MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Senate Needs to Hear Out Kavanaugh's Accuser

A fast-moving, public airing of the claims against Kavanaugh would serve the public interest—and could help restore trust in a battered institution.

Late-breaking, detailed, and public charges of an alleged attempted sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh may well derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court. But they also give the Senate, a legislative body that inspires little trust and confidence among American voters, a chance to start rehabilitating its image.

This current controversy underscores the problems when major institutions in public life—political parties, the media outlets they influence, Congress, the White House—are so irredeemably polarized. Even under high-trust conditions, accusations like this one would set off fires. But especially given where we are, all information is suspect and paranoia flourishes. Even the "winning" side of a conflict typically walks away with a longer set of grievances than it showed up with.

In a case such as this one—where decades have intervened since the alleged incident, where the accuser acknowledges imprecision in her recall of events, where the accused flatly denies the charge, and where all sides perceive the stakes as gargantuan—has the potential to drive confidence and trust in politics (and the media) even lower than it already is.

Which is plenty low. Pollsters agree that the long-term trend is for voters to have less and less trust and confidence in government writ large. In 1964, Pew reports, 77 percent of Americans agreed that the government would do "what's right" all or most of the time. By 2017, that figure was just 18 percent. That general decline in trust is seen across party affiliations, genders, and generations. It is broad-based and ongoing, with only modest and short-lived upticks. According to a Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted in September, just 6 percent of likely voters "strongly approve" of the job Congress is doing, while another 16 percent "somewhat approve." An Economist/YouGov poll from the same period found even lower numbers, with just 3 percent strongly approving of Congress and another 10 percent somewhat approving.

The Republicans control the process, so it is really up to them to rise to the occasion. First and foremost, the leadership should publicly state whether they think the charges if proven would disqualify Kavanaugh from further consideration. If they do, then the job of the Senate is to do their best to figure out what actually happened (no easy task, to be sure). The Senate leadership would do well in following the counsel of three senators from their own party—Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Arizona's Jeff Flake, and Tennessee's Bob Corker—to delay the confirmation until they hear from the accuser, a research psychologist who lives in California. Ideally, any testimony and questioning would be public, to minimize concerns that things are being twisted or truncated.

From a strictly procedural and a broader institutional viewpoint, there is plenty of blame to go around. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, had the letter since July but refused even to share it with her party colleagues as recently as September 12. Feinstein said much of her concern stemmed from a request by the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, to remain anonymous and out of the spotlight. But then how did the letter come to light, first in a whisper campaign and then in detail-starved stories in places such as The Intercept and The New Yorker? You don't have to believe the withholding of thousands of documents from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White was "a constitutional crisis" to recognize that Republicans have hardly been on the up-and-up throughout this nomination process. Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) grandstanding and calling for the cancellation of the confirmation hearings as they began and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) calling himself Spartacus and play-acting at "civil disobedience" contributed to hearings that were, in the words of Reason court-watcher Damon Root, "a circus."

The Senate Majority Leader, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, is widely understood to be one of the most purely Machiavellian members of Congress, which doesn't inspire trust or confidence. (In this, he is not much different than his mendacious Democratic predecessor, Harry Reid.) Upon Barack Obama's election, McConnell stated that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," which may have been honest, but is deeply troubling if you believe in anything more than the crassest form of tribal political warfare. In 2015, fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) called McConnell a liar:

We know now that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false. That has consequences for how this body operates.

All of this helps explain why Congress is held in such contempt. The people representing us are given to procedural obfuscations, partisan trickery, outright lying, and worse. Even from a libertarian perspective, it's not good when Congress' trust numbers languish in the low single digits. But those numbers stem directly from how Congress conducts itself, including an unwillingess to take any responsbility for what it does (or doesn't do). Voters have every right to be cynical, and the only thing we can blamed for is putting up with such routinely awful behavior in the pursuit of political gains. President George W. Bush famously inveighed against the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Most of us as voters are probably guilty of the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes our elected officials. We expect the worst, so how surprised should we be when they get re-elected every time? We know where this sort of resignation leads: massive debt, massive spending, unchecked state powers, hyper-polarization, and more.

We need to demand better from the group that Mark Twain dubbed America's only native criminal class. If the Senate wants to command citizens' respect again, the next step in the Kavanaugh hearings is the perfect opportunity to put politics aside for a brief moment and rise to the level of its self-aggrandizing claim that it's the "world's greatest deliberative body."

Photo Credit: Alex Edelman/CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/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.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Corporations and businesses only seek short-term profit, at the expense of the long term.

    That's why we need government: they never make short-term political decisions that fuck everything up.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    ROTFLMAO

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    IB is the punk rock version of OBL.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I don't give a damn what she has to say. The time to bring this up was during the hearings. The hearings are over.

  • JWatts||

    The time to bring this up was decades ago. He's been a prominent judge for decades. Bringing up a charge of sexual assault from when he was in high school 30+ years ago at this point in time is highly suspicious.

  • Ron||

    Was it attempted rape or a typical teenage game of baseball and what teenage male in history was not rebuffed at least once for trying to get to the next base. Everyone in the History of mankind is guilty of that.

  • The Last American Hero||

    You talk as though there is a difference in the era of #MeToo.

    We've had women like mattress girl deciding buyer's remorse is rape and being feted for it. This does a tremendous disservice to actual rape victims since the volume of BS claims will now cast suspicion on all accusers.

  • Ron||

    there was one feminist I can't remember her name but wasn't she claiming that all sex was rape. this is what that gets us every male is guilty of rape

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I've seen the comment from a number of different feminist activists that all heterosexual sex is rape.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    In her case, all sex would be rape because no one would consent to fucking her vagina!

  • ||

    Was it Andrea Dworkin?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I think she has made this argument, and Catherine MacKinnon as well.

  • juris imprudent||

    what teenage male in history

    And the very next comment is from precisely that male, Tony.

  • Fmontyr||

    So you believe, don't you, that the young people sexually assaulted by Priests 30 years ago should just shut the fuck up and live with their molestation thoughts and fears.

  • zazoo||

    No, but I believe the sooner they speak out the stronger their credibility.

  • Incredulous||

    Exactly

  • Tony||

    And as the constitution says, thou shalt not delay a supreme court nomination for any reason, unless he's appointed by a Democrat, then you can wait for a whole fucking year and never even give him a meeting.

  • JesseAz||

    God you're fucking stupid. Constitution requires consent of the Congress. It doesn't require hearings at all. Garland didn't gain consent. Fucking go back and slap your middle school teachers for failing you.

  • Tony||

    But Garland didn't try to rape anyone that we know of.

  • JesseAz||

    I'll make the accusation. Random day in the late 80s he tried raping my dog against his will.

    There. Now Garland is disqualified too.

  • Tony||

    We must withdraw his nomination immediately!

  • JesseAz||

    So you really don't understand the damage of non verifiable accusations from political activists. I'll revert to my original assertion. You're a fucking idiot.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Is that really a surprise?

  • Tony||

    I don't understand why anyone's entitled to a supreme court seat.

  • JesseAz||

    Who is claiming entitlement other than you and Garland dumbass?

  • ||

    He's not an idiot. He is one of the Reason interns. One of his duties is to prevent H&R from becoming an echo chamber.

    No one can consistently be so obnoxious or as vapid as Tony pretends to be.

  • Dooley Stetson||

    I disagree. If the point were to prevent an echo chamber, I think they would be able to come up with more intellectual and intellectually honest arguments. Tony really is that stupid, which leads me to believe that "Tony" is just one of Robby Soave's pseudonyms.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Now do Keith Ellison.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, its been withdrawn for a couple years now.

  • Just Say'n||

    If he were a Republican there would have been a made-up story about him too.

    Hey, why hasn't Reason ever discussed the credible accusations against Keith Ellison? Oh yeah, Reason is a conservative publication that is obsessed with echoing the status quo.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    They did a piece on it a while ago and then promptly forgot about it. You don't think the writers will be able to move on to Vox/Wapo/NYT if they cost a Dem an election, do you?

    Quibbling over the minimum wage is one thing, but seriously questioning the enlightened ones is beyond the pale.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    As if we needed further proof that you were illiterate.

  • El Oso||

    Gosh, Tony, I think that it is about time that you grew up.

  • Tony||

    I think it's time America grew up.

    Nobody's buying the flag-humping race-baiting rapey bullshit anymore. Republicans have had to cheat to win for a long time now. You and I should both pray that their ability to do so diminishes soon.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "Republicans have had to cheat to win for a long time now. "

    You admitted you do the same, so save the bullshit Tony, you just don't want to lose again, but you can't stop it

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We are growing up Tony. Trump was elected and is rolling back all that childish Socialist bullshit you Lefties push.

  • Tony||

    He couldn't even repeal Obamacare with Republican majorities in both houses. LOL.

  • JesseAz||

    Repeal takes more than a majority. Slap your middle school teachers for letting such a failure advance.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    Jesus Christ, Jesse, stop kicking Tony, he's stupid, he can't help it.

  • JesseAz||

    I just really want to his middle school teachers held in contempt for their complete failure.

  • Tony||

    Passing it didn't take more than a majority, so why would repealing it?

  • JesseAz||

    The electoral college... Is cheating. Tony. Honestly. Go slap your middle school teachers.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    "The system is broken" is lefty code for "we're not getting our way."

    If progressives make an allegation against someone, it is projection, more often than not. See, e.g., collusion with Russia, refusing to accept election results, constant charges of racism.

  • ThomasD||

    "...as the constitution says, thou shalt not..."

