MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Kavanaugh Friends Have 'No Memory' of Party Where Alleged Sex Assault Took Place: Reason Roundup

Plus: Trump orders FBI text messages declassified and Tyler Cowen on why “the trade war may be worse” than expected.

Jeff Malet Photography/NewscomJeff Malet Photography/Newscom"If we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote." Another person at the decades-old party where SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly attacked Christine Blasey Ford has spoken out about the night in question. Patrick J. Smyth, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's at Georgetown Prep, sent a letter to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) after being (non-publicly) identified by Ford as one of four teen boys at the party.

"I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," wrote Smyth, according to CNN.

Like so many of the statements in favor of either Ford or Kavanaugh, this doesn't actually tell us very much. In the story Ford told The Washington Post, it wasn't so much a party as a random Bethesda, Maryland, summer-night gathering of four Georgetown Prep boys and several girls from nearby girls private school, Holton-Arms. Kavanaugh and then-classmate Mark Judge allegedly attacked Ford in an upstairs bedroom after she had left the downstairs group to go to the bathroom. Afterward, she fled out the front door without saying anything to other guests. There's no particular reason Smyth should have remembered the night, nor known what may or may not have happened in an upstairs bedroom.

But it seems everyone who knew them at the time has had something to say (even when it can't conceivably get us closer to the truth). Actress Julia Louise Dreyfuss—Holton-Arms class of 1979—is even weighing in:

Both Kavanaugh and Ford have been invited to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Monday. But Ford's lawyer Lisa Banks argued yesterday that the FBI must investigate first, and that Ford was not ready to testify on such short notice. "She will talk with the committee," Banks said on last night's Anderson Cooper 360.

She is not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday. This just came out 48 hours ago.

Hillary Clinton and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have also been calling for an FBI investigation (to no one's surprise).

Republicans have said the hearings will go on Monday with or without Ford. "If she'd prefer to do this in a closed setting, that's her choice," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). "But we've offered her basically either an open or closed setting"—so long as it happens Monday.

"After learning of the allegation, Chairman @ChuckGrassley took immediate action to ensure both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have the opportunity to be heard, in public or private," tweeted Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Republicans extended a hand in good faith. If we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote.

Without Ford, the hearing will feature only Kavanaugh and two others. This makes it "impossible to take" seriously, said Feinstein in a statement. She noted that 22 witnesses were called to testify at the 1991 hearing into Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas.

What about other witness like Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge? What about individuals who were previously told about this incident?

Judge also issued a (strangely worded) statement Tuesday, saying he had "no memory of this alleged incident" nor does he remember the party Ford described, though he was friends with Kavanaugh. "The only reason I am involved is because [Ford] remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault."

FREE MINDS

On Tuesday evening, the White House announced that President Trump had ordered the Office of the Department of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to declassify 24 pages of the FISA court application the FBI submitted for former Trump adviser Carter Page. The order also told the agencies to declassify "all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation" and "all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications."

Trump ordered the agencies to make public "all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr."

Trump told The Hill that exposing the FBI's Russia "hoax" might be one of the "crowning achievements" of his presidency.

FREE MARKETS

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said our trade war with China—including a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports and, on China's side, newly announced tariffs on $60 billion in American-made goods—won't even register with consumers. The tariffs are "spread across thousands and thousands of products," said Ross, so "nobody is going to actually notice it at the end of the day."

So far, the stock market hasn't noticed: Despite the tariff news, "the stock market rallied again Tuesday," notes The Los Angeles Times.

But the nobody-caring factor "is also a reason that the trade war may be worse, not better, than expected" suggests Tyler Cowen at Bloomberg:

In other words, tariffs distort consumer decisions more than sales taxes do. It may well be true that consumers don't notice tariffs as such. But they respond by buying less, lowering their well-being and also possibly lowering GDP and employment.

QUICK HITS

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||

    "The era of no war has started," said South Korea's president after his latest meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

    President Trump has something to tweet about that!

  • Mickey Rat||

    South Korea's President is intending to surrender, then?

  • JWatts||

    Yep, assuming North Korea and China can fund a Marshall plan, of course.

  • Just Say'n||

    This has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with South Korea and North Korea. Trump only gets credit for not interfering in their negotiations.

  • DPICM||

    Not that I disagree with that, but I don't think Trump getting out of the way is anything to overlook. The situation in Korea has long been what it has been precisely because we were involved and calling the tune, and because we have thousands of troops still over there. Having a president Trump who's willing to say "sure, go make a deal" is much better than a theoretical president Hillary who likely would have said something far worse.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe. I'm not sure, though. Trump's hand was forced on the matter. South Korea elected a more dovish government

  • Bearded Spock||

    Correct. Any peace deal between the two Koreas has always required at least the tacit approval of the US.

    In the past South Korea has been restrained in its ability to negotiate with the Norks because Washington didn't approve. In fact, the Korean Left has made US interference in peace talks an issue in Korean elections.

    The irony here is that the Lefties hate Trump but he is supporting one of their biggest policy goals.

  • Just Say'n||

    Again, though. Does Trump really have a choice? How is he suppose to stop the South Korean government from negotiating peace when they have a domestic mandate to do just that?

  • DPICM||

    South Korea may want peace, but they most assuredly don't want to be like North Korea. They want it the other way around - North becomes prosperous like South.

    South Korea cannot defend itself from a full scale invasion by the north. Even our troops stationed there would not be able to do that. The reason we have those troops is to buy time and build outrage (over our dead kids coming home) to make it politically feasible to again send an American invasion force over there to oust North Korea should it again become necessary.

    Any president could thus derail South Korea's best laid plans by saying "talk to them and I'll pull all of our guys out tomorrow and you'll face the hordes alone." South Korea's leverage comes from being able to fall back on the US defense commitment to obtain fair treatment from North Korea.

  • Bearded Spock||

    True, Moon could have told Trump "I'm talking to Kim and I DGAF what you think" but given the amount of US support at stake I doubt it.

    What is more likely is that Moon recognized Trump would be supportive and so he went ahead and started the process.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just say'n, there would be no South Korea without the USA.

    With THAT being said, peace will only come if NK and SK agree to some peace accord that works for them.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    "Just say'n, there would be no South Korea without the USA.

    With THAT being said, peace will only come if NK and SK agree to some peace accord that works for them."

    The bad news here is that their would have never been a North Korea without the USSR and China. Plus the Korea problem would have never happen if Japan and Russia did not invade Korea before WWII.

  • Bee Tagger||

    How San Francisco's transit agency spied on riders

    whats this about riding on spiders?

  • JWatts||

    Eco-Warriors: That's completely unacceptable! Oh wait, it's about spying on riders, well we all know that's for our own good. So objection withdrawn.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Hey you stole my line!

  • Rat on a train||

    How about fighting spiders?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," wrote Smyth, according to CNN.

    Ditto.

  • Rat on a train||

    I will admit I shot J.R. and JFK and Lincoln, but not the sheriff.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    *but not the deputy

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio always hated me... For what, I don't know.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I swear it was in self-defense.

  • Rat on a train||

    Was that you? I know Bob Marley shot the sheriff.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Eric Clapton.

    I only know the culturally-appropriated British version.

  • Rat on a train||

    It was a conspiracy.

  • Horny Lizard||

    Kavanaugh said I was in room the room that night but I'm too drunk to remember. Hope that helps?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I was at the party but I was in the other bedroom banging Julia Louise Dreyfus. Then we cuddled.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    My nickname was Puddy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Good catch...high 5.

    You owe me five.

  • rudehost||

    I was there too. Diane Feinstein raped me and my puppy at that party. Unfortunately I don't remember the date, the year, what state I was in, how I got there, who else was there, what the party was for or any other detail at all but the rape was all too real for me and my puppy.

    #credibleaccusations

  • Nuwanda||

    That wasn't Diane Feinstein, that was Harvey Fierstein.

  • Rat on a train||

    You devil.

  • Rich||

    girls private school, Holton-Arms

    *** snort ***

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Headmaster Peter Guzinya doesn't think that's very funny.

  • Juice||

    There's one in Little Rock called Mount St. Mary. And googling the name shows me that there are several schools with that name, so I guess there's snickering all over the country over that one.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I knew a few girls that went there. Everyone one of them dropped out due to pregnancy.

  • Rich||

    You *dog*!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I would not mind the credit for a couple of them.

  • Don't look at me.||

    They served Dickens Cider at the party.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I was class of '79 & signed this letter. https://t.co/5ssttu9uzT
    — Julia Louis-Dreyfus (@OfficialJLD) September 17, 2018

    Get. Out!

  • Conchfritters||

    Elaine heard the rumors too dammit!

  • operagost||

    It was SHRINKAGE!

  • creech||

    "I mentioned the lobster bisque."

  • lap83||

    "is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves."

    Oh, that reminds me... I was raped by him too. OMG, we better hurry ladies or we'll be late for brunch.

  • ||

    This week on All Girls Prep-school Survivor: the rape-date challenge!

    That would get more views than the Super Bowl.

  • JesseAz||

    How many of those stories we're first person and not "someone told a friend who had a cousin last year that heard...". We also heard stories of child care centers and satanic rituals.

  • Bearded Spock||

    In the past Reason has usually been the first to see through these kind of hoaxes.

  • ThomasD||

    Well, we've reached the point when Reason is not even sure that a bunch of guys and a bunch of girls getting together for an evening at someone's house can even be called a 'party.'

    Apparently the lack of embossed invitations is disqualifying.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Was he sponge worthy?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Elaine cannot even spare a square.

    Fuck that bitch!

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Was he sponge worthy?

  • Just Say'n||

    "Are you going to do something about those sideburns?"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm confused, are they saying that it sounds similar to stories OF KAVANAUGH, or just stories of sexual assault? It reads like the latter, but it can't be, because that's nothing.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I heard many stories of the hook man murderer when I was a child, this is probably related.

  • JesseAz||

    Look. This is America. We have a fair and blind system of justice. If you've heard even one story of sexual assault it means kavanaugh is guilty. Just like if you've heard a single story about minority gang bangers all Black teens are guilty. This is America damnit.

  • Mark22||

    Look. This is America. We have a fair and blind system of justice.

    And many, many highly privileged, self-righteous, angry women.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "This is America" sounds like a catchy name for a song. Maybe Carly Rae Jepsen could sing it.

  • JesseAz||

    Childish gambino beat that sexy Canadian to the rights to the title.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Google "This is America Carly Rae Jepsen".

    You will not be disappointed.

  • JesseAz||

    Lol. I forgot about this remix. Probably because it's racist if I remember the outrage.

  • OGREtheTroll||

    It is purposefully vague on this point for that very reason

  • Fancylad||

    In 1979 I was four, and Julia Louise Dreyfus came to my house and touched my pee-pee.
    I haven't said anything before because of survivors guilt and repressed memories until today.

    All victims deserve to be believed, and I expect Reason and the rest of the media to take my accusation seriously.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Could it be any more obvious that this Christine Blasey Ford character is a nutcase? She wants an FBI "investigation", even though there's absolutely nothing for them to investigate.

    I'm 99% sure she's not even going to show up to the hearing. You leftards picked a really bad one to hang your hat on this time.

  • Conchfritters||

    My brother in law is a psychologist, and he assured me that every psychologist is fucking crazy.

  • Juice||

    That's why they get into it. They want to figure out why they're nuts.

  • JesseAz||

    They actually mostly want to justify their insanity.

  • Rat on a train||

    Or spread it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    psychologists go to other psychologists for counseling.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Well if the Republicans had any decency it would have never come this far, because they would have pulled Kavanaugh's nomination the instant the white power gesture scandal broke.

    Nevertheless, it's clear Dr. Ford's courageous act was the deciding factor that kept such a dangerous right-wing extremist off the Supreme Court. Libertarians owe her our gratitude.

  • Ecoli||

    That's "OK" with me, OBL.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our spirits in the tradition of our ancestors. You have our gratitude.

  • Don't look at me.||

    B+

  • JesseAz||

    Okay. Agree with others from yesterday. You're phoning it in Obl.

  • swood1000||

    The fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been discovered to be part of the white-power cabal puts everything into a different light.

