MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Republicans Shouldn't Dismiss an FBI Probe Into the Accusations Against Kavanaugh

It might clear him without subjecting her to an inquistion

Republicans are pillorying Christine Basley Ford, the woman accusing Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault, for demanding an independent FBI probe before sheFeminist RallyFreaks and Giggs via Foter.com testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are accusing her of chickening out and suggesting that this in some way discredits her.

But that does not follow.

Since she reluctantly went public, her e-mail has been hacked and she has faced a barrage of harassment including death threats. She has had to hire private security and move to another house along with her two daughters. No less than Don Jr., President Trump's son, mocked her on Instagram, posting a note scribbled in red crayon in a toddler's handwriting, asking her if she'd be his girlfriend, signed, "love, Bret (sic)." As if, attempted rape is just an innocent declaration of love!

Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that she is concerned that the senators will do to her what they did to Anita Hill when she accused Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. They turned the hearing into an inquisition on national TV, grilling her on every minor inconsistency, questioning every trivial lapse of memory, and impugning her motives.

None of this is to suggest that Ford's accusations deserve no further corroboration, I note at The Week. The problem is that she has provided enough details to be credible but hasn't met the burden of proof to be convincing. An independent probe is one way to get past the "he said, she said." Judge Kavanaugh has denied that he was even at the party where she says the incident occurred. If the FBI can confirm that, that'll clear him pronto.

That's why Republicans are doing neither her – nor him – any favors by opposing the probe. It makes it seem like they are worried about what it might reveal. If they confirm Kavanaugh under such circumstances, they will consign him to serve with a shadow over his head.

Go here to read the full piece.

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.

  • TuIpa||

    Omfg with this...

  • TuIpa||

    CNN - "This just in, credible allegations of Telepathy and mind control have been leveled against Brett Kavanaugh"

  • rocks||

    Reason should just go and kill itself. You are all pathetic.

  • Ben_||

    And now Reason writers want to call the FBI in.

    Reason writers need to start with "we don't care about liberty or the constitution or justice or the proper role of government — not this time". Then proceed with BS like this.

  • Michael P||

    So much this. Anyone who wants the FBI to investigate something that is not a federal crime, and has long passed the statute of limitations at the state level, needs to turn in their libertarian card.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    MD would make this a 1 year limit.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    The FBI routinely investigates for background many thousands, maybe millions, of potential federal employees and potential office holders, as everyone knows. Federal crime has nothing to do with it.

  • JesseAz||

    And they've completed kavanaughs. Even post difi smear. Fbi agent s aren't dumb. They see a non verifiable claim quite easily.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The FBI routinely conducts background investigations with respect to candidates for sensitive federal positions, and never limits its attention to prosecutable crimes, you bigoted rube.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Apparently you learned common core math because you don't realize that 6 is more than 0.

  • markm23||

    And the FBI found nothing in multiple background investigation into Kavanaugh. Ford's accusation, without a time, place, or names other than the people who have already denied it leaves NOTHING FOR THE FBI TO PROBE.

  • Raoul Duke||

    But hey, if you've got nothing to hide then what's a little FBI investigation among friends?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Given what's come out about the political bullshit going on in the FBI in 2016?

    I don't think so.

  • Raoul Duke||

    C'mon, it's just the government. You can trust them!

  • Frank Thorn||

    I stopped reading at 'Shikha Dalmia'.

  • TuIpa||

    You made it past "Shikha?". You'ee made of iron sir.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    "Reluctantly went public" my ass. You take a polygraph test, you contact your Congresscritter, you are not reluctant. You bring up 35 year old allegations with a shrink, sit on them for 6 years, then rush them out at the last minute (yes, you are complicit in delaying bringing them out until the last minute) --

    By Gum, you are not reluctant, you are part of the circus.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    I tend to take these allegations with a grain of salt because of a horrible personal experience.

    I dated a girl in college for a few months, then she switched to a different school closer to our home town. That summer she drove past numerous doctors and even her own mother to come get my help after she broke her arm at work. A couple months later she asked me to go with her to a reunion so her family wouldn't be on her about finding someone. Then decades later, she calls me looking for a place for her brother to stay after he gets out of prison... and during that conversation informs me I raped her while we were originally dating. (?!!!)

    Would you seek help like that from a rapist? I certainly wouldn't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would get her on video or audio saying that she made the rape allegation up and then never talk to her again.

    Any person who throws the word rape or pedo around to extort people is dangerous.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Absolutely and screw worrying about wiretap laws. If you ever have to use it, you'll be happy you pled guilty to any such infractions versus the worst case scenario (and they're unlikely to press charges anyway if you record her threatening you).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not every jurisdiction has wiretap laws. Many are one-party state, so as long as you are a party to the conversation, you can record it.

  • Bill||

    Yes, I just googled this last night. As long as one party
    (i.e. the one making the recording) know about it, it is fine
    in many/most places.

  • juris imprudent||

    Be a stooge for the Democrats, get treated like a stooge. And if you doubt this, just watch how quickly she is dropped into a memory hole after serving her purpose.

  • Brendan||

    I'm sure they'll keep investigating this issue just like they did with the Roy Moore accusers.

  • Rigelsen||

    They still hold up Anita Hill as some paragon, despite no real corroboration of her charges, and notable counter-evidence. They even used it to keep Clarence Thomas out of the US Civil Rights Museum when it opened, while offering an alter to worship Saint Hill.

  • Tony||

    Don Jr. is a cunty little shit isn't he.

  • damikesc||

    He's almost as mean as a bitch claiming a man raped her with no evidence whatsoever.

  • Tony||

    Hard to collect evidence when you're being pinned down.

  • TuIpa||

    Her memory got pinned down?

  • Tony||

    She did, by Brett Kavanaugh, who also covered her mouth to muffle her screams as he humped her.

  • IceTrey||

    What evidence of that do you have?

  • Tony||

    Witness testimony.

  • TuIpa||

    Twice as much witness testimony shows it didn't happen. So that's clearly not it.

  • Tony||

    So why are you worried about a quick background check and a hearing?

  • damikesc||

    He has been thru 6.

