, the result is a collective bullying of an individual that can't possibly be justified by any definition of due process or common law.

    In this circumstance the question is entirely public and legal: should there be a legal ramification of a 35-year old unsubstantiated accusation of misconduct? My answer in every circumstance is no. Every crime, every scenario, no caveats. Any organization powerful enough to prosecute individuals with such a flimsy justification is authoritarian and derives its standards from something other than the enlightenment tradition that libertarians build on.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Nobody is being prosecuted. The state's authority is not implicated. Kavanaugh's liberty is not in question. What are you ranting about?

  • Cyto||

    Reread his comment. It is perfectly clear and cogent. He's talking about threats to the libertarian ideal of a free society, not just a prosecution by the state with the threat of jail time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Commies on the Left are trying to undermine the American process with nothing but accusations.

    Just like Stalin did. No proof. Just accusations, then show trials, then firing squad or gulag.

  • Byron Chiado||

    I anticipated this lazy comment and spent half of my post addressing it. First, I said that any consistent libertarian should oppose group attacks on individuals that are based on unsubstantiated accusations whether it is the state or culture orchestrating it. I object to the state doing it because it's arbitrary and vicious, I oppose a lynch mob for the same reason.

    Also, like I said, in this circumstance the question is entirely public and legal. If a supreme court candidate's confirmation is in question because of an accusation of a 35-year old crime, we have elevated accusations to the level of convictions. If her accusation has to be considered, then it has to be considered as evidence of the ethical standards of the candidate. In this context, that would pretty much amount to assuming her accusation is true. This is obviously a recipe for politically motivated accusations becoming more common, aside from being against the spirit of the American legal tradition.

    We are actually talking about some who "discovered a repressed memory" during a therapy session. Are you happy with that standard of evidence being applied to you when being considered for any job, loan, insurance policy, etc? When it is a Supreme Court nomination it is an even bigger problem.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "this is a tool that can be used by any woman at any time to sick the mob on any man they resent or oppose for any reason. "

    The fundamental organizing strategy of the modern Left is to attack white men, the primary defenders of liberty in the world. Anything which brings them down is good.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The fundamental organizing strategy of the modern Left is to attack white men, the primary defenders of liberty in the world.

    Would these be the white men who created the modern welfare state?

    How about the white men who created the Soviet gulags?

    Or the white men who colonized and plundered half the world from their thrones in Europe?

    And people wonder why I am hard on Team Red. It's because Team Red is full of idiots like you.

    Not only do they portray "the modern Left" as some caricature of evil, they can't even get their facts straight.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Odd that you don't mention that a majority of those acts were done by team blue and its international cohorts and the third was an equal opportunity event. You only mention team red.

    Ooo! Do the "that's not REAL socialism" one to prove how unfairly team red is being to those gentle team blue souls who only shut their opponents up for their own good.

    What a clown.

  • buybuydandavis||

    To say that white men are the primary defenders of liberty in the world is not to say that *all* white men are.

    What freedom the world has was created and protected by the white men of the Anglosphere.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "is not without supporting evidence"

    There is no supporting evidence. Zippo. Nada.

    There is she said, he said, and he said, decades after the fact.

    To take a wholly unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable allegation which only surfaced in a political process as in any way relevant to the outcome of that process is to invite an endless ocean of them.

    An accusation made at the time of the events would mean something. An accusation that only surfaces when it can be used as a political weapon means next to nothing.

    I will not be surprised in the least if another accusation appears out of nowhere. And not be deterred in my judgment if the new accusation is similarly entirely unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable.

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • loki||

    #fuckyoursilly#andproducesomeactualevidence

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It does not appear that Ford simply invented this accusation out of nowhere; in 2012 she told her therapist about being the victim of sexual assault, and she provided notes from the therapy sessions to The Washington Post. However, she did not name Kavanaugh when she spoke about the matter with her therapist, and it is true that memory can play funny tricks on everyone."

    The *accusation against Kavanaugh* was in fact invented out of nowhere.

    It is also true that since we live in the age where victims are routinely made into saint heroes, she has much to gain personally from this accusation beyond the satisfaction of her political preferences and desire for fame and power.

  • Rob Misek||

    Were we all asleep when we lost due process?

  • Rob Misek||

    Since she brought it up, do we get to see all her psychiatrists notes, or just what she cherry picks?

