MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brett Kavanaugh and His Accuser Will Face the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday: Reason Roundup

Plus: Henry Winkler takes home an Emmy.

BKJeff Malet Photography/NewscomKavanaugh and Ford. Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions at a public hearing on Monday.

Kavanaugh is President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, and Christine Blasey Ford is a college professor who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her 35 years ago, when they were in high school.

Trump was uncharacteristically muted about the news. "We want to go through a process, we want to make sure everything is perfect, everything is just right," he said during a press conference on Friday. "If it takes a little delay, it will take a little delay—it shouldn't certainly be very much."

According to The New York Times:

It will be up to Judge Kavanaugh to convince wavering senators of his innocence. Both Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said Monday that if true, Dr. Blasey's accusations would disqualify the nominee from the Supreme Court.

"Obviously, if Judge Kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying," Ms. Collins told reporters, adding, "For my part, I believe that it's very important that both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testify under oath about these allegations. I need to see them and listen to their answers to the questions in order to make an assessment."

Mr. Flake told reporters that he is "presupposing nothing with this hearing," but added, "If you believe the charges are true, you vote no."

Meanwhile, two former girlfriends who dated Kavanaugh in high school have come forward to testify to his outstanding moral character.

"I never saw him out of control drunk," former girlfriend Maura Kane told Fox News. "He always retained his composure. He was a responsible guy. He was someone who did have a beer, but he was never out of control. He never became someone different after drinking."

Kavanaugh has plenty of defenders; on the other hand, his accuser's account can't be easily dismissed. This is a frustrating, incredibly difficult situation. It's just impossible, at this point, to state definitively that Kavanaugh's nomination should be derailed because of an uncorroborated 35-year-old allegation. But the temptation to automatically dismiss Ford as a lying opportunist should be opposed as well. Here's hoping some evidence emerges to tip the scales one way or another.

FREE MINDS

New York magazine published a lengthy interview with Soon-Yi Previn, Woody Allen's wife and staunchest defender. Previn's perspective on the infamous dispute between Allen and ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow—who accused Allen of molesting their adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, in 1992—is completely at odds with Farrow's. (Previn is Farrow's adopted daughter. Her adoptive father is Farrow's ex-husband, Andre Previn, and she claims that Allen was never a father figure to her.) Soon-Yi says Farrow was an abusive mother who manipulated Dylan into accusing Allen as an act of revenge.

Farrow's biological son, Ronan Farrow, has become one of the most important journalists in American—he exposed Harvey Weinstein—and the foremost chronicler of the #MeToo movement. He released a statement condemning New York magazine's decision to publish the piece on Soon-Yi—written by Daphne Merkin, a friend of Allen's—as "shameful." Dylan Farrow released a statement as well, saying she had been "revictimized" by the piece. Ronan's partner, the writer and podcaster Jon Lovett, pulled out of New York magazine's festival in protest of the story.

The uncomfortable truth is this: We are often told that we must always believe women who come forward with stories of abuse. But Soon-Yi Farrow has a story of abuse too, and it conflicts with her mother's.

FREE MARKETS

School districts in Arizona spend far too much money on K–12 administrators, and those funds would be better spent on teacher salaries, according to a new report by the Goldwater Institute:

For example, the superintendent of Sunnyside Unified School District makes more than six times what the average teacher in the district earns. In Tucson, it's more than five times the average teacher pay. The numbers are similar for many other districts, from Paradise Valley to Buckeye.

Yuma Union High School District spent approximately 20 percent more on administrative expenses than similar districts because of the number of school-level and central office positions. In Piñon Unified, the district's administrative expenses were nearly 60 percent higher than districts similar in size. Had the district brought costs down to the average for comparable districts, teachers could have seen pay increases of nearly $12,000.

In Eloy Elementary School District, between Phoenix and Tucson, the district produced some 21,000 more meals than were needed for students. In 2015, the district wasted $73,000 on this food—money that could have added $1,600 to each teacher's salary. The district could have provided even larger raises if it chose to reward the most effective teachers in district schools.

QUICK HITS

  • A senior fellow at the Niskanen Center accuses Nancy MacLean of slander.
  • The Emmys were last night. Actor Henry Winkler, best known as the Fonz on Happy Days and Barry Zuckercorn on Arrested Development, won his first Emmy award over his 42-year career.
  • The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Game of Thrones won big as well.
  • Asia Argento threatens to sue Rose McGowan.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Kavanaugh and Ford.

    What's the new millennium version of the pubic hair and Coke can?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Fake Sexual Assault in a can?

  • Cy||

    30 year old fake almost sexual assault in a can?

  • JesseAz||

    Hey now. She correctly evolved her story from groping, psych notes, to fear of being murdered.

  • 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.

  • Eman||

    Why would she protest opposition to climate change?

  • Don't look at me.||

    There's an app for that.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Coke can incident actually occurred more recently than this alleged event

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Asia Argento threatens to sue Rose McGowan.

    The movement goes to a whole new level.

  • Cy||

    The Mega Meta Meta reverse 6th wave Feminist Counter Revolution?

    Let me know when we get back to public bra burnings....

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Emmys were last night.

    I honestly had no idea. Aren't those usually a Sunday night affair?

  • Jerryskids||

    I think they moved them from Sunday night to Monday night because they can't compete with The Simpsons but they can compete with ESPN's MNF. Especially with the performance the Seahawks O-line phoned in last night. Granted, they were playing the Khalil Macks, the greatest news that town has received since Jesus left.

  • Red Tony||

    I thought the greatest news was that 1985 was THEIR YEAR!

    And the worst news was that Jim McMahon got dumped on his head by a dirty-ass Packer player.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just ignore the Democrats and straight vote.

    Lefties are bunch of lying pieces of shit and should be treated as such. They are at war and will say and do anything to win.

    The sooner Americans realize this the sooner Lefties will lose.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Agreed. Why would anyone expect them to behave any differently with the next nominee if Kavanaugh withdraws?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Game of Thrones won big as well.

    NO SPOILERS. On either of them. (I haven't even seen Infinity Wars yet!)

  • grouser||

    You should probably wait on Infinity Wars until it is finished.

  • JesseAz||

    Infinity wars is already shit. Hi. I'm Thanos. I'm an anti population eco nut!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Everyone you love dies. In all of them.

  • JesseAz||

    If it stayed true to the comics you'd be right.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Thanos kills Dumbledore

  • JWatts||

    Thanos was enraged when Dumbledore threatened to go public with their long running love affair. Both of them knew their tribes just wouldn't understand.

  • ||

    The Game of Thrones shittiest season won something? I've been sleepwalk watching since they departed from the books. It's been a sunk cost that I just can't quite drop.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If that fat fuck Martin would have actually worked on the books instead of courting praise at various comic book and sci fi conventions, the books would have been finished a long time ago, even after the narratives started getting as bloated as he is.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "Believe women! Except the ones I don't personally like."
    — Katie Herzog (@kittypurrzog) September 17, 2018

    Especially if Hillary has destroyed them to protect her husband.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It will be up to Judge Kavanaugh to convince wavering senators of his innocence.

    At least we're not trying to disqualify anyone on their wavering support of constitutional protections.

  • I can't even||

    All he has to do is prove something didn't happen 36 years ago.

  • JesseAz||

    Simple.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    On an unknown date and location about 36 years ago, give or take a couple years.

  • Cyto||

    As always, brilliant and succinct.

    Justice Kagan opined that the federal government had the authority to order citizens to buy broccoli during her confirmation hearing.

    She not only got confirmed, it wasn't really contested.

    Anyone with a 5th grade reading ability should be able to tell you that nowhere in the constitution is the government granted such power. But those buffoons confirmed her like it was not only not a dangerous point of view, but kinda obvious and beyond reproach.

    Clarence Thomas talked about Playboy and told a joke about pubic hair on a coke and you would have thought that he suggested killing the firstborn sons of all citizens.

    At least they have their priorities straight when offering advice and consent.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • damikesc||

    Johnny, I think it's time we face reality.

    The press --- including Reason --- just assume that ALL male feminists are abusers and rapists. Because many of them, you know, are.

    So, to them, a male feminist being a shit to women is EXPECTED and, therefore, not news.

  • Mike Laursen||

    You're basing all this on Robbie's not including the story in the morning roundup?

    The way the morning Reason blog post has always worked is some staffer is on the hook to write up about 10 links to some kind of news events, and then the commentariat is welcome to post more links.

  • Eddy||

    OK, this one seems in a better position to be investigated:

    "Monahan broke her story earlier in the year, claiming to have video evidence of Ellison physically abusing her and using sexist slurs toward her."

    So either she has video evidence confirming her charges - which would help show Ellison is guilty - or she doesn't actually have such evidence - thus indicating that she's a liar and Ellison is innocent.

    The DNC has the basis for an investigation.

    Have they conducted one?

  • Cy||

    They're too busy trying to find some other rando 15 year old girl who thinks she might have been assaulted at a party in the same state as Kav in the 70's. #resist

  • DJK||

    Here's how the Ellison story has played out. This started with Monahan's SON claiming to have seen a video showing Ellison abusing her. Monahan claimed that the video does exist, but that she never wanted to show it. She said she wouldn't release it because she shouldn't have to release it to be believed and that releasing it would further victimize her. She later said she couldn't release it because it was on a flash drive that had been lost in a move. This all happened on the eve of the Democratic primary for Attorney General of Minnesota. The DNC claims to be investigating, but has been very quiet about it. Just a few days ago, reports broke that one of Ellison's former girlfriends (not Monahan) had made a 911 call in 2005, alleging that Ellison had domestically abused her.

  • damikesc||

    Clearly fake news.

    We cannot believe it unless they wait 35 years to report it to a Democrat.

  • DJK||

    It's been reported in news media with a bias toward both sides of the aisle. It's not surprising that it would be taking a back seat to Kavanaugh. Ellison is a candidate for Attorney General for a state of medium political importance. Kavanaugh is a nominee for the highest court in the country.

  • BYODB||

    That doesn't excuse the double standard for a guy that was almost chair of the DNC. In fairness to the DNC, Ellison was a terrible pick and they were smart on that call.

  • damikesc||

    Ellison is also co chair of the DNC.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Why is she going to the Democrats instead of the police?

  • Bee Tagger||

    The Emmys were last night. Actor Henry Winkler, best known as the Fonz on Happy Days and Barry Zuckercorn on Arrested Development, won his first Emmy award over his 42-year career.

    based on the jabs at the president, id say the emmys have finally jumped the snark

  • Don't look at me.||

    Hollywood people are the worst kind of people. In many ways.

  • JesseAz||

    Watching Hollywood and metoo I'd hilarious. There are more metoo moments there than anywhere.

  • damikesc||

    No shit. Hollywood lectures the country on morality while the entire industry is based on being sleazy

  • BYODB||

    I'll believe Hollywood is trying to get it's act together once guys like Feldman feel comfortable enough naming names. Lets face it, Hollywood is an equal opportunity rape zone and it's not just women having dicks waved in their faces. It's also nothing new and has been an open secret for decades.

    Given how few heads have rolled in Hollywood, I'd say PoundMeToo has now 'evolved' into a partisan political weapon rather like every other Pound group.

  • chipper me timbers||

    I see what you did there Bee Tagger. Well done.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Deep State Unmasked: State Department on Hidden Cam, "Resist Everything," "I Have Nothing to Lose"
    Federal Employee for State Department: "Resist everything… Every level. F**k sh*t up."

    Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Embedded in Federal Government Positions, Actively Resisting

    Stuart Karaffa Does Work for DSA While on Taxpayer's Dime: "I'm careful about it. I don't leave a paper trail."

    "I have nothing to lose. It's impossible to fire federal employees."

    Ethics Officer Fails to Recognize Breach on Ethics Form: "somebody just rubber stamps it and it goes forward…"

  • damikesc||

    I've been saying for years now that we need to bring back the spoils system.

    We did this bullshit merit system because spoils was "too political".

    The current system is worse. More corrupt and more inept. And even more political.

    With spoils, at the very least, SOMEBODY is responsible for the actions of an underling.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    We still have a spoils system; the Dems are just the constant winners of the spoils.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just in time for Talk Like A Pirate Day Tomorrow.

    Fake Rrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaape.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    bring back the spoils system.

    Yeah, this would never end badly.

    Do you even think these things through?

  • grouser||

    It was done and didn't end badly

    Do you ever say anything that isn't grossly ignorant yet stupidly self-certain?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah you're right. It's not like a president was assassinated or anything because of it.

  • damikesc||

    Now we have unaccountable bureaucrats ignoring the will of the voters and they cannot be removed from their positions.

    That is an improvement?

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, Jeff clearly sees the inability of the electorate to affect the Federal bureaucracy as a win-win.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And requires you to view the current system as a merit system in anything but name only. There is nothing meritorious about it. Why not talk about dismantling and reforming the system itself?

  • damikesc||

    Because it was ALWAYS be corrupted.

    Better to insure that NOBODY is in the government for more than 8 years.

  • JesseAz||

    A constantly changing bureaucracy that can't dig their heels in? Jeff is against that.

  • Eddy||

    A least Reason saw through McCain's "maverick" schtick. What about Flake's?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sure, let's have the entire bureaucracy staffed with flunkies of the guy in charge. What could possibly go wrong?

    "Oh, I see here that you didn't donate enough to the RNC. Sorry, your passport application is going in the 'slow' pile."

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff now believes that trump has over 10000 flunkies he could staff at a moment's notice. Keep going Jeff. This is great.

  • BYODB||

    Jeff is almost certainly somewhere between 17-25. It's the age where they think they know a thing or three but every time they open their mouth they reveal that they really don't know shit. They just 'believe' it really hard.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What you are asking for is literally a graft machine.

    Government services would become dependent on giving the "correct" donations to the "correct" political boss. Want a passport? Donate money to the RNC/DNC first!

    This isn't a hypothetical. Look up how political machines operated in the past.

    I can't believe you actually think this would be an improvement.

  • damikesc||

    How would that have been different from the government from 2009 - 2016?

    We HAD that. We have that A LOT when Democrats are in power.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When did Obama or anyone else demand donations to the DNC before a citizen could get a passport? Or other government services?

    Because that is what exactly will happen if you bring back the spoils system.

  • damikesc||

    Obama MURDERED AMERICAN CITIZENS with no warrant.

    His IRS targeted conservatives.

    His FBI instigated a witch hunt for purely political reasons.

    Tell me more about how much better THIS is.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not defending the status quo as totally awesome. It's not.

    But what you propose would be even worse.

    Instead of IRS targeting conservatives, we would have flunkies in the IRS demanding bribes and payoffs to the "correct" political party in order to have a tax-exempt application even considered.

    This is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED when we had political machines running big cities. Read up on Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed some time. Get a little bit of perspective and get a grip on yourself.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff. Go look at how Obama staffed his ambassadors dummy

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Ambassadors are not subject to the civil service, dummy. Do you want that same concept applied even to the person who decides to stamp your tax returns?

  • Azathoth!!||

    When he used government agencies to attack his political enemies?

    Or did you miss that?

    You can do that with an entrenched bureaucracy.

    It's much harder to do with a bureaucracy that turns over every 8 years

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's much harder to do with a bureaucracy that turns over every 8 years

    It is much EASIER because in a spoils system, everyone in the bureaucracy is dependent on patronage to keep their jobs. Loyalty is primary, job performance is secondary. And what better way to prove one's loyalty is to neglect one's actual duties and attack the political opponents of the current regime.

    Do you all even read history?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We HAD that. We have that A LOT when Democrats are in power.

    We did? Show us where some bureaucratic flunky demanded a payoff to the correct political boss before having routine government business tended to.

  • damikesc||

    Show me why "merit" is such a solid system it led to the FBI engaging in a 2 yr witch hunt for no actual crime while spying on American citizens for, literally, no reason.

    I'll be waiting.

  • BYODB||

    Chemjeff only argues for incremental improvements when it aligns with Progressivism. Or, you know, whatever his cause du jour is.

    Obviously a spoils system has massive drawbacks. The point is does one have fewer massive drawbacks.

    Chemjeff is incapable of understanding the question.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'd be the first to argue for incremental improvement when it comes to the federal bureaucracy, but bringing back the spoils system isn't an incremental improvement. It would make things much worse. Look, WE HAD THIS SYSTEM already. It resulted in big city machine politics and unbelievable amounts of graft. Read some fucking history.

    What is the goal that you actually want to achieve here? You're not an anarchist, so you want some functions of government to be performed professionally, right? If there is going to be some tax collection agency, do you want the tax collector to be evaluated based on objective measures of job performance, or evaluated based on subjective measures of loyalty and patronage? A spoils system means that the tax collector keeps his/her job based on LOYALTY, not job performance. I do not consider that to be a step in the right direction, do you?

  • damikesc||

    It resulted in big city machine politics and unbelievable amounts of graft. Read some fucking history.

    We have big city machine politics now and we have graft now.

    It certainly didn't resolve the problem --- it just made sure nobody was responsible for anything.

    A President appoints a crook to a position --- well, the President is to blame.
    Some nameless bureaucrat, in position for decades and virtually impossible to fire is a crook --- well, the current President is effectively powerless to fire them,

    There is not, to me, any valid argument for the current system over the old, also bad, system.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Are you capable of *not* engaging in the false choice fallacy?

    The status quo isn't great. What you propose is worse. I vote for neither. How about that?

    The real problem is that there are too many bureaucrats in the first place, regardless of how they are chosen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Show me why "merit" is such a solid system it led to the FBI engaging in a 2 yr witch hunt for no actual crime while spying on American citizens for, literally, no reason.

    Huh. So who authorized this "2 yr witch hunt for no actual crime"? Was it some petty unfireable unelected bureaucrat? No, it was Rod Rosenstein, appointed by Trump himself. And what gives Rosenstein the authority to empower such a vague far-reaching investigation? It's Department of Justice regulations that are entirely under the control of presidential appointees. There is no Deep State bureaucrat writing regulations to thwart Trump. So how would doing anything with regards to the civil service affect what happened in this case?

    And if you want to argue against FISA, go right ahead. I have always been opposed to secret courts and secret warrants. They are an affront to liberty no matter who the target of the warrant is.

  • Nardz||

    Collectivistjeff is the dumbest of faggots (stronger together!).
    Read some history?
    You don't believe in history, you believe in feelings and fantasy.
    You're an utter moron if you don't think there is already a spoils system in place, that "merit" based is nothing more than submitting to the state in the prescribed manner, and that a professional bureaucracy class is a greater threat to liberty than the bloodiest tyrant.
    Collectivistjeff, you're an idiot. Don't know if you're useful, though I admit you're annoying.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Huh. Lots of insults and naked assertions. That's what I've come to expect from the modern right.

    A professional bureaucracy is a greater threat than a bloody tyrant? Really? Oh good heavens.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Mr. Flake told reporters that he is "presupposing nothing with this hearing," but added, "If you believe the charges are true, you vote no."

    Or if you believe the Roe v. Wade is at stake it doesn't really matter whether you believe her or not.

  • DJK||

    +1 litmus test

  • Cyto||

    Has anyone explained why you would vote no under that scenario?

    It has been 35 years. Surely his conduct as an adult is more instructive as to the kind of person he is than his conduct as a teen. So exactly what is to be learned here?

    And how would you form an opinion? She sounds really upset and emotional about it? Exactly how does that lend credibility? it has been 35 years and she was not raped, nor did she even claim any clothing was actually removed (at least in the first telling). So why on earth would it be so traumatic that you'd get all emotional 35 years later?

    Conversely, if she tells the story in a more detached way, is that a strike against her credibility? Or does that also mean she's more credible because she was so calm under fire?

  • Cathy L||

    Has anyone explained why you would vote no under that scenario?

    Because if you believe it happened, that means he's been lying about it publicly for the past week.

  • Cyto||

    No it doesn't.

    Stipulating that she believes every word she says.... does that incident sound like it would be particularly memorable to anyone else? She remembers it as an attempted rape. So of course she remembers. Sort of.

    If such an event occurred exactly as she remembers - the two of them wrestling about on a bed and the boys laughing and having a grand old time - do you think they saw things as she did? If her memory is even a little bit reliable, she still would have embellished it in the direction of her own narrative. So would the boys. The odds that a 17 year old high school student would have thought "wow, I was totally about to rape her.... good thing my buddy jumped on us and she ran away" are pretty much slim and none.

    No, real people in a real scenario like that would almost certainly see things quite differently. So, if called out a day later, the boys would have recounted a flirty wrestling session that ultimately went nowhere. And 30 years later? Why would anyone suspect that anyone would remember such an event? Some girl they met once, maybe twice?

    No, you don't have to posit that he's lying.

    Nor do you have to suppose that she's lying.

    Memory and perception are extremely fallible things. And 35 years later it isn't remotely surprising that two people would have wildly divergent recollections of these sorts of events.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Game of Thrones won big as well.

    the contrarian in me is now pestering me to stop loving maisel. but i will not give in.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Logan Act? What Logan Act?

    Pompeo Slams Kerry's Talks With Iran as 'Beyond Inappropriate'
    "This is a former secretary of state engaged with the world's largest state sponsor of terror and according to him -- Right? You don't have to take my word for it, these are his answers -- he was telling them to wait out this administration," Pompeo said. "Actively undermining U.S. policy as a former secretary of state is literally unheard of."

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Wait, weren't Democrats insisting only very recently that such activities were criminal and a danger to national security? It's almost as though...Wait...was all of that talk...just a pretext? But why?

  • BYODB||

    Iran is totes different from Russia if you squint really hard and ignore that they're allies.

  • Conchfritters||

    It will be up to Judge Kavanaugh to convince wavering senators of his innocence.

    Is he guilt of a crime? What has he been charged with? She said herself they were both drunk - - what are the chances he even remembers anything?

  • Don't look at me.||

    He was nominated by Trump. That is his crime.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That and the Lefties know that Kavanaugh will not be voting with the Lefty wing of the SCOTUS. Especially not after these attacks.

    Unlike what Kennedy did.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    On that note, Kavanaugh gets a bit of street cred since the Lefties are willing to attack so much.

    If he scares the Lefties this much, he might actually be a really good justice on the SCOTUS.

  • BYODB||

    Fortunately for Kavanaugh, his views on the constitution have nothing to do with the 'resistance'.

  • General_Tso||

    The high crime of being nominated by a guy with an (R) after his name.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You left out two further crimes: That Trump did not really win the election, and that Obama's nominee did not get a vote. So not only is Kavanaugh a nominee from the wrong President, he's the wrong nominee.

  • DJK||

    Firstly, she said that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge (the other dude alleged to have been present) were both intoxicated.

    Secondly, do you really think that remembering your crime is a necessary element to be convicted of said crime? Or that being intoxicated excuses one for abhorrent actions they committed while intoxicated?