    How do you "check" on an incident you cannot prove happened, when you do not know it happened nor where it happened and with the two named witnesses saying youre wrong?

  • Tony||

    And the constitution says 6 is the limit?

    Do you even realize how much whoring you're doing for the GOP? Or is it like a reflex?

  • TuIpa||

    "And the constitution says 6 is the limit?"

    LIMITLESS INVESTIGATIONS FOREVER!!!!!

    FOR FREEDOM!!!

  • damikesc||

    Always Be Investigatin`, amirite?

  • Tony||

    As opposed to "Eh, let any old rapist have power over all our lives without a complete check. I'm sure it'll be OK."

    Libertarianism 101

  • TuIpa||

    LIMITLESS INVESTIGATIONS FOREVER!!!!!

    FOR FREEDOM!!!

  • leninsmummy||

    My God. Mirror. Look. You are hardcore projecting. My only hope is that one day, some random person you don't know accuses you of some unprovable deed and you maybe understand why burden of evidence is on the accuser.

  • TuIpa||

    I'm not. She can get the ball rolling by testifying.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    So why are you worried about a quick background check and a hearing?

    Those happened already, and in fact they were going on while Diane Shitstein sat on the allegation. So either:

    A sitting Senator covered up evidence of a serious crime, which is a serious crime unto itself.

    -or-

    She knew it was a nothingburger, or at least not enough to take seriously, but pulled it out of her ass at the 11th hour because it looked like Kavanaugh would be confirmed.

    Which is it, Tony?

  • TuIpa||

    He pinned down her MIND?

    OH MY FUCKING GOD HE'S A TELEPATH!?!?!??

    NO WONDER YOU'RE SO AFRAID OF HIM! NOW I AM TOO!!!!

  • JesseAz||

    It's been fun watching Tony and Jeff compete for biggest idiot in these threads.

  • Bill||

    the allegation did not include "humping" or even dry humping

  • Bill||

    Yes, Don Jr. is a dick-wad

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Just tell me who "survived" what.

  • Tony||

    "How dare Reason do anything but lick Republican nutsack."

    —90% of the comments that will appear on this thread

  • TuIpa||

    Are you fucking jeff? Because it sounds like he put his... ideas in you.

  • Nardz||

    Tony is way better than Jeff.
    Tony is likable, in his own way, and has a personality. And Tony at least owns his beliefs. He should never hold power or influence about others, but I can respect that he doesn't try to hide his bullshit beliefs (even if he doesn't call them bullshit). Tony doesnt get all butthurt by people attacking him. Among progressives, he's tolerable.
    Collectivistjeff doesn't have any balls and is a much, much, much shittier person. He tries to hide behind "principle" to obfuscate his invalid bitching.
    Both believe that fantasy is primary over reality, but Tony owns who he is - CJ is a resentful pos that pretends to virtue because he can't face his own shortcomings.

  • Nardz||

    An example of Tony's honesty and CJ's self-lie:

    Commenter: "You're partisan."

    Tony: "Well, yes I am partisan because republicans are evil."
    It may be a distorted pov, but he will admit his perspective. Vs,

    Collectivistjeff: "Nuh-uh! I hate both sides! I'm an individualist!"
    Shut the fuck up, CJ. You're clearly progressive and constantly virtue signal. Perhaps he's so wildly insecure because he's the only poster here whose every statement comes from a strictly collectivist perspective.

    Tony = okay, I enjoy your irrationality
    CJ = fucking kill yourself, you bring absolutely nothing to the table from any perspective

  • Mencken Sense||

    Reason has been pretty consistently decrying baseless sexual assault witchhunts. It's doing a 180 now so as not to offend the DC cocktail circuit crowd.

  • Tony||

    Looks like I was being generous. I'll have to make more comments to get it down to 90%.

  • TuIpa||

    Ford - "This horrible event has traumatized me since it happened, and all the details are burned into my memory ... with the exception of any details which could show it actually happened"

  • markm23||

    This!

  • ThomasD||

    What could possibly be more libertarian than treating everything like a Federal offense?

  • JesseAz||

    Declaring women must always be believed over men is more libertarian, even in the fact of counter evidence.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Yeah, because that's what this is. People who think it's unreasonable for the FBI to investigate a sexual assault that took place in an unknown location at an unknown time on an unknown date sometime in 1982 or maybe 1983, whom the accuser herself says she never told anyone about for 30ish years, definitely all of those people are just shills for the Republican party. There's literally no other reason anyone could think that's a bullshit waste of time.

  • Tony||

    And why would we want to be sure anyway, it's just a supreme court nomination. There are a whole 9 of them, and probably only 1 is a sexual harasser.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You just know Notorious RGB and Kagan take turns showering with the new law clerks.

  • TuIpa||

    I knew you were fucking him.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Liar! Law clerks don't shower!

  • JWatts||

    "and probably only 1 is a sexual harasser."

    In Tony's mind, Kavanaugh is "probably a sexual harasser."

  • Tony||

    He's probably an outright rapist.

  • IceTrey||

    You're just jealous because your dick looks like and outie bellybutton.

  • Tony||

    When I was a freshman I had a friend who described his ex's as "a sinker," which I later confirmed in a hot tub. Of course the friend didn't have much to brag about either.

  • TuIpa||

    No one cares.

  • Tony||

    I don't care if you have a sinker. Or a toadstool. It's all good.

  • TuIpa||

    No one cares what you care about either.

  • Truthteller1||

    You. Are. An. Idiot.

    In the literal sense.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And how is the investigation supposed to cause us to be sure? They're going to stumble across hidden surveillance tapes? Maybe Kavanaugh has a juvenile rap sheet they just overlooked finding the last 6 times they did background checks on him?

  • Brendan||

    What level of proof would you consider sufficient to disprove these allegations?

  • Tony||

    It's really about how credible the accuser is. We already know Kavanaugh is a big fat serial liar.

  • TuIpa||

    Well, the accuser has no credibility.

    To believe her, you need to defame 3 people.

  • Brendan||

    What would it take for you to believe the accuser is not credible?

  • JesseAz||

    Well if she became a conservative she wouldn't be credible. Duh.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Hate to break this to you Tony, but even the WaPo says Kavanaugh did not lie under oath.