    Going all Biblical with a Constitution 'quote.'

    Psychologically telling, to say the least.

  • ThomasD||

    The accuser sat on this.

    The WaPo sat on this.

    DiFi sat on this.

    And NOW Pleather Jacket thinks it's time to talk about it.

    LOL.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    It is a common misconception that TDS only afflicts Democrats.

    True, Democrats are most susceptible to TDS, but it can afflict people of all political persuasions. In fact, the symptoms of TDS are most pronounced when this mental illness presents in people whose politics are libertarian or conservative.

    Gillespie is obviously afflicted with TDS. His position on this matter has virtually nothing to do with Kavanaugh and everything to do with his deranged hatred of Trump.

  • tlapp||

    I agree. The tactics stink to high heaven. An accuser that doesn't remember where this happened, has no witnesses, never told anyone even family or a close friend until at least 30 years later. Then Feinstein gets the info and holds it until the hearings are over.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Actually there is one witness, Mark Judge. He denies that it happened. According to Mother Jones:

    On Friday, Judge told the Weekly Standard that no such incident took place. "It's just absolutely nuts," he said. "I never saw Brett act that way."

  • JonBlack||

    Mark Judge is not a witness. He is only an alleged witness based on the comically dubious claims of someone who has submitted a non-verifiable story.

    Judge was picked for a reason.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    And they don't give a damn what you have to say. Kavanaugh is toast.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That strikes me as pointless. Even if one of the GOP senators has the guts to ask any skeptical questions, he'll get crucified in the press for it. And you know damn well the Dems will insist the allegation is true even if her testimony falls apart.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    How can her testimony fall apart any more? No date other than a year, maybe. No location. No physical evidence. Apparently she complained to a friend in 2012, but if that was as specific as the current specifics, how can one even really connect the two?

    Fall apart? That's like worrying about an X-Ray in Hiroshima on August 7, 1945.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    From what I've read, she was even less specific with the friend in 2012. She didn't tell the friend anything about the identity of her attackers.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    She complained to a therapist. That is, a couples' relationship therapist, likely during a session meant to find out any reason why she didn't like to have sex with her husband anymore besides that she didn't find him sexually attractive: "Oh, you know what? I think I was sexually assaulted during a party at some friend's house back when I was fifteen, I think..."

    The point here is not that her allegation can be disputed or should be but that it is *impossible* to prove. Almost all great men of power have fallen to CONSISTENT and even well-documented cases of harassment and sexual misconduct from credible witnesses. Here we have an ABC Afterschool Special with teenage drinking and partying, with NO corroborating witnesses, no contemporaneous evidence, no sharing with friends or family, no police report, nothing. Only a therapy session, many years later, after details become fuzzy. That's it. And this, we're told, should be enough to bring down a man's reputation into the mud, all because... Trump.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    As soon as you mentioned therapist, it rang alarm bells. They do their damnedest to encourage their "patients" to find any reason at all for just not wanting to do something. Husband not interesting any more? Can't just be that he's boring or old hat. Got to be something in your past. Think hard. Concentrate.

    Paahh. I've known too many people who wasted time in therapy, when it was obvious to all their friends that the therapist was just milking some insurance plan for insurance payments. One guy went to a therapist several times a week for TWO YEARS on disability over a broken heart when he was 60. And he wondered why none of his friends would recommend him for a job.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Apparently what she told her therapist, and what the therapist has written down, also contradicts the current story. Welch posted a link to a decent discussion from David French about it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Thanks. The four vs two doesn't strike me as very damning, but the details are so minimal that I don't believe them. I have memories of specific events -- like remembering how Vice Premier Ky landed on my ship during the evacuation of Saigon -- which are contradicted by video of the actual event. If I don't trust my own memory, even when the video in my head is crystal clear, I'm sure not going to trust any high school drunken party remembrance from 35 years ago.

  • ThomasD||

    "... all because... Trump."

    Reason really should put that on the masthead.

    It would be the most honest thing they've done in about two years.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    This is being tried in the court of public opinion, not a criminal court behind closed doors. Kavanaugh is toast.

  • JesseAz||

    They still defend the Duke lacrosse accuser and the Virginia chick.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Listening to birthers explain the importance of evidence is entertaining.

    Carry on, you bigoted rubes.

  • Just Say'n||

    ^ Conservative protecting the status quo narrative

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's weird that he's suddenly accusing everyone of being Birthers now. Not only is ou old, it's not a thing I even see discussed here much.

    Shoot, he called me a Birther the other day. And I don't even care about that requirement for the presidency.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I get called a "birther" because I thought they should lose in court, in a decision on the merits.

    Everybody who's not in their camp blurs together for the left. All their opponents become one, so they don't really feel the need to distinguish different groups.

  • JesseAz||

    You in Tony in competition again?

  • Keegan Vickers||

    Cool, what does that have to do with anyone here?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Technically the birthers HAD evidence: A bio that said he was born in Kenya. What they were suing in court for was MORE evidence, while Obama's defenders were demanding that the point be decided without that evidence.

    It was relatively easy to figure out that the Birthers were extremely unlikely to be right, but they weren't the ones demanding a conclusion without evidence. They were the ones who wanted the evidence released.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Presidential candidates should have to submit evidence of fulfilling the requirements to be President as a matter of course.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    TRUMP WAS BORN IN RUSSIA!

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I think even most of the most died-in-the-wool leftards gave up on the Duke lacrosse accuser once she got sent to the graybar hotel for murdering her boyfriend, but your general point is right.

  • JesseAz||

    Since when is murder disqualifying to the left? Assata Shakur, che, Castro, Oscar Rivera Lopez....

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The Senate Needs To Hear Out Kavanaugh's Accuser


    Because there's nothing more entertaining on Tee Vee today than watching a public crucifixion.

    Late-breaking, detailed, and public charges of an alleged attempted sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh may well derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court.


    Or, more likely, humiliate a woman in public once the realization becomes obvious that the corroborating evidence is very thin, that the only witness already said it never happened and that the man has character witnesses to choose from and also, that this is not a Clarence Thomas situation with two adults but instead too much ABC Afterschool Special.

  • JesseAz||

    Anita hill was sanctified in the black history museum, not humiliated.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Yep.

    Christine Blasey Ford will be a Heroine of the Left until the end of time. Power over everything, Narrative over reality.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If the ties the accuser's family has to Kavanaugh's family are to be believed, and added to the fact that the accuser herself is an apparent Democratic/progressive activist, any testimony and cross examination of the accuser should at least be entertaining.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This may not derail the Kavanaugh nomination, but it is going to make enlargement of the Court by Democrats in a few years much easier.

    Thanks, Brett!

  • JesseAz||

    Aww rev jumped the shark.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He has been drinking early today.

    Arthur thinks RBG is going to be going strong until the next Democrat president is never elected.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Justice Ginsburg is irrelevant to this point.

    You should know that.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    She's gonna be irrelevant to a lot more points immediately after Kavanaugh is confirmed, that's for sure.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "What's that? We lost. AGAIN? Time to cheat" - The Rev.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Enlarging the Court would not be cheating, you bigoted rube.

    The United States Supreme Court has been enlarged several times.

    The Arizona Supreme Court was enlarged a couple of years ago.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "Stop calling my cheating cheating!!!!" - The Rev.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump should shrink the court, starting with the oldest members.

  • Carlos Inconvenience||

    Nothing says "libertarian principles" like supporting decades-old allegations as disqualifying for holding a job

  • Don't look at me.||

    But, but... Trump!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gillespie is not a Libertarian...so it explains his position on this issue.

  • Zeb||

    He also doesn't seem to be taking a position on the issue, in this post at least.

  • Zeb||

    Unless you mean his position on whether the senate should look into the accusations.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I was going to say.. that does seem to be his position.

    If Gillespie was simply talking about accusations and what the options are, it would be a different story.

  • JesseAz||

    Askingfor delays for a hearing is taking a position.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Of course he believes her just like you do, and doesn't want Kavanaugh toi be confirmed, just like you don't.

  • Just Say'n||

    "He also doesn't seem to be taking a position on the issue, in this post at least."

    Other than saying the vote should be delayed, which is taking a position.

    I love how preserving institutions is suddenly "libertarian". Could have sworn that was a hallmark of conservatism.

  • ravenshrike||

    He's either alluding to a position or he's a moron. That's the only possible excuse for his use of the word detailed. The accusation is about as detailed as my fingerpainting with my baby food when I was a year old.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Gillespie is not a Libertarian."

    Nick is a piece of shit that no libertarian should ever take seriously again.

    He pulled "No True Communism" with *Stalin*, no less.

    "Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed. Hitler was the leader of Nazism, Stalin the leader of...Stalinism, not communism."

    https://goo.gl/xnJ8CT

  • Zeb||

    I don't think libertarian principles really apply to the question one way or another.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rule of Law is very Libertarian.

    The proper procedure is to report crimes 'immediately' and let the more objective state move thru the process.

    NOT see that someone you knew from high school was moving up the ladder and is on the opposite team, so you wait until you can strike with a hit job off sexual assault accusations.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is not a criminal proceeding, you half-educated rube.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    It is however, a process governed by the Constitution, you 1/4 educated cretin.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a bag of lies that should be ignored.

    Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

    The USA will make one more step toward ignoring Democrats.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm beginning to doubt.

    Looks like McConnell is throwing the game. Sacrifice Kavanaugh to keep constitutionalism off the court while Trump fights the Deep State.