  • I can't even||

    I vaguely remember something bad happening in the early 80's, I forget exactly when or where - let's literally make it a federal case and have the FBI investigate.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You know who else remembered something bad happening?

  • General_Tso||

    Those little kids at the daycare that a psychologist convinced they were sexually assaulted?

  • Drave Robber||

    And it was even before the fifth angel sounded his trumpet?

  • Fats of Fury||

    Well not Hillary, She couldn't recall anything.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The Queen of I don't recall.

  • Number 2||

    Let's see. She took the initiative to reach out months ago to raise these allegations. She took a lie detector test to verify her accuracy, and has retained an attorney. But she is not yet ready to testify about her story I told the FBI first conduct an investigation.

    This is looking more and more like a hatchet job every minute

  • Rat on a train||

    Aldrich Ames passed polygraphs so they must be reliable.

  • ThomasD||

    She may not be crazy, but at this point it is safe to conclude that the reason she has not appeared in public is because she does not 'present well.'

  • BYODB||

    Oh, she'll be at the gearing. Feinstein and the Democrats will tear her into tiny little pieces if she doesn't. If I were this Ford woman, I'd sue the fuck out of Feinstein and whatever Democrat I originally sent the letter to. That would be poetic justice.

    I still think they floated the letter as a trial balloon to see if an Anita Hill move might work, and they decided that it would and ran with it.

  • Duke of url||

    Dianne somehow managed to make 'Spartacus' look slightly less retarded, so there is that.

  • Rich||

    Trump told The Hill that exposing the FBI's Russia "hoax" might be one of the "crowning achievements" of his presidencey.

    This might be one of the funniest statements you read today.

  • Bee Tagger||

    He even gets in another plug for the multiple-emmy winning show The Crown. Trump must have stock in netflix. Switch gears, mueller.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    This is pretty damn perceptive of him because it goes to first principles, which he's not known for.

  • I can't even||

    Shining the light on the deep state and how it operates is pretty big.

  • BYODB||

    There's a possibly that Trump could very well be correct on that point, assuming you've been paying attention.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hillary Clinton and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have also been calling for an FBI investigation (to no one's surprise).

    Of improper conduct from Bill Clinton and Willie Brown respectively?

  • Rich||

    Nice!

  • I can't even||

    Keith Ellison?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I thought Hil liked brown willy

  • Mark22||

    You heard wrong. Hillary likes carpet.

  • Red Tony||

    Did she get a Huma?

  • Bearded Spock||

    Hilly doesn't need an FBI investigation into all the bimbos Bill has boinked during their marriage.

    Heck, she's probably had the FBI investigate them in order to make sure they keep their slutty mouths shut.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The woman that demonized Bill's accusers was the best person qualified for the presidency. So I'm told. Funny how some people have no problem with it when it's their team.

    I laugh when people talk about Trump's infidelity and alleged sexual assaults as if it should disqualify him from office. We already had a national conversation about it in 1998 and the dems didn't think it was a big deal.

    I also found it amusing that some of the republicans throwing stones at Clinton where later caught doing the same.

    Also the impeachment was about perjury and obstruction of justice. The dems didn't have a problem with it.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, as someone that was actually alive and capable of remembering things during the Clinton administration it's bizarre watching Democrats do a completely 180 on that issue. And yes, it was hilarious to watch Republicans get caught in the same behavior that they were impeaching Clinton over.

    Clinton should have been removed from office for perjury, no matter how small the lie.

    That said, it couldn't be more amusing to watch the Democrats become the new 'Moral Majority' or 'New Puritan' party.

  • D.D. Driver||

    I'm pretty sure (99%) that the name is *MARK* Judge and not Mike Judge.

  • operagost||

    I'll tell you hwat.

  • Rat on a train||

    Make sure you wear a rubber, dude.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Rich||

    Susanna Jones, the Holton-Arms head of school, put out a statement Sunday night in support of Ford.

    "In these cases, it is imperative that all voices are heard," Jones said. "As a school that empowers women to use their voices, we are proud of this alumna for using hers."

    "Just the facts, Ma'am."

  • damikesc||

    Glad to know that the school apparently doesn't have an honor code.

  • Don't look at me.||

    All voices must be heard, but we don't admit yucky boys into our school.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "All voices are heard".

    Maybe we should have an election.

  • DesigNate||

    "all voices are heard..."

    But only the female one's are listened to and accepted as true.

  • Mark22||

    "In these cases, it is imperative that all voices are heard," Jones said

    As I suspected: Ford is hearing voices.

  • damikesc||

    So, as many of us said from the word go, this was a bullshit smear with no evidence that the Democrats pursued SOLELY to delay a nomination and to smear a candidate.

    This is deplorable.

    And ENB is not calling the Dems out on this.

    Her lawyer said, 36 hours ago, she'd be more than willing to testify. To continue the trend of her in this area, the liar (don't want to testify about the accusation? It's because you're lying about it) lied again.

    They put up insane demands of an FBI investigation for an incident that occurred at some point, over 30 years ago, somewhere, with no witnesses bolstering her case.

    And Reason isn't mocking the Democrats demand for more delays here...why?

    Judge also issued a (strangely worded) statement Tuesday, saying he had "no memory of this alleged incident" nor does he remember the party Ford described, though he was friends with Kavanaugh. "The only reason I am involved is because [Ford] remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault."

    How is it weirdly worded? He was being polite in not saying "This claim was bullshit". All he said is "Yes, I was friends with Brett", the only thing he COULD possibly verify.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This mess didn't sneak up on the Democrats and it didn't sneak up on Ford. They've had since July to get their act together but they instead chose brinkmanship. The credibility of the charge against Kavanaugh is too razor thin to allow them to benefit from that.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    No, this delay stall obfuscate action IS getting their act together, it almost certainly IS what they planned when this fell in their lap back in July.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think, considering the amount of evidence, the Monday hearing is reasonable. The fact that Ford is attempting to stall further by rescinding on her willingness to appear kind of throws up flags in my mind.

    I actually agreed with Gillespie's core point the other day, that some investigation should be had to give more air of propriety to the situation. Particularly because this is so nothing. But a full FBI investigation is nothing but a clear stall, considering how there is nearly nothing to investigate.

  • Cyto||

    I completely disagree.

    Given the amount of evidence and the nature of the allegation, no hearing is reasonable.

    They should have told her "thanks" and moved on. There is nothing to be gained here, other than a desperation attempt to smear a good man's name.

    Even if every word she says is true, there is no way to validate or refute it. And even if it is completely accurate, it doesn't reveal nearly as much about his character as his entire adult life does.

    This ads no value. Pretending that it does is harmful to the rest of us, because now we are deciding that it is OK to make completely unsupported claims that cannot be defended a half a lifetime too late. And not only is it OK, but you have to treat them seriously and there have to be consequences. And not just any consequences, but life-altering consequences.

    That is not at all reasonable or desirable. I certainly don't want to live in that world.

  • Ron||

    Calling for an investigation instead of appearing since there is so little to go on an investigation would go well past the November election which at that point her claims will be a moot point if the dems get control of the house and senate who can then down vote brett and we will never here about Ford again

  • Dallas Tom||

    There'd be a lame-duck session after the election, when the GOP would still control the Senate and could then confirm him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Plan B, that the Lefties have not considered yet.

  • I can't even||

    They've had it since 2012 when then candidate Romney mentioned Kavanaugh as a possibility.

  • ||

    They've had since 2000-2006 when W appointed him to the DC Court of Appeals circuit. FBI background check and Senate hearings then 'found him guilty' of working for the Bush Administration.

  • DesigNate||

    Hasn't he been investigated and interviewed by the committee like 5 or 6 times? I think they've had longer than "since July".

  • BYODB||

    Fist, I swear that if I knew who you really were I'd write you in for President. At the very least, we know you'd wake up early and have the best Tweets.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My first order of business would be to build that wall... TO KEEP YOU OUT. Sucker!

  • ||

    brinkmanship

    brinkpersonship

  • Bearded Spock||

    Reason hasn't particularly covered themselves in glory over these past days with their Kavanaugh coverage.

    As with their Ferguson coverage, they've allowed themselves to get caught up in the Media narrative and Beltway conventional wisdom and ignored or downplayed key facts.

  • ||

    I'd say it's even worse than the Ferguson coverage. Ferguson had bad actors on both sides and Reason had a principled anti-police stance before and after.

    This issue, on the other hand, has writers who built a career on women lying about rape and sexual assault championing a woman who couldn't be more prototypical of the problems they railed against and in opposition to a guy that they just don't like.

    IMO, this is getting to be Robby's Chris Kyle/Adam Lanza moment, "Excuse me, but I have trouble seeing an essential difference between what Soave did to Kavanaugh and what Sabrina Erdely did at The University of Virginia.'

  • ||

    bad actors

    Bad actors is a harsh term. The officer let a suspect wrestle with him for a gun in the car. At best, he was clearly not at the top of his police game.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I kind of suspect that even Dianne Feinstein herself knows that this woman is a lunatic and was reluctant to go public with this cockamamie story at all, but was pressured into it by some of her more deranged supporters and colleagues.

  • Overt||

    She wasn't pressured. She saw that this letter had a very limited use. It would never derail the proceedings, it would just be a small diversion. So she sat on it until it could be used for full effect. The only use it ever had was to 1) insert some delay into the hearings and 2) possibly be a catalyst for other unknown women to come out of the woodwork.

    They never knew if 2 would happen, so Feinstein went with using 1) to maximum effect.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm surprised they don't have another liberal activist from Kavanaugh's orbit ready to come forward with an unverifiable claim.

  • General_Tso||

    Who says they don't?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I saw Goodman Kavanaugh with the devil!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I've been wondering the same; is there a woman or a tiger behind door number 2?

  • BYODB||

    Statistically speaking, out of 330 million some odd people in the population surely there is one that could be jostled into making an accusation with a promise of a fantastic book deal. Probably even a person that's actually met him given the length of his career in public service.

    So, even if there is someone behind door #2 they are no more or less credible than the first woman unless, of course, their story is somehow actually credible.

    That it almost certainly won't be isn't a reason to think that it's impossible, but rather immensely improbable given how many times this guy has already been investigated by the FBI. Yeah, I know the FBI is incompetent but six times is a lot and not even a whisper?

  • JWatts||

    It was a classic 11th hour delay tactic.

  • Cyto||

    Worse, she sent the letter over to the FBI for "further investigation" ... with all names except Kavanaugh redacted.

    So she sent an anonymous allegation that says he sorta groped and assaulted a fellow high school student in a way that may or may not have risen to the level of a criminal assault some 35 years ago at an unknown location with unknown people at an unknown time and an unknown date.

    That is not "acting in good faith". That is about as definitively "bad faith" as you can get.

    Who are they supposed to interview at that point? Go ask Kavanaugh how many people he raped? Start calling everyone who went to an all girls school during that decade within 100 miles of him?

    You cannot pretend that her intentions were anything other than dishonorable. There is literally no possible honorable explanation for her conduct. Even incompetence fails to explain her actions. Only malicious intent can explain it.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "knows that this woman is a lunatic"

    Is it possible that Ford is just angling for a mattress endorsement?

  • JesseAz||

    The best career move Anita hill ever made was accussing Clarence Thomas despite the mountains of evidence against her.

  • ||

    For a while, she was in the NMAAHC and Thomas wasn't. I haven't been, but my understanding is that there's more floor space and print devoted to Hill than Thomas and Marshall combined.

  • JesseAz||

    There is. GOP had to do a national outrage session to get Thomas in. One of the smallest displays there.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why is it deplorable?

    I thought the mantra of the New Right was "use their own rulebook against them".

    Had the tables been turned, wouldn't you be the first one advocating the same tactic be used against a Hillary-nominated SCOTUS appointee, regardless of who it was? After all, "their rules".

    Or is the fake outrage over this "deplorable" tactic a part of the same kabuki theater?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Stop pretending people are the caricature you have in your head, clown."'

    That's pretty funny.

    Telling someone what not to do while doing it in the same sentence.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Yeah, that's an insult to clowns.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    hahahahahahaha

    It was your words. Clown.

  • damikesc||

    I thought the mantra of the New Right was "use their own rulebook against them".