    When you've lost the WaPo, it's definitely time to give it up.

  • RoyMo||

    It isn't an unknown location, it was in Montgomery County, Maryland. So the one fact we know is that the event occurred in the same state all parties were resident of. So it is not even a potential Mann Act violation.

    So the one party who should not be investigating this is the FBI.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you don't understand that the FBI conducts countless, routine investigations of candidates for federal employment, you should leave the commenting to others.

    Or, continue to display your half-educated perspective.

    Free country.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    And if they ran into a criminal problem they would turn it over to the local authorities or at a minimum work directly with them.

    But what you fail to understand is you can not investgate an event without a complaint providing details which can be verified/corroborated. And currently the complaint has not provided who/what/when/where.

    Becuase without those details the allegation is unfasifiable which means no defendant anywhere could disprove them.

    As Lincoln said to Douglas (paraphrasing): You cannot prove a negative.

    So either she talks with specificity or no investigation can possibly happen.

    And if she doesnt, treat her like any other adult lobbing accusations with no proof - ignore them and stop trusting them in the future.

    Because people with minimal IQs, apparently higher than yours, knows without proof, lobbing accusatiosns, even if true, will make the accuse look bad. In fact, not only will it fall back on the accuser, but if it's true and later proof is found after the unfounded accusations were lobbed, they will appear to be convent after-the-fact rationalization.

    Meaning, as you seem to not fully understand, most adults lobbing accusations without any proof/verifiable details not only makes the accuser look bad, but provides the accessed with built-in defense later.

    So it fails to get the perp and damages the accuser.

    Aplogies for the length Rev, but you seem to need the remedial walk through as thinking doesn't appear to be a strong suit with you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefty plan failed and its just helping the GOP become more popular.

  • Mencken Sense||

    She wants to tell her story? Let her tell it.

    She doesn't want to come to the hearing? Hold it anyway, with an empty chair behind her nameplate.

    How in the hell could the FBI confirm or deny a party that she thinks took place... somewhere... sometime in a three-year timespan? It's a delaying tactic, nothing more. It should be treated with all the seriousness it deserves.

  • Rigelsen||

    The FBI already refused to investigate, just for that reason. FBI may like wild goose cases as much as the next ... FBI, but this is too far into silly season even for them.

  • JesseAz||

    I repeat. The Cia didn't spend millions researching mind reading and remote viewing, including emporal viewing, to not prove kavanaugh a rapist.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The FBI investigation should be run by immigrants.

    There is nothing for the FBI to investigate. There are no specifics. The FBI could have been tipped off by DiFi months ago; she chose not to.

    Hill's motives were dishonest. There is a reason Borking is a verb, and its mostly because Bork was a Republican.

    JFC, I get it, you don't like Trump because of immigration. There is no chance in Hell anyone at Reason would want a nominee from President Beto held up because we can't prove a last minute allegation false.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is no chance in Hell anyone at Reason would want a nominee from President Beto held up because we can't prove a last minute allegation false.

    Wait wait wait. I was told that we can't traffic in hypotheticals here. Show me where Reason has ever said a supportive word of any of President Beto's nominees. Wait, you can't? Because there hasn't been a President Beto? Well then STFU sir!

  • TuIpa||

    Go away Jeff, you clowned yourself with the Kavanaugh mom shit, stupidly tried to hide and move the goalposts, and failed at that too.

    Just take the day off and get the egg off your face.

  • Just Say'n||

    Dude, read the next article. You look like a clown right now

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Bork got a vote and was defeated because he couldn't attract adequate Republican support. "Borking" was letting Bork describe his retrograde, strange beliefs to a relatively modern, mainstream audience.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    . "Borking" was letting Bork describe his retrograde, strange beliefs to a relatively modern, mainstream audience.


    I
    Yeah and war is peace. And slavery freedom.

    You can try to rewrite hostory, but it'll work better to due it after everyone who lived through it are dead and no one ever has used the term "borking" to mean "exposing ones unacceptable,views publicly".

    Nice try though.

    Keep up the good racist bigoted fight though - I mean if you won't be a racist POS, who will be?

  • damikesc||

    Oh fucking hell, Dalmia.

    The problem is that she has provided enough details to be credible but hasn't met the burden of proof to be convincing

    Where?

    She named two witnesses. They both said she is wrong.
    She doesn't know where it happened.
    Nor when it happened.

    I'm not sure how many fewer details she could hope to provide.

    As if, attempted rape is just an innocent declaration of love!

    Nice of you to convict him on such firm evidence as she has presented.

    You are a fucking moron, Dalmia.

  • John||

    "provided enough details to be credible" is a statement so stupid that I am not sure anyone in the media today outside of Shika and maybe a few others could say it. Details are not what makes a claim credible. By that logic, every claim is credible provided it is elaborate enough.

    What makes a claim credible is the nature of the claim itself not the number of details. Moreover, to say a claim is credible, you necessarily have to know what an uncredible claim is. No one who calls this claim "credible" ever bothers to explain what they would consider an uncredible claim. Here is what I would consider being one;

    1. It would be about events that are far in the past and difficult if not impossible to corroborate
    2. It would be just vague enough to make it hard for the person accused to give a specific denial (so in that sense details can matter)
    3. It would be contradicted by the people the claim says should have knowledge of the incident
    4. The accuser would have never told anyone at the time of the event or years afterward
    5. It would be counter to the known public character of the person being accused.

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

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why would Ford just make it all up? She must have known that she would be subjecting herself to all sorts of public outrage.

    That is what suggests to me that maybe something happened. Maybe it was actual attempted rape, maybe not. I'm thinking probably not based on all the gaps and holes in her story. But I do think that is where the 'credibility' angle comes from.

  • John||

    Why would Ford just make it all up? She must have known that she would be subjecting herself to all sorts of public outrage.

    I don't know. Maybe she is nuts. Also, she would also make herself famous. And a lot of people will do anything for fame in this country. Maybe she thought she was doing the good deed for the Progressive cause. Maybe she figures she can use this as a way to get a book deal and speaking engagements. I guarantee you right now she could probably get six figures for doing a prime-time interview with someone. There are lots of reasons she would make it up.