    It only takes a couple of Republicans to "Flake", for Kavanaugh to be shot down. All they have to do is express doubt keep from having a court with a constitutionalist majority while Trump battles the Deep State.

    The number one priority of the establishment is to destroy Trump.

    I'll give McConnell credit. I didn't see this coming. Well played, vermin.

  • Just Say'n||

    Then why is Gillespie trying to tie them to this?

  • ThomasD||

    ...decades-old juvenile allegations...

    Even more libertarian.

  • damikesc||

    Detalled? Am i missing something? Where are these details?

  • The Last American Hero||

    In the therapist's notes, unfortunately, they somewhat contradict several of the details of her recollection, making it even more difficult to understand what happened.

  • JesseAz||

    Ford is already blaming the therapist for wrong notes.

  • damikesc||

    And I will completely buy that.

    So...if the therapist's notes were wrong on this key detail, how can we have faith in ANYTHING said in them? Being wrong on FUNDAMENTAL things in the only documentation of the incident does not make the documentation more accurate.

    This is a political hit job. She doesn't know where the party was. When it was. Who was there. How many boys were in the room with her. How drunk she was. How drunk they were. There couldn't be LESS information if she tried.

    And Nick claimed this was "detailed"?

    I guess Reason's long-standing disdain for sketchy evidence used to produce convictions is fraying. It's probably Trump's fault.

  • JesseAz||

    Since it is above "random group of frat boys" Nick thinks it is detailed enough. As long as a name is named....

  • Luxferia||

    These vagaries—in addition to the absolutely implausible details of her story that she actually did provide—leave me to wholeheartedly agree with you. This is UVA Jackie 2.0. The similarities in the accounts are startling.

  • Ron||

    taking up the case will show the politicians are all about theater and not about getting their job done by ignoring what is clearly a hit piece and if it were true to late to be relevant.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nope. Straight vote immediately.

    Democrats are bunch of liars and their enablers like Gillespie need to STFU.

  • Libertymike||

    Jeff Flake is a fly in that ointment.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Yes, that worthless asshole that Reason seems to love so much.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Looks like 51 to 49 Republican Senators. If Jeff Flake is a nay, then its still 50 to 49.

    I am not sure if McCain is still counted as part of that 51. In which case it would be 49 to 49 and Pence breaks the tie.

    Democrats are losers and will lose this.

  • JesseAz||

    McCain has already had his temporary replacement named. Kyl. Can be confirmed quickly if needed.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Flake and Collins.

    The Deep State Strikes Back.

  • ||

    The Senate Needs To Hear Out Kavanaugh's Accuser

    Because it's a sexual assault trial? Because the Senate investigates rape allegations? Because the FBI told them to?

    WTHF? The Senate is a clusterfuck and (more of) a kangaroo hearing won't improve it.

    Democrats and the FBI have absolutely shit the bed on this and you want us all to wallow in it. They deserve to have the sheets knotted around their head so they can choke on it.

    Fuck off Gillespie.

  • JesseAz||

    FBI already declined to investigate. They did the correct thing.

  • ||

    FBI already declined to investigate. They did the correct thing.

    Right, that was my point. The Senate hearing what the FBI has already deemed to be between not a crime and a lie is pretty basally undermining every branch of government and every rule of law. We're inches shy of allowing outright and knowing libel from being used to refuse a SCOTUS nomination and Gillespie thinks we need to move closer.

  • Jgalt1975||

    It's a really neat trick to jump from the conclusion that the FBI declined to investigate something to "the FBI has already deemed [the allegations] to be between not a crime and a lie"....

  • Keegan Vickers||

    You mean you think it's neat to report it accurately? How special!

  • ||

    It's a really neat trick to jump from the conclusion that the FBI declined to investigate something to "the FBI has already deemed [the allegations] to be between not a crime and a lie"....

    No it's not. The bureau named and charged with investigating federal crimes refused to investigate. The same organization that spent months and months of investigation into collusion with Russians and they looked at her evidence and said, "Nope."

    I hate to make assertions that Trump is playing 12D chess on any given issue. I keep forgetting all you one-dimensional thinkers for whom 2D chess is mind boggling.

  • Xmas||

    The FBI also conducts the background checks on the SCOTUS candidates. If the candidate lied about anything during the background check, they're caught under the same laws that others charged with lying to the FBI have violated.

    See the PBS Newshour story, "The intrusive investigation behind Supreme Court nominations"

  • Greg Fillonia||

    And the fact that the FBI decided they had no cause to investigate basically closes the issue.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Go fuck yourself Goth Fonzie.

  • Ecoli||

    "Goth Fonzie", that is a good one!

  • Libertymike||

    This fake Fonz long ago jumped the shark.

    The real Fonz endeared himself to, and won the respect of, Mr. and Mrs. C. This fake Fonz? Does he think he's "earned" the respect of the likes of Tony or PB or the Rev.? Are you kidding me? They would just as soon throw him to the BLM mob as wipe a strand of dandruff off the jacket.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Ah Team Blue, always forgetting Me Today, You Tomorrow.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They forget nothing.

    The Right generally lacks the stones to fight back *in kind*.

    The fundamental moral mistake of the Right, for a century, is mistaking complicity in one way rules as supporting the rules, instead of betraying them

    One way ceasefire is surrender
    One way rule of law is subjection
    One way civility is subservience

    But Cucks gonna Cuck

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "The Senate Needs To Hear Out Kavanaugh's Accuser"

    Why on Earth? This constant public turmoil over accusations of misbehavior decades old is ridiculous. If you were too embarrassed, too intimidated, or too invested in the system that got you harassed all those years ago, it f*cking sucks to b you. Bring charges when it happens or shut the f*ck up.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's a good thing for decent people that half-educated, stale-thinking, authoritarian bigots like C.S.P. Schofield have been relegated to the disaffected fringe of our society by their betters.

    Keep up the inconsequential rants and bitter muttering about all of this damned progress, reason, and tolerance, Schofield. I enjoy the entertainment.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Enjoy Kavanaugh on the bench paying you shits back for this for the next thirty years, fuckwit. :)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    After Democrats enlarge the Court, Kavanaugh may quit, because a lifelong partisan gunslinger might dislike the prospect of a lifetime of writing inconsequential dissents.

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

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "So far as your betters permit, "

    And now you and Tony are both admittedly pro-slavery.

    It's a shame your electoral failure, and your failure here have doomed you to an existence of childish complaining and wishcasting.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Which betters would that be, boy?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Educated, accomplished, reason-preferring, tolerant residents of successful, modern communities.

    The people who have been generating and shaping American progress, against the wishes and efforts of conservatives, for more than a half-century.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "Keep up the inconsequential rants" - The Rev.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "Keep up the inconsequential rants"

    Like the one you are currently engaged in, about a process you can't stop on a third rate internet discussion board?

    Yeah.

  • Ecoli||

    Does the professor have a vested interest in destroying K? A Democratic donor, a blue-stained member of #resist?

    I think we should have OpenBordersLibertarian, in his troll mode, testify. Let's get the term "Orange Hitler" in the public record!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But they also give the Senate, a legislative body that inspires little trust and confidence among American voters, a chance to start rehabilitating its image.

    Ha. How one of its most senior and prominent members handled this revelation does the exact opposite.

  • ||

    FBI: "There's nothing to investigate."
    DiFi: "Hold my beer."

  • ThomasD||

    Gillespie cannot even do chin-tugging mode while keeping a straight face.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All of this helps explain why Congress is held in such contempt.

    Diane Feinstein is a reason why, not Congress ignoring unsubstantiated allegations with a clear hit job feel to it.

  • croaker||

    It won't make a difference. Anita Hill got her say and the vote still went through.

  • buybuydandavis||

    That was before the Republican establishment lost the party to a nationalist populist.

    Getting the Globalist Uniparty back in power is Job One. Keeping an actual constitutionalist off the court would be a huge win for the Deep State Coup.

    Flake and Collins could Flake. Perhaps more. But that's all they need.

  • JesseAz||

    There is nothing to air out. The accuser offers no verifiable information, but many questions.

    Why doesn't she remember the others at the party? How did she know kavanaugh if from a different school? (Yes, her parents had a foreclosure where kavanaugh mom was the judge). Why did she tell her therapist it was groping and now it's life threatening rape? Why did she scrub her social media before coming forward? How did she learned of the party, who invited her?

    Nothing of her story sounds truthful.

  • chipper me timbers||

    Why on earth would I want for the Senate to gain renewed trust by the public?

  • Eddy||

    Look how they behave *without* the public's trust; imagine how they'd behave if they were emboldened by popular support!

  • chipper me timbers||

    I don't even like Kavanaugh but this is the most obvious hit-job since Anita Hill. How anyone could even begin to take this accusation seriously is beyond me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Now that we have DNA, that pubic hair should be tested.

  • JesseAz||

    Politics is how. And idiots like Tony, Jeff, and others.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why on Earth would I want the Republican majority in Congress to cater to the minority Democrats who have proven to be liars and out to destroy the USA?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Amen! But you left out "subhuman, worthless pieces of shit" when you said "Democrat." Unless that's just meant to be understood. Which I do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a given :)

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    If she testifies before the Senate:

    Ford: "You assaulted me, at the age of 15 [to the best of my recollection].
    Kavanaugh: "No I didn't."
    Ford: "I feared for my life!"
    Kavanaugh: "I didn't do it."
    Ford: [bursting into tears] "You bastard you ruined my life."
    Democrats on the committee look at one another knowingly and agreeably; cue actors in the gallery dressed in slave costumes to wail loudly
    Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Now Dr. Ford, I'd like to ask you a few questions about your allegation..."
    Democrats: "ALLEGATION!? You heard the woman, she was practically raped by this privileged bastard, all the while his mother was taking her home from under her feet! That's basically like being raped twice!"
    Gallery descends into chaos, cue talking heads to discuss rape culture and misogyny.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You don't have to believe the withholding of thousands of documents from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White was "a constitutional crisis" to recognize that Republicans have hardly been on the up-and-up throughout this nomination process.