    None of this is to say whether or not Kavanaugh did what he's accused of. Just things to think about before going full Team Red on this.

  • damikesc||

    Secondly, do you really think that remembering your crime is a necessary element to be convicted of said crime? Or that being intoxicated excuses one for abhorrent actions they committed while intoxicated?

    Again, why assume that she is not making it up?

    A constantly changing count of the number of people at this party (any bets on NONE of them remembering where or when?) sure seems totally legit.

  • DJK||

    That's what an investigation is for. Like it or not, you're getting one.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, but notably no one really believes her. Feinstein didn't believe her. She's a useful prop to stand in for a filibuster that the Democrats themselves nuked.

  • damikesc||

    As of about 15 minutes ago --- she still hasn't actually agreed to testify.

    And the Dems are still not cooperating.

    Come on, guys. Tell us more about how we need this investigation so badly.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But how the hell do you "investigate" an event that supposedly happened without any other witnesses than the accuser, and the two co-accused, both of whom deny it? On an unknown date, in an unknown place?

    Basically you'd have to establish Kavanaugh's location every day over a period of about 4 years, 36 years go.

    There's no point in investigating. There's not even enough evidence a crime took place to justify investigating, after all this time.

  • Robert Crim||

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

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

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    For example, the superintendent of Sunnyside Unified School District makes more than six times what the average teacher in the district earns. In Tucson, it's more than five times the average teacher pay.

    It takes a lot to blindly mete out zero tolerance policies.

  • General_Tso||

    These people are on the front lines, dealing with helicopter parents and pop tarts bitten into gun shapes!!1!

  • JesseAz||

    Tucson has some of the worst public schools in the nation. But we pay for that failure.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Almost 40% of my property tax goes toward the school district.

    I think some of that money goes to charter schools in Georgia. They have vouchers for special needs kids to go to any school they want.

  • JesseAz||

    We had passed an ESA of 5500 for all students in Arizona. Teachers union sued to stop it. The amount is about 60% of the costs per student which would save the state money and allow poor students to go to private schools. Charters get about 80% of tusd cost per students and far out perform the public schools. Of course charters don't send 57% of all school funding to administration. And teachers strike for more .Oney even though it just gets syphoned to more administration people each time.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's an interesting thing. I helped teach Math at Cholla High School one year, and I must say I'm impressed by the size of the administrative office. Though I believe the school has reasonably sized refugee population, so that practically leads to some more complexity there.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They could cut costs by saying that English is the official language and refer all kids/parents to (ESL) English as Second Language tutoring.

  • Mike Laursen||

    That's pretty much like every other public school district in the country. Administrating pays well.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sunnyside is a pretty hilariously bad school district. It's also in Tucson.

  • lap83||

    Like everyone else, I didn't even know the Emmy's were on. But Henry Winkler is great on Barry, so he deserved that award I don't care about or something

  • Cathy L||

    The uncomfortable truth is this: We are often told that we must always believe women who come forward with stories of abuse. But Soon-Yi Farrow has a story of abuse too, and it conflicts with her mother's.

    The other uncomfortable truth is that Mia Farrow was obviously and undeniably an obsessive collector-mother, two of whose adopted children died by suicide while a third pretty much did the same via homelessness and AIDS. Soon-Yi was an adult when she got together with Woody. Meanwhile Dylan was obviously coached by Mia, and Ronan too young to remember any of it.

    The poster boy of #metoo investigations was likely abused by his own mother but sides with her to smear an almost certainly innocent man. Doesn't say much for his reporting.

  • Conchfritters||

    I agree with everything about Mia - she is crazy AF - although who gets married to their step-father? Then again, the dude does have $$$.

  • Cathy L||

    He wasn't her stepfather. He was her mother's boyfriend and they never lived together.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They were fucking...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They were a couple for well over a decade. Sorry, but macking on a young woman that you have known since she was a small child and you were in your mid-40s, not to mention the adopted daughter of your long-time girlfriend, is just gross.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    It's just impossible, at this point, to state definitively that Kavanaugh's nomination should be derailed because of an uncorroborated 35-year-old allegation.

    But when you add his #MeToo problem to all his other baggage — baseball ticket debt, rudely refusing handshakes, white power gestures, failure to acknowledge Roe v. Wade as a SUPER-PRECEDENT — it's clear he's unfit for our highest court. We libertarians should be thanking Senator Feinstein for saving us from this dangerous right-wing extremist.

    #CancelKavanaugh
    #Resist

  • Don't look at me.||

    Ehh. C+

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It'd be interesting some day, maybe when OBL retires his handle, to get a retrospective (in 1500 characters) of his career and how well he thinks we, the audience, appreciated him and guided him with our criticism.

  • Don't look at me.||

    You can't just let a talented person get lazy.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Precisely. We made OBL great. If we had left him alone, he'd have sputtered out. Like Rufus (I think) said, the guide to how well he's doing is how often people get into arguments with him before realizing who it is.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Make OpenBordersLiberal-tarianism Great Again

  • JesseAz||

    It wasn't as subtle as Obl usually is, but I laughed. I demand a b.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    It's a rehash. You lose points for not refreshing your act.

  • JesseAz||

    The left has about 12 rehashed talking points they use over and over. Maybe Obl went meta.

  • ||

    Even the French judge is giving you a 4.

  • 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.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Eddy||

    Think of socialism like a dysfunctional relationship - everything that goes wrong is because you weren't a good enough person, so if you just try harder things will turn around and get better.

  • lap83||

    Yeah, something that involves an independent activity you are personally responsible for seeing through from beginning to end is a GREAT analogy for socialism. Western socialists are the dumbest people

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Capitalism can cause market failures, like inequality.

    That's why we need communism.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Think of socialism like the little engine that could, who faced so many failures over and over, until finally his spirit and enthusiasm overcame the laws of economicsphysics and he made it up the hill and over the top to success and fame and perpetual copyright royalties.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Is it ok if I think of the hill as being a pyramid of skulls?

  • Juice||

    So socialism is like a delicate souffle that collapses the second it encounters anything the slightest bit destabilizing? Ok, good analogy.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Also, don't forget that you also need to crack a few eggs to make a souffle.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "crack" - "murder", whats the difference.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Think of Socialism as a turd. People try to polish it but just make a mess. Then people try to polish it some more.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At least its easy to spot them. They have poo covered brains.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Shit For Brains ain't just a river in Egypt.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, I don't think calling in the Mythbusters would make socialism work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It would be cool to watch them blow socialism up though.

  • Shirley Knott||

    The primary failure of this absurd analogy, of course, is that there are actual cases of well-made 'fancy baked goods'.
    When the results never ever rise to the level of 'satisfactory' the failure is in the recipe, not the cooks.

  • Zeb||

    And imposing socialism on people is like forcing people who would be happy with some Little Debbie's coffee cake to buy fancy baked goods. That turn out to be filled with shit.

    Let's see if I can extend the analogy some more. Capitalism is a hearty stew. It may not do everything that everyone wants, but it is good and nourishing and is pretty hard to fuck up. Unless you insist on baking it into a souffle.

  • Jerryskids||

    Why "good intentions" are evil.

    Socialists constantly point to their desired ends as evidence of their virtue, but as Jason Brennan put it in Why Not Capitalism?:

    Socialism is not love or kindness or generosity or oceans of delicious lemonade. Socialism is not equality or community. It's just a way of distributing the control rights over objects.

    Socialism is not ultimately an end but a means. And as a means, socialism is evil.

    That's because, at heart, democratic control is still political control, and politics makes us worse. One of the ways it makes us worse is by fostering the attitude that we're entitled to boss others about, even if we're only one of many engaged in the bossing. It's an ugly, dehumanizing impulse that fails to respect the dignity and sovereignty of our fellows.

  • ||

    Just because many have made a mess of their kitchen attempting it, doesn't mean you go around declaring you'll never eat soufflé again! It just means you try harder.

    I've never been in a kitchen that ground up 20 million humans in order to make a soufflè but if I had, I'd probably never eat there and would adamantly recommend to others that they not do the same.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He was someone who did have a beer, but he was never out of control. He never became someone different after drinking.

    SO YOU'RE SAYING THE DRINKING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RAPE ATTEMPT

  • Don't look at me.||

    He was a rapist when sober?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All men are "potential" rapists.

  • loveconstitution1789||

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

    All fuck kids. Disprove it.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Why does maggie get a capital letter? What makes her so special?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    typo.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hassan sounds extra rapey.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Kamala Harris grabbed be by the pussy set a high school party in 1978.

  • Conchfritters||

    At least Tom Harkin is no longer there.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze

    Stephen Miller Retweeted Chad Pergram
    Any journalist not questioning why she sat on that letter for two months while claiming republican obstruction at this point is commiting complete malfeasance. Holy shit.

    Chad Pergram
    Verified account

    @ChadPergram
    Feinstein: Under the Trump administration, Republicans want to do even less by blocking any investigation into Dr. Ford's allegations.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Don't look at me.||

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    That discrepancy in how many were at the party sure doesn't seem significant to me. Part of this is because one said four in the room, one said four at the party, and that seems like lawyer quibbling to me. The one difference about whether she was the only girl there seems a bit more interesting, but again, teenager parties aren't known for being well-organized and rigidly controlled; who's to say someone didn't show up and leave, or left afterwards, or showed up afterwards?

    Anyone who thinks that's the best "evidence" of lying needs to get back to basic principles of 35 year old teenage memories being shoddy at best.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    35 year old memories of teenagers who were drinking. There's no way to definitively prove of disprove this. That's the point.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The discrepancy is very important: it foreshadows the fact that some other lying ***** has volunteered to be a witness for Jones next Monday.

    Obviously Jones would want to modify her story ahead of time.

  • DJK||

    Agreed. She claims that the discrepancy between the therapist's notes and her current account is due to the therapist inaccurately writing a note saying 4 men attacked her, when she said 4 men were present at the party (which she still maintains). That is certainly a plausible story. The therapist was likely scribbling notes quickly, may have misheard, and probably wasn't focused on such details, as the alleged sexual assault would have been the main point of focus.

  • DJK||

    Agreed to Scarecrow. Fucking nested comments.

  • damikesc||

    Agreed. She claims that the discrepancy between the therapist's notes and her current account is due to the therapist inaccurately writing a note saying 4 men attacked her, when she said 4 men were present at the party (which she still maintains). That is certainly a plausible story. The therapist was likely scribbling notes quickly, may have misheard, and probably wasn't focused on such details, as the alleged sexual assault would have been the main point of focus.

    Notes taken at the time of the discussion are always going to be more believable than a memory years after the fact.

    And given HER memory...doubly so.

  • John||

    The therapist has no reason to lie. Moreover, saying four men attacked her is not something anyone could reasonably confuse with "four men being there". The therapist's notes are the more reliable source for the information and cast real doubt on her credibility.

  • DJK||

    No one ever said the therapist lied.

  • John||

    It is unlikely he could have made that mistake. So, his notes are likely what she actually said.

  • damikesc||

    Umm, she did.

    Sorry, she said his notes were "wrong".

    Because her new claim is so easily mistaken for what was written.

    Any idea why she is not very willing to testify under oath?

  • 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.

  • damikesc||

    She also will not testify, apparently, without an FBI investigation done first. Which they have already said no to given that her accusation has no evidence behind it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Emmys were last night. Actor Henry Winkler, best known as the Fonz on Happy Days and Barry Zuckercorn on Arrested Development, won his first Emmy award over his 42-year career.