    That is what suggests to me that maybe something happened

    I think it is highly unlikely something happened involving Kavanaugh. There is no evidence they even knew each other in high school. If they had been dating or had been friends and Kavanaugh was known to have been trying to sleep with her, I would say that something must have happened. But if that were the case, she would have friends from that time who would be out talking about their connection. But she doesn't. There is no evidence they knew each other at all. So for something to have happened, Kavanaugh would have had to have assaulted a near perfect stranger. And nothing in his subsequent life and reputation indicates he would do that. You don't attack some random woman just once.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    There is no evidence they knew each other at all. So for something to have happened, Kavanaugh would have had to have assaulted a near perfect stranger. And nothing in his subsequent life and reputation indicates he would do that. You don't attack some random woman just once.

    I'm actually kind of shocked there hasn't been the usual parade of other "victims" that usually come out the wood work in these cases. You'd think the Dems could dig up (or invent) at least a couple more.

  • John||

    I have been too. It shows what an unbelievable boy scout Kavanaugh must be. The Democrats haven't found a single woman outside of this one who will say a bad thing about him. They can't even find one to lie in return for money and fame. That is pretty remarkable really.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It really just shows how vile his act was, that no one else even dare speak it.

  • TuIpa||

    He's a TELEPATH, he used his mind control powers. We know this because of credible allegations in this very thread.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is why Pence doesnt hang with women that are not his wife.

  • ||

    Which makes him a misogynist: he assumes that women are evil temptresses.

    /lotsa progs

  • JWatts||

    "Why would Ford just make it all up?"

    Because she believes just the accusation would be enough to derail Kavanaugh's nomination. And since she's given very few verifiable details and is refusing to testify, she can't be held accountable for perjury.

  • ThomasD||

    "Why would Ford just make it all up?"

    Even if she believes it completely that doesn't matter.

    All three of the people she has said were present have denied their presence.

    The best that can be said about her allegation is that she is mistaken.

  • Trumptard||

    Why would a man commit sexual assault or rape? If you can believe that some men are capable of sexual assault and/or rape, you can surely believe that:
    a) some women would lie about being victims of sexual assault or rape
    b) some women are crazy enough to believe that such things happened to them, when they didn't

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The why is fairly obvious. She could possibly derail his nomination.

    If we want to get the FBI involved, it's fine with me. I'm not super stoked on Kavanaugh myself. I'd be curious as to what that investigation would like considering the sparsity of details.

  • John||

    None of these guys are perfect. And you never know what they are actually going to do once they get on the bench anyway. So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to be against Cavenaugh being confirmed because you think he will be a bad justice for whatever reason. It is not reasonable, however, to want to see Kavanaugh not confirmed over this bullshit. I don't care what his politics, no one should be denied confirmation based on something this flimsy. This is no longer about Kavanaugh's qualifications or judicial philosophy. This is about standards of truth and fairness.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That seems like a very high price to pay for a slim chance at stopping the nomination.

    Actually it may be that Feinstein may be the bigger villain here. It seems as though she was the one who forced all of this drama on Ford who may or may not have wanted it in the first place.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I've said it before, and will say it again, Feinstein should be held accountable regardless of the outcome of this. If she deemed it credible and sat on it she committed a tremendously immoral act and should be at least censured. If she did not deem it credible, but still brought it up, then it is such bold-faced politics that she should be held accountable.

    As for the price. This will go away as soon as Kavanaugh is either rejected or accepted. She will probably get some long-term kudos for her actions either way as devotees will consider her a savior, or a martyr, either way.

  • ||

    She will probably get some long-term kudos for her actions either way as devotees will consider her a savior, or a martyr, either way.

    ^ This. Her peers will laud her as a hero. Very good career move for an academic.

  • Trumptard||

    Maybe she isn't thought out, and thinks if she just said he did this it would stop his nomination.

  • JesseAz||

    High price? Hill got rich and famous off of it and became so lionized she has significant space in a federal museum. God you're dumb Jeff. These are liberals. They celebrate actual murderers like assata shakur and Oscar Rivera Lopez. They lionized che. Again. You're an idiot.

  • IceTrey||

    Why did the Duke rape case accuser do it? Or the UVA case? Or Mattress Girl? Bitches be crazy yo!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In the Duke and Mattress Girl cases, something actually did happen. The dispute was about the correct interpretation of what happened.

    In the UVA case, we know what the likely motive was (some type of catfishing).

  • damikesc||

    In the Duke case, nothing happened. They found the DNA of five different men in her underwear...none of it was from them.

  • TuIpa||

    I told Jeff to take the day off, but here he is fucking the coconut and slandering the Duke kids again.

  • Rigelsen||

    In the Mattress Girl case, all we know that they had sex and she decided it was rape a year later after he had ignored her imploration to "f*** [her] in the butt". He probably decided sex with crazy was better over and done with.

    In the Duke case, something might have happened to her, but whatever did did not involve the guys she fingered.

    All three cases involved lying to place someone else's freedom and/or livelihood at risk.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These women need to be held accountable for throwing the word 'rape' around when its buyers remorse.

    Men will go back to not believing all women who claim rape and that would hurt actual rape victims who are forced to have sex in violent fashion.

  • Bill||

    As I recall, mattress girl was upset that he did have butt-sex
    with her and was not gentle. But she had texted him at an
    earlier time and offered butt-sex and she did wait a long time
    later after he had lost interest in her to make her claims.

  • markm23||

    What happened in the Duke case was a stripper got too stoned and/or drunk to even be able to take her clothes off for drunk frat jocks, made enough of a fuss that the cops were called, and then the police invited her to make a false accusation. That is, she asked for a ride to the hospital; the police told her that, by department policy, she would go to the hospital if she was raped, but otherwise they were arresting her for public intoxication. So she claimed she was raped and got her ride to the hospital. Next day, she would be sober enough to not be arrested, but she wouldn't remember a thing and the rape case would go away.