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Jeff77042||

    Mine is the ~429th comment and I'm sure I have nothing original or profound to add. It's she-said-he-said. Why did she wait 36 freakin' years?? My vote is confirm him. And firmly convey the message that the *next* time someone comes into possession of information that might disqualify a candidate they need to make it available asap, so that it can be properly vetted, not three months later. If he's not confirmed then this tactic will be used again and again.

    What if the incident happened exactly as she described? How relevant is it? I'm 59. I very much wanted to be blessed with a daughter but was not. I have two sons ages 29 & 31 who have turned out well. I sincerely believe that, like me, at no time in their lives were my sons capable of or inclined to forcefully rape someone, even if under the influence of alcohol. All three of us understand that "no means no." But I also know that in my impetuous youth I engaged in some shenanigans that my parents, RIP, never knew about and my sons probably did too. The human brain doesn't finish developing until the mid-to-late twenties. There's a difference between poor judgment at 17 versus 27 or even 21. I am in no way trying to suggest that bad behavior at 17 isn't serious or should be excused. But deal with it when it happens and before the statute of limitations has expired, not decades later.

  • Cyto||

    I totally agree with this take.

    I suppose there's a segment that can't understand why this situation would get a bunch of guys who don't have a dog in that fight all riled up. Well, the reason is that we do have a dog in that fight.

    I don't know anything about this guy beyond press reports, I don't support Trump at all, I'm not on team Red.... so why would I critique an article like this?

    Because that could be me. Like Obama's mythical skittles eating son, I personally identify with this case. You have what is by all reports an over-the-top boy scout of a man, respected in the community, devoted to his family, volunteers his time with youth and a top professional in his field.

    And one person comes forward with a decades old, unprovable and undefendable allegation about something that isn't even relevant to anything if it were true... and half the country starts pretending like he's a pariah and shouldn't have a job.

    Forgetting this job interview... now what happens when he goes to volunteer with his daughter's soccer team? He probably doesn't, because he's going to be subject to suspicion and possibly even spurious allegations.

    This kind of slander is evil, and it is something that guys like me react viscerally to. Because we know how people are about this sort of thing. You can't unring this bell. And this is the sort of thing that people are afraid to stand up against - lest you be branded as a rapist yourself.

  • Tony||

    Maybe he shouldn't have attempted to rape someone if he didn't want his good name soiled.

    You don't think he laid the coach shit on a bit thick? Guy's a psychopath. You can see it in his eyes.

  • Cyto||

    Funny... but way, way to close to reality.

    In the "little rascals preschool" case back in the child abuse panic era, a jury actually brought in a Redbook magazine with an article about pedophiles. They relied on the "tells" from the article to conclude that the accused must be guilty - because of how he looked according to a women's magazine article.

    In that case, the jurors agreed that they did not believe any of the individual accusations against the defendant - calling most of them ridiculous and unbelievable - but voted to convict anyway "to protect the children".

    Your parody was funny, but that is actually how people think. Which is one reason to be a libertarian.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    You're a fucking idiot. We can see it in your words.

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Jeff77042||

    Cyto, thank you for commenting.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Hyperpartisan political theater of misery and gnashing of teeth. Is this a "by any means necessary" approach at derailing Kavanaugh? Only a woman-hating, bible-thumping Christianofascist white male Nazi would be so cynical about this Victim's brave struggle to bring her attacker - nay, her oppressor, to justice! Her accusation helps Our Struggle to crush the white cis-male oppressors. It is a weapon to prevent the appointment of an evil mysoginist to the highest court! Viva la Revolucion!

  • Abu Nudnik||

    Absurd. It's a story. It's Anita Hill without the slightest evidence.

  • lap83||

    It's such a weird coincidence when Democrats find obscure accusers for people they dislike, at the last minute, saying things that just happen to fit with the narrative (i.e. war on women). They must be psychic or something

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I kind of hope this tactic escalates into all out war and the fear of mutually assured destruction goes out the window.

    I can't imagine there are even 10% of the power hungry weasels that infest the federal government that don't have horrendous events buried in their past.

    It won't though - if there is one thing governments hold sacred, it's preserving their perks.

  • Jerry B.||

    Democrats will be absolutely sure this accusation is true, just like they were about the "A Rape on Campus" story in Rolling Stone.

  • No Longer Amused||

    It's total crap and a cheap shot. None of it should be taken seriously.

  • MaleMatters||

    "As I've repeatedly written, the fourth-wave feminist claim that we should always believe all alleged victims of sexual assault is wrongheaded."