    Pleather Jackets Rejoice!

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Cy||

    The damage is done. Dems are going to do everything to extend this as long as they can. There will be no resolution to this. It sad and beautiful to watch. They've thrown out an improvable #metoo case and now all they have to do is nothing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why Democrats are going to get slaughtered in election 2018.

    Normal people see this type of behavior and are terrified, that they will be falsely accused next.

    Remember, Nixon was elected in a landslide as a law-and-order president after over a decade of hippie SJW bullshit.

  • Horny Lizard||

    No, I don't fucking remember. How old are you?

  • JesseAz||

    So too dumb to look up Nixon's election results?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He is dumb and is too dumb to look up Nixon's election results.

  • BYODB||

    Everyone knows Her Story is better than HIStory.

  • 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.

  • damikesc||

    I love the Dems demand of an FBI investigation if this with no answer on what federal statute is in question.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They wanted it to be perjury.

    Kavanaugh testified that he never sexually assaulted anyone and then *poof* a perjury trap by Feinstein that was rejected by the FBI.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It will be up to Judge Kavanaugh to convince wavering senators of his innocence."

    This is horseshit because Kavanaugh's innocence can't be substantiated. Neither can his guilt.

    We have the testimony of a woman who by her own admission never told a soul about the assault--for almost 30 years--until she was in marriage counseling. So her story cannot be substantiated.

    The only witness was Mr. Kavanaugh's friend--who says he doesn't remember anything like that ever happening.

    This is like the McCarthy hearings. The New York Times, and everyone else who wants congress to investigate these unsubstantiated allegations, are effectively endorsing the McCarthy hearings. I say fuck the McCarthy hearings, and if you're someone who wants allegations that can't be substantiated taken into consideration by congres, then fuck you, too.

    Yes, everyone who wants due process taken into consideration in Title IX cases like this--and also wants these unsubstantiated accusations against Kavanaugh taken into consideration--is a phony.

    Yes, everyone who thinks Lenore Skenazy makes a lot of sense--and also thinks that what people do as children should be taken into consideration by congress 35 years after the fact--is a phony.

    Yes, everyone who wants sentencing reform for convicted felons--and also wants Kavanaugh to account for mere allegations from 35 years ago that can't be substantiated--is also a phony.

    A phony what?

    You're a phony libertarian, that's what.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties are at war, and all is fair in love and war.

    Lefties love them some war.

  • Don't look at me.||

    I keep hoping the heat and controversy is continually turned up until someone does something so outrageous that people will suddenly realize blind support to a politician or their party is the acme of stupidity.

  • Cy||

    +1 for proper use of acme

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Why not paragon, or apogee? Acme is too much like the Wiley Coyote brand of heat seeking missiles.

  • JesseAz||

    Outrageous like shooting up a congressional baseball game? Or attempting to stab a GOP candidate? How quiet the media was on the attempted stabbing is nuts.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Politician used a campaign sign to block a busted knife attack.

    I dont like politicians much but that shit is movie material.

  • BYODB||

    I can honestly say I haven't heard about this, but looking it up it is amazing it isn't national news. Thanks for that.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's not the least bit amazing. The media were minimizing Democratic violence all through the 2016 campaign. At this point, in order for some nutjob Democrat attacking a Republican office holder to make the news, there has to at least be an ER visit with a good chance of death.

  • BYODB||

    It's amazing in the context of a sane society. Take that as you will.

  • Eddy||

    "This is like the McCarthy hearings."

    McMarthy generally had more evidence than the say-so of a single witness to stuff 35 years ago.

    Let's be fair to Tailgunner Joe.

  • Ken Shultz||

    To the best of my knowledge, McCarthy also didn't go after people for what they did as children.

  • Eddy||

    When McCarthy went off the deep end, as with George Marshall, it wasn't because he'd found dubious witnesses at hearings, but because he was making dubious inferences from existing evidence - like saying Marshall's actions were motivated by a desire to benefit the Commies.

  • Eddy||

    McCarthy was also accused of misremembering, or lying about, the evidence that did exist.

    When he was censured, it wasn't for abusing his investigative powers for for obstructing a Congressional investigation into his own conduct.

  • Eddy||

    but for obstructing etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The CIA already had the Venona decripts, so they could have proven McCarthy partly correct.

    The CIA and Presidents felt that keeping Venona a secret was more important than helping root out Communists.

    IIRC, some of the known Communists from Venona were not even followed. In other words, the CIA did not conduct a huge information gathering operation or use the info to stop real harm to US interests.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "The CIA and Presidents felt that keeping Venona a secret was more important than helping root out Communists."

    It isn't hard to suspect that some of the guys in the CIA actually being communists fed into that decision.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Probably right. I think much of the old secret protections are to keep government incomptence from coming to light.

    JFK files for example. There are very few good reasons to keep anything from that assassination a secret.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Don't forget that he was a liar right from the start, making up stories about his military career and war record. Didn't he even claim to be in a different service at one point?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Read the article below, it addresses much of the Soviet propaganda against McCarthy.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    What the heck does that have to do with him being a famous liar?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The targets of his investigations, those Communists still hiding, and Soviet propaganda went after him and lied about him being a liar.

    He's NOT a famous liar. He was proven correct.

    He's famous for outing Socialists and their Sympathizers when they thought they could destroy the USA from the inside out. They are still trying.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I heard he raped a girl at a party.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    He IS a famous liar. He made up stories about his war record. H made up enough lies about enough of his victims that the times he told the truth are meaningless.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Scarecrow: Then you have zero problem with a nice citation that supports your position.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Your attitude makes it plain that any citation from me would be meaningless. Find your own. I know they are out there; you seem to be reluctant to look for them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah asking for a citation is what you said....NOT

    So, no citation and what you said about McCarthy is not correct.

  • ThomasD||

    LOL, boy scarecrow, you sure showed him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Marshall plan gave cash to the Commies, who turned on the promise to hold fair elections in post-war Eastern Europe.

    Marshall was NOT the American you think he was.

  • damikesc||

    His comment that if Marshall was just stupid, SOME of his decisions would have benefitted the US is still a really, really good line.

    And, in his defense, he did request closed sessions for the investigation because he knew some people would likely be innocent. Democrats refused.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    McCarthy was mostly correct too.

    There were thousands of Communists, Communist sympathizers, and Stalinist apologists seeking to destroy the USA.

    McCarty is still bashed for outing all these American 5th Element types who were digging in like ticks after the WWII alliance with the USSR.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    McCarthy was a liar from day one. Lied about his military career, where he'd been, what he'd done. Anyone who'd lie about that has no credibility left for anything else.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left attacked him with every breath as ordered from Moscow. I dont know everything about the whole ordeal but I reject most claims by Lefties about McCarthy.

    He outed 40 agents of the USSR out of thousands that he accused. They were actual spies and the lefties covered for them over and over.

    The New American- "The Real McCarthy Record"

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    He still lied about his war record.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your citation fell off.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Google the guy. You'll find enough stories. If I gave you citations, you'd sneer at them for being insufficient, and I am not going to guess at what would convince you. If you are afraid to look up the sordid history of one of your heroes, that's not my problem.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So no then?

    I asked YOU for citation to support YOUR position and YOU are refusing.

    I am not doing your work for you.

    Its like you know that your citations are shit, so you expect people to be skeptical of them. Peer review buddy! Its life around here.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I am not doing any work for you. You would just sneer at any citation from me, and they are easy to find. If you don't want to dethrone one of your heroes, that's not my problem.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Then what YOU said is false. A lie.

    See ya liar.

  • John||

    We have the testimony of a woman who by her own admission never told a soul about the assault--for almost 30 years--until she was in marriage counseling. So her story cannot be substantiated.

    The marriage counseling part is the tell. There is simply no way she didn't tell anyone for all of those years. I used to prosecute rapes. And I am fully aware that rape victims often do irrational things. I had one case where the guy confessed to raping the victim and the victim admitted to having consensual sex with the guy after the rape. But as strange as victims can act, they always tell someone within a few weeks or months after the incident. And even if they don't, their friends notice that something is wrong. They never just act like nothing happened for 30 years.

    So what likely happened here? This woman goes to marriage counseling and when confronted with her awful behavior towards her husband concocts a story about how she was assaulted in high school to excuse her behavior. Notice she didn't say who did it in 2012. It was only after Kavanaugh was nominated and she realized she could be a liberal hero that she suddenly decided it was time to say who did this assault. If this story isn't considered incredible, no accusation is.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Counselors are notorious for getting patients to make up fake memories. I can't imagine how much more pressure there is in joint counseling to make up external causes to excuse oneself or the spouse. I have heard too many stories of shrinks talking about how making up stories is a good form of therapy.

  • John||

    I have never gone to a counselor. I have never heard that. Psychology is such a cargo cult.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Women dont want to hear the entire truth from men.

    That men think about sex most of the day and tend to be physically attracted to most women they see every day?

    Men keep the peace with their loved one by some omissions. Women cannot emotionally handle what men are and how we tick.

    Women are not happy with the fact that they have effectively domesticated men which goes against our biology to fuck as much as possible.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I have never been to a counselor either. But friends and family have, and their stories are interesting.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    My counseling story is different.

    When divorce looked imminent, a lawyer suggested giving counseling a try.

    My then wife spoke first and described all the stuff that was bothering her.

    The counselor asked a few questions and she elaborated.

    Then, (not in these words), the counselor asked something to the effect: "What are you talking about?"

    I never said a word for the hour but it made my day.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another huge difference between men and women is that men tend to have friends that will call out your bullshit.

    Women go from delusions in their head to delusions out their mouths. If they only had that friend that said, "what are you talking about"?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Everyone is a victim.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It is going to come down to performance; will Ford make a good enough appearance to garner sufficient sympathy so as to cast doubt on Kavanaugh. Or will he come across as believable enough to deflect this late breaking and perfectly timed #METOO accusation? That of course will determine how Senators with "key" votes will lean, considering how said performances might affect their careers.

    The left want Kavanaugh off that court so badly they will do anything to prevent his confirmation. And this could be the performance of a generation of more. And do not doubt for a second that Ford is getting the benefit of Hollywood's best in that regard.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's just a question of whether one or two Republican senators in swing states feel more pressured by concerns about being reelected than they do about confirming this judge. The jury isn't in the senate. It's the American people.

    If, off the top of my head, Dean Heller from Nevada decides that the pearl-clutchers in his state are a big enough threat so that he might lose votes if he confirms someone accused of sexual assault 35 years ago, then he probably won't vote to confirm.

  • BYODB||


    Or will he come across as believable enough to deflect this late breaking and perfectly timed #METOO accusation? That of course will determine how Senators with "key" votes will lean, considering how said performances might affect their careers.


    Wrong. They're going to vote exactly the way they were going to vote, the only question is going to be how credible they'll be when they claim that the hearing is what swayed them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Reason extensively covered the McMartin preschool trial--and all the injustices associated with that. One of the things we learned from those injustices is that people can manufacture memories without realizing it. Your mind will create memories to justify feelings you had at the time as a means to resolution. The other things to remember is that our memories don't mature.

    At Thanksgiving, one time, I was talking about an argument my brother and my parents had when I was seven years old--my brother was 14. I was talking to them about how vicious and hateful it was. My brother went off to boarding school after that (like we all did), and in my mind, that was all about the argument. None of them--none of the three of them--remember the argument that way at all.