    Except some politicians, just as malignant and/or ignorant as the police officials that made it a policy to ask stoned/drunk lowlife females for a false rape accusation, were looking for some publicity at the expense of rich mostly-white boys. And without bothering to check the facts, DA Nifong promised to prosecute the "rapists". So when an interview and a photo lineup produced nothing they didn't kick her loose, but kept on showing the photos of the fraternity members over and over again, until she started recognizing a few of them. Common sense and alibi evidence were both ignored. When the timeline was impossible, Nifong threatened a taxi driver until he changed his time log.

  • TuIpa||

    "Why would Ford just make it all up?"

    Who cares. That's not evidence.

  • damikesc||

    Jeff, a woman tweeted that she heard about the incident at the school...you know, when the liar said he didnt mention it for 30 years. Why would she make it up? Who knows....but she did.

    Why did Mattress Girl falsely accuse that guy at Columbia?
    Lena Dunham lie about a random Republican at her school?

    The liar is a partisan hack. Odds are, that is why she lied.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Jeff, a woman tweeted that she heard about the incident at the school...you know, when the liar said he didnt mention it for 30 years.

    If Ford didn't mention the incident, that doesn't mean *no one else* mentioned the incident. We are talking about highschool here after all.

  • TuIpa||

    No need else was there, witnessing it, per Ford.

    So, that fails.

  • TuIpa||

    *No one

  • damikesc||

    She claimed it was boys in the room.

    She attended an all girls school.

    She didnt tell anybody what happened.

    The woman who claimed she heard of it, mind you, has decided to stop giving interviews and said her tweet served its purpose.

  • ThomasD||

    Her friend really didn't think things through.

    Since the timing didn't match - Blasey says it happened on summer break, so couldn't have been schooltime gossip - she only invited speculation that talk of Blasey's sexual escapades was not an uncommon occurrence at that school.

  • JesseAz||

    She also said she heard it at school the week it happened when one of the only facts given by Ford was it was the summer.

  • Ben_||

    Why would she make it up?

    For fun. For profit. For political gain. As a favor to someone. For spite. Come up with any list of anyone's reasons for doing anything. Those are the reason she might have made it up.

    What are the reasons for telling people? Those are the reasons for making it up to tell people.

    I'm not accusing her of making it up. The facts are unknowable.

  • Brendan||

    Like mattress girl, the accusers of the Duke LaCross team, the accuser of that fraternity whose story was a big Rolling Stone feature, etc.?

  • JesseAz||

    Why would someone shoot up a congressional softball practice? Why would they attempt to stab a GOP candidate? Why would they firebomb a GOP field office?

  • Bill||

    Why would they attack their neighbor - Rand Paul?

  • Seamus||

    Why would she make it up? Uh, to stop Kavanaugh? Just spitballing here, mind you.

  • JFree||

    This 100%. This sort of story just isn't made up wholecloth. Too many easy ways to counter it if the basic same place same time stuff isn't true. And unless she's running for office or selling a book, there is absolutely nothing but downside for her and everyone knows it. Same with the Roy Moore accusers.

    The issue NOW however is not about the actions of a high schooler from 35 years ago. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is his reaction NOW. Maybe he really doesn't remember treating a girl that way - or maybe there was a very different context that provides a different story. But absent that, at some point the testimony will trigger a memory. At that point, he will either do what most powerful sociopaths do (deny deny deny and attack) - or he will be a human looking back on his past and recognizing that he's not some perfect person.

    That reaction now will be pretty important and be a good indicator of his judicial temperament going forward.

  • Fancylad||

    Why would Ford just make it all up?
    Because she's a progressive fighting a holy war against the evil witches of the un-woke. Lying about victimhood is all part of the sainthood competition to see who can portray themselves as the biggest prog martyr. Gotta keep up with the Jim Joneses.

  • Trainer||

    Some people are willing to sacrifice themselves for something they consider a greater good.

  • Luxferia||

    John: I agree with the items on your list. Here is another factor to consider:

    6. It contains details implausible on their face given what we know about human nature or the physical world.

    The Jackie UVA case is the progenitor of this idea. If you recall, Jackie's accusations contained so many utterly implausible elements that they seemed to arise more from an amalgam of hellish nightmares than from how people would actually behave. (You know, precisely what happened.)

    In this case, Ford's accusations—though vague—contain many of the same kinds of utterly implausible details. They simply do not jive with how people generally behave. Here are a few (there are others):

    - Ford is wearing a swimsuit at a party of only boys (!) none of whom she knows (!) with no good friend in sight (!). (She later changed her story to include another unnamed girl.) She's at a pool party solely with a slew of boys she doesn't know? Most high school girls (I was one not too long ago) travel in tight subgroups. Where is her anchor friend?

    - No one (friend or otherwise) saw her leave in distress? Saw her distressed the next day? Next week? For the next 30 years?

    - She told no one for 30 years? But it gave her PTSD? But she can't remember any other details about that night?

    - A 17 y.o. (smart) boy just decides to rape a girl he just met? And gets his friend to join? This doesn't wash with everything I know about how boys act, but it is a fear I know many girls harbor.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    You mean a fantasy many girls harbor. FTFY

  • JWatts||

    "Indeed, the trouble with her account so far is that she has provided enough details to be credible but not enough to be convincing. "

    What the hell does this mean? What is credible? There have been no corroborating details. At best you could say the accusation she has made is possible.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It means she came forward and said shit. That's the credibility part. The convincing part is more on the evidence side of the coin.

  • Rigelsen||

    I will say that Shika has a much lower standard of credibility than I do. Does she really go around trusting random strangers who make assertions or extraordinary facts?

  • JesseAz||

    When did the definition of credible change to "stated orally?"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in these types of cases, at least as far as I understand it, even if the statute of limitations hadn't expired.

    Based on what I've read, I have a hard time believing this incident took place as described. There are just too many gaps in the story.

    It would not really surprise me however if he did do it. It's not like teenagers with poor judgment don't do reckless things from time to time.

  • Tony||

    Especially students at that particular school if you go by published accounts, Kavanaugh's own words, yearbook comments...