    Republicans used a false crime charge to smear a SCOTUS nominee last...when? I don't remember this ever happening. I also don't remember EVER seeing lockstep voting against a Dem nominee, even shitty ones like Kagan and Sotomayor.

    Had the tables been turned, wouldn't you be the first one advocating the same tactic be used against a Hillary-nominated SCOTUS appointee, regardless of who it was? After all, "their rules".

    There are no tables to turn.

    Democrats have made sport out of utterly slandering SCOTUS nominees. All of them since Bork, basically.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Republicans used a false crime charge to smear a SCOTUS nominee last...when?

    But those were the old, neocon, globalist RINOs, right? The ones who always caved to the Left and never listened to their base? Not the New Right led by fearless leaders like Schlichter et al. Please please please tell me that you would NEVER EVER EVER stoop to such low tactics to try to stop a Hillary-appointed SCOTUS appointee. Because everything you and your fellow travelers have written here has indicated that there is no higher purpose than "stopping the Left".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So that's a no then.

  • Just Say'n||

    Defending neocons seems to be all the rage with woketarians. Tell us about how honorable John McCain was next

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not defending the neocons. I"m pointing out that the people on the right who are the most spitting mad about that tribe are the ones who are the most willing to endorse the brass knuckles tactics that Democrats are now employing.

  • Just Say'n||

    You need some kind of actual evidence to make such accusations. Last I checked, they have not brought in thinly sourced sexual assault allegations.

    Your pushing feelz here

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    A delay tactic that basically robbed a President from getting a vote on his pick?

    The tactics may not be the same, but I agree with Jeff that both sides are using brass knuckle tactics.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Tricky Vic, you mean by following the tactics of arch-Republican Joe Biden?

  • damikesc||

    I'm not defending the neocons. I"m pointing out that the people on the right who are the most spitting mad about that tribe are the ones who are the most willing to endorse the brass knuckles tactics that Democrats are now employing.

    Nah. Most of us are just tired of being hit with tire irons by the Democrats.

    I've not encouraged anybody to intentionally smear somebody with a false rape claim to delay an appointment to anything.

    You're bitching about hypotheticals to protect people ACTUALLY doing this.

    And "now employing" is amusing. Hmm, they claimed Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. Had the FBI spy on Trump during the campaign. Smeared Bork. Tried to lynch Thomas.

    Yes, this is a NEW thing for the Dems...

  • VinniUSMC||

    chemjeff is all over the whataboutism train today.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So when do you start marching with Antifa?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When you start marching with Stormfront?

    Oh wait let me take that back, you are already marching with Stormfront.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So it was you that I knocked the fuck out in Portland a few weeks ago?

  • Fancylad||

    Antifa and Stormfront are like the Globetrotters and Washington Generals. The latter only exists to justify Antifa.
    Seventeen "racists" of which six are known left-wing agent provocateurs have a "rally" in Washington DC, which allows thousands of Antifa to run riot and beat up people.

    Or maybe a better analogy is that Stormfront is progressive fascism's burning of the Reichstag.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They're both Lefties anyway. Just different types of Socialists.

  • Mock-star||

    6 are left wing agent provocateurs, 10 are undercover federal agents from 10 different federal law enforcement agencies, and one of them is Chad, an actual neo-nazi. Chad is a dick.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff... Can we live in reality for just a moment instead if your ignorant and insipid beliefs of what might happen?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hey man, I'm just taking Schlichter et al. at their words.

    They want to play by the "New Rules". Well, these are the "New Rules". You don't get to play OMG OUTRAGE when they use the New Rules that you have now endorsed as totally legit for your team too.

  • jay||

    What "new rules"? The alternative is not, and never has been either, cave to the left, or adopt the tactics of the left. That kind of attitude exists yes, because some on the right are frusterated but yet still unprincipled. Nevertheless let us not pretend there are not legitimate people out their who want The GOP to stand up to the dems with legit principles, like opposing socialistic policies and ideas, not smearing. When we don't have the numbers, we protest within the rules. Even ted cruz filibustered and promoted reading atlas shrugged, which is a bit different than bringing out rape allegations, as most people here except you would know.

  • damikesc||

    How about we wait to see them actually do so?

    Because we ARE watching Democrats do this. Again. And calling the Right mean and nasty for asking her questions like "when and where did this happen?"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How about we wait to see them actually do so?

    So would that be a "no, I would never approve of smearing a Hillary-appointed SCOTUS nominee with baseless accusations even if that might be the only way to stop that appointee"?

  • damikesc||

    Nobody has done so.

    You, on the other hand, are whatabout bullshitting to a degree I've never seen.

    "Yeah, this is bad...BUT WHAT IF THIS TOTALLY FICTITIOUS EVENT OCCURRED!!"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You aren't going to say "no". Because I don't think you really do condemn the tactic *in principle*. I think you are only upset now because the Dems are using it against your tribe. But if your tribe uses it against the Dems, you will find reasons to justify and excuse it.

  • damikesc||

    You aren't going to say "no"

    Hell, I'll go further.

    I oppose them using incredibly thinly sourced claims to slander people.
    I ALSO oppose them torturing kittens.
    Eating babies? Yup, I'll come out AGAINST that (I'll notice that YOU have not done so)
    Rape as a party game? I must oppose that.
    Murder because the line at Starbucks is too long? I OPPOSE, SIR!!

    Note, I go further into idiotic hypotheticals than you ,which means that I care much more than you.

  • jay||

    you are correct the answer is a no. But if you don't mind, if he is a raging socialist, are we allowed to call him a really bad man? I mean is calling him a bad man the equivalent of smearing him with fake rape charges?

  • KevinP||

    What slanders were used by the right against Sotomayor and Kagan? Hmmmm?

    The closest I can think of is using her own words against Sotomayor, which is not a slander:

    New York Times: A Judge's View of Judging Is on the Record


    Quote:
    In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."
    "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor.
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I seem to recall plenty of people on the Right who were upset that the GOP just rolled over and allowed Sotomayor and Kagan to go on the court in the first place. That they DIDN'T use the type of tactics now that Democrats are using against Kavanaugh.

  • jay||

    Being upset someone "rolled over" does not indicate what exactly the alternative is. You are assuming all forms of "not rolling over" are the same and equivalent to this case.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff.. does the chem in your name refer to acid dropping? You seem to refuse to live in reality of what is while defending what might happen.

  • damikesc||

    You mean they were annoyed that Republicans voted for them?

    Yes, that is quite similar to accusing one of them of raping somebody. Damned near the same thing.

    WHATABOUT!!!

  • SIV||

    Democrats blocked the first gay SCOTUS nominee, G. Harold Carswell

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The Republicans offered a hearing with as much or as little publicity as she wanted and now she's backing away. How strange that you don't comment on that and just go straight to idle speculation. It's almost as if it has nothing to do with principles at all, and all of your caterwauling about the right impugning the obvious nobility of the left is really nothing more than an excuse to vent your bias against the right.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hey you're right, I am biased against the Right. Congratulations!

    Of course I'm also biased against the Left. You never seem to notice that. Confirmation bias is a real thing.

  • JesseAz||

    You almost never attack the left. In fact you defend their terrible actions based on what you believe the right might do some day. You're basically an idiot.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I "almost never attack the left" when it comes to a great deal of the bullshit culture war crap that seems to animate most Republicans now.

    But evidently, thinking that Democrats are terrible on spending, terrible on guns, terrible on domestic surveillance, terrible on health care, terrible on taxes, terrible on education, but then also saying "hey, maybe abolishing ICE isn't such a bad idea after all", means that, in Jesse-speak, that I "almost never attack the left".

  • JesseAz||

    Please show your posts attacking them on those points Jeff. It's not like reason doesn't have articles tangentially related to each disagreement you apparently have.

    The fact you can't denounce the political tactics of the left because you imagine the right may match them some day makes you an idiot. Full stop.

  • VinniUSMC||

    chemjeff is biased against the left in the same way Sarcastro is. At least Sarcastro has the balls to admit it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Quite a few on the articles on those topics. Which are a lot rarer than the ones talking about the middle-school-level DC tribal bullshit that happens - because those are the ones that get 500+ comments, while the ones about education reform get like 10 comments.

    The fact you can't denounce the political tactics of the left because you imagine the right may match them some day makes you an idiot. Full stop.

    Both your tribe and their tribe are full of shit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But as usual, instead of responding to my comment, you are making it about me. Which is typical I suppose.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But as usual, instead of responding to my comment, you are making it about me.

    The passive-aggressive bitchiness makes it kind of hard to ignore.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the way you're making the behavior of democrats about republicans? That kind of whataboutism? But they *could* have done it, right? And that's exactly the same as someone who *actually* does it.

    Your claim of being biased against the left is laughable.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff... You sad and pathetic man... Point out one time the GOP has resorted to unverifiable allegations to block a ussc justice.

  • DesigNate||

    why is it deplorable

    Not a member of the "New Right" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll take a stab at it:

    Because there's a difference between using the bully pulpit and the heckler's veto against Democrats and peddling an outright smear campaign with unsubstantiated or possibly false sexual assault allegations. I know you're smart enough to understand that those kinds of allegations can haunt a person for years.

    And you know damn good and well that the Republicans wouldn't have used that kind of tactic against a Hillary nominee. They would have gone after them for being gay or hating america or the 2nd amendment or something.

  • Mark22||

    Had the tables been turned, wouldn't you be the first one advocating the same tactic be used against a Hillary-nominated SCOTUS appointee, regardless of who it was? After all, "their rules".

    No, actually not. When has that ever happened?

    Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31, despite being a leftist diversity candidate who thought her ethnicity should influence her legal decisions.

    Also, there simply aren't enough nutty, angry women like Ford to go around among conservatives or libertarians to make something like that stick. And Hillary would have nominated a woman anyway.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31, despite being a leftist diversity candidate who thought her ethnicity should influence her legal decisions.

    Yup, and that because there were so many aisle-crossing Republicans who allowed Sotomayor and Kagan to go on the court is one of the animating reasons behind the New Right, who believes "defeating the Left" should be its highest purpose.

    I absolutely believe that if Senate Republicans had been Schlichter and Posobiec clones, that they absolutely would have stooped to smearing any Obama or Hillary nominee to SCOTUS regardless of how true or false it is. At least that is what their brave words now would lead us to believe.

  • damikesc||

    Grand. You can assume as you wish.

    It didn't happen.

    It IS happening now.

    So, yes, you might well see the Right eventually go that route.

    But condemn them before it happens? Pass.

  • John||

    I absolutely believe that if Senate Republicans had been Schlichter and Posobiec clones, that they absolutely would have stooped to smearing any Obama or Hillary nominee to SCOTUS regardless of how true or false it is. At least that is what their brave words now would lead us to believe.

    That is nice. I absolutely believe that if Hillary had become President she would have declared herself dictator and ended the Republic. Your claim is no more believable or provable than mine.

    Sorry but "they didn't do it but I know they would" is wishful thinking not argument.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Except that Schlichter has earned a cult following for saying exactly what I have said about him - that it's time for Republicans to take off the gloves and fight dirty against the Democrats.

    Do you not read what Longtorso posts about him? Maybe you should check out his columns some time. Schlichter is one of those guys who steps right up to the line of advocating for civil war.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Proving it more and more as each day passes, the Stupid blossoming.

  • HMI||

    So, there is a line and he doesn't cross it. And your problem with that is...?

  • Mark22||

    Except that Schlichter has earned a cult following for saying exactly what I have said about him - that it's time for Republicans to take off the gloves and fight dirty against the Democrats.

    And this justifies the kind of b.s. we've been getting from Democrats... how?

  • JesseAz||

    I absolutely believe Jeff would rape dogs if it ever became legal. Let's condemn him now for it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If I were to ever publish 100 columns advocating for dog rape, then sure, go right ahead.

    Schlichter on the other hand...

  • damikesc||

    What state is he Senator for?
    What district is he Representative for?

    Just asking because I missed his electoral win.

    ...or are we going to condemn people by the writings of somebody?

  • NashTiger||

    I absolutely believe if your aunt had a weenus she'd be your uncle, and I absolutely believe you are a fuckin moron

  • JesseAz||

    The insane demand is having the FBI investigate non federal crimes.