    The argument, as it really happened, just wasn't a big deal. It's just that 1) my memories were the memories of a seven year old mind in a highly charged state and 2) my memories reconfigured themselves to explain why my brother went away.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Point being, Kavanaugh's accuser may genuinely remember this thing happening, but her memories may be unreliable--especially from 35 years ago. Things I've read online suggest that the more often we remember something, the more the story changes, too--as our circumstances reinterpret the meaning of what happened to fit with how we picture ourselves today. I don't suppose it should be controversial to suggest that the memories of a 15 year-old girl going through puberty may have been repeatedly convoluted and reinterpreted over a 35 year period.

    That's why this stuff needs to be substantiated. If she never told a soul for 30 years, then it just can't be substantiated--regardless of whether it really happened. And, sorry, but we can't stop the world on a dime over allegations from 35 years ago that can never be substantiated.

  • John||

    If her memories are genuine, she conjured them out of thin air in 2012. If she thought this happened to her at the time, she would have at least acted differently enough that her friends would have noticed and almost certainly would have told someone about it.

  • Cyto||

    Here's what nobody is interested in hearing: a scenario where nobody is a liar and still nothing much happened.

    Suppose that she actually went to a party at 15. And there were boys from a snotty rich boy's school. And suppose she's kind of flirting with one of them. She heads off to a bedroom with a couple of the boys.... they seem to be in to her, and she seems to be in to them.. But they are all kids and they don't really know how to make the move for the first kiss... so they kind of flirt and wrestle around and edge up to it but go nowhere. He tugs at her top a few times and they laugh about seeing her boobs and she giggles and says no.

    At some point she decides she's not into this game any more and he's taken it too far. So she runs off, never saying anything to anyone about it.

    The guys laugh it off and everyone goes home without any hard feelings.

    All of this is completely consistent with her version of events.

    And now what happens? Well, memory is a funny thing. It really does change when you revisit it. This has been confirmed many times by researchers and published in peer reviewed journals. It confirms what attorneys would have told you years ago.... eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence - particularly the more time that passes after an event.

  • Cyto||

    So off she goes to college, where she hears a lot about date rape. She suddenly puts 2 and 2 together and realizes that she has an anecdote where she was almost date raped! So for a while, that becomes part of her narrative. And as she gets older, she remembers this story when she sees a rape scene in a film, or when there's a story in the news. And each time it gets a little bit embellished.

    Then she goes to this couples counseling session. Asked to reflect on her own shortcomings, she offers this anecdote. Maybe she says 4 guys tried to molest her and her memory has changed since then, or maybe she says 2 and the therapist gets it wrong. Still, she doesn't have a name attached to the story.

    But Kavanaugh hits the news. Or maybe she hears about his buddy's book, due to her connection to the area. And that sticks in her brain.

    Then at some point she attaches his name to the story.

    If the events actually occurred, she almost certainly remembers them very differently than they actually occurred. Because that's just how our brain works. But she would remember it in exactly the same way that she remembers everything. It would not feel at all false or made-up to her. She would remember it just like you remember getting lunch this afternoon.

  • Cyto||

    Now, what about the guy? Well, it is entirely possible that she never was at a party with Kavanaugh and just attached his name later. In that case his denials are 100% factual.

    But it is also possible that he was actually the guy she remembers. So why is he such a liar?

    Well, if things went down close to the way she said, I could certainly envision a couple of guys having vastly different perceptions of the events than she describes. So imagine that they were flirting and wrestling around and he's kidding with her about tugging at her shirt. Despite the fact that she's becoming uncomfortable with their game, he's clueless. He thinks they are having fun and maybe she's digging him. Eventually she heads back out to the party and he takes off with his buddy.

    Nothing happened, so there is nothing to remember. Within a year or two he couldn't even remember being at that party.

    So two people, both being completely honest in recounting things as they remember them.... and still with completely incompatible versions of events.

    Every bit of this is entirely plausible and perfectly consistent with what we know of memory and of how different people might perceive the same events entirely differently.

  • 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.

  • Dadlobby||

    Kudos, right on spot. False allegations of abuse run rampant in family and divorce court and are now the standard gynocentric relational violence of today's "victimized" woman. Left wing manginas, right wing white knights, and male apologist "libertarians" who pander to the "victim" turn a blind eye to due process and constitutional protections.

  • DJK||

    Kavanaugh is not being charged with a crime. This is not a criminal trial. This is a Senate questioning. There is no reasonable doubt standard. There is no due process whatsoever. The burden of proof is literally whatever the fuck the Senators want it to be. As elected officials who are (in principle, if nothing else) beholden to their constituents, it makes perfect sense for them not to confirm a nominee if they feel there's a good (or decent or plausible or whatever standard they choose) chance that the man attempted to commit rape.

    There's a case to be made that libertarians should be happy that the Senate is actually choosing to do some diligence (for whatever reason) before rolling over to the will of the Executive branch. We do tend to believe in checks and balances and all that.

  • John||

    So because it is not a criminal trial it is okay to ruin someone's career based on a single 35 year old accusation that has no corroboration whatsoever?

    Libertarians should want the Senate making decisions based on rationality tempered with a sense of fairness and justice. What the fuck is the matter with you?

  • DJK||

    Ken claims that due process is required and that libertarians should want Kavanaugh confirmed. Bullshit. There is not due process required. Note also that the Senate actually is doing diligence here. They are attempting to get a sense of what happened here. You are the one who seems to have already determined exactly what happened based on very scant evidence.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Kavanaugh is not being charged with a crime. This is not a criminal trial."

    Let's see what Ken actually wrote.

    "Yes, everyone who wants due process taken into consideration in Title IX cases like this--and also wants these unsubstantiated accusations against Kavanaugh taken into consideration--is a phony."

    ----Ken Shultz

    Title IX cases at universities are also not criminal trials. Still, using unsubstantiated allegations to ruin people's lives is horseshit. Do you deny this?

  • DJK||

    I agree that using FALSE allegations to ruin people's lives is horseshit. The allegations may be unsubstantiated now, but they could certainly be investigated. You're all jumping to a ton of conclusions based on very early reports. Not a great strategy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How do you investigate a claim when the alleged victim says she told no one about it--for almost 30 years?!

    Are you deranged?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you planning to keep interviewing people until they finally confess to knowing something that the alleged victim never told them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Are you planning to keep interviewing people until they finally confess to knowing something that the alleged victim never told them?"

    If the investigation never uncovers someone who remembers what they were never told, does the investigation ever end?

  • Cyto||

    There is absolutely no way to investigate this claim.

    There is no evidence that could ever be produced of any type.

    Even if you had a brain scanner that could read memories, you couldn't learn the truth. Because memory is fallible and it literally changes every time you revisit it.

    You have someone who claims a series of events happened. The other person denies it all. That's all there is. He says he wasn't there, didn't do it. She says he did.

    This isn't a he-said, she-said where she's saying rape and he's claiming something different and consensual happened. This is much more simple - you can't hold up two versions and pick the most credible. "Nope, didn't do it." isn't going to have any contemporaneous power.

    She's going to be all worked up and able to cry on cue. There is just no way possible to fairly review the evidence. Even if she has details of her story moving about, that doesn't mean she's lying. Memory does that - particularly when dealing with something from 3+ decades in the past.

  • Cyto||

    Her version also includes "I never told anyone" and "I made sure that I was presentable and nobody could tell that anything happened". So producing another party attendee for questioning doesn't do anything. If they say she never said anything, that corroborates her version. If they say she looked fine and not at all traumatized, that corroborates her version.

    The story is constructed such that there are no claims that can be falsified, nor can they be verified.

    It is literally immune to investigation.

  • BYODB||

    DJK has a point, given that Kagan was confirmed without any judicial record whatsoever and had a massive conflict of interest in the ACA case yet voted on it anyway. Any leg the left had to stand on involving the Supreme Court and nominations to it went out the window on that day, as did those of the Republicans who voted to confirm.

    The politicization of the courts has already been completed.

  • BYODB||

    And, just to be clear, DJK is also immensely stupid since it's obvious to anyone that actually has brain cells to rub together that this is a desperate ploy that Democrats pulled at the last minute because they already fucked themselves when they nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and no amount of impossible to prove or disprove sexual assault allegations are going to suddenly cause Republicans to not confirm Kavanaugh.

    Has it occurred to anyone else that Republicans are enjoying the left 'beclowning' themselves en masse over this while they have zero actual power to actually have any effect on the final vote?

    Nope. The far left has it's head collectively so far up their own ass that they don't have any clue how transparent they are. They're even losing the middle-left on this one, and that says quite a lot.

  • John||

    There is no way to investigate this. She says it happened. He says it didn't. There is no corroborating evidence to examine or anything other than their two respective claims. There is nothing to make sense of. And the claims I am making are rational conclusions based on what is known. If you think those claims are wrong say so. You have not done that. You have yet to make a single point in response. You just make unsupported claims that it is "based on scant evidence" like that means anything without explanation and argument. You are just wasting everyone's time and shitting all over the thread because you want this to be true but can't explain or provide any evidence why it is. You are not fooling or convincing anyone.

  • DJK||

    Huh? There is plenty that can be done. High school friends of the Kavanaugh and the alleged victim can be interviewed. Hell, each and every one of their classmates can be interviewed. From that, it can possibly be determined who else was at the party. They can be interviewed. This would take time and resources and would certainly delay things. There is an argument that it's a waste of time and money. But to claim that it can't be done is simply false.

    Your notion that we can conclude what happened based on what is known so far is patently ridiculous. It's best to let it play out and take evidence as it comes. The Senate hearings are short of a full investigation, but they will reveal more info. A full-blown investigation, if it happens (likely because of what was turned up at the Senate hearings), will also reveal more information.

    I don't want the allegation to be true at all. I'd prefer it not be. To this point, I thought Kavanaugh was a good dude. I like most of his positions. He's not the best candidate Trump could have put forward, but he's better than most. I would much rather get to the bottom of the allegation now and not have a potential attempted rapist on SCOTUS. Unlike most here, I'm waiting to see what happens when all the evidence comes in.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There is plenty that can be done. High school friends of the Kavanaugh and the alleged victim can be interviewed."

    You seem to be unaware of the facts.

    The fact is that the "victim" says she told no one for almost 30 years.

    Feel the facts. Know the facts. Live the facts.

    You're going to interview all the people that went to that prep school 35 years ago and see if they know about the story--when the alleged victim herself claims to have told no one?

    There's a word for that kind of investigation. It's called a "witch hunt".

  • DJK||

    Here's a fact for you. Based on our best evidence, fewer than 10% of sexual assault allegations turn out to be false. That's damned good reason to investigate this. Obviously this situation is very different than those on which such stats are founded, given its high-profile and politically charged nature. That's why you investigate.

  • John||

    Based on our best evidence, fewer than 10% of sexual assault allegations turn out to be false.

    Bullshit. The percent is higher than that. Beyond that, even if it is 10%, that doesn't prove anything. This case is in the 10%. Some cases are and this seems to be a great candidate for being one.

    And for the fifth time, the accusor says there is no evidence to find. So there is nothing to investigate.

  • DJK||

    It must be nice to have all that certainty in the face of the unknown. Good luck, John. I hope for your sake that Kavanaugh isn't a piece of shit. I'll make the smart move and reserve judgment on that until an investigation has been conducted.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Here's a fact for you. Based on our best evidence, fewer than 10% of sexual assault allegations turn out to be false."

    Do you have a link for that "fact", or, like a 35 year old allegation, am I supposed to believe it just because you say so?

    Here's another fact.