  • Ron||

    at that particular school"

    Don't you mean every school. every young man has hit on women and every young woman has hit on men and fended off a few. its the natural process of growing up and learning what to do. Horseplay is not a crime and if any of the story is true with any participant it sounds like horse play because if they were serious she would have a different story to tell

  • Tony||

    You actually used the word "horseplay." Lol. She said she feared for her life. She was 15 by the way.

    I don't know what circles you run in, but the thing about 17 year-old rich white boys at prep schools is that they are the most entitled little shits on the planet. And Kavanaugh has said he's shocked by how much they got away with. I wonder what that includes. Spitballs and swirlies, I'm sure.

  • TuIpa||

    No one cares that your high school crush ignored you.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Feared for her life? What evidence is there of that? Has the victim actually named details with dates and stated she feared for her life?

    Or are you just making that up?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    She feared for her life so much that if any of her friends or classmates had said "Gee, that Brett guy is pretty cute," she wouldn't warn them to not go near him because of how grave a threat he is.

  • JesseAz||

    She first used feared for her life this year. To her therapist it was groping.

  • JesseAz||

    Gay liberals are way more entitled. See Tony.

  • John||

    The FBI has jurisdiction to conduct a background check, which they have done. They absolutely can go and interview people and such. But since it is not a criminal case, they would have no subpoena power or any power other than to politely ask questions of anyone willing to talk to them.

    The problem with the FBI re-opening Kavanaugh's background investigation is that Ford hasn't ever talked to them or given them a statement. So, what would the FBI investigate? I don't think the FBI can or should investigate something based on second-hand information when the source of the allegation refuses to speak to them. I think had Ford gone to the FBI and given them a statement, the FBI would have and should have looked into this. But she didn't and she refuses to do so. So, I don't see how you can expect the FBI to re-open the background investigation.

  • Tony||

    They can't unless President Yeti Pubes requests it.

  • John||

    Yes they can. And even if the President requested it, without her statement, there is nothing to investigate.

  • Tony||

    How do we know that without an investigation?

    It's not because Republicans can do no wrong, much as you'd like everyone to think.

  • TuIpa||

    "How do we know that without an investigation?"

    Well, John k ows because he has probably prosecuted cases like this, or rather, refused to. If not him, his office has.

  • Tony||

    Nobody's talking about a criminal trial.

  • TuIpa||

    You're right, we're talking about an investigation and John's experience with them. You know, the thing they do for every criminal trial.

  • TuIpa||

    Chief Runs from bets - " WE AIN'T TALKING ABOUT A TRIAL JUST AN INVESTIGIATION"

    Me- "um, what the fuck do you think they do BEFORE A TRIAL?!???"

  • damikesc||

    Kamala Harris raped me.

    She should be investigated.

    No, i dont remember exactly when.

    2014 sometime, i think.

    It was in CA...somewhere.

    You can ask Feinstein and Booker. They saw it,

  • damikesc||

    What do you investigate?

    Well, an incident occurred. At some time. Somewhere. These two guys who were there, well, they said it did not happen. Nobody but me seems to think it did.

    Feel free to investigate that.

  • markm23||

    "And even if the President requested it, without her statement, there is nothing to investigate." WITH her statements as publicly reported, there is still nothing to investigate. Do other witnesses confirm or deny? The only witnesses were Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge, and two of them have denied it. Were these three at the party? Did others notice the three of them disappearing for a while, or Ford looking upset? Since she doesn't remember where the party was or even which year it was, there's no way to investigate that. There is no way to even investigate whether there _was_ a party.

    And to be blunt, even if I believed that she believes what she said, I would question whether she accurately remembers who did it and what they did, considering all the things she doesn't remember. It seems just as likely that she created false memories with the help of her therapist, by going over and over faint recollections of some incident...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There was an informative back and forth there, with a question asked, and a respectful answer given. No need to come in and be an ass right here. It's like shitting on a rare flower.

  • John||

    Yeah Jeff is being very reasonable here. It is a decent discussion. Tony of course cannot have that. It of course has to be about Trump. But it is Trump's supporters who are the ones obsessed with him.

  • Tony||

    You of all people pretending that any discussion of SCOTUS nominations can be free of politics would be laughable if I didn't think your brain actually was so compartmentalized that you actually believe all of the hypocritical horseshit that comes out of it.

    Nobody gives a shit whether person A attempted to rape person B. It happens every day. People give a shit about whether SCOTUS gets turned into a right-wing horror factory or not. And, I suppose, whether one of its members has a rape cloud over his head his whole life.

    I want to hear your honest opinion of the treatment of Merrick Garland.

  • damikesc||

    Tony...would you have been happier if they put him up for a vote and said no?

    Because that was the alternative.

    He would have only been passed if Hillary had won and they decided he was a better option than whatever she would do.

  • Tony||

    I'd be happy if Republicans just once accepted the results of an election (one that was actually won with the popular vote, which is something they can never seem to manage to do).

  • John||

    The Republicans won the 2014 election and took the Senate. The Senate has a right to deny the President his choice of justice. When are you going to recognize the results of the 2014 election? You seem to be incapable of understanding that the President only gets the Judges the Senate is willing to agree to give him. You certainly understood that when the Democrats were denying Bush picks for the lower courts back in the 00s. But you somehow forgot that when the Republicans did the same thing to Obama.

  • Tony||

    In the last senate election Democrats received 11 million more votes than Republicans, 54% of the popular vote.

    Kavanaugh has like a 35% approval rating.

    I realize popular will means absolutely nothing to you.

  • John||

    The Republicans won the election Tony. And Supreme Court Justices are appointed not elected. You would be more persuasive if you could have a thought more complex than "I want". If you were not allowed to vote, it would be funny how simple minded and craven you are.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Good God, that again?

    Are you simply unaware of how Senators are elected? That they have six year terms, staggered at 2 year intervals, which means that only 2/3ds of the states are holding a Senate election in any given year?

    So you got 54% of the popular vote in an unrepresentative sample of states, while only getting 48% of the vote in the House elections, where every member is up for reelection every two years, so it's every single state.

    Either you're a moron, or a hack. Or both, of course.

  • Tony||

    I was counting on John not knowing that, but he probably does since he equally disingenuously appealed to the second-to-last senate election for some reason.