    Here's why it's wrongheaded, as I said on Robby's Twitter page:

    There are as many unscrupulous women as unscrupulous men. When an accusation can't be proven wrong, it is, of course, easy to make, esp. if you are an unscrupulous political person.

    On unscrupulous women and toxic femininity, see:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

  • posmoo||

    "It is an accusation of attempted rape, supported by some circumstantial evidence, and is potentially disqualifying"

    the description, even if 100% accurate, doesn't describe attempted rape. you couldn't get out 3 sentences without monumentally fucking something up, roabby, you dimwitt.

    how you could possibly walk around earth convinced, a) that you deserve a platform to speak on 'criminal justice reform', and b) that trying to taking someone's clothes off without consent is rape defies description

    "attempted to remove her clothes, and put his hand over her mouth to stop anyone from hearing her screams, she alleged. Eventually, Judge intervened by jumping on top of the pair."

    why don't you go to the local tier 3 law school and audit a criminal law class before you write anymore on this subject that most other people can pick up through osmosis just by living in society.

  • Cyto||

    Also "supported by some circumstantial evidence" is a flat no.

    "Kavanaugh's friend was an admitted blackout drunk as a young man" is not circumstantial evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapist. That is stupid enough to deserve a strong rebuke. A teenager who drinks and then throws up in the car is not atypical. That would be bog standard first time drinker behavior. Teens are really crappy drinkers, that's why people are always puking at high school and college drinking parties, but rarely do so when a bunch of 38 year old men get together and drink and watch football.

    "He drank as a teen" a few decades ago is not circumstantial evidence that he's a rapist. At best you could say it makes the idea that he would have been at a party plausible.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Anyone who supports the morally and intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party is a complete idiot. This is so obviously fabricated. Utterly vile politicians who would destroy a good man because their crappy candidates and ideas can't win elections.

  • Hank Phillips||

    True dat, and the same goes for anyone supporting the murderous, warmongering, Dixie-cup pissing, asset-forfeiture looting, economy-destroying Gee Oh Pee! I am absolutely amused!

  • Cyto||

    this is the weaponization of #MeToo for partisan political purposes. I'm not naive, I see that. On the other hand, Republicans were taking advantage of political opportunity as well: the opportunity to find a replacement for Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy before the midterm elections.

    In the blizzard of logical fallacies that is this article, it is fitting that you put this whopper as the stinger. This is a classic false equivalence fallacy.

    The democrats are being completely disingenuous here - you'd have to be naive not to see it. This is not an honest opposition to a nomination.

    The republicans are not taking advantage of an opportunity for partisan political purposes. They are fulfilling their normal role in filling a vacancy in the supreme court.

    These two things are not the same thing at all. They are not remotely similar. The only way you could draw an equivalence here would be if the Republicans had blackmailed Kennedy into resigning.

    Lazy and fuzzy-headed logic leads to lazy and fuzzy-headed writing.

  • swood1000||

    This is not an honest opposition to a nomination.

    Assuming that the Democrats did not manufacture this entire issue, is it automatically dishonest for them to hold onto this kind of thing and spring it at the last minute? By doing so, they have forced the time to be spent on this matter to be added on at the end, thus delaying confirmation, which is their goal. If they had raised the issue in July we would have had the same questions as we have now, but they could have been multitasked along with other questions. The Democrats want to reopen the hearings and have an investigation that takes many months. Is it really dishonest the way they went about it? Would there be no dishonesty if they had raised it in July? Why?

  • Cyto||

    Nobody is opposed to hiring a 57 year old CFO with a record of 3 successful initial public offerings on his resume because he was caught shoplifting when he was in high school.

    Nobody is going to decline to hire a TV news anchor for a national network broadcast who has 30 years of top-flight service and an impeccable reputation because he was suspended from high school for cheating on his English term paper.

    So even if 100% true and 100% embellished (which would be impossible), what have you learned that is germane? Nothing. It is a dishonest smear tactic.

    Worse, it views this person as simple collateral damage. None of them have any interest in him one way or the other. They just want to "win"..

    It is all dishonest. Any one of them who claims they are seriously concerned about this sort of allegation from high school is a liar. Whether they are lying to themselves, or simply lying to everyone else is an open question. But nobody really honestly believes that this is a determining factor for a job interview 35 years later. Not even if it is a super-important job.

    So yes, this entire strategy is dishonest.

  • Cyto||

    100% unimbellished. Thanks spell-check.