    Ruining people's lives for an unsubstantiated allegation that shouldn't have any impact on somebody's life 35 years after the fact--even if it were substantiated--requires more than a 90% probability.

    Here's another fact.

    Letting partisan hacks disrupt Supreme Court nominations over 35 year old allegations that can't be substantiated is an open invitation to stupidity and chaos for the foreseeable future. You want to delay or disrupt the functions of a civil society, you better have more than an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago and an unlinked/bullshit probability of 90%.

  • Robert Crim||

    Like this?

    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.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Also, the victim herself says that she never told anyone about it--not a friend, not a parent, no one--for almost 30 years.

    How do you substantiate an allegation that the victim didn't even tell anyone about for 30 years?

    There's no one who can say, "Oh yeah, in 1989, she told me that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her" because--according to the victim--she told no one. The only witness is Kavanaugh's friend who says it never happened.

    So, there is no way to substantiate the allegation--and, most important of all--you either plan to take an unsubstantiated allegation into consideration or you don't. In what context could taking an allegation that can't be substantiated into consideration appropriate? Isn't the correct answer, "never"?

  • DJK||

    According to Ford, there were 4 people at the party, no? That means 2 of them weren't Kavanaugh and Bunch. It is certainly possible to figure out who they were. Interview them and see what they know. If nothing comes of it, great for Kavanaugh. This is a really easy first step. Investigative tactics 101.

  • John||

    According to Ford, there were 4 people at the party, no? That means 2 of them weren't Kavanaugh and Bunch. It is certainly possible to figure out who they were.

    And those people haven't come forward why? The whole country knows about this and certainly everyone who went to high school with Kavenaugh knows about it. Yet, none of them have come forward. That is pretty strong evidence she is lying. It is only possible to find those people if they exist. And that is the whole question isn't it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The alleged victim stated in 2012 that there were four guys in the room. She's since changed that number. Regardless, the other girl, apparently, wasn't in the room--even according to the alleged victim--and can never testify as to what happened. She might be able to fill in some details about where this party took place--the alleged victim doesn't remember. Regardless, the alleged victim claims to have never told anyone about it--not even whatever other girl was in the house.

    Oh, and regardless of whether Kavanaugh even did it--not that this can ever be substantiated--holding people responsible 35 years after the fact for what they did when they were minors is ludicrous. There isn't anything reasonable to do with this information--even if the charges were substantiated.

    Incidentally, the explanation that you're a silly partisan with Trump Derangement Syndrome is the simplest explanation for your weird thinking process.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Investigations require a facade of objectivity since the conclusions might not fit your claim.

    Lefties dont want investigations. They want Trump's head on a pike.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ken claims that due process is required and that libertarians should want Kavanaugh confirmed."

    People who don't think the government should use unsubstantiated allegations to ruin people's lives have no business refusing to confirm Kavanaugh on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. That's only hard to understand if you don't want to understand it.

    Meanwhile, my only support for Kavanaugh's confirmation, otherwise, has been that I think we libertarians are unlikely to get a better alternative (especially on the Second Amendment) IF IF IF the Democrats somehow take the senate. If you want to refuse to confirm Kavanaugh because you don't buy that argument and you think we're likely to get someone better than Kavanaugh appointed, I'm all ears.

    On the other hand, refusing to confirm someone on the basis of allegations that cannot be substantiated is horseshit.

    Meanwhile, giving social justice warriors the means to make civil society stop in its tracks every time someone makes an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago is just plain stupid.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I see two possibilities here; either Kavanaugh prevails in the trial of public opinion, or Ford does, If Ford does prevail, based on some "believability matrix" it will mean that any man, at any time and for any reason, can be sabotaged and his career ruined because victims are never wrong and do not lie, no matter how attenuated the allegation may be. If you do not tow the feminist line, you go down.

    If Ford fails to deliver in her performance, is refuted, or Kavanaugh otherwise prevails it could undermine the entire "#METOO" movement as a histrionic witch hunting sham.

    Given the motivations of the parties involved, and everything we know about Kavanaugh and no one else coming out of the closet on this. I am convinced the entire matter is nothing but a calculated attempt to just keep him off the Supreme Court; otherwise, their progressive agenda could be screwed for decades.

  • Eddy||

    "It will be up to Judge Kavanaugh to convince wavering senators of his innocence."

    Really?

    I know, "this is not a criminal trial," etc.

    But let's look at this from a practical level.

    If we presume that in high-stakes political battles, a last-minute charge based on the testimony of a single witness to events 35 years ago is presumptively true...I was going to say we're fucked but I suppose we already were.

    And what if he'd gone to juvie for the crime, then gone back onto the straight and narrow and had a distinguished career, like Adlai Stevenson after accidentally shooting a fellow teenager?

  • Eddy||

    (Stevenson didn't go to juvie, I'm talking about hypothetical people who did)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're trying to use logic on a Lefty strategy where logic does not apply.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh no, the whole world needs to stop spinning every time some SJW suddenly makes an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago. Anything else would be chaos!

    Besides, the only way this battered institution we call congress can reestablish its credibility with the American people is stop in its tracks every time someone suddenly makes an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago.

    /sarcasm

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    BREAKING: US slashes refugee admission limit for next year to 30,000, 15,000 fewer than this year.

    Completely unacceptable. There should be no limit to refugee admissions, or any other kind of movement into the US. That's basically the fundamental principle of libertarianism.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're like the Tony of open borders.

    If I wanted to discredit progressives in the minds of libertarians, I might hire someone like Tony to troll libertarian websites--just to make progressives look even dumber.

    You're doing the same for open borders.

    I've been consistently defending open borders here since 2004, and you're making the rest of us look far stupider than we are. If you really care about open borders, please tell people you're a progressive rather than a libertarian, at least.

    Making open borders people look stupid is bad enough--why extend that to making libertarians look stupid generally?

  • Eddy||

    I'm about 90% sure he's a satirist trying to discredit progressivism and left-libertarianism.

  • Don't look at me.||

    A very good satirist. I am waiting for his book to come out.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Very insightful. I especially appreciate the fact that you understand that "open borders" really only applies to movement into the US. Obviously we need to regulate native-born Americans who would emigrate from the US with punitive taxes and other disincentives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What ever happened to all those Lefties who were moving to Canada after Trump was elected.

  • BYODB||


    I especially appreciate the fact that you understand that "open borders" really only applies to movement into the US.


    It's always been amusing how clearly and obviously idiotic the open borders position is. It's based on the notion that the rest of the world doesn't actually exist. It's one of the strongest critiques of the libertarian party there is, it's just that no one feels the need to push back against such a clearly lunatic opinion.

  • John||

    I give it 50 50 that the Kavanaugh accusor even shows up to the hearing. I don't think she wants to be questioned under oath about her nonsense story. I would not be surprised at all if she doesn't show.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    If she does show you can count on the Democrats to wail loudly if the Republicans ask her so much as a single question.

  • John||

    If she does show, she is going to come across like the complete loon she is. The Republicans calling the Democrats' bluff on this was pretty smart. If she doesn't show, only brain dead partisans like Tony will continue to care about this. If she does, she is likely going to be completely unbelievable. Either way the Democrats lose.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Speaking of loons, I imagine the Pussy Hat Brigade will be out in full force, probably wearing those dumbass "Handmaid's Tale" costumes.

  • John||

    I am sure they will be.

  • John||

    I find it very funny that that book is so loved by a certain type of upper class white woman. The villains of the book were upper class white women. The whole point of the system in the book is to exploit poor people so that upper class people can have children. Yet, the very same upper class white women vilified by the book are out reading it and celebrating it in between trips to the fertility doctor or interviews of possible surrogate candidates. No amount of irony is sufficient to describe reality these days.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I read somewhere that it got pretty much shut out at the Emmy Awards. Ha, I hope so. The SJW wailing that would result from that would be vastly amusing.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The other irony to that is the very obvious reference to Islam. The women in Gilead live under virtual Sharia law. The author has stated that the plight of women living under conservative Islam was one of her inspirations (along with the oppression of the East German people). Progressive white women fawn over Islam and apologize for it to the point of absurdity, yet the obvious indictment of Islam in Handmaid's Tale goes right over their heads.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Hulu series really emphasizes the point.

    The main paternal figure looks like an Arab. The common punishment for various crimes is amputation of various body parts. Unlike the book, where racism is a big deal, the Gilead of the Hulu show don't give a crap about what your race is--just like in Islam. The Hulu series makes a big deal out of driving, too, like in Saudi Arabia. Themes changed in the last season, but the the first season, definitely, was all about Islam. People could rightly go after it for being Islamophobic.

    If the series hadn't been marketed as a feminist thing, people on the right might have loved it.

    Because it was marketed as a feminist thing, people on the left loved it--when it's ideologically suspect even as a feminist narrative. That isn't just about Islam either. Even in the book, some of the biggest enemies of feminism were women. Is there anyone in the book more evil than the wife of the patriarch or the woman that trains and disciplines the handmaids? I don't think so. That was a major criticism of the book that came from feminists when the book came out.

  • DJK||

    John, you're making some pretty strong claims based on scant evidence. There is just as much chance that Kavanaugh comes off looking like an idiot and you're eating your words in the next few weeks. You're smarter than this. In fast-breaking cases like this, the best general policy is not to jump to conclusions that fit your political preferences.

  • John||

    There isn't scant evidence. There is a lot of evidence about this woman's behavior and the complete lack of credibility in her claim. It is very fair to conclude the woman is a loon. The facts are what they are. It has nothing to do with politics. Stop projecting your obsession with politics onto everyone else.

  • DJK||

    Haha. Alright, John. Way to go off the reservation again. Those Team Red glasses really are quite blinding.

  • John||

    Yeah I am so off the reservation. I guess you have yet to make a single rational point why that is out of kindness or something. There is a long list of points made by myself and others explaining why this accusation is almost certainly untrue and impossible to verify anyway. You haven't made a single point in response to any of that. All you are doing is yelling "TEAM RED". It is fucking pathetic and a waste of everyone's time. Either get your head out of your ass and make an intelligent point or shut the fuck up and stop wasting everyone's time.

  • DJK||

    The account is certainly not impossible to verify. The federal government has enormous investigative resources. Any decent lawyer can come up with a dozen things they'd have a PI investigate for diligence. The feds can come up with far better. What an epistemically privileged position you're in.

    Your evidence appears to be that she's a loon and not credible. Point to specific facts that objectively show that. Don't just project your preferred political narrative onto things that are open to interpretation.

  • John||

    The account is certainly not impossible to verify.

    It is a 35 year old claim that the accuser admits she never told anyone until 2012. Saying "but the feds have lots of resources" doesn't make it possible to verify. Where would they look? What would they hope to find? She never told anyone. So there are no witnesses out there lurking. The only other person she claims was in the room denies it happened.

    The evidence that she is not credible is that she never told anyone this happened until 2012 and even then didn't say it was kavenaugh. And that is totally inconsistent with everything we know about sex assault victims. They often don't report and the don't always tell someone immediately, but they tell someone. She also doesn't remember the date or even what season it was. That is completely unbelievable. Victims remember every detail of assaults. If they could forget, it wouldn't be so traumatic. A woman claiming she was assaulted 30 years after the fact who cannot at first remember who did it and can't remember any of the details is not credible.