  • SteveMG||

    Because there is no federal crime alleged, and thus no jurisdiction, doesn't mean the FBI can't investigate matters, e.g., that is interview individuals, et cetera. They just can't bring charges against anyone (unless they uncover a federal crime). There have been numerous instances over the years of the FBI investigating crimes where they didn't have jurisdiction. See for example the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or the JFK assassination or the murders of Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. Granted, those were instances where the local authorities who were investigating a crime invited the FBI to assist them. So, the historic examples are a bit weak.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, it is very libertarian to want the FBI to get involved in matters outside it's jurisdiction.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Perjury under oath to Congress would be a federal crime.

    The FBI said no to a crime having taken place.

  • damikesc||

    See for example the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or the JFK assassination or the murders of Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman.

    1) Assumed to have involved multiple states
    2) Well, he was the President
    3) When did they interview Cheney outside of the Fitzgerald witch hunt?

  • Ben of Houston||

    Mockery in this case serves only to alienate the opposition. A reasoned review of the evidence is a better response.

    First, how impossible is this to verify? Teenagers having a get-together over 30 years ago. At a private residence. No electronic communications existed. No paper notes from that time would have survived unless it was really important.
    Then, you have two potential witnesses, neither of which recall a thing about the incident. Another person named didn't even remember being present. None of this is surprising given the time that has passed.
    This was never reported to anyone.

    The FBI would have their hands full just verifying that the party occurred and the people claimed were present. The idea that they could provide any information on an action that happened in an upstairs bedroom that she told no one about is absurd.

    In addition, this was in the era where repressed memory retrieval was still a psychological fad. Did he make a crude move on her, which time has elevated to this sort of action in her memory?
    Then, they were both minors at the time. Juvenile laws apply, not adult law.

    This cannot be the basis for disqualifying him as a justice. An accusation without any evidence to support it is not a conviction.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Reasoned" being the operative word. Kavanaugh's opponents [aka all Democrats] want no part of such a patriarchal whimsy; they just want to block his confirmation, BAMN

  • ravenshrike||

    More importantly his alcoholism and blackouts as a teenager are a matter of public record since he wrote a book about it. As such, he cannot explicitly make the statement that a party that both Kavanaugh and Ford were at ever occurred.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    How San Francisco's transit agency spied on riders and collaborated with immigration authoriteis.

    I'm sure it's just because they were carrying plastic bags.

  • lap83||

    "Hillary Clinton... also been calling for an FBI investigation"

    FBI: uh, we have much more important matters to attend t....haha, jk! When do you want it done, babe?

  • JWatts||

    That's completely unbelievable.

    "When do you want it done, babe sir?

  • lap83||

    Your royal xyrness

  • Tom Bombadil||

    FBI: Comey don't live here no more.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Republicans have said the hearings will go on Monday with or without Ford. "If she'd prefer to do this in a closed setting, that's her choice," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). "But we've offered her basically either an open or closed setting"—so long as it happens Monday.

    Typical of the GOP to try to force a survivor to compromise.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    An "open or closed setting" is, without a doubt, a veiled threat of the rape she survived.

  • Mark22||

    I'm sure it's a dog whistle to white supremacists too!

    I just can't hear it myself, but every Democrat's ears are pricking up.

  • JesseAz||

    Grassley should take the committee microphone and read the definition of credible to the democrat members.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    GOP is absolutely crazy to conduct closed hearings. Regardless of what transpires, Democrats will announce that Jones is a completely credible victim who must be believed and Kavanaugh is most likely a loathsome would-be rapist. Even if Jones were to break down in tears and confess that she had made up her accusation out of whole cloth, the Democrats would announce the very same judgment. If hearings were held in a closed setting, the public would be unable to judge whether the Republican or Democrat version is closer to the truth.

    Regardless of the veracity and genuine belief in her accusations, Jones brought this on herself. She must bear the consequences.

    Open setting, or nothing. Her attorney should first question Kavanaugh and his attorney should question Jones before the senator begin making their speeches.

  • ThomasD||

    Closed doesn't mean there isn't a written record.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Typical of the GOP to try to force a survivor to compromise.

    Survivor of what? Fiction?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Like Soave, Lizzie is a left-liberal Obamatard democrat. If there were a billion public sworn testimonials in favor of Kavanuagh's character and only one against, she would still believe the one against.

    Because like all left-wingers she simply doesn't want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and so she's desperate for any pathetic reed she can hang onto.

  • JWatts||

    "Like Soave, Lizzie is a left-liberal Obamatard democrat"

    I don't think ENB has shown quite as much mental gymnastics as Soaves do. She seems to be a pretty straight shooter.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    She's a little more sided on this, she's normally pretty straightforward, but I think she has a soft spot for sexual abuse allegations.

  • ||

    She seems to be a pretty straight shooter.

    Sometimes, she'll aim past the red-handed burglar, the woman who drowned her 3-yr.-old son, and the serial rapist of invalids in order to take down a no-name Prosecutor who might be "guilty of having an affair".

  • DesigNate||

    I mean, I don't really want him confirmed either, but mostly cause I think he'll side with the state and further erode the 4th and 5th, and 8th.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    This seems like the right time to opine that Reason has gone to shit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This makes it "impossible to take" seriously, said Feinstein in a statement.

    "My conduct started this mess and I demand you reward me!"

  • Rich||

    City Hall deal for Obama Center in Jackson Park: 99 years for $10

    The purpose of the Obama Center complex – to include a museum in a 235-foot tower; a forum and a combination athletic/conference center – has shifted through the years. The Obama Foundation announced in May, 2017, that Obama's official presidential library will not be in the Obama Center

    Think of the minority JOBS!

  • Don't look at me.||

    Lots of basketball courts.

  • damikesc||

    Fucking Hell, Kim Il Sung has competition for largest unearned ego...

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Say what you will about Kim Il Sung and the tenets of juche, dude, at least he earned some of his monumental ego.

    After all, he actually led a rag-tag, third-world army that fought the Japanese and then fought the US to a draw on the Korean peninsula.

    The monumental egos of his spawn, however, were inherited rather than earned.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I wonder if our usual coterie of Reason Republicans will humbly apologize for buying into the latest Fake News about Ford and Kavanaugh.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer......rs-parents

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't get it. Neither commentator repeated the story that you linked. Are you just mad that some people won't buy into your progressive narrative?

  • Just Say'n||

    I seriously don't know what you think you've shown here. You were suggesting that some people were spreading a debunked conspiracy theory to knock down a mainstream conspiracy theory that has as much evidence as the latter. But, no one said that in what you linked?

    Is just questioning an obviously thinly based sexual assault allegation problematic now?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Yes, questions and skepticism isn't allowed.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Umm, they both claimed that Kavanaugh's mom foreclosed on Ford's parents, which is fake news.

  • Just Say'n||

    Where? Maybe I'm missing something or maybe you have the wrong link

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, let me try it again

    https://tinyurl.com/ybntbdso

  • ThomasD||

    Jeff apparently does not understand the distinction between " Kavanaugh's mom foreclosed on Ford's parents" v.s "Kavanaugh's mother was the judge on a house foreclosure."

    Why am I not surprised?

  • Mark22||

    Quotes from the commentators:

    "Yes, her parents had a foreclosure where kavanaugh mom was the judge"

    "Note also that Mediaite is digging up evidence that Kavanaugh's mom presided as judge over the accuser's parents' foreclosure hearings"

    "I checked the Montgomery County docket. Brett Kavanaugh's mother was the judge on a house foreclosure case that appears to be the accuser's parents."

    These statements are factually accurate. From the story you link to:

    Maryland records ( Case No. 156006V in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County) show the Blaseys fought in court for several years to save their home from foreclosure. And a judge briefly involved in the case was none other than Martha Kavanaugh.

    What isn't correct is the claim that his mom "ruled against [Ford's] parents".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is lying by omission. Martha Kavanaugh's role in the foreclosure story is incidental, and the net result was actually helpful to the Ford's. So why would Ford's enemies repeat this story? Hmm? It was to create the false impression that Ford was motivated by revenge about a foreclosure.

  • ThomasD||

    "It is lying by omission."

    You've truly gone around the bend this time.

    But, it was inevitable given the levels of projection involved.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So why would *enemies* of Ford bring up a court case, in which Martha Kavanaugh had a very incidental role, that actually went in Ford's family's favor?

    They brought it up to create the false impression that Ford is only doing what she is doing out of revenge over a foreclosure. It is try to generate a fake motive and create a narrative in the Republican discourse.

  • Mark22||

    Martha Kavanaugh's role in the foreclosure story is incidental, and the net result was actually helpful to the Ford's

    That is your view. Nobody knows how the Fords viewed that interaction.

    So why would Ford's enemies repeat this story? Hmm?

    Because it's the only actual link between the accuser and the accused. Because it's a pretty remarkable coincidence. It's relevant and factually true.

    It was to create the false impression that Ford was motivated by revenge about a foreclosure.

    That's your biased belief. My assumption about Ford is not that she is deliberately lying but that she talked herself into false memories and confuses things.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff isn't smart lol. Jeff. Next time you use one of my quotes, make sure you're probably too dumb to comprehend it. Kavanaugh's mom was a judge in a foreclosure case against Ford's parents. I didn't state the ruling because I hadn't read the docket. What I said was fact. Jeff... You're a fucking idiot.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You didn't even read the whole story.

    Martha Kavanaugh appeared once in the entire story, to sign one form to dismiss the entire foreclosure proceedings.

    Martha Kavanaugh was not the bench judge who presided over the proceedings. She was not "THE JUDGE" in the foreclosure proceedings. She was a bit player. And Schlichter et al. tweeted it out, and his usual Republican toadie followers, repeated it unquestioningly, in order to create the false impression that Ford is motivated by revenge about a foreclosure. And the house wasn't even foreclosed on anyway!

    There is no other reason for him to repeat the story.

    And now his followers are going to laughingly argue that they hate Ford, hate the Democrats for using this slanderous accusation against Kavanaugh, and repeated this little factoid because they didn't want to create the false impression as well that Ford is motivated by revenge? Yeah right. It doesn't pass the smell test.

  • damikesc||

    I never mentioned it nor did I ever care about it.

    Nor did the Republican Senators mention it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good for you.

  • damikesc||

    Now, are you mad that I might HYPOTHETICALLY attack you for making idiotic claims?

  • Just Say'n||

    This guy calls other people "Republicans" for not buying an accusation that Democrats sat on for six weeks and then released at the end of the hearing which includes no specifics about time, place, or who was in the room. The accuser is also refusing to testify about the matter.

    But, he's definitely not a progressive for buying into a flimsy political hit job.

    Well done, radical collectivist

  • Just Say'n||

    And if we're being honest here, the commentators here who are blindly buying into these accusations are only doing it because they view preserving Roe v. Wade as more important than the truth, or buying into false accusations, or gun rights, or free speech rights, or just about anything.

  • ThomasD||

    It's not just RvW, it's also payback for Garland. As thousands of tweets have made that abundantly clear.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just Say'n, please point out where I said I believed Ford's accusation.

  • Just Say'n||

    You seem to take issue with people pointing out that this is an obviously shitty political hit job. Just stick to criticizing the guy about his views on the 4th Amendment. I wish people would focus on the real issues rather than the shiny object.

    These allegations are obviously bunk, but Kavanuagh's warped views on the 4th Amendment are very real. Defending a partisan hit job is a bad look

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You seem to take issue with people pointing out that this is an obviously shitty political hit job.

    I take issue with certain people feigning outrage over this shitty political hit job when many of those same people have for months and months now proclaimed that their highest goal in life is to "defeat the Left".

  • JesseAz||

    We get it Jeff. Actions that you percieve might happen are totes worse than things that did happen. You're unstable bro.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I do not for one minute believe that most of the Reason Republicans around here would offer anything more than the weakest of complaints if it was Republicans doing the same thing that the Democrats are doing now.

    I do not for one minute that they actually are opposed to slandering innocent people *on principle* if it means that Team Blue might be defeated with such slander.

    What the Democrats are doing is bad. But I do not believe Team Red is on the side of righteousness here. They are on the side of convenient outrage.

    It is just kabuki theater. Next time Team Red does something deplorable, Team Blue will fire up its outrage machine. And around and around it goes. Neither one of them actually holds any genuine principles on the matter.