  • swood1000||

    If Kavanaugh did this then he did it to others as well and at least one of them will come out. Maybe somebody ought to inquire into those girls who knew him but declined to sign the statement attesting to his rectitude. If nobody else comes out, then maybe Christine Ford's reaction at the time went beyond how an average person would have interpreted it – boorish, drunken roughhousing but not attempted rape.

    If the Republicans lose control of the Senate in November then they have until January 3, 2019 to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. So I would expect the Republicans, if they are not going to withdraw Kavanaugh, to push for a vote as soon as possible. If Kavanaugh is voted down by October 1 then this still leaves them 90 days to nominate and confirm somebody else. Kagan took 87 days, Gorsuch 66, Alito 82.

    If Kavanaugh is confirmed then he may join Thomas's implacable hatred of the Democrats, in which case their decision not to report this allegation back in July but to wait until the last minute and then use character assassination will not look like a shrewd choice.

  • Dooley Stetson||

    I had concerns about Kavanaugh doing the right-to-left shift that too many SC justices have done. If he gets confirmed—and he should because of if not despite this slander—I no longer harbor that fear. He, like Justice Thomas, will have such a personal clarity of the sheer evil of the left that any compromise for him will not be possible.

  • Plow Horse||

    In short, drunk teenage boy makes clumsy pass at drunk teenage girl. Third drunk teenager breaks it up before anything of substance happens. Oh, the humanity!

  • CDRSchafer||

    If that even happened. Which is didn't.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    "Note that this allegation—as we understand it thus far—isn't akin to the typical campus Title IX case I cover for Reason. These often involve drunkenness on the part of both parties, and an encounter that started out consensual and then turned into something else. Ford, on the other hand, has claimed she was essentially jumped, and never gave Kavanaugh any reason whatsoever to believe he had license to initiate something. This alone makes the allegation much more serious. While it's tempting to say that a person's bad behavior in high school should not be held against them—or else we're about to disqualify a whole lot more people from ever serving in public office—what is alleged here is extremely heinous."

    1. This is different because.. reasons. And Robby says so.
    2. Now we know how to get Ribby to believe anything. Just say YOU weren't drunk in a house full of drunks. Instant believeability.
    3. It's the seriousness of the charges, right, Robby?
    4. The lack of details or any corroborating witnesses SUPPORT the tale?!!?!? Fuck off, you moron. If you don't see the ludicrousness of your own position there, you're beyond help.

  • Robert Crim||

    Huh? The woman acknowledges that she was drinking beer and that one reason she kept quiet was that she did not want her parents to learn she had been at a party spiced with alcohol.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Only progressive Marixst POS Democrats could come up with something this Kafkaesque. Way to ruin a good man and his family, Democrats! Well done you evil assholes.

  • Hank Phillips||

    No more ruining than sending the SWAT team in guns blazing for a lid of grass. Initiation of force brings retaliation. Deal with it!

  • CDRSchafer||

    I don't remember the Democrats ending the war on drugs when they held the White House and Congress. Did they?

  • CDRSchafer||

    If this crap allegation stands, then it sets a precedent of unproven, evidence free, three decades old allegations torpedoing any nomination to any public office.

    Good luck getting anyone of any intellect whatsoever to aspire to public office. We'll get what the Democrats want, mediocre ideologues.

  • nooneuno||

    How convenient that she doesn't know the date or the location, making it impossible for him to even attempt to construct a defense.

  • CDRSchafer||

    She provided just the amount of detail to slander his reputation for life, but not enough for him to ever have the ability to prove her wrong. So no matter what happens, she's sentenced him to life as an accused rapist. And by extension, his family including his young daughters. She's a vile POS but of course a hero to the Jacobin Marxists in the Democratic Party.

  • Truthteller1||

    No robby there is no compelling reason to investigate unsubstantiated, unproveable 36 year old claims about drunken teenager shenanigans. It's absurd actually.

  • Cyto||

    Not only is it unprovable, it is also un-disprovable. There is nothing that Kavanaugh can do or say that moves the needle on this at all. No denial, no character witness, nothing at all would ever prove a negative. Especially not this kind of negative.

    Even if he were to somehow come up with other unnamed people who were at the supposed event who swear on a stack of bibles that it didn't happen, then what? She can just say that it was a different party, or they wouldn't know because it was in private, or they are lying...