    Gee, another drive-by talking point. No, you have to present some actual evidence that they haven't been on the up-and-up, and exercising their constitutionally granted powers ain't it regardless of how much you think the ends justify the means. First Robby was seeing evidence in his mashed potatoes and now Nick knows but he can't tell you. Pathetic.

    More docs were released for Kavanaugh than for Sotomayor, but we need some #bothsidesdoit jeffyism or else we'll have to admit that Feinstein deserves to be thrown out of the Senate.

    Upon Barack Obama's election, McConnell stated that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," which may have been honest, but is deeply troubling if you believe in anything more than the crassest form of tribal political warfare.

    This has to be the amongst the dumbest things Nicky has ever written. Compare that to the soft coup after Trump was elected and get back to me when you have any consistency and integrity.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Gee, another drive-by talking point. "

    I noticed that one go.

    Get Woke, start writing like the Woke.

    Another Woketarian Moment!

  • Just Say'n||

    The reflexive conservatism of Reason magazine is quite disgusting. Have you guys ever question popular narratives or should you just rename your publication The New York Times Addendum?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Nothing says "reliable witness who deserves to be heard" like a registered Democrat, DNC contributor, California professor who scrubbed her social media before going public with a charge of teen horseplay from thirty-five years ago that nobody else can corroborate. Yes, by all means, let's hear her story. I'm sure it's full of fears and tears.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Wait--isn't this the same magazine that said that Asia Argento's rape of a boy was fine because he was over the age of consent in places where he wasn't raped?

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. Reason is not known to make much sense or be consistent on any topic. They are exceptionally good at echoing the sentiments of respectable society. Basically if you read the NYT opinion pages, with small changes here and there, you've basically read Reason

  • JesseAz||

    With only a fraction of the idiot liberals that post at the NYT.

  • Jgalt1975||

    I missed where there's any inconsistency between those two positions. Gillespie isn't saying Kavanaugh should be criminally prosecuted as far as I can see and I don't think anyone at Reason was taking the position that Argento should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court....

  • Keegan Vickers||

    I'm not surprised you missed the inconsistency, you seem very dense.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    While I think Gillespie's position here is pure ass, there's no inconsistency. Consensual sex (with potential buyer's remorse) with someone who is underage by one year in just 10 of the 50 states is different than a nonconsensual sexual encounter.

    There's no reason to believe it happened, but if she had actual evidence, there's no inconsistency in dismissing the former while condemning the latter.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No, they do not.

    The statute of limitations have long since expired.

    Courts would not hear this accusation. The Senate should not, either.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I looked it up, Maryland (where this happened) does not have a statute of limitations on felony sexual assault cases.

  • ThomasD||

    Great

    Then the accuser needs to file a complaint or STFU.

  • Overt||

    After weeks of Reason condemning the hearings as nothing but a clown show, we now have Reason suggesting that we need to have more hearings.

    Why? Because somehow, someway, Nick is sure that in *these* hearings, people will suddenly see a calm, deliberative body of rational, altruistic senators rather than the bunch of self-serving team-cheering narcissists that he rightly condemned less than a fortnight previous?

    These accusations may or may not be serious. They may or may not give real evidence of the character of our next Supreme Court Justice. Even broader, there is the question of what the minimum standard of evidence, and maximum time of silence should be when we try to judge a person's behavior. These are all at least interesting debates that we could have at a time like this.

    Instead we get this contentless article by The Jacket, taking up a less interesting problem of "Trust in Congress" and offering the weakest remedy ever- suggesting that more grandstanding and pontificating by these trust-deprived senators will somehow make them better in Nick's and the public's eyes. This angle of story crafting by Nick is so wide of the mark as to be obtuse in degrees and mental accomplishment.

  • Think It Through||

    That's about as close to my view, Overt, as any comment I've read. How in the world is more circus going to make us think that they aren't clowns after all? The whole premise is completely illogical.

    The only thing in this particular circumstance that would impress me would be Chairman saying "we're not going to countenance allegations from 35 years ago that should have been raised months ago, and would make no difference even if it happened exactly as alleged. We vote at 5 pm."

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Here's my take. No, the Senate Judiciary Committee should not hear out Kavanaugh's accuser.

    I note that Maryland where the alleged attempted rape happened does not have a statute of limitations for felony sexual assault cases.

    The accuser should be directed to talk to the appropriate Maryland DA. Then the Senate should hear from the DA. If the DA thinks there is a prosecutable case here then and only then should the Senate Republicans even consider the possibility of rejecting Kavanaugh's nomination over this.

  • ThomasD||

    Which is maybe what the WaPo and DiFi should have recommended back when they first learned about this.

    Talk about battered institutions, it's no wonder they get little trust.

    Because they deserve it.

    And with this pathetic episode add Gillespie, and the rest of Reason to that list as well.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Did Maryland not have a statute of limitations for that at the time of the alleged assault? If it did, then prosecution could still be time barred because repealing a statute of limitations later doesn't revive already time barred claims.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    That would be part of the reason for having an actual Maryland DA determine if there is a prosecutable case.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The way to restore trust in a battered institution would be to confirm a justice--despite what happened 40 years ago when he was a teenager.

    Since, you know, what you did 40 years as a teenager doesn't matter.

    Two issues this might help with:

    1) Put the bogus sexual harassment horseshit genie back in the bottle that was let out in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings.

    2) Sentencing reform. How do you argue for sentencing reform for convicted felons out of one side of your mouth and argue that someone is unacceptable in polite society because of something he was never even charged with, much less convicted.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "1) Put the bogus sexual harassment horseshit genie back in the bottle that was let out in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings."

    That would actually be worth something.

    But I think McConnell is sacrificing Kavanaugh to strike at Trump. Make sure there is no constitutionalist court while Trump fights the Deep State.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    The notion that continuing this fucking telenovela circus for a few more days would be a good thing shows just how fucking stupid Nick can be sometimes. That he thinks that doing so would be helpful to the Senate's image pretty much proves that smoking pot is horrible for your cognitive abilities. Put down the pipe, Nick. You've completely fucking lost it.

  • Steve-O||

    But if this is true - "attempted" sexual assault implies that he failed to carry out the assault.

    Doesn't this speak to his competence?

  • Rich||

    Feinstein said much of her concern stemmed from a request by the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, to remain anonymous and out of the spotlight.

    If Ford really wanted to remain out of the spotlight she wouldn't use three names.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If Ford really wanted to remain out of the spotlight she never would have contacted Wapo months ago.

  • JesseAz||

    Ford is apparently a professor of psychology. If she read her books I wonder what the diagnosis would be for a woman who had over 60 sexual partners before the age of 21 (self amitted), teenage alcoholic, now accusing public figures sans evidence. Her texts would probably diagnose her as attention seeking.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Isn't it widely understood that people go into psychology because they're nuts, and want to understand why?

  • Bubba Jones||

    So... Feinstein deliberately withheld evidence during a congressional hearing?

    Or is it not credible evidence?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And now the Dems are saying that hearing testimony this week is too soon. Does that count as deeply troubling if you believe in anything more than the crassest form of tribal political warfare?

  • Agammamon||

    The Senate Needs to Hear Out Kavanaugh's Accuser

    We just saw how the current Senate handled Kavanaugh's vetting by that Senate. We saw the grandstanding, the fight for 'gotcha' political soundbites, Booker's 'Sparticus' moment (where he showed the rest of us that he's never seen the movie let alone knows what 'I am Sparticus' means).

    So, what in the world will subjecting this woman to that accomplish. Everyone in the Senate has an ax to grind and they're not going to change their stance no matter what. And, in the end, it'll still be her word against his on a 35 year old allegation.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "But they also give the Senate, a legislative body that inspires little trust and confidence among American voters, a chance to start rehabilitating its image."

    Uh, no. The allegation is impossible to prove or disprove at this point, and all of the politically afflicted are simply going to run to their side of the field. It's already happening, just look at the comments on Reason on articles related to the allegation.

    So the original hearings were a complete fucking circus - in which the Senate totally embarrassed itself - when they actually had matters of substance to discuss. Now that it's just lurid yelling over teenage sort of maybe sex that happened or didn't happen 35 years ago the partisans are going to completely wreck the tiny sliver of credibility that they have left. And that's being generous and granting that there's actually a smidge left, which is debatable.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just remember:
    Many of the same people who now proclaim disgust at an accuser smearing someone with decades-old allegations with no verifiable evidence, are the same ones who believe that Bill Clinton really did rape Juanita Broaddrick.

    So forgive me if I don't think this sudden conversion of our resident Reason Republicans of being against character assassination is genuine and sincere.

    And personally, I don't think Kavanaugh actually did it. But I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

  • JesseAz||

    God you're a fucking dumbass Jeff. Broaderick was contemporary to the election, a few years earlier, with temporal witnesses who she told at the time of the event. If you can't see the difference nobody can help you.

  • JesseAz||

    Braoderick also gave specific dates, times, and locations that we're all verifiable. For fuck sakes Jeff. Stop with the ignorance.