    So spare me your fake righteous indignation.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Chemjeff- you are literally arguing a future hypothetical as if it's a fact and then being upset that others don't agree.

    You do understand right the future hypotheticals haven't yet happened?

  • DesigNate||

    You can read, right?

    That article says she was a judge on their foreclosure case at some point. Reading the links you provided, neither one of the posters that mention the foreclosure say that his mom actually ruled against her parents.

  • JesseAz||

    To Jeff... Reading isn't fundamental.

  • ThomasD||

    Jeff lives in the world of imputed motives. If someone says that Kav's mom was a a judge in the Blasey forclosure he naturally presumes it was an adverse ruling.

  • newshutz||

    Well now we know why the Batman is not pursuing Kavanaugh. His mother's name is Martha.

  • Rossami||

    "Impossible to take seriously" sounds like a good description of Feinstein's allegations. Regardless of what you think about Ford's claims, there is no excuse at all for Feinstein to have suppressed the evidence since June. She had a duty to report. Feinstein's behavior was flagrantly unethical.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Impossible to take seriously" describes every utterance ever made by Feinstein in her entire life.

  • Mark22||

    Oh, when she talked to Jim Jones, that was serious alright.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Jim Jones knew how to organize a community and bring out the vote for Democrats. Of course Feinstein took him seriously.

    https://youtu.be/jMt3nKd-QZY

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I don't agree that members of congress are obligated to go public with every cockamamie claim and tip that they receive. They receive hundreds of letters, emails, and phone calls every single day, and many of them are insane.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    They are obligated to not manipulate data to produce maximum chaos and obstruction.

  • Mark22||

    I don't agree that members of congress are obligated to go public with every cockamamie claim and tip that they receive.

    And if Feinstein had said on Monday "I was notified of this claim in July and thought it was unsupported back then and still believe it; I suggest we ignore it", that would have been fine.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Regardless of what you think about Ford's claims, there is no excuse at all for Feinstein to have suppressed the evidence since June. She had a duty to report.

    Something the woketarians have been noticeably remiss in acknowledging.

    The fact that this all played out the way it did indicates one of two things, politically: Either Feinstein didn't really buy Ford's claims, and threw this out as a Hail Mary when they couldn't trip him up in the hearings, or she knew the hearings were all kabuki theater and held on to it for the express purpose of an "October Surprise" to try and force the withdrawal of his nomination.

    Either way, it's pretty obvious they're trying to Bork the guy because they've deluded themselves into thinking Roe v. Wade is going to be ended with him on the court. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether Kavanaugh actually did what he's being accused of, because if that was the case this would have come up even before the hearing.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Hey, I'm Woke AF, and I've been saying that about Feinstein since the beginning. Give me some credit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Full credit will be forthcoming once you make Hihn's Enemies List.

  • JesseAz||

    Does each hihn sock have their own list?

  • OGREtheTroll||

    Its not about Borking him, its about delaying the confirmation vote so they have something to rally voters with in November. Ford doesn't need to be credible, believable, or even sane; they just need to keep the process rolling and keep her out of the public eye for as long as possible. If it turns out shes moonbat crazy and that is determined the day after the elections, then their goal has been achieved whether Kavanaugh gets confirmed or not.

    If Dems could win a No vote on Kavanaugh today they wouldn't do it. They need his potential confirmation to get out the blue vote as much as possible.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, I don't support outlawing abortion --- but I am HOPING now to see Roe v Wade overturned because it was a fucking terrible decision.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Kavanaugh's nomination has already been defeated. This is good news for libertarians, because it means an end to Drumpf's attempt to radically reshape our nation's highest court. The progressive / libertarian alliance was sadly unable to stop Gorsuch from stealing Garland's seat, but as of last week #TheResistance is winning. Kavanaugh will not get confirmed, and Orange Hitler won't have time to rush through anyone else before Democrats take back the Senate in a few months.

    I would once again like to thank Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, the Women's March, and especially Dr. Ford and Senator Feinstein for their skillful handling of this situation.

    #Resist
    #BlueWave
    #LibertariansForFeinstein

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    This means Garland becomes confirmed automatically and Hillary becomes President. Right?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    See this informative Newsweek piece to understand the process by which Hillary Clinton can still be President.

    #StillWithHer

  • DiegoF||

    What a bizarre essay. Lessig says that he did not write it to suggest that it would happen (of course), nor even, he says, that it should happen, "or that the evidence is there for it to happen." (And he is, to his credit, honest enough to admit that there is none.)

    Instead, he tells us, apparently his purpose in writing the essay was to illustrate that "this is one way that it could happen." So apparently, he has written the essay in order to inform the public that, in fact, Hillary Clinton (and presumably me, or him, or Mr. T for that matter) could indeed become President if both Trump and Pence resigned, and Paul Ryan temporarily stepped aside to declare her the Speaker of the House. Well, I am certainly glad that he used his legal expertise to deduce this brilliant and impenetrably obscure detail of Constitutional jurisprudence and enlighten us all about it. That must be why he teaches at Harvard. Where would we be without him?

  • John||

    For Trump to leave office, he would either have to want to, something which seems very unlikely, or there would have to be enough Senate votes to remove him from office, something that seems even less likely.

    Let's say that happened. Why would Pence refuse the job of President and resign? I honestly can't see any reason why he would. So, he would have to be impeached. While that is possible, it would be completely unprecedented. Why would the country want to impeach Pence and what reason would there be to do so? Even if there was a reason, an impeachment and removal from office of a President would be so traumatic there is no way the public would want to immediately then go through it again. Moreover, if the Democrats took the House and elected Hillary or anyone else as speaker, removing Pence would be putting a Democrat in the White House. It is one thing to think the Republicans might someday turn on Trump and want to kick him out of office and replace him with Pence. It is quite another thing to think that the Republicans would then want to remove Pence and replace him with a Democrat. That is simply absurd. And there is no way the Democrats would get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate such that they wouldn't need at least some Republicans to agree to that.

    Lessig might as well be writing about the possibility of me becoming President because it is just as likely as Hillary becoming so.

  • DesigNate||

    Yeah, but you didn't make a deal with the Devil to be POTUS one day.

  • John||

    I think the Devil snuck in some kind of clause that Hillary didn't read that vitiated his promise. Hillary was never much of a lawyer. It is a pretty good bet the Devil got the better of that bargain.

  • DiegoF||

    We all know Hillary would sell her soul in a heartbeat; the problem is she didn't hold out for the presidency--she'd already sold it for some hot deals on Hell summer-home real estate plots.

  • Fats of Fury||

    She didn't have a soul to begin with. She didn't recall but she traded it in for Bubba's first governor election. He sold his for poontang.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Lakefront property on the lake of fire, or whitewater estates facing the steam vents?

  • Ecoli||

    The dregs of society have something to say about all of that.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Improving! A-

  • DesigNate||

    I'm sad that you didn't mention them trying to turn America into The Handmaid's Tale.

  • NashTiger||

    Still by far the most intelligent and thoughtful Prog voice here

  • DiegoF||

    The Republicans have called this bluff. This morning even the Scarboroughs have admitted that if she won't testify there's little that can be done.

    Unfortunately stopping this nomination was only a moonshot. On their secondary goal they have already won. That is, to find something to energize the soccer moms. They will choose this year to throw off the remaining shackles of suburban white Republicanism, and turn out (along with the woke new generation) in droves to turn this fall's inevitable blue wave into a tsunami.

  • creech||

    Sure, the FBI could investigate. Track down every classmate from both schools, their friends, the people who owned property in Bethesda (or even all the Maryland suburbs) in the 1980s. That should delay things until a new Senate is seated in 2019. Then hold all the hearings over again for the new senators. Then someone demands a special investigation of the FBI investigation because maybe one of the investigators knew some Russian girl who once made some disparaging remark about Roe v. Wade. Wait long enough until Dems retake the Senate and then add five more justices to the SCOTUS. And while we are at it, senators such as Bob Casey can forget every word they ever said in praise of John McCain and his cross aisle desires to advance comity and our democracy.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Sure, the FBI could investigate. "

    Not really because the incident as described was not a federal crime so they have no jurisdiction.

  • Rich||

    *** wrings hands ***

    Can't the President tweet it into a federal crime?!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "How many people do I have to fire to make this go away?"

  • Just Say'n||

    Feinstein: I demand that you investigate

    FBI: OK this isn't really within our authority, but we'll look into the matter. Where did the incident occur?

    Feinstein: She doesn't recall

    FBI: OK when did this incident occur?

    Feinstein: She doesn't know

    FBI: OK who allegedly witnessed this incident?

    Feinstein: She isn't quite sure. The only witness that she remembers has refuted her story

    FBI: *click*

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It feels like a bad sign when an institution as shitty as the FBI doesn't even want to be involved.

  • General_Tso||

    One moment, I'm forwarding your call to Agents Page and Strzok!

  • JesseAz||

    The government didn't spend millions of dollars researching esp and mind reading to not use it to figure out what happened here.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Sure, the FBI could investigate."'

    Yeah, and one of the first things would be to take a statement from and to question Ford. At that time I would expect the peanut gallery to scream about why Ford is being investigated.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Judge also issued a (strangely worded) statement Tuesday...

    Seems reasonably written to me. He's saying, "Look, I don't know what the fuck is going on. Leave me all the way out of your little shitshow."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Did you understand what Fist was referring too? Because his books, of being a drunk, would actually corroborate that Judge doesn't remember anything.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Were you listening to the Dude's story?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's hitting the sauce early this morning.

  • DesigNate||

    You shouldn't pick on the senile, it's not nice.

  • John||

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....ment-order

    FBI still plans redactions despite Trump's order. This is incredibly dangerous. The FBI and the IC do not get to determine what the public sees and does not. The public through the President does. If the IC and FBI can overrule the order of the President to make something public, then we no longer have any oversight over these organizations and have created an actual secret police accountable only to itself. This is no longer about Trump or the politics of today. This has become a serious civil liberties and rule of law issue. If the FBI can refuse to obey Trump as President, they can refuse to obey any President. Libertarians need to understand that and evict Trump from inside their heads and see this issue for the important one it is.

  • JWatts||

    Frankly, it looks like a win for Trump, because he's the one calling for all the Russian probe evidence to be declassified.

  • John||

    If the information the IC and FBI are withholding was in any way damaging to Trump or favorable to their story about Russian collusion, it would have long since been leaked. The fact that they are holding onto it so tightly is pretty conclusive evidence that it is very embarrassing to them and positive for Trump.

  • John||

    It is not obstruction you moron. Obstruction is hiding evidence from authorities or destroying evidence. Releasing evidence that the authorities already have is not obstruction. Trump has the ultimate power to declassify documents and his doing so is lawful end of discussion.

  • John||

    No it isn't. Releasing information to the public is not hiding evidence. Are you insane?

  • Don't look at me.||

    He must be. John is correct. Release all papers, no redactions!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks transparency = obstruction.

    That's why he's Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • ||

    You are doing it wrong. You have to taunt him with transparency - redaction = 0. Then you can get him into the "you fail at algebra" rant.

  • JesseAz||

    Classification powers originate in the office of the president dumbshit.

  • damikesc||

    That's obstruction.

    Releasing ALL the information is "obstruction"?

    *snicker*

    Sure.

    The papers are being reviewed and redacted by ... that same Deep State Justice Department. That's their job.

    Trump declassified ALL of it. They have nothing to redact. Should they do so, mass firings should follow for blatant insubordination.

  • General_Tso||

    Wait, so Trump is Spartacus?

  • Just Say'n||

    Julian Sanchez has informed me that we should trust the intelligence community and only Nazis want government disclosure and transparency.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    This was entirely predictable. The JD and FBI have gone completely rouge and the media, including Reason, don't give a shit.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Hillary Clinton and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have also been calling for an FBI investigation (to no one's surprise)."

    Ford can't give a specific location, a specific date (or even a specific year), or a list of all the people at this alleged gathering. What the fuck is the FBI supposed to investigate here?

  • John||

    Why do you need the police to investigate before you tell your story to the police? That makes no sense. She was there. She knows the truth. She doesn't need to FBI to investigate before she tells it. Moreover, how is the FBI supposed to investigate a case when the victim won't talk them? That is not how this works. You tell your story to the police and then they investigate it to see if they can prove it true.