  • John||

    John|9.18.18 @ 10:15AM|#

    These people who claim that her accusation is credible need to explain what a non credible accusation would look like. I have a very good idea what one would look like. It would be;

    1. Made years after the fact making it impossible to corroborate fully
    2. There would be no evidence that the accuser made the accusation or told anyone until decades after the alleged incident
    3. It would be denied by everyone the accuser claims to have knowledge of the incident
    4. It would be vague and the accusor would give inconsistent accounts of it
    5. It would be contrary to the known character of the person against whom the accusation is made.

    In other words, it would be this accusation. If this accusation is "credible" every accusation short of one that defies the laws of nature is credible.

    That is why this isn't credible.

  • BYODB||

    An excellent summary.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "The federal government has enormous investigative resources. " I think you have been watching too many NCIS reruns; lay off the Netflix for a while.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The government so mismanages its resources that the Deep State could not even steal the election with hundreds of bureaucrats trying to do so.

  • ThomasD||

    "y strong claims based on scant evidence. "

    Holy shit that's some world class irony there.

    How about strong claims based upon zero evidence?

    What are your thoughts on those, DJK?

  • BYODB||

    But John, you forget that false accusations aren't provable either thus she has nothing to fear in terms of perjury. Only Kavanaugh has to worry about that.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Well, who put the poor girl in that uncomfortable position? That awful brute...

  • Ken Shultz||

    If she wants to be interviewed in public, I'd think that would speak to her political motives.

    My bet would be that the Republicans don't want their interview with her to be broadcast on television, and the Democrats insist that it's on television.

    I also doubt any Republican will want to be broadcast asking an alleged sexual assault victim tough questions. That's probably political suicide.

  • John||

    I don't think so. This whole thing is an exercise in confirmation bias. The only people who are going to believe her or be offended by the Republicans asking her tough questions are people who want to believe her and whose minds can't be changed anyway. I think anyone with an open mind or looking for confirmation not to believe her will be fine with them asking her to explain herself. Juries find sexual assault victims to be unreliable all of the time and do no turn on the defense for pointing that out, as long as they are not an asshole about it.

  • Cyto||

    You are wrong on that one, John.

    This one cuts strongly along gender lines. Having a tearful woman on TV explaining how she was traumatized by the drunk private-school rich boys who thought they could force themselves on her with impunity will play very differently if you are a woman. Most women will identify with her. They will see themselves in the victim, and they will empathize if she is attacked for her inconsistencies. They will see tough questioning as victim shaming. They will be on her side.

    Now, maybe most women won't watch or pay attention. But enough will be watching to make it tough to line up against her on national TV. Nobody is going to want to have a campaign-commercial worthy moment in the hearing.

    That's why this is such a good smear tactic strategy.

  • ThomasD||

    Question s I'd ask would have nothing to do with the alleged incident.

    I'd ask who she has communicated with regarding this subject since sending the anonymous letter.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    She should be protected from the patriarchy.

  • Don't look at me.||

    HASN'T SHE SUFFERED ENOUGH ALREADY?

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Problem is that if one more woman who has ever met Kavanaugh at any point in his life under any circumstances comes forward with a claim, no matter how vague or unverifiable, Kavanaugh is done.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I've wondered about that; do you suppose another victim is waiting behind door number two, or three? Given the stakes here I have no doubt whatsoever that Democrats and their minions would resort to just about anything to prevent his confirmation.

    If so, we will be hearing another "#METOO" any day now from someone who has even the most tenuous connection, be is 35 years ago, if only to cast suspicion And that would be enough to make several politicians waiver.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Reason now offers its readers two Robbys in one!

    Robby #1, Sept 7th, 2018:

    "I don't believe [Asia Argento]. In fact, this is a textbook example of why the fourth-wave feminist notion that we should automatically believe all victims is pernicious."

    Robby #2, Sept 18, 2018:

    "Kavanaugh has plenty of defenders; on the other hand, his accuser's account can't be easily dismissed."

    So, a woman who has tangible evidence that she actually had sex with the man whom she claims assaulted her a few years ago should NOT be believed, but a woman who offers zero proof she even was in the same room with her supposed attacker 36 years ago should get the benefit of the doubt.

    Damn Robby, that must have been one hell of a cocktail party you got invited to.

  • John||

    These people who claim that her accusation is credible need to explain what a non credible accusation would look like. I have a very good idea what one would look like. It would be;

    1. Made years after the fact making it impossible to corroborate fully
    2. There would be no evidence that the accuser made the accusation or told anyone until decades after the alleged incident
    3. It would be denied by everyone the accuser claims to have knowledge of the incident
    4. It would be vague and the accusor would give inconsistent accounts of it
    5. It would be contrary to the known character of the person against whom the accusation is made.

    In other words, it would be this accusation. If this accusation is "credible" every accusation short of one that defies the laws of nature is credible.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    All #METOO accusations are, given the obvious bias of that crowd, absolutely true unless proven otherwise. It's like presumption of innocence turned on its head, and any and all accusations treated as prima facie, because there is so much more at stake here...nothing less overturning the evil patriarchy. Given that, what does it matter a a few people, be they college students or nominees to the US Supreme Court, get is little rough treatment now and then?

  • Don't look at me.||

    There are, to be sure, some nuances that we are not aware of.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    That's NOT what he said, and your quote proves it. He said it can't be easily dismissed. That is literally true. You fucked sheep and chickens as a kid -- now prove that to be false. Now try to disprove it in a high-stakes Congressional setting.

    Not so easily dismissed, is it?

  • Bearded Spock||

    I get your point you're making -- these charges are impossible to disprove -- but you're overlooking the point I'm making.

    Eleven days ago Robby had no difficulty looking at all the facts of the case and flatly declaring that he didn't believe Asia Argento.

    Now he appears incapable of even considering the weak, contradictory evidence and obviously political nature of Professor Ford's accusations, and instead cops out and treats her story as being equal to Kavanaugh's.

    For a website that prides itself on its dedication to the concept of innocent until proven guilty, the importance of due process, and the need for hard evidence instead of hearsay, this is an embarrassing column.

    I suspect it is because Kavanaugh is too White Male Republican for Reason's Urban East Coast tastes, as well as their bizarre compulsion to oppose all things Trump.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Robby has lots of wishy washy in him. But that is apparent to anyone who reads his article. You do no good to your cause by exaggerating what he said.

  • BYODB||


    For a website that prides itself on its dedication to the concept of innocent until proven guilty, the importance of due process, and the need for hard evidence instead of hearsay, this is an embarrassing column.

    In fairness, it's become an embarrassing publication.

    There are still some good blog posts, and Stossel is always a joy, but the entire Millennial Brigade makes me want to stab out my own eyes. And that's coming from an "Elder Millennial".

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is what I was trying to say about Title IX.

    How can you insist on due process for Title IX rape accusations, but think congress should carefully consider unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations from 35 years ago?

    Robby offers libertarianism little but embarrassing contradictions and a style guide.

  • DJK||

    That's a really good way to ignore all the evidence in the Argento case (like her paying the dude not to talk about their sexual encounter - that's a very strange move from one who claims to have been sexually victimized).

  • Number 2||

    "But the temptation to automatically dismiss Ford as a lying opportunist should be opposed as well."

    That would be easier to do had the accusation not been preceded by a circus that included the gross misrepresentation of Kavanaugh's testimony and an idiotic "I am Spartacus" moment.

    And, frankly, it would be easier not to dismiss this accuser as a lying opportunist had the exact same thing not happened 20+ years ago with Clarence Thomas, right down to the 11th hour emergence of the allegation, and the fact that the allegation had been known but not raised prior to its emergence.

    And for the record, Susan Collins did not say that the nomination would be not be derailed if the allegations were true; she said they'd be derailed if Kavanaugh lied about them. A subtle but significant distinction.

  • John||

    I do not think it is worth responding to the issue much because doing so takes away from the absurdity of this accusation and gives it credibility it doesn't deserve. I think the assumption that if the accusation were true that it is disqualifying is absurd. Suppose he did as a drunken teenager hold down and grope this woman. That is certainly not a good thing. But, I don't see why that should follow him for the rest of his life such that he should be disqualified from high office. The 30 plus years he has gone living by all accounts an upstanding life ought to count for more than one awful act committed as a teenager that was never even reported to the police.

  • Don't look at me.||

    But every paroled murderer / child rapist should not have a problem getting a job at a daycare center. Because fairness.

  • lap83||

    That's different because there is a decent chance they would vote Democrat

  • Number 2||

    Funny you would say that.

    The following comes from an EEOC Enforcement Guidance issued by the Obama Administration:

    "In 2007, the Third Circuit in El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ... El, a 55 year-old African American paratransit driver-trainee, was terminated from employment when SEPTA learned of his conviction for second-degree murder 40 years earlier; the conviction involved a gang fight when he was 15 years old and was his only disqualifying offense under SEPTA's policy. The Third Circuit expressed "reservations" about a policy such as SEPTA's (exclusion for all violent crimes, no matter how long ago they were committed) "in the abstract"...The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for SEPTA, but stated that the outcome of the case might have been different if Mr. El had, "for example, hired an expert who testified that there is a time at which a former criminal is no longer any more likely to recidivate than the average person.""

    If it is potentially illegal for a 40-year-old murder conviction that occurred when the person was a teenager to automatically disqualify someone from a job, how can a 36-year-old allegation of what someone did as teenager disqualify someone from a job?

  • Drave Robber||

    Four cases of people accusing each other of something, plus Game of Thrones.

    SMDH

  • JesseAz||

    Another lie from the accuser has been overlooked. In her letter to the Washington Post, she claims she sought medical treatment after the attack. She now says this refers to her marriage counseling. She didn't enter into counciling due to the attack but due to her marriage. She fabricates facts as recently as 2 months ago. She is not credible. She sounds just like Jackie.

  • John||

    She was in high school. If she had been attacked and sought medical treatment her parents would have known about it and likely made an issue of it then.

  • JesseAz||

    It doesn't explain her lie. She claimed she had sought it out then said she meant the counciling session which for which the attack was not the impetus. She likely threw in the medical attention in her letter to increase the gravity of the situation.

    She's also now blatantly admitted she scrubbed her social media, another warning sign.

  • ThomasD||

    It's puffery. A professor of psychology surely knows that the only sort of counselling that could be accurately characterized as medical would require the presence of a psychiatrist.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'm also curious about the part where she supposedly didn't want to come forward on this, but wrote a letter to her congresscritter in July, got an activist lawyer in August, took a polygraph in August...if I don't want somebody to know about something I just keep my mouth shut.

  • JesseAz||

    She also wrote wapo in July. But used her maiden name as a cover... The tightest cover I've ever seen to hide an identity.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>But used her maiden name as a cover

    she fails "cover" if uses the name she would have used at time of incident.

  • Mickey Rat||

    She was married when she was fifteen?

    Mental therapy sessions decades later is not the conclusion most people would think of when hearing "seeking medical treatment" after an attack.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another Socialist demand for a show trial just like what the Nazis and Soviets did.

  • chipper me timbers||

    this is going to be a really entertaining show, I'll give them that.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    on the other hand, his accuser's account can't be easily dismissed.

    Actually it can, given what appears to be changing details from her, the fact that she apparently said nothing about the alleged incident to anyone for 30 years, and the fact that the third party who got mentioned by name has said its B.S.

    Of course, you'd believe her ludicrous story even if a billion other people publicly testified to his integrity and decency, because you're a dishonest left-wing asshole and you don't want him to be confirmed so you'll desperately cling to anything you can get.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • BYODB||

    Well, that's a great idea. Make it even easier to change votes.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    ". It's just impossible, at this point, to state definitively that Kavanaugh's nomination should be derailed because of an uncorroborated 35-year-old allegation."