  • JesseAz||

    Tony also counts races where only a single party is represented like California. Not only is Tony fucking ignorant of the constitution, he's dumb as shit with math.

  • damikesc||

    Shorter Tony: The Yankees got more hits. Who cares if the Red Sox scored more runs?

  • damikesc||

    The Republicans have.

    They won.

    The way you won elections hasnt changed in centuries.

    Maybe you should try and win elections.

  • JesseAz||

    I'd be happy if Tony wasn't a fucking idiot ignorant of the constitutional appointment process.

  • leninsmummy||

    "Nobody gives a shit whether person A attempted to rape person B. It happens every day. People give a shit about whether SCOTUS gets turned into a right-wing horror factory or not."

    Why would anyone support a party or any human that actually thinks like this? Tony thanks for revealing the darkness under all the moral posturing.

  • TuIpa||

    "I'd be happy if Republicans just once accepted the results of an election (one that was actually won with the popular vote, which is something they can never seem to manage to do)."

    I'm not surprised you expect people to break the law to get what you want.

  • Ben_||

    Can you imagine their conclusion if they did? I can. It goes like this: "We don't know"

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    What is your basis for saying Ford refuses to talk to the FBI? I suppose that after calling for an FBI investigation, she might then say she wouldn't be interviewed, but has that happened yet?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It wouldn't surprise me if you enjoy fucking goats.

  • Sevo||

    "Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that she is concerned that the senators will do to her what they did to Anita Hill when she accused Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. They turned the hearing into an inquisition on national TV, grilling her on every minor inconsistency, questioning every trivial lapse of memory, and impugning her motives."

    Uh, the woman is claiming thus and so happened, and in the process pretty much ending someone's career.
    Do you have any reason to suggest that she shouldn't be questioned about 'minor' inconsistencies?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I believe that the invitation to talk included the choice of a closed-meeting. Beyond the fact that every complaint about the Hill hearing mentioned there is how examinations work.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Shikha abused my eyes and brain with this take. This has to be click bait

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Didn't the FBI already decline to investigate based on the letter that Feinstein sat on for several months until it became the most politically useful to her and her party? I thought the original story was that she had a letter and had provided it to the FBI with all the usual grandstanding and "look at me" that you'd expect from the mendacious old cunt.

  • Tony||

    They won't investigate it as a criminal matter but could, at the request of the president, investigate it as part of an additional background check on Kavanaugh, a routine procedure whose purpose is to set a baseline of facts from which senators can question. I realize that facts are optional to one side of the aisle.

  • bvandyke||

    So is her story "fact"?

    Do you, Tony, take what she said as 100% factual? Why do you believe it?

    Only answer if you can put down coherent thoughts and reasons.

  • Tony||

    The point of my post was to highlight that we don't have an agreed-upon set of facts at all because there isn't an impartial investigation into the matter.

  • TuIpa||

    And the accuser hasn't presented any.

  • Tony||

    What do you want, a semen sample? She's presented a story with fact claims.

  • TuIpa||

    No, she's presented an accusation devoid of anything resembling facts, that has changed with the telling.

  • Tony||

    I suppose Brett's blanket denial has more credibility for its simplicity.

  • damikesc||

    I suppose Brett's blanket denial has more credibility for its simplicity.

    Tony, prove you did not do something.

    We'll wait.

    You can even NAME what you will prove you did not do. To make it easier.

  • Tony||

    I didn't finger fuck Dame Judi Dench in 1998.

    If you want proof, go ahead and ask her. I'm not scared.

  • damikesc||

    Oh, of course you would say that. And Dench, as we know, might be too embarrassed to admit you finger banged her.

    And your denial sure seems suspicious.

    Mind you...your denial matches Kavenaugh's. Id normally buy it, but you said its BS and he probably raped her.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say he probably raped her. He probably attempted to rape her (she was 15 by the way).

    I said he probably raped other girls because I've become rather a good judge of character as I've gotten older.

  • TuIpa||

    Right, your feelings over evidence.

    Which is why we laugh at you.

  • VinniUSMC||

    "(she was 15 by the way)."

    She was 15 for 3 years?! That's a secret she should be sharing.

  • Bill||

    If Dench denies it, that is because victims of assault are often
    in denial and behave in ways the opposite that one would expect.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.19.18 @ 5:03PM|#
    "I didn't finger fuck Dame Judi Dench in 1998.
    If you want proof, go ahead and ask her. I'm not scared."

    Fucking imbecile has no idea of what "proof" means, either.
    He serves as the amusing fool from time to time, other than that he's thee village idiot.

  • TuIpa||

    Hey, she can't even keep her story straight, that's her problem.

  • damikesc||

    What do you want, a semen sample? She's presented a story with fact claims.

    Name one.

    She has presented three different counts on the people there.

    The people she named being there have said it didn't happen, mind you.

    She cannot provide when it happened. Not even within several months.
    Cannot provide where.

    Your definition of "fact" seems more fluid than the average progressive's sex.

  • bvandyke||

    I would say there has been. If the "witnesses" have said that she is wrong and nothing happened, as has been stated there is nothing more anyone can investigate.

    There are no more details to be had, what is left to investigate?

    What am I missing, is there anything else to look at?

  • Tony||

    Would that be the witness who was friends with the accused and who wrote a book called "High School at Georgetown Prep Was All Drunken Rape All the Time" or whatever?

  • damikesc||

    Would that be the witness who was friends with the accused and who wrote a book called "High School at Georgetown Prep Was All Drunken Rape All the Time" or whatever?

    You're aware Kavanaugh didn't name them as witnesses, right?

    The liar did. SHE named them.

    They are saying it did not happen.

    Can she find ONE other person who said it did?

  • Tony||

    He said he wasn't at the party.

    Which could be true. I'm keeping an open mind.

  • TuIpa||

    Tony thinks calling someone a rapist is keeping an open mind.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Of course he said he wasn't at the party she described. Isn't that what he's going to say if she's making it up?