    This claim is absurd even for politics.

  • JWatts||

    Also, it's not a Federal case, so the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction.

  • John||

    There is that as well. The FBI only has the authority to do background checks, which they have already done. They don't have any law enforcement authority or ability to subpoena records or witnesses for this. There is nothing they can do that they have not already done.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Look, I think this allegation is as horse-shitty as the next bum.. But I think that is what people are suggesting when they say the FBI should investigate. They mean they should re-open the background check process due to new information. Of course, that's only a few intelligent people. The rest want Kavanaugh in solitary without bail.

  • John||

    That is what they are suggesting and the FBI is right to refuse, if for no other reason than because Ford hasn't directly spoken to them and put her accusation under oath. If you want the FBI to re-open the background investigation, I think at a minimum Ford has to talk to the FBI. Why should the FBI re-open an investigation over an incident when the accuser hasn't talked to them? What are they supposed to investigate and how would they do it without the accuser giving them a statement describing what she says happened?

    Honestly, I think if Ford had given a sworn statement to the FBI, they might have reopened the background investigation. But she didn't and I think the FBI was right to refuse to do so.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Agreed.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    And what has been made public of Ford's accusation has far too few details for the FBI to even start investigating.

  • Mark22||

    They mean they should re-open the background check process due to new information.

    What "new information" would that be?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    That there is a woman who says Kavanaugh is a poopy head.

    I said it's horse-shit. But that is the rationale.

  • damikesc||

    The FBI only has the authority to do background checks, which they have already done.

    Heck, they've done SIX of em so far on him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Feinstein was trying to get a quick perjury charge recommendation by the FBI, since Kavanaugh testified under oath.

    The FBI's reputation is tarnished enough to then call Kavanaugh a perjurer.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Kavanaugh hasn't been asked (while under oath) about Ford's accusation, so how could there be a perjury charge related to it?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Evidently Feinstein asked him if he has ever sexually assault anyone in written questions submitted before the Senate hearing.

    I tried looking through Feinstein's press releases on her website and that lady submits tons of stuff every month. She is a horrible statist. Anywho, could not find written questions to Kavanaugh.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    The FBI could investigate why Feinstein sat on this for so long.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    They could also check if reptiles suffer when she does the skin grafts.

  • I can't even||

    Maybe do a background check on her driver while they are at it.

  • John||

    If Ford is unwilling to come to Congress and tell her story, this thing is over. No one but the rankest partisan is going to believe a person who is unwilling to even go on TV and be interviewed about their accusation. This whole affair has turned into a complete waste of time. It makes me think that the Democrats didn't realize fully who they were dealing with and thought she would come and testify. I find it hard to believe that they would have made an issue of this if they knew she was not willing to testify before Congress. Assuming she continues to refuse to speak to Congress, she has made fools out of the Democrats.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I believe "waste of time" was the whole point.
    AKA 'run out the clock'.

  • John||

    Yeah, but it is only September. They are not running out the clock and even if they did and somehow managed to take the Senate, the Senate could just confirm Kavanaugh in a lame duck session. I think this woman is a nut and the Democrats didn't understand that. Even they know that you have to have someone on TV telling their story for anyone to care about or believe this.

  • JWatts||

    Ford, may well refuse to testify in front of Congress, but you can be sure that various Leftwing groups will be fund raising off of her unsubstantiated allegations.

  • DiegoF||

    If Ford is too ashamed even to try to make money off this after all this trouble she really is just a loon. We shall see in a few years.

  • John||

    I guarantee you the networks have offered her serious money for a prime-time interview. As much as it surprises me that she won't go before Congress, it surprises me even more that she hasn't done some softball primetime interview. I think she is a nut.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    They'll probably try to time the interview closer to election day.

  • John||

    No. Once he is confirmed, the newscycle will move onto something else and it will be yesterday's news. The time to interview her and get the biggest ratings is now.

  • Mark22||

    "I won't testify before Congress because I don't want my personal life turned upside down because of media exposure. Besides, I have CNN and MSNBC interviews scheduled for Monday already."

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I have heard that Pow-Wow Chow Warren already has.

  • TW||

    The new session of the Supreme Court starts the first Monday in October. So yeah, they are trying to run out the clock in order to stop him from hearing cases that are scheduled to come before the Court as long as possible.

  • DiegoF||

    Dems threw yet another hail mary that Republican support would simply collapse. It did not. They have been embarrassed by the occasion, but really didn't lose that much. Plus as I mentioned here they get what was always the consolation--energizing the soccer moms. It was not at all a foolish gambit and I think they knew what they were doing from square one. Don't presume everyone is as stupid as the Republicans.

  • John||

    I think if she gets up before Congress and cries and tells her story, the soccer moms might get energized. But if she doesn't do that, I don't think even the soccer moms are going to buy it. Sure a few crazy SJWs will. But the left leaning non SJW soccer moms the Democrats need to energize are not going to buy a story from a woman who refuses to even tell it in public.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I still think they should just vote as you should never give crazy any notice of power.

    ...but I am leaning toward the hearing and this crazy lady will not show up or show America how crazy she and the Left are. Kavanaugh is up for the fight.

    A high school party 35+ years ago...laughable.

  • DPICM||

    I'm not even sure this sells to soccer moms. Seriously, what is the lesson they should take from this? Work hard to raise your son to be an upstanding and respected citizen, send him to the best schools, and then allow some lunatic to come out of left field with a baseless allegation and destroy his career on the eve of what should be some crowning achievement that you would have been proud of? What do soccer moms want more - their daughters to grow up to be like Ford, or their sons to grow up like Kavanaugh?

    The soccer mom gambit is every bit as shaky as the latinos-vote-reliably-democrat gambit. Not necessarily true, and when your coalition is as fragile as theirs, a shift of a few percent who are repulsed by a lack of common decency and fairness in all of this could spell electoral disaster for the Dems.

    Above all, never forget that no one hates a woman as much as other women.

  • TW||

    This.

  • John||

    I agree. Most people are not lunatic partisans and have an innate sense of fairness. No one with any sense is going to believe this nonsense much less be motivated to vote for it.

  • KevinP||

    Correct. Most people outside SJW land, women included do know that it is possible that women can lie and the presumption of innocence protects everyone, including their husbands and sons.

  • jay||

    It isn't surprising. The goal of the left for the past 100 years has been to punish every form of virtue possible, which should nullify in their mind any justification for criticizing the lack of it.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    "No one but the rankest partisan" - and of course, the rankest partisans already committed to voting against his confirmation the day he was nominated.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Kavanaugh Friends Have 'No Memory' of Party Where Alleged Sex Assault Took Place"

    Maybe it would help if the alleged victim had any recollection of where the party was, what time of year this party occurred, and who allegedly witnessed the incident.

    It sure sounds like she has an air tight story. We should take it super seriously

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We should take it seriously. And I think that they are, in fact, taking with the appropriate amount of seriousness. The mistake is to treat it as some absolute truth immediately. I think we have taken it seriously though, and unless something else comes up as evidence, it can be fairly rejected or accepted after this hearing.

  • ||

    WTF? This is a crock of shit and absolutely no one should take it seriously. We can judge this judge on the last 35 years of substantiated behaviour without Ford's vague unprovable accusation.

    Even if he did what she said, what bearing could it possibly have on his ability to adjudicate cases fairly in the future? It is just as likely that this incident is what put him on the straight and narrow as it is that he is harboring some rape fantasy that he will at some point use his power as a Justice to inflict upon an unwilling intern. But everyone MUST assume that the latter is the likely scenario despite his having an awesome amount of power as a judge for years now without incident.

    Fuck #MeToo

  • DiegoF||

    That alumnae letter is a joke. Kavanaugh's greatest character witness of all continues to be the utterly laughable nature of the worst that the Left can muster against him. I feel like if Aristotle and the Virgin Mary had a baby they could cook up a stronger case not to confirm him than they've managed with Kavanaugh all this time.

  • John||

    How crazy and stupid do you have to be to think that a letter from people who were not present at the event and have never met either person and in many cases were not even born when this happened is persuasive?

  • Rich||

    Now, John -- What part of "consistent with stories we heard" don't you understand?

  • John||

    Nothing says convincing proof like "I heard..."

  • DPICM||

    I have to admit that it is pretty amusing how much of modern leftism proceeds from nothing more than Salem Witch Trial "logic."

    Yet these folks believe themselves to be the more intelligent part of the citizenry.

  • DesigNate||

    I love that they don't see they ARE the puritans of old.

  • ThomasD||

    Nothing says 'plausible allegation' quite like supporters who were not even born at the time of the alleged incident.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ford's lawyer Lisa Banks argued yesterday that the FBI must investigate first, and that Ford was not ready to testify on such short notice."

    Short notice?

    She's had 35 years to get ready!

    She sent the letter to Feinstein in July! What's she been doing since then if not getting ready to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    There are no more witnesses to interview about what went on in that room--and nothing of note to be found by an investigation. The suggestion that people should be disqualified from public office for things they did as minors, 35 years after the fact, is ludicrous.

    Meanwhile, allegations that can't be substantiated from 35 years ago shouldn't be enough to delay a Supreme Court vote--or anything else.

  • John||

    Say what you want about Anita Hill but she at least was willing to stand up and tell her story. This woman is nuts. How can you refuse to make your accusation until the police investigate it?

  • Mazakon||

    Not only did she have 35 years, she reportedly has experience talking about it as there is a therapist who she told it to. Plus, it's six days and while I know those things can go on for a while, it doesn't seem too unreasonable especially given the small amount of information ready.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    What was the polygraph for if not to prepare to testify?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Has anybody seen this polygraph? I've heard about it plenty. It reminds me of all the great golf scores I manage when I am playing alone.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Who cares? It doesn't matter if it exists or not, it's pseudoscience and they only exist to lend credence when people are ignorant of that fact.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And I mean that either way. She could be telling the truth and it gives us nothing. Do not stand for lie detectors. They're worse than useless.

  • ThomasD||

    "What was the polygraph for if not to prepare to testify?"

    It was a mechanism for getting cheap credibility from the otherwise ignorant.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Hillary Clinton is the rightful President of the United States.

    We need to improve and protect our elections, from instituting paper ballot backups to repairing the Voting Rights Act, getting secret money out of politics, and—you won't be surprised to hear my support for this—abolishing the Electoral College.

    The Electoral College is an indefensible relic of the days when slavery was legal and only men could vote. The only legitimate way to decide the Presidency is through a nationwide popular vote.

    #StillWithHer

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Bill Clinton would have been re-elected for his rightful third term if the dastardly Republicans hadn't reacted to the noble FDR's death in office in his fourth term by amending the Constitution.

    #StillWithHim
    #InternsToo
    $ChildrenToo
    !ButNotHillaryTheHagIsTooOld

  • Ecoli||

    Why limit the US elections to a "nation wide popular vote", you racist.

    We have neighbors to the north and south that should have a rightful say in how this nation, that was founded on racism, is run!

  • Don't look at me.||

    They should have a voice, as many of them will soon be living here.

  • DPICM||

    Paper ballot backups? LOL.

    I wonder what's supposed to happen when the backups don't match the machines in every single election where the republican wins? I'm sure the result is not predetermined.

  • damikesc||

    Irony --- Democrats are the ones who demanded we leave paper ballots behind after 2000.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Well they were having some problems with some guy named Chad.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's hilarious to smear people and ruin their lives because they drank in high school. All for those sweet sweet Planned Parenthood donations

  • DiegoF||

    "Sweet"? Hardly an appropriate sensory descriptor for what is, after all, only currency. Why settle for just that?

  • Just Say'n||

    Not cool. Christopher Reed is dead, dude. Have respect for Superman

  • Just Say'n||

    No guy, your points about underage drinking are super serious

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "What is the sound of air running through Dumbfuck Hihnsano's skull, Alex?"

    *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter to be named twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's Enemies List*

  • Red Tony||

    Bullshit, I got named twice under different names. Annoying that he's no longer updating it, though.

  • JWatts||

    That might have some relevance, if anybody thought it was necessary for him to testify. However, since Ford is refusing to testify, there's absolutely no reason for Judge to testify.