  • Tony||

    We must withdraw Bill Clinton's supreme court nomination immediately!

  • Just Say'n||

    The NYT never said that, so chemjeff radical collectivist and Reason would never dare say that. This is how conservatism works- an appeal to your betters and prevailing wisdom

  • Tony||

    Every time someone brings up Bill Clinton it's to distract from how fucking many rapists there are in the Republican party trying to gain power over you. We should all remember that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats have a the long scorecard of rapes that are confirmed.

    Claims against Republicans go away immediately after the Democrat ruse is over.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's quite a persuasive ad hominem to distract from tangible fact

  • Tony||

    Explain how the fuck exactly Bill Clinton is relevant to this conversation?

    Hitler was even worse than Clinton. I guess that means Kavanaugh's rape is even more OK!

  • Just Say'n||

    "Explain how the fuck exactly Bill Clinton is relevant to this conversation?"

    Chemjeff, radical collectivist, mentioned him so.....

  • JesseAz||

    Tony. Reading is fundamental. Jeff brought up Clinton

  • Greg Fillonia||

    Tony|9.17.18 @ 12:25PM|#

    Explain how the fuck exactly Bill Clinton is relevant to this conversation?
    chemjeff radical individualist|9.17.18 @ 11:44AM|#

    Just remember:
    Many of the same people who now proclaim disgust at an accuser smearing someone with decades-old allegations with no verifiable evidence, are the same ones who believe that Bill Clinton really did rape Juanita Broaddrick.
  • BlondeJustice||

    Agreed. Here's the thing. All 3 of them were drunk. How can she be sure it was those 2 guys?

    And did she lose her job as a professor because she got drunk at a drunken teen party?

    She disobeyed the drinking laws 30 plus years ago. Shouldn't she lose her job now? That's what she's doing to Kavanaugh.

    She's a raving mad demonrat, trying to ruin Kavanaugh's career.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    Every time somebody tries to argue that Republicans hate women it's trying to distract from the fact that a hero of the Democratic Party has the only confirmed kill in the War On Women. We should all remember that.

  • ThomasD||

    Jeff cannot argue the topic, so he's going to smear the people involved in the argument.

    It's entirely Alinskyite, but never forget that Jeff is the 'radical 'individualist.'

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I've already said that I believe the allegations are probably not true.

    It won't stop me however from pointing out how disgusting I find the faux concern emanating from our usual Reason Republicans is.

  • Just Say'n||

    You should at least take issue with Kavanaugh's views on the 4th Amendment rather than an obvious political smear that you falsely equate with the numerous and more credible accusations levied against Bill Clinton.

    At least try to pretend like you're anything more than a conservative parroting status quo talking points. How the hell are you libertarian in any way?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I've already registered my disgust with Kavanaugh's views on the Fourth Amendment in previous articles. How many times would you like me to repeat them?

    What the Democrats are doing to Kavanaugh is scarcely different than what the Republicans did to Clinton vis a vis Broaddrick, or what the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas, etc., etc....

  • Just Say'n||

    Comparing multiple accusers against Clinton to one accuser against Kavanaugh who isn't even alleging rape (which is not the case for Clinton) and has made these accusations thirty years after the fact when they were both young is perhaps the worst "whataboutism" ever made.

    You have out "whatabout"'d LC

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Broaddrick told her story over 20 years after the alleged incident. Only when Clinton was on trial for his impeachment. Clinton was not going to face election again.

    So actually there are quite a few similarities. An unverifiable vague story from decades ago being brought forth in order to influence a highly contentious Senate vote.

    I mean, if you're going to condemn 11th-hour unverifiable, shocking, vague allegations that show up in a transparent attempt to manipulate the political process, then I'm going to expect you to be consistent.

  • Just Say'n||

    You are aware that Broaddrick was not the only woman who accused Clinton of sexual assault, right? Are you not aware of where Clinton lied about his relationship with Lewinsky?

    Hint: It was a sexual assault trail regarding Paula Jones

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    jeff, I take no position on the Kavanaugh thing, and I take no position on Republicans or Democrats beyond "fuck them both with a rusty softball bat", but what you're saying about Broaddrick is factually incorrect. She told several (5?) people about the incident contemporaneously, a couple of whom testified that she had a split lip after her encounter with Clinton, and only came public in the late '90s under threat from Starr.

  • JesseAz||

    Broaderick and others told their stories during the run up to the 92 election. Media ignored them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Broaderick and others told their stories during the run up to the 92 election. Media ignored them.

    Huh.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/.....on-of-rape

    "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies," she said. "Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."

  • damikesc||

    She told people when it happened, including her husband.

  • Just Say'n||

    You just pulled a "whataboutism" that you are so frequently are on the lookout for.

    Honestly, you are the most conservative commentator here. In the truest sense of the word you never challenge prevailing attitudes, nor question institutions other than those that the status quo has determined it is OK to question (ICE).

    You even sink to the lowest level of defending socialists.

    It's quite pathetic that the most conservative commentators here smear others for refusing to accept the popular narrative.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, it's to point out that most of the people here registering horror and disgust at the Democrats' dirty tactics are completely faking it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Did they fake Feinstein's 11th hour letter after days of hearings had ended or would you have to consult some institutional authority to decide whether or not that is accurate?

    And you specifically mentioned the accusations against Clinton which did not occur thirty-five years after the fact and involved actual rape when he was an adult. You're regurgitating NYT talking points and pretending like you are anything but a conservative. It's rather pathetic

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This time it's the Democrats who are playing dirty and transparently manipulating the political process in order to secure their own partisan advantage. I don't think the NY Times Editorial Page would take that position. But let's not pretend they've just now broken some sacred rule. That rule has been broken for a long time now. We could go back to Juanita Broaddrick, we could go back to Anita Hill, we could go back quite a ways to find both Team Red and Team Blue behaving badly, and their various partisans defending it when their team does it and feigning shock and outrage when the other team does it.

    I don't buy into any of the tribal bullshit. None of it.

  • Just Say'n||

    You really need to read more about Broaddrick's accusation and the multiple other accusers against Clinton, because you sound like a damn fool now.

    Read something other than the NYT or Reason (NYT Addendum)

  • Greg Fillonia||

    Actually read about an issue before expounding? Ha!

  • Keegan Vickers||

    "point out"

    You meant to say "assert with no evidence."

    You should just get around to claiming Kavanaugh raped you if you're going to do that.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Of course your buddy Slickie was found in contempt of court by a federal judge, and would almost certainly have been disbarred if he hadn't decided to just give up the battle.

    Let's see if you and your ilk can do nearly as well against Kavanugh. I seriously doubt it! Your false equivalencies stink even worse than Clinton's cigar.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But, Jeffy, don't you think Clinton was *capable* of rape? And isn't that your standard of evidence?

  • Longtobefree||

    Her entire allegation of a barely remembered thing at an unknown location on an unknown date collaborated by a unnamed reference in a therapy session decades later, and withheld (illegally?) by democrats for purely political gain is fully represented in the single unconfirmed and unverified document.
    What's to "hear"?

    Alternative history with as much credibility:
    I have a letter from Diane Feinstein dated 100 years ago where she details a scheme to take notes about a possible rape allegation to take place if and only if President Trump ever decides to run for President and steals the election from the anointed one and nominates someone to the Supreme Court. This letter fully refutes the false claims from Ms Ford.
    End of investigation.

  • Ron||

    unknown date collaborated by a unnamed reference in a therapy session"

    Remember when therapist convinced kids they were raped at a day care center.

  • GlenchristLaw||

    The best way for the Senate to "rehabilitate its image" would be to expel Feinstein for gross misconduct.

  • ThomasD||

    Vote of censure for withholding this for so long.

  • Rockabilly||

    When I was a bell hop at the Fairmont and Dianne Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco, she, without my permission, grabbed my Johnson, and said " I could make you my 'body guard' if you become my 'boy toy.'

    Seeing that I was not attracted to her I told her no in no uncertain terms

    However, she continued to come to the Fairmont to proposition and harass me.

    I told my manager and she fired me.

    #MeToo!!

  • dchang0||

    Delaying the confirmation rewards the Democrats for using this tactic at exactly the right time for their benefit.

    You can bet that if the Republicans delay now, the Democrats will use this tactic again and again and again in the future.

    Note also that Mediaite is digging up evidence that Kavanaugh's mom presided as judge over the accuser's parents' foreclosure hearings. (And of course the accuser is a proven Democrat activist.) Whether the accusation is true or not, we cannot tell because it is a he-said/she-said case AND the accuser has too many conflicts of interest. Now, if she can provide hard evidence, sure, we'll accept it. But if not, too bad.

  • Tony||

    What hard evidence could their be for an attempted rape that happened decades ago?

    All we want is a delay in the confirmation to investigate whether the person nominated to be one of the most powerful people on earth is morally fit. Surely that's not controversial. Surely forcing women to give birth against their will is not so important a life goal of yours that it can't wait a few weeks.

  • Just Say'n||

    Sure. But, this could have been done during the hearing. That's why this is so blatantly disingenuous.

  • Tony||

    The official narrative is that the woman wanted anonymity and for the story to remain under wraps until her identity was revealed against her will, along with skewed versions of the story, thus motivating her to come forward with the real story.

    You know what was also bad timing? The Comey presser. Cry me a goddamn river of Republican tears.

  • Just Say'n||

    Nothing that you just said makes any sense. I assure you that if you were to read the largest newspapers in the country today they would not be talking about how strange it is that Feinstein would only reveal this information at the last minute.