    Just look at the standard being applied here... before they even figured out if these two people have ever even been in the same building, they were building a character assassination against his friend, the only other person who is named. When he says it didn't happen and it wouldn't have happened because that's not the kind of person his friend was, he's lying. And he just doesn't remember because he was blackout drunk. Because you can totally tell 35 years later with nothing more than a hunch and a healthy dose of confirmation bias to go on.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Kavanaugh was also caught smoking in the boy's room when he was 15.
    He needs to be eliminated as a SCOTUS nominee for such political incorrectness.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Byron Chiado's take is perfect: "How can a libertarian of any shade engage in indulging this variety of accusation? Whether it's the state or the culture that organizes the lynching, this is a tool that can be used by any woman at any time to sick [sic] the mob on any man they resent or oppose for any reason. There is no other crime for which any libertarian-ish person would accept this kind of accusation."

  • Incredulous||

    After reading such an annoyingly stupid article, it is encouraging to read all the much more intelligent comments.

    Any libertarian, indeed anyone with basic decency and an ounce of reason, would not give any credibility to this type of unproveable accusation. And that's without the obvious political motivations for such an allegation at this time, based on a decades old alleged incident, against a SCOTUS nominee about to be confirmed.

    It's a prime example of why we allow libel lawsuits.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I was voting LP before Clarence Thomas admitted to reading Atlas Shrugged, and was not surprised at the ambush and circus that followed. But then... I never expected the truth from force-initiating looters and mystics any more than I take sides when the Calico Cat and Gingham Dog go at it. Is enjoying a Roman Holiday becoming a lost art in hankie-wringing Amerika?

  • librich||

    The moral for teenage girls is simple. Don't go to wild parties where the boys are all drunk. The political takeaway is also simple. If you want to hold public office, make that decision when you're a toddler and watch your step every minute of your life. Don't get drunk, don't "inhale," don't, don't, don't. And if you make a misstep and it surfaces later, lie, lie, lie. Admission of flaws, shame or guilt are unacceptable.

  • ThomasD||

    As if any of that matters when the accusation has no truth.

  • Rob Misek||

    The lesson is, if you want to hold office, don't make enemies of liars.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-dsVHLuRRs

  • CDRSchafer||

    You can do any of that, just be a Democrat. Then the media will cover for you and call your accusers liars.

  • ImanAzol||

    Horseshit.

  • ImanAzol||

    EDITORS: Please stop hiring lying left wing shitheads (pardon the redundancy) to write your content.

  • Freelancelot||

    Amen.

  • styopa||

    Nonsense.

    So essentially you want to set a precedent of derailing any presidential nomination if the opposition can find some tame activist who'll come out of the shadows and make a he-said, she-said assertion (with no filed charges, no ACTUAL investigation, no corroboration) about something that happened decades ago?

    We might as well start an online bidding exchange called www.anonymous-victims.com where people can offer their services to the highest bidder, I mean, it's not like they even have to prove anything, just make the accusation.

    You can't be serious?

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    This isnt even circumstantial evidence, Robby. Its hearsay evidence of circumstantial evidence. I think you might have a care for your own credibility.

  • drisco304||

    Not at all obvious why the public needs to take this nonsense seriously. Unlike the Democrat news media (and even some Reason writers), we actually have retained our BS detectors. What we do take seriously is Democratic Party senators (Schumer, for one) saying they will use every means at their disposal to postpone or sink this nomination, regardless of the merits. Lie, cheat, and steal would seem to explain this latest maneuver. As for Feinstein, she lately has suffered some setbacks at the hands of the California leftist zealots, so this would be good for her as well. Nothing like a Republican scalp to make the mobs go crazy with approval.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Shades of Clarence Thomas! Next thing ya know Kavanaugh will be back after a break showing symptoms of medicinal use of Bolivian plant leaf products. If the Republican Party would drop its insistence on trying to reverse the Libertarian plank =Roe v Wade decision, women would feel less impelled to show that two can play in this shaming game. Bartender, schadenfreude for everyone!

  • Seamus||

    Roe v. Wade should be reversed because the legal reasoning underneath it was basically nonexistent. It amounted to a claim that the Due Process Clause somehow makes those things we think are really, really important have the status of constitutional rights, regardless of what might actually be in the, you know, constitution. It makes the Supreme Court into what concurring Justice William Douglas repeatedly (and mendaciously) denied he wanted it to be, which is a Super-Legislature.

    If you don't want abortion to be illegal, get the states to repeal the anti-abortion laws, or get Congress and the state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion.

  • Rob Misek||

    Initiating murder against an innocent helpless baby is a libertarian plank?

  • Freelancelot||

    Such bullshit writing.

  • Flaco||

    "the accusation itself—while still decidedly unproven—is not without supporting evidence."