    Plenty are already stating that very thing, so it is not impossible to state definitively, etc.

    It should, however, be impossible to derail his nomination.

    Note: the allegation isn't 35 years old. The alleged event happened 35 years ago. The allegation is more recent.

  • Jerryskids||

    While it may be possible to say it shouldn't be possible that Kavanaugh's nomination should be derailed because of an uncorroborated 35-year old allegation, there are certain writers here at this very blog who have written pieces entertaining that very idea. The first time I saw it I thought "well, surely they mean if the allegation is in any way substantiated, it possibly becomes a bar to confirmation", but, no, they seriously believe that the mere allegation needs to be treated as a potential bar. Un-fucking-believable. I mean, sure, the mere allegation is indeed a potential bar, that's exactly why the Dems trotted it out. But it's the same way they trot out accusations of Nazism against anybody to the right of Maxine Waters and deserves no more consideration than a purely political ploy and that's not the way it's being treated here.

  • DJK||

    Can you cite to a Reason writer saying that the mere allegation should be a bar to confirmation? I've seen Reason writers say it should be investigated, that it is a bar to confirmation if it actually happen, and that Republicans might be best served by nominating someone else. I haven't seen anything like what you've described.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What's the point of investigating an accusation that can't be substantiated?

  • DJK||

    Claiming that it can't be substantiated is extremely bold. We are a few days into the story. Fast-breaking stories like these tend to have lots of facts come to light over time. There may be evidence that substantiates or completely disproves it. Such things can certainly be investigated. Especially given the resources of the federal government.

    What's the point of not investigating an accusation? So that Kavanaugh can be confirmed as quickly as possible? We're talking about hearings in less than a week. Surely we can wait to see what happens then. What are you so worried about?

  • John||

    Claiming that it can't be substantiated is extremely bold.

    No it is not. How could it possibly be substantiated? It is a 35 year old accusation that the accessor admits there is no contemporaneous evidence of. Short of a video of Kavenaugh bragging about doing it, what possible way would there ever be to substantiate this

    All you are doing here is claiming that, "if we just look hard enough and wish hard enough, surely something will turn up". Bullshit.

  • DJK||

    And you seem to claim that it shouldn't be investigated at all. There is no downside to the Senate (and possibly law enforcement, if it comes to that) investigating this, other than that your team's nominee might not get confirmed or might have to wait a few weeks to get confirmed.

  • John||

    There is nothing to investigate. The accusor admits she never told anyone and there is no evidence to be had. What about that do you not understand?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And you seem to claim that it shouldn't be investigated at all."

    For the tenth time?

    There is nothing to learn from the investigation. Holding people responsible for what they did as children 35 years after the fact is a gross absurdity--even IF IF IF the allegation were substantiated.

    You seem to be making this assumption that what children do should disqualify them from consideration for public office--35 years after the fact. You've done NOTHING to substantiate that assumption at all.

    Go ahead and defend that assumption. I dare you!

    Explain to us all why what children do today should disqualify them from consideration from public office 35 years from now.

    That's the follow up to the question, "What's the point of investigating an accusation that can't be substantiated?" It's the observation that even if the accusation were substantiated, what difference does it make? Punishing children for what they did 35 years ago as children is so unhinged, far as I can tell, McCarhty wouldn't even go that far.

    How's it feel to be further out there than the John Birch Society? It used to be "reds under the bed". Nowadays, it's sexual assaulters and rapists--everywhere!!! You may require psychiatric assistance. Why would you think any of this is appropriate? Your fanaticism is so fucking weird, you'd go after people for what they did as children, like, really?! Isn't that a warning sign of some kind?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    McCarthy went after adult agents of the USSR.

    He was proven mostly right and this was why the media continues to undermine his claims as false. He helped set back the Socialist destruction of the USA from the inside out.

  • ThomasD||

    "Claiming that it can't be substantiated is extremely bold."

    "It' referring to the claim as it currently exists.

    A claim with a two year time range...

    You are a joke.

  • John||

    How can setting the precedent that any allegation, no matter how old or how uncredible ends someone's nomination "best serve Republicans".

  • DJK||

    It can serve Republicans in two ways:

    1) We simply don't know the facts. If it seems likely that Kavanaugh did this, or if this becomes a full-blown investigation, there's not much time to confirm a new nominee before the Senate session ends. Republicans may waste a chance to get another appointment (on the ~1/3 chance Democrats take back the Senate).

    2) Republicans don't have to waste political capital defending a candidate who faces a sexual assault allegation, especially at a time when Republicans are being hammered for their alleged mistreatment of women.

  • John||

    So running away and ruining this guy's career over a completely bullshit allegation doesn't create a moral hazard of the Democrats doing the same thing to every nominee? The Republicans need to stand up for the truth. Kavanaugh is innocent and there is no way anyone no matter what their politics should be denied a seat on the Court based on an allegation this flimsy.You are fucking disgusting. You really are. You don't like Kavanaugh so you are happy to see his reputation ruined and him denied his life ambition based on a single uncorroborated claim. Fuck that

  • DJK||

    I like Kavanaugh just fine. I would gladly see the exact same thing done for a candidate I love or a candidate I hate. The person being investigated does not matter.

  • John||

    The person being investigated does not matter. It is wrong to ruin people's careers based on lies.. And if you like Kavanaugh and just think everyone should be subject to slander, you are more disgusting than I thought you were.

  • ThomasD||

    "I like Kavanaugh just fine."

    I call bullshit.

    Please substantiate this with links to positive comments you made regarding him prior to this latest turn of events.

  • ThomasD||

    Nor does running away do anything to a man who has not been shown to have done anything wrong.

    Yeah sure, that's the way to treat someone.

    Very libertarian to have him run through the wringer then abandon him based upon a vague and entirely unsubstantiated yet highly inflammatory accusation.

  • BYODB||

    Presumption of innocence without evidence to the contrary is so 18th century, man.

    Oh, wait a second sorry. It's so sixth century. And yes, I had to look it up. So sue me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Emmy Ratings Fall Double Digits To New Low, Despite Move To Monday By NBC

  • Larvell Blanks||

    I think we need an investigation into Kavanaugh's obvious fetish for girls named Maura.

  • Dillinger||

    it's a hot name ... but I'm a brett so maybe correlation

  • ThomasD||

    Judging from the pool both Ford and Kavanaugh were swimming in I don't think there were any Savannahs or Destinys around to be had.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Don't look at me.||

    Why is he still on the payroll?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I assume it's because as he says, "Its impossible to fire a federal employee".

  • Dillinger||

    >>>But the temptation to automatically dismiss Ford as a lying opportunist should be opposed as well.

    why? straight out of the playbook. it should be *assumed* she's a lying opportunist as a base.

    >>>Here's hoping some evidence emerges to tip the scales one way or another.

    how's he gonna prove the negative from 35 years ago genius? video or it didn't happen.

    how is jeff flake still a thing?

  • JesseAz||

    The best lies are told with non verifiable details and an ever changing sorry of a trauma survivors mind.

  • JesseAz||

    Story*

  • Tom Bombadil||

    This is a reckless stunt by a feckless ....

  • John||

    +100

  • Dillinger||

    conclusion winner.

  • BYODB||


    Kavanaugh has plenty of defenders; on the other hand, his accuser's account can't be easily dismissed. This is a frustrating, incredibly difficult situation.


    Hey Robby, is there any way to prove a negative or are we now too 'woke' to use basic logic?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Sorry, NO!

    An unsupported 35 y/o allegation raised at the last minute (despite being know weeks beforehand) should have been summarily dismissed.

    It is clear this is a ploy to derail this nomination and the Dems should have been slapped down hard.

    That the Reps including Flake are allowing this farce to continue is despicable.

    They aren't called the stupid party for nothing.

  • Palooka_Joe||

    Flake has been auditioning for media panel token conservative, who agrees with the narrative.

  • MattXIV||

    Before clicking the Niskanen link, I thought to myself, "What happened? Did someone call them libertarians?"

    ...

    Well, I do give them credit for being more accurate than MacLean; not much of a feat, but not much of a think tank.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    ROFLMAO, that was a good one.

  • Real American||

    "But the temptation to automatically dismiss Ford as a lying opportunist should be opposed as well."

    No it shouldn't. That's the most obvious answer for her conduct and Feinstein's. She won't testify anyway. The Dems won't let that happen. She's a nut and they know it. That's why Feinstein sat on her letter for 6 weeks and only released it after she was criticized for not sufficiently "resisting" Kavanaugh. She's desperate. They're all desperate, but Kavanaugh doesn't have to convince them. He needs to only convince the RINOs in the Senate - Flake, Collins, Murkowski. They want to show they're taking the fabrication seriously, but in the end, they'll vote to confirm because it will all be for show. Everyone's already made up their minds.

  • JeffreyL||

    To the OP

    I don't see it this way at all. It is not frustrating at all. A women is attempting to recount a supposedly traumatic event from sometime between 1979 and 1982, at a location that is only able to defined somewhere near a neighborhood country club. The women has indicated that there were either 5 or 6 people involved in total, however, the therapist notes (see below) indicate that only 3 individuals were involved. The additional person being named (the other either 1 or 2 people are unknowns at this point) as involved has indicated that the event never happened. The women told no one until a therapist counseling session in 2012, a minimum of 30 years after the fact.

    Also, it just happens that this therapist meeting appears to have occurred right after the Jeffrey Toobin Atlantic article back in 2012 that put Kavanaugh on the short list for SCOTUS for Romney.

    Whether or not this traumatic event did in fact happen, nothing today can or will corroborate this story. Liar is the wrong word. Individuals can have and do have very bad memories of events. Especially after 30 years. Nothing can corroborate since the timing and place of the supposed event cannot be given.

    I would have simply held the vote and moved on. Should this be more than this, republicans will never again be able to nominate a straight male to an important position for senate confirmation. I would heavily doubt that even a gay male would be safe.

  • Luxferia||

    One aspect of this saga not often discussed is the sheer implausibility of Ms. Ford's story. The scant details we know strain credulity.

    - She went to a party consisting solely of her and four boys but cannot remember who was there other than the people she now accuses? This would be highly unusual behavior for high school girls, who generally attend parties in tight subgroups.

    - She claims to have groped over a one-piece bathing suit. Most girls with decent figures would have been wearing a bikini (especially with boys around), but okay. In any event, high school pool "parties" are not particularly common, particularly at strangers' houses in small groups. (Assuming this house even had a pool—I don't think she has said so.) This makes Ms. Ford's inability to recall those around her even more odd.

    - She then claims that BK and his friend tried to rape her. It seems implausible to me that a 17 y.o. boy would have decided to rape a girl he does not know, with others nearby, and particularly so with a friend. This type of attack does, however, more resemble the horror stories a girl would concoct in her mind. See, e.g., Jackie UVA.

    - How is it possible that BK's friend jumped on her (or the bed) and that allowed her to escape physically unscathed?

    - She claims to have been scared that BK would "inadvertently" kill her. I'm not sure I even know what this means.

    - No one noticed her try to leave in distress? Then? The next day? She never told anyone?

  • Palooka_Joe||

    How did she get to the party?
    Who invited her, how did she hear about it?
    How did she get home?

    / Mike Ehrmantraut voice off

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Kavanaugh has plenty of defenders; on the other hand, his accuser's account can't be easily dismissed."

    Sure, it can. 35 years later, who knows when, who knows where, accusation leveled at a politically charged moment.

    I dismiss it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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