    You are promoting the status quo narrative like a good conservative

  • Tony||

    It's either the official narrative or some biased bullshit made up out of thin air. I gather you prefer the latter.

  • Just Say'n||

    Considering there is no evidence to prove that it's even true and the fact that she didn't talk about it with anyone until 2012, I'm not sure what you find credible about it

  • markm23||

    It's not only not provable, unless you take Kavanaugh and Judge's word as sufficient, it's not disprovable - and possibly that's by design. She avoided every pitfall that exposed other false rape accusers. After 35 years, no physical evidence could exist - even if we knew where to look. She can't remember the time or place, so K. can't produce an alibi (as unlikely as that would be after so long), nor can you even check whether the party happened at all. Unlike the UVA "gang-raped by frat boys on broken glass" tale, there were no injuries that could be checked in medical records.

    And if by some miracle, the accusations are proved false, she won't be a liar - she can always blame her therapist for creating false memories.

    I couldn't do a better job of writing a script for a false accusation...

  • ArgentAegis||

    Just to be curious, how would I tell the difference between this story and "biased bullshit made up out of thin air". It's a recent accusation about something that supposedly happened thirty years ago, with no evidence, limited consistency and two of the people who were supposed to be at the scene say it never happened.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There will be no delay.

    A straight vote in coming soon and the Democrats dont have enough votes to stop it.

    Kavanaugh was given the axe, from Democrats, to grind for the next 30 years.

  • Tony||

    Do you ever dream of a day when your thoughts and opinions are anything but utterly useless?

    Tell me more about how Trump's becoming more popular by the minute. And about how Republicans will gain seats in the House this year.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    "Do you ever dream of a day when your thoughts and opinions are anything but utterly useless?"

    You're on a libertarian website complaining about an election you lost and a confirmation you can't stop, Mr. Pot.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "All we want is a delay"

    I repeat: "Delaying the confirmation rewards the Democrats for using this tactic at exactly the right time for their benefit."

  • Tony||

    I'm failing to see the downside.

  • dchang0||

    Let's say you're accused of the same thing. You go to court to defend yourself. The accuser's side delays and delays for months on end.

    Do you see the downside then (when you are the accused)?

    There is a reason why we explicitly state that people are due a speedy trial. Yes, the confirmation hearings are not a criminal law trial, but they are a trial of sorts.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean like delaying Garland? You sure seemed to be upset about delays back then.

  • Ecoli||

    Well, that was different. Somehow.

    The senate, following the sage advice of Joe Biden, its most smiling member, to halt SCOTUS confirmations in the last year of the opposing party's presidency was sound advice.

    Everybody knew, with absolute certainty, that Hillary would be the next president. It was pretty ballsy of McConnell to invoke the Biden rule when blocking Garland. The tears over the last two years have been a humiliating spectacle the world over.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, that's been the humiliating spectacle.

    ....

    Not the fat orange lump of hysterics with the intellect of a third grader (to paraphrase members of his own staff).

  • dchang0||

    More proof the Democrats want to delay for delaying's sake.

    CNN reports that the accuser has offered to testify but no Democrats have asked her to yet AND also on CNN Dick Durbin is quoted as saying that it is too soon for her to testify.

    So, quite clearly, the Democrats would prefer to delay further rather than hear the accuser out.

  • Tony||

    Delay for delay's sake?! My heavens, the horror of it all! We can't have politics here, this is the Senate!

  • dchang0||

    Well, if it's okay to play politics, then the Republicans can play politics too. They can ram through the confirmation.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    Let's be real, you want to delay to push this into a time frame where the election may change the calculus, and you think no one knows this.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    BUT GARLAND!!!!!

  • JesseAz||

    Hey shitbag. There is a new supreme Court session upcoming. Delays do have a consequential effect.

  • Tony||

    There's recent precedent for leaving the court with 8 members for long stretches of time, and that didn't even involve anyone raping anyone.

    You're goddamn right Skippy "but Garland." You don't get to get away with that and then protest about tactics used by Democrats to stall a nominee. Never again, ever.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What hard evidence could their be for an attempted rape that happened decades ago?

    That's why he shouldn't be confirmed, precisely because there is no evidence for these accusations.

  • JesseAz||

    Not only no evidence, but no means to confirm or deny evidence. No dates. No locations. No names of others at the party. No claims of how she came to meet kavanaugh.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    whether the person nominated to be one of the most powerful people on earth is morally fit.

    Oh also, he's not supposed to be one of the most powerful people on earth. You do make very eloquent arguments against all-powerful government from time to time, even if it's totally by accident.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Nobody gives a fuck what you want Krugman, you pathetic little weasel. Go stick your ugly mug in another plateful of mushy peas.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "What hard evidence could their be for an attempted rape that happened decades ago?

    All we want is a delay in the confirmation to investigate whether the person nominated to be one of the most powerful people on earth is morally fit. "

    Contradicts himself from one sentence to the next. Sad.

  • ThomasD||

    If Feinstein really believes Ford then her gross mishandling of this information means Feinstein owes Ford a public apology.

    I won't hold my breath.

    But maybe one of the intrepid 'journalists' at Reason could contact DiFi's office for comment?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But they also give the Senate, a legislative body that inspires little trust and confidence among American voters, a chance to start rehabilitating its image.

    You know what would go a long way in restoring my trust in the Senate? They could hear out Emma Sulkowicz give testimony on her rape.

  • ThomasD||

    Will her mattress be placed under oath as well?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And after they're done they need to get to investigating the way you burned down that orphanage when you were a kid.

    I'm not sure where it was, or when you did it, but I've now got a vague recollection of it.

  • Eddy||

    And to think the reason the Democrats profess such concern for women's rights is because they want to legalize the killing of unborn children, many of whom are females targeted because they're female.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault
    She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo's office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

    In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally.

  • dchang0||

    What Nick is talking about is restoring trust in the Senate by focusing on process.

    But, this only works if the Democrats participate in the process in good faith.

    If they act in bad faith, it only serves to undermine public trust in the process, regardless of who the accuser is or what the accusation is.

    Trump won in part because some of the public were tired of the Republicans playing by the rules (acting in good faith) while the Democrats routinely used underhanded tactics (acting in bad faith). The public did not trust the process because they saw that it is and was rigged in the Democrats' favor because the Dems could cheat and get away with it. So they elected Trump to fight back against both the feckless Republicans and the dirty Dems.

  • wearingit||

    You've got to be freaking kidding me. The dems aren't playing by the rules? Have you not been paying attention?

    Good lord.

  • tlapp||

    Another Anita Hill. Democrats are consistent. Hope this is no more effective that the last smear attempt.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Tony||

    Democrats can't tell the truth. They shouldn't even be allowed to have opinions or a job. They should probably all be thrown into lakes and drowned.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Works for me.

  • Tony||

    I know it does.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    Maybe you should stop complaining about it and get some principles that aren't "win at any cost."

  • Tony||

    I thought I was one of the few not arguing for rushing an accused attempted rapist onto the supreme court.

  • Think It Through||

    Lol "accused attempted rapist." I had refrained from commenting on your shotgun idiocies but too laughable that you didn't include the word "credible" in there, which is the only thing that makes the whole engine run.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The projection is strong with this one. Remember, 1984 was a cautionary tale against your kind and not a manual.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Now you're talking sense!

  • ||

    You know what sucks? Bullshit like this makes people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez seem reasonable when they say the Democratic establishment needs to be replaced.

  • Eddy||

    "The Democrat leadership is utterly irresponsible! If elected, I'll ask you to hold my beer..."

  • Archibald Baal||

    "...from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White was..."

    This sounds like some kind of dirty euphemism. Regarding what, I have no idea. The Jacket is subtle.

  • ArgentAegis||

    According to Ford's story, there were three people there. Her, Kavanaugh, and Judge. Judge says it never happened. Kavanaugh says it never happened. Dozens upon dozens of people say it's completely out of character for Kavanaugh. Baring some extraordinarily solid evidence, this is a case of a woman saying, without any evidence, that thirty years ago a famous person did something horrible to her.

    I see no benefit to creating a world where any accusation, even those that are this flimsy, are treated with career ruining seriousness. Doubly so since even if she's made this out of nothing, or is displacing events, she'll bear no consequences beyond embarrassment...and is more likely to become a cult hero.

    Produce the body and I'll have a different position.

  • buybuydandavis||

    This.

    Allegations presented without evidence in the midst of a political fight should be dismissed without hearing.

    The Right cucked on Moore. This never stops until they stop giving power to the tactic.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The only witness to the event is Mr. Kavanaugh's high school male friend, Mark Judge, who also says he recalls no such event. Ms. Ford concedes she told no one about it—not even a high school girl friend or family member—until 2012 when she told the story as part of couples therapy with her husband.

    The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. The Post reports that the therapist's notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can't recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening."

    ----Wall Street Journal

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/th.....1537197395

    So, the only witness says it never happened.

    She didn't tell anybody about it for almost 30 years!

    And she only told people about it once she was in therapy?

    And she can't remember where it happened?

    And on the basis of this information, they senate is supposed to not confirm a Supreme Court justice?

    Has the whole world gone mad?

    I repeat, if you want to restore trust in a battered institution, this allegation should be ignored--unless new testimony or evidence becomes available, I guess.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does anyone else remember when Reason covered the gross injustice of the McMartin Preschool trial? Weren't we supposed to learn something from that?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Kind of like 1984. What is written as a warning eventually becomes a how to manual.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    "Has the whole world gone mad?"