    Actually it is without supporting evidence. Kavanaugh and Judge drinking is NOT supporting evidence of the accusation.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Exactly. The evidence is someone's hazy 35 year old memory...hardly what I'd want my career to be judged on...

  • Enemy of the State||

    The Republicans are doing what they have the authority to do. They need not even hold hearings, they can simply nominate and put it to a senate vote.

    A 35 year old he said/she said with no witnesses or evidence is a thin reed to judge anyone for anything, let alone a seat on the SCOTUS...

  • Presskh||

    So, let me get this straight: 37-year old Senator Ted Kennedy drunkenly drives off of a bridge, takes time to nap and scheme his alibi with his handlers while the still-alive girl trapped in the car asphyxiates, and the Dems subsequently anoint him the "Lion of the Senate". Meanwhile, a drunken 17-year old Kavanaugh tries unsuccessfully to get some nookie from a bikini-clad leftist bitch and the Dems judge him unfit to hold any office. Interesting perspective.

  • Seamus||

    Well, in fairness, they believed that Kavanaugh was unfit to hold any office even before this incident was "discovered."

  • BernardBlack||

    I would like to accuse Robby Soave of a misdeed from an incident decades ago. I demand that Robby be placed on unpaid leave until testimony can prove Robby's innocence.

    Furthermore I would like to accuse every single member of congress, the house of rep, the state dept, and Marisa Tomei of sexual misconduct at various times going back 45 years. All of the above must also be forced to testify and give proof of their innocense - with the exception of Ms Tomei who I am willing to settle out of court with.

    An accusation is not evidence. Her testimony is not proof no more than his is. However the difference is we are innocent until proven guilty. Sadly these days all it takes is an accusation.

  • Matt Ross||

    So Reason has decided that innocent until proven guilty is a novel concept in this day and age huh?

    Well on that note, I'd like to drop the bombshell that Diane Feinstein raped me 15 years ago at a high school party, I don't have any actual evidence for this assertion of course but some of Feinstein's associates are notorious alcoholic and that apparently counts as circumstantial evidence by the author's standards. I look forward to Reason's support as I call for a multi million dollar investigation into a high school party at the tax payer's expense.

  • CapitalistRoader||

    Kavanaugh's mom was the judge who ruled against the Fords in their home foreclosure case in '96. I can just imagine the rage Ford has against the Kavanaughs, throwing her parents out of her childhood home. Heck, she may have been living at home at the time. She was less than 30-years-old and going to school.

    Revenge is a dish best served cold.

  • ThomasD||

    Since we have moved into the realm of punishing people well passed any time when they should have been punished I'd like to propose that we dig up Ted Kennedy's bones and feed them to dingoes in the outback.

  • Laird||

    No, she doesn't. She can't remember the year, the house, how she got there or how she left, but she can remember Kavanaugh's name? Not buying it. Anyhow, even if everything she said were true it would not be disqualifying.

  • julia jumado||

    Several aspects of this are giving me trouble with her story. First, it appears that her story, the letter she wrote, taking the polygraph, etc. and the timing of all these events is being orchestrated by outside parties (the Dems you think?), to achieve maximum obstructionist/political advantage regardless of the eventual outcome of Kavanaugh's nomination. Secondly, the story is so full of hard to believe hyperbole ("I was afraid for my life") that it makes you wonder what the original encounter, if it existed at all, actually was.

  • Cloudbuster||

    No, this is all such bullshit. If it was worth doing anything about, that should have happened 30 years ago. We all know why these things get thrown out at confirmation hearings: to derail the confirmations of qualified candidates. That's the only reason we're discussing this now. It has zero effect on my opinion regarding Kavanaugh's qualifications.

  • ThanksForTheFish||

    "the public needs to take this accusation seriously."

    Why?

  • vek||

    This story reeks of BS. The timing is too ridiculous. The story is too ridiculous. How many kids ever decide to OUTRIGHT rape somebody? Not drunk sex where both are down kind of rape, REAL forced rape as she claims. Not many. Especially not smart people, which K certainly is. How many people that DO decide to rape people, bring their friends along for the ride? Again, not a friggin' lot. Especially not smart people. If she was so freaked out, which of her friends did she tell in the 80s? NO high school girl wouldn't mention this to her best friends. So where are her 5 besties who ALL remember being told about this back then? With a name that they remember. This is a hatchet job, and a horrible worn out one at this point.