    "The White House clown car is still accelerating, still out of control.."

    If Kavanaugh get's confirmed this statement will be wrong. On the other hand, it's possible, that this incident has managed to derail his nomination.

  • John||

    Kavanaugh drank and partied a lot in high school and college. That is so unheard of and is just going to be so shocking. Find another talking point dude.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Dumbfuck Hihnsano" (lol)

  • Ken Shultz||

    The drinking age in Washington DC (Georgetown) wasn't raised to 21 until long after it was elsewhere in the country. Student bars in Georgetown were flooded with teens in the '80s.

    The "X" on the back of your hand because a symbol for straight edge (which started in DC) because if you were under 18, there was no way the bartender could tell or take time to card every teen when they ordered at the bar. Meanwhile, the social scene was such that they would let pretty much anybody into the clubs. So, they would put an "X" in magic marker on the back of your hand if you were under 18, which meant you couldn't order alcohol. The straight edge kids started putting and "X" on the back of their hand voluntarily, as a symbol of being a tee-teetotaler. If somebody offered them alcohol or to get high or something, they'd sometimes use that as an excuse to get violent--for all you knew, you were offering something to a minor.

    Oh, glories of a misspent youth in DC! (My Latin is also still pretty good).

    Moral of the story?

    DC was a magnet for kids getting wasted. They were coming from College Park. They were coming to Georgetown from all over to get wasted. The only thing I've seen like it is Tijuana across the border from San Diego. He was living in party central at a time (in the 80s) when life for kids in DC was practically non-stop partying.

  • John||

    Rich prep school kids party a lot. Shocking.

  • DiegoF||

    I remember hearing that the Straightedge X started in DC (because it sure as fuck wasn't about NYHC!) and I heard its origins but I never knew DC was a late comer to the 21 drinking age. (Wisconsin, where children can still drink in bars as long as a parent is present, was the last to change; Louisiana I believe went back to 18 briefly in the '90s until it rewrote the law that had been ruled unconstitutional by the state judiciary.) It does make a lot more sense as a social phenomenon that way--you need to be actually overage to voluntarily put the X on and make it a real statement, man; and that would be something more likely to be done by teenagers. By the time you're in your 20s a lot more casual fans would have matured well out of seeing the same erstwhile appeal for such a hardcore (pardon the pun) "statement." You have better things to worry about by that time.

    I still am surprised that the same Congress that pulled its normal power-of-the-purse extortion on the Federal-funding-addicted states to force the 21 drinking age, did not see to it to implement it in the only part of the country it rules directly. (Then again, the territories are still 18 as well, to my knowledge! Go figure!)

  • Michael S. Langston||

    At least in early 2000, underage can drink with parent buying in South Dakota.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Underage can still drink at home with their parents, in a social setting, (Say a bit of wine at the dinner table.) in most states, I believe.

    It's kind of like handguns; You can own one, you just can't buy it...

  • DPICM||

    Oh man! You found the smoking gun! Kavanaugh and his buddies used to drink in high school ergo he's definitely guilty of attempted rape.

    Evel Knievel better watch out with your ability to make logical leaps like that!

  • JesseAz||

    Yes. Most people who write books about themselves are emarassed when people learn about what's in the book... God you're dumb.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The fact that the DemoRats are scrambling to prevent declassification gives one the impression that they dont like what is on those documents as it hurts their narrative.

  • Don't look at me.||

    No, it's because Trump.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    GOP Congressman: Only Way to Pass DACA Fix Is 'Jamming This on People'
    "What I will say is the only way we're going to get this done, and I'm going to be frank, is jamming this on people, plain and simple – that's not happening before November, because technically we don't even have an opportunity," he added.

  • DiegoF||

  • DPICM||

    "There's no particular reason Smyth should have remembered the night, nor known what may or may not have happened in an upstairs bedroom."

    Except that, you know, he's been reported to be one of the four people who assaulted her, which is why he made the statement according to your very fist paragraph.

    But yeah, no reason to remember a night that he tried to help rape someone in high school.

    How fucking stupid do you have to be to write something like this? Rhetorical question.

  • John||

    You raped someone last year at a party

    I don't even remember being at that party

    Why would you remember being at the party? You must be lying.

    Holy cow what is wrong with people?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember that party 35+ years ago?

    No.

    GUILTY!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," wrote Smyth, according to CNN.

    Like so many of the statements in favor of either Ford or Kavanaugh, this doesn't actually tell us very much."

    Yeah, we never learn "very much" until somebody tells us exactly what we want to hear--is that what I'm supposed to think?

    It feels like it's 2004 and I'm arguing against torture all over again. No, when you don't know whether someone has pertinent information, the reasonable thing to do is not to torture them until they finally give you something they may not have. Yeah, eventually, they'll tell you what you want to hear--the problem is that the information they give you is completely unreliable. That's what happened during the McMartin preschool debacle: they didn't stop asking people whether they were ritually abused by Scary Clowns [Satanists] until the "victims" finally relented and remembered things that had never happened. The same thing will happen here under the same circumstances.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Meanwhile, the alleged victim claims she never told a soul for 30 years. It's bad enough when you're questioning people for information you don't know they have, much worse (in terms of reliability) when you're questioning them for information the victim says she never gave anyone. Are you really going to believe people who come forward with testimony that corroborates Ford's version of the story--that Ford says she never gave them? How could they get that information? Are they psychic?

    Meanwhile, the information you're searching for is immaterial to the question at hand. Go ask Lenore Skenazy if children should be disqualified from public office 35 years from now because of something they do today.

    That's the question I've never seen anybody who wants this investigation answer: Why should what minors do disqualify them from office 35 years after the fact? I suspect one of the reasons no one who wants this investigation addresses that question directly is because their answer is so fucking absurd.

  • John||

    It is, using a Sherlock Homes reference, called "the dog that didn't bark". People's actions and refusal to give information and the lack of information usually tells a lot about the truthfulness of a claim. If someone is raped, they usually tell someone about it at the time or shortly thereafter. They usually remember the details in excruciating detail because the event is so traumatic. If a group of young guys assaults a woman, one of them nearly always brags about it to someone. In cases of date rape at parties and such, there is usually some kind of history between the assailant and the victim.

    When like here, not just one but none of those things exists, it tells you a whole lot about the likelihood of the accusation being true.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This whole thing reeks of the Rolling Stone Virginia article that it's ridiculous. At this point, I'm surprised that Ford didn't claim one of Kavanaugh's buddies told him to "grab its motherfucking leg."

  • Don't look at me.||

    But it sounds like stories they heard before, so...maybe we should get the bambo splints under some fingernails to get to the bottom of this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," wrote Smyth, according to CNN.

    Like so many of the statements in favor of either Ford or Kavanaugh, this doesn't actually tell us very much."

    With this mentality, the only reason to stop the investigation is when somebody finally confirms your biases. If the truth is that there is no corroborating evidence or testimony, they'll just keep going until they find it.

    Eventually, I can find somebody who says they saw a UFO in the vicinity that night. Do we discount the testimony of people who say they don't remember seeing any such thing?

    Isn't testimony that the event never happened just as credible as testimony that it did?

    If not, why not?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    That is a possibility that we've been overlooking-that it wasn't actually Ford that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted that night, but it was aliens that he was sexually assaulting. I don't know if I'm comfortable with confirming someone to the highest court in this land who might have raped extra-terrestrials in the 1980s. Where was Brett Kavanaugh when ET tried to go home?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Progressive Editor Notes Kavanaugh Friends Supposedly At Alleged Party Refute Sole Accuser

    Fixed that title for you.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Ford's lawyer Lisa Banks argued yesterday that the FBI must investigate first

    Investigate what? It's a 36 year old "he said, she said." And didn't Feinstein already forward the letter to the FBI and they already declined to open an investigation?

  • DiegoF||

    This whole thing is so ridiculous even Janet Reno would have left this one alone.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    +1 Elian Gonzalez

  • Tom Bombadil||

    OH shit. Can I gave a do-over?

    "This whole thing is so ridiculous even Janet Reno would have left this one alone"

    Even she isn't that Waco.

  • DiegoF||

    With Janet there's so much one could be talking about; she gave us so much material. But in this case I was actually talking about her role at the forefront of the '80s child ritual-sex-abuse panic, in pioneering techniques for coaxing false testimony out of youngsters by intimidating and harassing them with aggressive interrogation until they made something up--usually rather fantastic--that they supposedly had "hidden" in their memories, and then prosecuting the case with the belief that children are too innocent to be dishonest(!). Her headline-whoring crusade's victims included several who were themselves elementary-school children, tried as adults (and denied even the right to see their accusers face to face in court--a development rightly condemned by Scalia as a facial perversion of both original meaning and intent). The lucky ones were acquitted immediately; others convicted earlier in the panic had to wait decades to be exonerated. Of course we have known for years the whole thing is based on junk science pushed by quacks who were even sicker attention whores than she was. She never apologized for any of it to the day she died.

  • John||

    If there was a hall of fame for failure, evil and incompetence, Reno would get a special wing. To be involved with one of those things is bad enough. But to be involved with all of those things in one career is pretty remarkable.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I think that was actually why she was kept on after Waco: Because where did she have to go if she was fired? So she became VERY reliable about quashing any investigations headed towards the President.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>coaxing false testimony

    nobody expects the puppet inquisition!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Fat Freddy was impanelled in a comic book, and as the manacled defendant was frogmarched into the courtroom he thought: "it's some poor hippie; he's innocent, I can tell!"

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Judge also issued a (strangely worded) statement Tuesday, saying he had "no memory of this alleged incident" nor does he remember the party Ford described, though he was friends with Kavanaugh. "The only reason I am involved is because [Ford] remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault.""

    What's strangely worded about that? What's he supposed to say? "I distinctly recall the two of us not attending this alleged party, and in particular have a crystal clear recollection of the assault not taking place."?

    Of course he's not going to remember it happening if it didn't happen.

  • John||

    Who past the age of 30 much less 50 can remember the parties they went to in high school? No one. Kavanaugh having no memory of this party is completely consistent with his innocence. Reason can't seem to help themselves and want to slander him or pretend this is a close call.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I can remember every last one of them. But that's because I wasn't very social, so it was just the prom, and I bailed after 10 minutes standing around being bored. And getting drunk in high school wasn't actually that big a thing in rural Michigan in the mid 70's.

    Or maybe I just think that because I wasn't very social...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's hitting the sauce early this morning.

  • John||

    If you assume he is guilty, then this fits right in. It is called confirmation bias you fucking moron. And he has offered to testify under oath to clear his name. It is his accusor who refuses to speak to the media much less to Congress under oath. Yet, somehow the person who refuses to speak publicly or answer questions is the one you are convinced is telling the truth.

    They banned you for a reason Hihn. It is because they felt sorry for you and hoped it would cause you to get the help you so desperately need. Take their advice and do so.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The book wasn't written under oath, was it?

  • DPICM||

    Good to know that you firmly believe in one of the core tenets of our criminal justice system - that you're innocent until proven guilty.

    Someone accused you? Off to the gulag!

    So woke. So democratic. So much liberty.

  • damikesc||

    If you think Kavanaugh assaulted her while crazy drunk, as I and many others do

    ...based on what?

    She's named two people who were there. Both say she is wrong.
    She still doesn't know when it happened.
    Nor does she know where.

    So, outside of a Republican nominating him --- why would you believe he did this at all?

  • DesigNate||

    Because Mikey is a raving lunatic who long ago abandoned whatever libertarian principles he had?

  • Dillinger||

    every school was swimming in alcohol then

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    There is going to be a hearing and they don't have to subpoena Kavanaugh because he instantly agreed to appear voluntarily, Mary Stack you retarded dried out old cunt. It's your fellow lunatic hag who is refusing to show up.

    Your tactics are going to fail and Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed in about eight or nine more days. Shove that up your twat.

  • JesseAz||

    Are you saying the whole school raped Ford?!?

  • Just Say'n||

    There have been more articles at Reason pushing a thinly sourced sexual assault allegation that is essentially just a Democratic talking point then there has been about Kavanaugh's position on the 4th Amendment. There have been two articles about Kavanaugh's 4th Amendment position, against the more than three articles about Kavanaugh and the thinly sourced sexual assault allegations (if we are not counting the daily update about heresy in the morning links) in which the accuser will not testify, cannot recall the place, time, or date of the alleged incident and in which the sole witnesses, which the accuser identified, have all said no such allegation ever occurred.