    No, but Gillespie is one of those who has.

  • ThomasD||

    "Has the whole world gone mad?"

    No, just the people who don't like Hillary losing.

  • ThomasD||

    It's obvious. From the timing, to the vagueness, to the refutation by her own 'savior.' Add in the abandonment of any sort of principles - juvenile justice, due process, the need for proper and timely handling of such accusations, etc.

    It's a litany of mendacity by the 'libertarians' at 'Reason.'

  • dpbisme||

    Even if true, the act of a 17 year old child is not reason to disqualify anyone and from all we know about her that she is a LEFTIST Trump hater and that her so called witness says it did not happen.

    People need to grow up and get a grip on reality as we all know BAD boys and girls from our past that we all expected to have troubled lives turn out to be model citizens, have careers and turned in to great parents.

    ...and like I said above, there is no proof this occurred or even what happened, perception is also an issue.

  • ThomasD||

    Seventeen? Given the two year time frame the accuser offers Kavanaugh could have been anywhere from fourteen to sixteen.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    So we need to "restore trust in a battered institution". eh?

    Sorry that train left the station a VERY long time ago.

    All of the branches of the federal government deserve no trust whatsoever as they have all long failed to do what they swear an oath to do - uphold the Constitution.

    And that means the actual Constitution as per the actual meaning of the literal text as it was understood to mean by those who drafted it and ratified it at the time.

    The fact that the three branches of government have not done so is the only reason why Supreme Court nominations are such a big deal now. If the actual Constitution had been enforced all along, the federal government's size and reach would be a small fraction of what it is today and there would be far fewer things of national importance that would ever come before the court to begin with.

  • Sevo||

    "A fast-moving, public airing of the claims against Kavanaugh would serve the public interest—and could help restore trust in a battered institution."

    Hey, Welsh!
    Onion has hacked your site!

  • Mark22||

    Late-breaking, detailed, and public charges of an alleged attempted sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh may well derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court. But they also give the Senate, a legislative body that inspires little trust and confidence among American voters, a chance to start rehabilitating its image.

    Are you kidding? This leak is carefully timed to the weekend after the hearings. And on top of that, there is nothing the Senate can find out: there is no further evidence, there is no possibility of a criminal investigation, no possibility for Kavanaugh to defend himself.

    If the Senate Republicans cave in to such manipulations, they sign their own political death warrants because what'st the point of voting for people who are so easily manipulated?

    What Senators should do is put the blame where it belongs: on Feinstein and the Senate Democrats. Then they should move to a quick confirmation vote.

  • vek||

    Yup. At this point they should just do the vote and put him in his seat. If the Dems were so concerned they should have brought this up A LOT earlier. Fuck these people. I'm tired of their games. They always magically trot out somebody with an unverifiable story, at the last minute, for EVERYBODY they dislike lately. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that 100% of people Democrats don't like aren't rapists!

  • esteve7||

    These people are despicable scum. Any accusation without evidence from any time in the past ruins your life and career.

    Question - What would Kav. be able to possibly to do prove his innocence? What is the point of a fucking hearing, there's nothing there. If you are a partisan hack who holds no value in justice or basic fairness, you already think he is guilty and nothing will convince you otherwise. Nothing can, because the accusation is so vague, so old, that there is nothing you could do to defend yourself.

    Imagine this happening to you. Some random person accuses you of something in high school with no verifiable details, and we are expected to take that seriously?

    Believe the victim? What if Kav. is the victim? How do you know she is? You are giving victim status to someone that has not been established a victim. If nothing is ever proven from this, then the person who has been smeared and lied about in an attempt to ruin his career would seem like the victim to me.

  • wreckinball||

    So you can wait 30 plus years and also though the confirmation hearings , you have a story that cannot be proven or dis-proven and then expect what? A hearing were she just repeats her story and Kavanaugh denies it.

    This is fucking ridiculous but predictable,

  • hroark314||

    Why should the Senate take this accusation seriously? She has no evidence to support her 35 year old accusation of something that's not even a crime. She basically accusing Kavanaugh of feeling her up at a drunken, teenage party. If that's a crime, I bet it's one that 80% of the Senate also committed when they were teenagers.

  • Tony||

    That's not what she accused him of.

  • Mark22||

    Short of an actual rape or murder, it irrelevant what she accuses him of at this point because the statute of limitations has run out.

  • wearingit||

    Amazing that this is anathema to commenters here. Just another sign of crass tribalism instead of doing what's right. Moreover, what is sooooo special about Kavanaugh that they can't 1) investigate this and 2) asssuming it's true, just nominate some other conservative justice?

  • ThomasD||

    If Feinstein believed it deserved 'investigation' then she would have brought it up during the hearings.

    Because she had the letter the whole time. As did the Washington Post.

    Who, presumably were doing their own investigation.

    When that came up empty they fell back on this strategy.

  • ThomasD||

    Ford will not appear under oath before the Senate. Because she'd then have to answer questions about who she spoke to regarding this accusation over the last six weeks.

    She will only appear when it comes time for a vote.

  • Mark22||

    Amazing that this is anathema to commenters here. Just another sign of crass tribalism instead of doing what's right.

    What's right is to tell this woman and Feinstein to go f*ck themselves.

    If Feinstein had been actually interested in an investigation, they could have started that in July.

  • ||

    Many comments here are predictably misogynistic. If you want to post that sort of crap, there are plenty of Incel forums who would love to hear from you.

    Ford first disclosed this event to her husband and therapist in 2012, long before Kavanaugh's nomination to the SC.

    This report is neither imagined nor new. Even Kellyanne Conway and Trump agree that she needs to be heard.

  • ThomasD||

    If you want an accusation to be taken seriously, best treat it seriously.

    That goes for Ford, Feinstein and everyone at the Washington Post. All of whom knew about this for at least the last month.

    Nothing 'misogynistic' about that.

    But the cheap shot is noted.

  • ThomasD||

    Kudos for staying on script!

  • Ed in North Texas||

    Actually there's a piece in the American Thinker recollecting when Romney was doing well in 2012 (before the 47% video). The item reminds that Jeffery Toobin was warning in 2012 that Democrats should fear that if Romney wins the election he will nominate Bret (sic) Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS. So actually Kavanaugh's name as a potential SCOTUS nominee was being bandied about in exactly 2012.

    I agree that she should be heard, preferably in person before the Committee, under oath with cross examination and before the scheduled vote on Thursday. And Kavanaugh and Mark Judge should also be heard under the same circumstances.
    americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/kavanaugh - this is too long for reason ("word" over 50 characters) and I don't know how to make it a shortened URL. If you doubt me, look it up.

  • ThomasD||

    No way she accepts any invitation to testify under oath. She'll try to bluff them into derailing the vote, but never actually appear.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ford first disclosed this event to her husband and therapist in 2012, long before Kavanaugh's nomination to the SC."

    I think you're missing the point that she didn't disclose it to anyone until 2012, some 30 years after it happened.

    In the meantime, the number of guys involved changed, the only witness says he doesn't remember any of that happening, and she can't remember where it happened.

    People in therapy often remember things that never happened. Part of it is the emotional duress they're under. Part of it is that our memories can become increasingly unreliable over time.

    Ever heard about the McMartin Pre-School trial? The outrageous shit those people were accused of--it never happened. Even though the "victims" may have remembered it happening, it did not happen.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, and you need to add one thing to all of this--nobody should be disqualified from a position like this on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation of something they did when they were children. Even if he really did it, he was a minor--and it shouldn't be held against him.

    If you can't find a reason to disqualify someone unless you go all the way back to shit they did when they were children, then you have no rational basis to disqualify them.

    Oh, and if you think the world should stop spinning just because someone made an accusation against someone--an allegation that can't be substantiated--then go soak your head. I repeat, if she didn't tell anyone about this until some 30 years after the fact, then her story cannot be substantiated. There is simply no way to substantiate it, and even if it were true, ostracizing someone for something they did as a child would be ludicrous.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Many comments here are predictably misogynistic."

    Does throwing loaded terms and scary words around make you feel smart where you usually hang out?

    Here, it just makes you look stupid.

  • Mark22||

    Many comments here are predictably misogynistic.

    What is "misogynistic" is for people like you to pretend that women are so helpless, so neurotic, and so irrational that they behave like Ford did.

    Ford is an adult and we should expect her to behave like one.

  • vek||

    As I understand it, she didn't mention a name back in 2012 though... And everything else about her story seems pretty sketchy. It went from 4 men to 2, her claiming it's a typo on the part of her therapist? Puhleeze.

  • PG23COLO||

    From a libertarian perspective it is wonderful when Congress is not trusted. Nick Gillespie doesn't understand that.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Agreed; pretty obtuse take from Gillespie...

  • Enemy of the State||

    I love anything and everything that makes the people view government with hostility, suspicion and revulsion.

    With enough of that maybe eventually people will get smart and do away with it...

  • Ed in North Texas||

    She most certainly should be heard, in person (not telephone) and available for cross examination if there are any Republicans with the stones to do so to a "victim". If only the allegation was in fact detailed. According to what I've read she didn't remember in who's house the party was held, didn't remember when the party was held, who all the participants were and supposedly how she got there (and I haven't noted any detail of how she got home, no torn clothing in the alleged drunken effort to remove them by force nor any reason why she failed to inform her parents - at least, if not local law enforcement).

    But apparently she was able to recover her memory of the salacious details and also managed to remember to scrub her social media presence of her more recent political leanings.