    Honestly, at this point I really don't even care if it's true. I don't believe it, but even if it is I say fuck it. The Dems need to lose the ability to just make shit up whenever they want to get their way. He obviously didn't go on to rape 30 other people, so even if he slipped up and did some hyper aggressive flirting nearly 4 decades ago, I say let it go.

    This is the problem when people cry wolf too much, and get caught making shit up... I now simply don't have the mental wherewithal to give a fuck about this, even if it is true, when I probably should.

  • ManBearPig||

    It is time to hold the Dems to this mythical ideal that they expect of everyone but themselves.

  • Nuwanda||

    But we shouldn't automatically disbelieve victims, either.

    Jesus, is this writer paying Reason, or have standards simply fallen so low?

  • Rob Misek||

    A judge being denied due process.

    That should remove any lingering doubt that we are in the new dark ages.

  • Robert Crim||

    When a California professor comes forward with a decades-old tale like this while being shepherded by some bull-dyke lawyer from the Berkeley Left, I doubt we are looking at a reincarnation of Ayn Rand. If Republicans are smart, they will tear this woman's life apart and discover every political statement she's ever made, every candidate she's ever given money to, and every politician she's ever supported -- ever -- and they also will grill her on whom she supported in the 2016 presidential election and every other election in the last 40 years, viz.:

    Q. WHEN did you say this incident occurred?

    Q. And that was HOW many decades ago?

    Q. And you never bothered to tell anyone in all the intervening time?

    Q. Whom did you vote for in 2016?

    Q. And, have you ever given any money to a political candidate?

    Q. Which candidates were they?

    Q. What kind of conversations have you had at the university concerning President Trump?

    Q. Are you aware that some of the more extremist elements of the Democrat party have been trying to impeach him?

    Q. Have you ever offered any of your colleagues an opinion on whether this effort on the part of the likes of Maxine Waters and others should succeed?

    &c., &c., all the while exposing the demodonkeys' Hermann Goering tactics so that the public will see them as willing to do or say anything to grab and keep power.

    If they do that, my guess is that this won't be much of a contest.

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Rob Misek||

    Every question is moot except in an environment where lying is a crime.

    Were making an allegation absent of verifiable evidence, considered a lie = a crime outside of court, not only would people avoid he said she said situations, they would refrain from them.

    People would demand the human right amendment to have the voluntary right to record what they witness everywhere they go.

  • TommyD2000||

    Ford said she went to a party at a house whose owner and location she doesn't know. She said it was the first time she hung out with the boys there because her school usually hung out with a different boy's school. Yet she not only remembers the first name of two strangers, but also their last names. I'm surprised they introduced themselves with their last names at all. It's possible this is all true and not a case of mistaken identity, but it appears odd to me.

  • ManBearPig||

    There is not a scintilla of evidence that Kavanaugh actually attempted to assault this woman. The Dems know that, but they will do anything and everything to destroy the character of Kavanaugh. They will smear him because they see him as one who might help put a stop their craven desire to kill the unborn...

  • Seamus||

    Oh, there's evidence: The uncorroborated testimony of a SJW academic whose ideology demands that any Trump nominee be stopped by any means necessary.

    If Kavanaugh goes down and Trump nominates Amy Barrett, I'm betting some wymyns studies professor who went to school with her comes forward to say that, in college, Barrett was "questioning" about her sexuality and come on to the professor when they were both a little too drunk. And the Dems will keep working out of that playbook as long as it succeed--or until it starts getting used on them.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I don't take it a bit seriously other than it's a conspiracy by the Democratic Party to use a liar to slander a good man.

  • CDRSchafer||

    What does an accusation like this have to do with liberty or being a libertarian?

    Nothing. There's less substance to this than a bag of cotton candy. This reveals who the Democrats are - authoritarian, evil thugs. They've taken 1984 to another level, and this joke of a publication wants us to take them seriously.

  • CDRSchafer||

    What does an accusation like this have to do with liberty or being a libertarian?

    Nothing. There's less substance to this than a bag of cotton candy. This reveals who the Democrats are - authoritarian, evil thugs. They've taken 1984 to another level, and this joke of a publication wants us to take them seriously.

  • Smokert5555||

    How can the "allegation" be taken seriously at this time? We don't know when this happened, we don't know where this happened, there are no corroborating witnesses, the two people who were said to be there deny it happened. The woman didn't tell anybody about it for over 30 years. We only have part of a maybe story. No prosecutor would pursue this because there's no evidence this happened. What's the point of this "story" coming out now?