    Great job, guys

  • Ken Shultz||

    "When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, student power, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions,'' Mr. Friedlander wrote in the first issue, published in May 1968 and peppered with typographical errors and misspellings. "Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coherance, not contradictions. This is our promise: This is the reason for REASON.''

    ----Boston Globe, Obituary for Lanny Friedlander

    http://archive.boston.com/bost....._magazine/

  • Ken Shultz||

    It was mostly like that until recent years--and I still see that as the Reasonoid ethos.

    Now, it seems to be personality driven. If only reading here over the past two years, people might be forgiven for thinking that barriers to free trade and immigration restrictions are only bad because Donald Trump supports them.

    This Kavanaugh shit is all personality driven, too. Who's telling truth doesn't matter--if the "truth" they're looking for is immaterial to the question of whether any particular Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed.

    I'm completely open to arguments that Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because of his stance on the Fourth Amendment. My primary support for his confirmation is that we libertarians are unlikely to get someone better and if the Democrats take the senate, we're likely to get someone far worse on the Second Amendment.

    Maybe I'm wrong about all that.

    I'm not wrong about how allegations that can't be substantiated from 35 years ago, when someone was a minor, shouldn't be enough to stop civil society in its tracks. I'm also not wrong to think that SJWs would love to be able to veto civil society whenever they want merely by making an allegation about something that happened 35 years ago and can't be substantiated.

  • John||

    You called it best Ken when you said reason had become a lifestyle magazine.

    I think you are right that it is very personality driven and also totally Washington obsessed and a slave to the Washington newscyle. Reason being so personality and Washington driven creates a bigger problem in that it no longer represents the full scope of libertarian views and no longer critiques its own ideas.

    The reason why it appears that trade restrictions and closed borders are bad simply because Trump supports them is that reason no longer critiques its own ideas and instead treats them like religious dogma. There is a "libertarian" case for if not protectionism than at least economic nationalism as a way to accomplish other goals or create incentives for other nations to open their markets. There is a libertarian case against totally open borders. There was a hell of a libertarian case to be made against gay marriage. But reason never entertained those cases or even properly addressed the libertarian critiques of their own positions. Reason's defense of these things consists mostly of calling anyone who doesn't support them a racist, nationalist or bigot. The irony is that if reason would take the libertarian objections to its positions more seriously, its support of those positions would be smarter and more persuasive.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yeah, we used to talk about why Libertarians always have to take the most contrary stance possible. Sure, those stances are logically consistent with libertarianism, but saying tax is theft removes you from most of the voting publics' possible choices.

    In fact some guy here wrote a great book on this called Radicals of Capitalism discussing, among other things, this very issue.

    Today we're no longer asking why is Reason a sticking to principles that piss off 90% of the public, but instead we ask where did the adherence to principles go?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Again, march through the institutions. Somebody suggested a tactical alliance with the left, and instead of saying, "Are you mad?", Reason gave it a go, and let the barbarians in through the front gate.

    The more barbarians you let in, the more dangerous it becomes to identify them as barbarians, and the harder to expel them again.

    I think part of the reason they fell for that, was this desire to see left and right authoritarians as equally bad. Yeah, they're both bad, but equally? No, not really.

  • damikesc||

    As has been said, Biden said accusations of sexual assault against men should always be taken seriously.

    Yet there is more evidence of Biden groping women --- underage ones, to boot --- then there is of Kavanaugh doing the same.

  • Tony||

    Joe Biden's nomination to the supreme court should be immediately withdrawn.

  • damikesc||

    He's a favorite of your party to run for President.

    Just find it amusing watching Democrats pretending to care about this.

    Well, at least for this week.

  • Tony||

    Not my favorite. Maybe my least favorite, neck-and-neck with Cory Booker.

    All ten billion times better than the current occupant or any other Republican, of course.

  • Rorschach||

    Corey "really ought to shut his cornhole already" Booker?

    Ruh roh!

    So, when is Booker's crucifixion for sexually harassing a fellow drunken teenager scheduled, Tony?

  • Tony||

    Yesterday for all I care.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note to foreign readers: Both looter parties are losing membership like so many child-molesting cults. Besides personal attacks on each other's minions, they organize gangs to infiltrate third party media (such as Reason) as venues for additional mutual recriminations and spin control. Pay no attention, but do read the libertarian party platform.

  • Duelles||

    Last minute attempt to hurt Trump by democrats! Duh! Screw them. Use their playbook and get on with the vote. The he said - she said, "sounds like what happened back then", BS is not qualifying or disqualifying. What does Keith Ellison have to say? He's a dem leader, no?

  • damikesc||

    On Tuesday evening, the White House announced that President Trump had ordered the Office of the Department of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to declassify 24 pages of the FISA court application the FBI submitted for former Trump adviser Carter Page. The order also told the agencies to declassify "all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation" and "all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications."

    Trump ordered the agencies to make public "all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr."

    Trump told The Hill that exposing the FBI's Russia "hoax" might be one of the "crowning achievements" of his presidency.

    And the FBI, reportedly, wants to STILL redact information.

    Trump should legitimately use this as just cause for MASS firings.

    The FBI has been using redactions to cover up its ineptitude. If they are going to outright ignore an order to declassify information, good luck impeaching a President for trying to RELEASE information.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Orwell once commented: "Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening." So it is with the two halves of America's looter kleptocracy.

  • CDRSchafer||

    "I demand the FBI investigate every alleged teenage drunken dry hump from the past five decades!"

    We're gonna need a bigger FBI.

  • Dillinger||

    trivago setting up "who doesn't extradite" tab.

  • DiegoF||

    The commentariat seems to have completely ignored a chance to shit all over Popehat. We are really losing our edge, folks.

  • damikesc||

    That'd involve caring about popehat.

  • John||

    I apologize for missing that chance. Dopehat is such an establishment suck up. UCLA is a publicly funded university. If a publicly funded university held a national conference of the Proud Boys, DopeHat would be all over calling them racists and demanding they stop the conference. And he would right. But, hosting a conference of a bunch of anti Semites is totally different because of Isreal.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Judge also issued a (strangely worded) statement Tuesday

    strangely worded like in urdu? dude says he doesn't remember being at a party.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    By the way, something that has gotten very little attention from the scummy lowlife vermin in the JournoList is that over the last 25 years or so, Kavanugh has undergone SIX federal background investigations.

    That is likely part of the reason why the FBI isn't going to waste any of their time investigating him on the basis of this ludicrous story. He has in fact already been investigated and vetted! Again and again and again and again and again.

  • DPICM||

    And again. Don't miss one.

    But this seventh time will be the one that takes him down!

  • chipper me timbers||

    Anyone taking this allegations seriously for one second has lost their damn mind. i for one would like to see Kavanaugh withdraw because he's a terrible authoritarian with little or no respect for civil rights who will bend and twist every which way to support anything congress wants to do to us and then call it "precedent". He's Roberts 2.0 and a new penaltax ruling awaits us if he gets on. Sure he's good on the 2nd but otherwise you might as well clone Kagan he's that bad.

    But this allegation is patent nonsense. Only the post demented SJW Democrat partisan can take this seriously.

    And the call for an FBI investigation is clownish. Even if the allegation is perfectly true in every respect, the FBI has no jurisdiction or this crime so they can't investigate. They even stated as much for those who are too stupid to get it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem with that reasoning is that basically anybody the Democrats came up with to replace him would be a much worse authoritarian, who'd twist even harder to uphold anything Congress came up with. We get a Democratic majority on the Court, and you can kiss at least the 1st and 2nd amendments goodbye.

    John Galt isn't going to be nominated, but if Hillary were President, Wesley Mooch might well be.

  • chipper me timbers||

    I'm just not sure I can agree with you. He will be terrible on all fronts except the 2nd amendment which, ironically, is in strong shape even after years and years of a mainly liberal leaning court. The 2nd is enjoying a pendulum swing for the last few decades that won't be easily undone even by the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor.

    It's the other amendments that are on life support and Kavanaugh will euthanize them.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, he'll be a lot better on the 1st amendment, too, since the current Democratic position is that the 1st amendment doesn't protect political speech near elections.

  • DPICM||

    "Sure he's good on the 2nd but otherwise you might as well clone Kagan he's that bad."

    While I generally agree, with the 2nd we can protect the rest of our rights, with or without and irrespective of the rulings of the Nazgul.

    The 2nd is what gives the whole thing teeth, and without it the Constitution would be nothing more than antiquated toilet paper. The left knows this which is why they fixate on trying to undermine or circumvent the 2nd. As long as citizens are armed, the government is checked, even if the whole of DC, and all three branches are neck deep in swamp water.

    I don't have a 4th amendment right against unreasonable seizure? Come try it, motherfuckers!

  • DiegoF||

    It's all over! The smoking gun has been uncovered! Much-wampum paleface speak with forked tongue!

  • DiegoF||

    Yeah still have no idea why that link didn't work. Oh well; I'm too bored to fix it.

  • Rat on a train||

  • NashTiger||

    So Brett Kavanaugh was in elementary School when JLD was at Holton Arms, and the girl circukating the letter wasn't even born yet?

    That was some wild party

  • Rat on a train||

    Only the wildest parties distort space-time.

  • LynchPin1477||

    argued yesterday that the FBI must investigate first

    I think she should be invited to testify before the Senate, but the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate here. If anyone should investigate, it's the local PD, and after 30 years I can't see what such an investigation would uncover that wouldn't just as easily come up in Senate testimony.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    If the FBI did investigate, the first step is to get a statement and question the complainant. I bet Ford doesn't really want that.

    What they want is to weaponize the FBI in their anti-Kavanagh crusade.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Basically, the Dems are hoping that we don't know the difference between law-enforcement proceedures and a job interview, and that we'll get all overwrought.

    Oh, wait.

  • blondrealist||

    I graduated from high school in 1977 and while I didn't attend a whole lot of parties, I think I can remember where each and every one took place - or at least most of them. Seems like if something really bad (or good) happened at a party, then I'd be more likely to remember the location. When the parties took place is tougher for me, but since she is certain she was 15 then seems like she could narrow it down a bit. Was it summer? Spring? I read yesterday that according to Senator Hatch, Kavanaugh said he did not go to any party matching Ford's description. Unless a new witness comes up, I don't see what an "investigation" of about a party that took place 36 years ago will accomplish.

  • markm23||

    Especially when no one can identify a particular party to investigate...

  • leninsmummy||

    Blows my mind that anyone with a brain can take Dr Ford's accusations seriously. Then again 'truth' has been subjective for some time. If certain people believe a dude is actually a woman because that's his subjective gender this isn't much of a stretch. It really doesn't even matter if it's true, it's her 'lived experience'.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They're not taking it seriously, they're just pretending to because it's a handy weapon to oppose Kavanaugh with. I guarantee that if you switched the parties involved, they'd instantly see the problem.

  • ThomasD||

    I think if the shoes were reversed you'd see a bit more of a mixed reaction. The actual politicians and hardcore democrats in the media would ignore it - just like they are ignoring the Ellison accusations.

    But a lot of others are not so much committed to the Democrat party as tribally affiliated. Those who see themselves as culturally similar to Blasey Ford (i.e. upper middle class elitists) - would be sympathetic and would not like her being dismissed for what - to them - was obviously partisan reasons.

  • buybuydandavis||

    'Another person at the decades-old party where SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly attacked Christine Blasey Ford has spoken out about the night in question. Patrick J. Smyth, ...

    "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," wrote Smyth, according to CNN. '

    Fakity Fake News

    No one could be "at the decades-old party", because there is no specific party to be at. As Smyth makes clear. He doesn't say he was "at the decades-old party", he explicitly says that he has "has no knowledge of the party in question".

    Woketarian "journalism" is such a sewer

  • Liberty Lover||

    I have no memory of what I ate for breakfast yesterday. No memory of something that happened over 35 years ago would not be that unusual.

  • messages||

    President Trump has something to tweet about that!

  • messages||

    President Trump has something to tweet about that!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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