    So we apparently have one person who has a recovered imperfect memory of the alleged event and two people who categorically and vociferously deny it happened. It isn't even he said/she said, it is she said/they said and not any possibility of any evidence, none at all. She took a polygraph, which wouldn't be admissable in court because of a lack of proven reliability. Saying a former FBI Special Agent (?) administered the test isn't the best support for bona fides these days either, the public is learning what the rest of law enforcement has known for decades - the Bureau (though not most field agents) is lacking in integrity and ability.

  • ThomasD||

    Scrubbing her social media presence was about as innocent as OJ's low speed chase.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "She took a polygraph"

    Professor of Psychology. The academic you'd go to if you wanted to beat a lie detector test.

  • ThomasD||

    Beating a polygraph doesn't require any training if you either dictate who performs the test, or what exact questions are asked.

    Or both.

  • Mark22||

    Her memory seems hazy and changing over time; most likely, she just talked herself into this over the last couple of years and now firmly believes it to be the truth.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The Right needs to Cuck again and again forever and ever. Amen."

    The Right bailing on Roy Moore was the opening of the floodgates.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The Republicans control the process, so it is really up to them to rise to the occasion."

    True.

    They should grow a pair and say that charges that are asserted without evidence should be dismissed without a hearing. There is nothing to learn from a hearing. There is only delay in the exercise of the constitutional power of Trump as President.

    Looks like McConnell is all in with the Deep State, trying to keep an actual constitutionalist off the court while Trump fights the Deep State.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    So we can have another "I'm Spartacus" moment?

  • ThomasD||

    Always knew Gillespie was a gladiator movie kinda guy...

  • ThomasD||

    (Remember when that joke was considered both PG and socially acceptable?)

    Not that much before the 'alleged' incident.

  • mchughjj||

    I agree with this Nick's main point in this article. However, immediately after Kavanaugh's nomination, there were pre-printed STOP Kavanaugh signs being displayed at protests. Obviously, the Democrat operatives had the same material pre-printed for anyone on Trump's short-list of nominees. That this complaint was disavowed by the named witness in the complaint would seem to make the timing coincide with the short frame of Trump naming a replacement and getting that person seated by the next session and before the election. I'd say to Democrats, pick your poison. If you're worried about Roe v Wade, you could do far worse than this judge...rest assured it will be a Trump nominee one way or the other.

    On the other hand, this approach worked years ago with Robert Bork. It didn't work so well with Clarence Thomas.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Damn straight they do. However, I don't think she's going to be able bring any evidence to the table. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is criminal court, not Senate hearings. Kavanaugh is toast.

  • Will Seth||

    WWCTD.

    What would Clarence Thomas Do?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Call the lying bitch a lying bitch.

  • SimonP||

    Dozens (I gather) of apoplectic comments, and none of you seem to really get it.

    Is the timing of the disclosure "highly suspicious?" Well, no. Highly strategic, yes. Cynical, sure. It seems to me that Feinstein was holding this ace up her sleeve and waiting for the right moment to play it. It's a delaying tactic, little more. Run out the clock to the midterms, and see what happens then. Maybe they'll get a majority and send Brett packing. Maybe not. Doesn't hurt to try, right? Straight from the McConnell playbook.

    And - quite to my surprise - she seems to have calculated the dynamic correctly. It's clear that at least a few key Republicans are sensitive to the optics of rubber-stamping an appointee with this particular cloud, at this particular time, and want at least the appearance of doing their diligence. Meanwhile the Trumpists are going crazy with conspiracy theories and tortured justifications about why rape doesn't matter. Silly nutters. None of this is about that. Feinstein wants to put an albatross around your neck, and you're just stooping to let her.

  • vek||

    What you mean to say is that the 2 female Republican senators are some of the shittiest Republicans in the senate... And might let their irrational feelz overcome doing what they should do, which is tell the Dems to fuck themselves and appoint K. Just like they've done with several other pieces of legislation they've tried to pass since Trump got in.

  • ThomasD||

    "Trumpists are going crazy with conspiracy theories and tortured justifications about why rape doesn't matter. "

    Yes, that is a cogent and concise characterization of what is going on here.

    Brilliant.

    You will go far in life.

  • Incredulous||

    What has happened to Reason?

    First, Robby's ridiculous article on this smear job and now this.

    No, giving this slimy hit job a hearing would undermine what shred of respectability the Senate still has. It is decades too late and impossible to prove. It should be dismissed out of hand and Kavanaugh should sue her in court for defamation.

  • Pat001||

    Kavanaugh could defend himself by simply saying he was somewhere else at the time this attack allegedly took place. But she can't say where - or when, thus making it impossible for Kavanaugh to defend himself. Funny how that works, eh?

  • vek||

    Other than the fact that this story seems like total BS, I literally don't even care if it's true at this point. The Dems need to learn that they can't just trot out unverifiable stories of: rape, racism, sexism, etc any old time they want and get the right to cave. If we simply ignore their nonsense, they will have to stop doing it. Then perhaps such things will only be trotted out when it's an actual verifiable story, and when somebody really deserves it.

  • freedomscribe||

    "First and foremost, the leadership should publicly state whether they think the charges if proven would disqualify Kavanaugh from further consideration." I know this is a stretch Nick, but imagine you have lived a life like Judge Kavanaugh, how would it be just, to have your career and life destroyed by some stupid thing you did at age 17? Now acknowledge the straw man argument you make. There is no possible way the Senate could prove the accuser's claims. Even if you accept the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, the only evidence are three witness statements, two of which contradict the accuser. The whole thing reeks of political dirty tricks and Leftist tactics. You want to regain trust, establish some rational rules of engagement. Tell Feinstein and her minions to go to hell.

  • NashTiger||

    That idiotic Jacket and his ridiculous unsupportable False Equivalence claims.

    "There were a lot of bad deeds committed, both by ISIS and the Yazidis"....

  • NashTiger||

    Also, fuck yiu, jacket, again.

    Cocaine Mitch is the most Machiavellan? Other than about 87 other Senators

    Cocaine Mitch actually stood up for the 1st Amendment, alone, against a media onslaught, when McCain /Feingold came up. The man is among the very best in the chamber, and that is saying very little.

  • 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.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Not a very political person according to the MSM who wallow in politics and want the rest of us to wallow in it at the point of a gun.

  • XM||

    The senate should hold hearings on credible allegations. It doesn't serve the public interest for the government to postpone votes and appointments every time someone flings an accusation at a candidate. The government shouldn't cater to the mob.

    This woman contacted Feinstein months before BK's nomination. She did nothing with it. The democrats knew there wasn't much too go on (the FBI isn't investigating), but with time running they decided to throw a last minute hail mary. What have they got to lose? In the era of #Metoo accusations will lead to the accused losing his job only until he can be proven innocent. Guilty until proven innocent.

  • ThomasD||

    "The Senate should hold hearings on credible allegations. "

    Latest reports say Ford's lawyers is demanding an FBI investigation.

    Even though they do not have jurisdiction.

    Meanwhile no formal complaint has been made in the proper jurisdiction.

    Given all that I'd say there are no credible allegations to be heard.

  • Luxferia||

    This whole circus was a trap from its inception and, because the vote appears to have been delayed, it looks like some of the Rs fell for it.

    Every aspect of this caper was designed for delay: the 11th hour disclosure of a vague (but serious) charge, the slow crescendo of the accuser's requested anonymity, then naming, then agreeing to a hearing now, then agreeing to a hearing later, then agreeing to a later hearing but on her own terms, etc.

    The generic nature of Ms. Ford's allegations just further compound these problems. Any delay in questioning her benefits her to the near exclusion of K. Here's why: her allegations are so nonspecific and untethered in time and space that K cannot meaningfully adduce evidence exculpating him (to the extent it still exists). She, on the other hand, gets the balance of the week to get her story straight, hone it, moot cross, and seal gaps in her testimony. Any truth gleanable from this fiasco will remain hidden.

    It now looks like Sen. Collins wants the parties' attorneys to cross the witnesses. It sounds nice in practice, but I have my doubts. Ms. Ford's attorney is a political creature who will turn this proceeding even more of a joke than it already is. But K is effectively precluded from preparing because he doesn't t even know what the allegations are. Courts use discovery to mitigate this kind of surprise. These allegations have no place in a Congressional charade.

    The inanity of it all is mind-boggling.

  • Luxferia||

    And now CNN is reporting that Ms. Ford will testify only after the FBI conducts an investigation (that it already declined).

    Right. More delay. How unexpected.

    None of this is credible. Not even remotely.

    I am not a huge fan of Kavanaugh, but if this derails his confirmation, expect more of it. Forever.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Do we still need to pretend to take her seriously?

    Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying

    Even Flake is now saying that if she's a no-show, they should just go ahead and hold the vote.

  • Luxferia||

    This story is precisely what I was referring to above.

    As far as I'm concerned, Ms. Ford has waived her privilege to be heard through her repeated delay and bait-and-switch tactics. The committee should call it out for what it is—a political hit job—and hold Kavanaugh's confirmation vote tomorrow as planned.

    Giving any more credence to this insane circus will just ensure it continues to happen in the future (next time, with slightly more substantiated allegations or a braver accuser).

  • ThomasD||

    Sure appreciate Gillespie demanding we add another ring to the circus.

    Smart.

  • SezWhom||

    When i was child, Nick Gillespie attempted to rape me. At least that's the way I remember it. I demand that Reason suspend him from his job pending an FBI investigation.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online