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • ChattaJim||

    Brett Kavanaugh probably has more personal integrity than any of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee, certainly more than Dianne Feinstein who sat on this accusation for six months. She should be censured by the Senate for what she has done. Given that there is zero evidence of any misconduct and given that it allegedly happened 35 years ago when Judge Kavanaugh was in high school, the Republicans on the committee need to show some backbone and send Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the full Senate for an up or down vote.

    Also, the virtual signaling by so many people, including the author of this article is absolutely nauseating. This whole thing is simply a naked political tactic. Nothing more. Get a grip!

  • Two Buck Chuck||

    Reason magazine indulging accusations without proof. Never thought I'd see the day.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Imagine a world where anyone can accuse anyone of anything that happened 35 years ago in high school with zero evidence or witnesses...

  • Robert Crim||

    This just in: Christine Blasey Ford is a past financial contributor to Sen. Bernie Sanders. She has made other contributions as well, mostly small considering her probable pay as a university professor, but all of them to groups like ActBlue, which raises money for the Democrats.

    She also has appeared at rallies supporting liberal "feminist" causes and protesting opposition to climate change as well as cutting of federal funding to science research.

  • Norm A Tive||

    "Republicans were taking advantage of political opportunity as well: the opportunity to find a replacement for Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy before the midterm elections."

    Either that or the next Supreme Court session begins 10/1, and it's currently down a judge. But calendars and keeping a schedule are for oldsters, amirite?

  • Norm A Tive||

    Spend a moment considering the sheer amount of money and effort wasted with those 4-4's while the Repubs played their own Hunger Games with Garland.

  • KKCE967||

    First, I am a woman. That said, I have problems with her story. In no way do I take assault or rape lightly. I guess I can say me too as I was a victim of an assault when I was 17 in 1985 and when Robby stated that her dimmed memory made her more credible, I vehemently shook my head. I remember a lot of specific details and it amazes me how many. I remember the year, the place, the time, the month, that it was a Sunday, the person, what he wore, what I wore, that the moon was bright and was either full or close to it. I remember how I got there and how I got home. If this assault made as big of an impact on her life that it caused PTSD symptoms and she can't remember at the very least, the YEAR, this is a problem for me. Bill Cosby's accusers remembered details. Weinstein's accusers remembered details. Never mind that the logistics of the allegations make no sense to me.. It's pretty hard to pull down a one piece swimsuit when the victims arms are free and she was wearing a top over it. But she deserves to be heard and I can only hope that this individual doesn't have a political agenda bold enough to end a mans livelihood and career with unproveable accusations.

  • Rob Misek||

    Excellent.

    Perhaps you can help us all understand the mindset that experiences corruption more than 30 years previous, takes no action on it for all these years, and then decides it's appropriate to address now after everyone has grown, matured and moved on.

    I made lots of mistakes in my youth, as did others who hurt me. I own and learn from my actions and inaction. I don't blame others now for my inaction then.

  • ThomasD||

    Her lawyer (presumably someone who understands the difference between state and Federal law, and the concept of jurisdiction) is insisting on an FBI investigation before her client will speak to the Senate.

    I'd also add that no formal complaint has been filed with the proper jurisdiction either.

    At this point she no longer deserves to be heard.

  • Luxferia||

    As another woman, I completely agree with this. So many simple details about the story are missing, and those that we do know are—in addition to evolving over time—utterly implausible.

  • vek||

    First off, I'm very sorry that you had an incident in your past... That said, that was one of the things that jumped out at me. If this is supposedly a major, traumatic event in your life... Why would you forget basically everything about it?

    IMO, at best, this was an incident that probably happened in a way less severe version than she is pedaling now, (like maybe he tried kissing her while lifting up a shirt, and then gave up immediately if she wasn't into it) that she didn't even think or care much about at the time. If she had there's no way she wouldn't have mentioned it to friends, etc at the time. And it's unlikely she would have forgot 99% of the details.

  • yawbus||

    She must have been incredibly drunk not to remember exactly the year it happened, how she got to the house where this allegedly happened, whose house it was when allegedly happened, and how she got home. But we must believe everything she says. OK.

  • D.E. Plorable||

    metoo is the new judge and jury. There is no longer a presumption of innocence or burden of proof. This is awesome because of all the court and legal fees that will be saved. Also, there's absolutely no ramification for false or erroneous accusations and the accuser may not be doubted or questioned. Unfortunately there's no way to weaponized this against those nasty deplorables.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online