  • John||

    Yes the FBI did. And the reason for that is that Ford said in the letter she didn't want her name made public and didn't want to be interviewed about it. So, how was the FBI supposed to investigate? Like I explain above, you can't expect the FBI to investigate an accusation that the accusor refuses to make to them.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yes the FBI did. And the reason for that is that Ford said in the letter she didn't want her name made public and didn't want to be interviewed about it.

    Well then, there's nothing else to discuss. If she won't make a statement to the FBI so that they can open an investigation, then there's nothing more they can do, whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not (and for all anyone knows he very well might be - teenage boys aren't exactly known as paragons of self control). If the Democrats want this to be investigated then it sounds like they need to convince her to cooperate.

    Pressuring an alleged sexual assault victim to give a statement to the FBI, forcing her to relive the event, will be a really good look on them. /sarc

    This entire episode makes clear why Progressives are so obsessed with making sure everyone always "believes all victims" no matter what, and regardless of evidence (or lack thereof).

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Fuck off, Dipshit Scumbagetta. He has already gone through six deep federal background investigations, and will go through another one when his current five year period or whatever is up. They're not going to do another special one for you, Ford, or any other lunatic woman who's talking out of her ass.

  • Ken Shultz||

    She has been invited to testify. If she chooses not to do so because the senate wouldn't allow her to dictate terms, then that's on her.

  • Tony||

    The constitution does say that Kavanaughs have to be confirmed by Friday, after all. Garlands, not so much.

  • damikesc||

    The Constitution says the Senate can advise and consent.

    The GOP is under no obligation to humor BS nonsense from Dems.

    And stop whining about Merrick Garland. You act like he shot a load up your shitter.

  • DiegoF||

    LOL! Although we should really save the buttsex jokes for ENB articles.

  • Bearded Spock||

    This. The Constitution says "advice and consent". It doesn't say "rubber stamp"..

    If the Dems succeed in stopping Kavanaugh's nomination, and then take control of the Senate and refuse to approve a replacement, then they will be completely within their constitutional powers. They are not obligated to approve anyone for any office if a majority do not wish to.

    I will be pissed and think they are a bunch of hypocrites, but one thing you will not hear me say is that what they are doing is unconstitutional.

  • fdog50||

    How can the FBI do any kind of investigation on this? It is 35 or so years since it happened. Can anyone remember when and where this get-together happened and who was there? All anyone will get is "I don't remember being there" or "Who are those people?". Also where is this alleged to have happened? That police or sheriff's department would be the ones to investigate it, but they would probably say that it is beyond the statute of limitations so they don't want to use resources for it. The only thing to do is have a straight up and down vote by the Senate. Let them decide what they want to believe. Of course that means if Kavanaugh gets rejected, Democrats will cry crocodile tears about it was all Republicans fault that his reputation is damaged because they never let him have a chance to clear his name.

  • Eddy||

    Then call them to our presence; face to face,
    And frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear
    The accuser and the accused freely speak

    (Unless the accuser gets cold feet)

  • JWatts||

    Ok, I've read the entire Shikha article and I've got to admit, it's not as bad as I thought it would be. It's certainly better than the article Soave wrote. And Shikha does lay out a reasonable compromise.

    Her basic point is the Republicans can bend over backwards and let the FBI investigate. Then, assuming nothing comes of it, hold a vote before the new Congress gets sworn in.

    I'm not sure it's the best approach. But it's not an irrational compromise position. The only issue it leaves unresolved is the precedent it sets for 11th hour political delays. I think we can all reasonably assume, that if a delay in this vote occurs, the Democrats will ensure there is always a last minute surprise.

  • Eddy||

    What's to compromise? What's to stop an FBI investigation? Why is it either/or?

    "Oh, no, we can't have an FBI investigation, the accuser just testified!" /nobody ever

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think, if they really want to finagle it. They should proceed with all openness, and define the procedure with which accusations like this are handled in the future.

    People here are right: if they kowtow too much, that this will become an easy tactic to derail any nomination. But I think in this day and age, and moving forward, these types of accusations will probably become unavoidable. I think the current administration could work to define a quick method to deal with these accusations. It could be both open, and reasonably fast and thereby help improve institutional trust, while simultaneously declawing this particular technique of derailment.

  • Mark Question||

    Progtard.

    You just outed yourself as a leftie by saying something nice about that witch Sikha. She is incapable of reason, nuance, or being libertarian. Look at her name, for God's sake!

  • Mark Question||

    Progtard.

    You just outed yourself as a leftie by saying something nice about that witch Sikha. She is incapable of reason, nuance, or being libertarian. Look at her name, for God's sake!

  • DiegoF||

    I don't know whose article is better but I do know there's no reason to do that.

  • TW||

    Except that the Supreme Court's new session starts in less than two weeks. Basically this is an attempt to prevent Kavanaugh from hearing and voting on cases that might come up this term. That's why they're pushing for a delay.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What disgusts me most about the above essay, is, what the hell is the FBI supposed to investigate? If she didn't tell anybody, there aren't going to be any records to find, and the guy has already been through SIX FBI vettings for various appointments.

    Yes, actually Republicans SHOULD dismiss this demand.

  • Tony||

    Obviously the libertarian position should be "Trust the word of the powerful government men and leave it at that."

  • Shirley Knott||

    If you're not going to trust the first six, why would you trust the seventh?
    If you do trust the first six, why do you think a seventh would be different?

  • Tony||

    Obviously they didn't investigate this incident because they didn't know about it.

  • TuIpa||

    That's not how any of this works.

  • Tony||

    Are you perhaps invoking precedent? The president not even calling on the FBI to check this out is also "not how any of this works."

  • TuIpa||

    They did check it out.

    You want them to check it out AGAIN.

  • damikesc||

    Obviously they didn't investigate this incident because they didn't know about it.

    They still don't. as it did not happen.

  • IceTrey||

    No it's don't trust unsubstantiated allegations from 36 years ago.

  • Tony||

    You don't think we should be extra careful with SC nominations? Did you cry about Garland being refused even a meeting for the crime of being nominated by a Democrat?

  • damikesc||

    Tony, where did Merrick touch you?

    I'm married and I like my wife less than you love Garland.

  • Brendan||

    When did Garland request a meeting?

  • Real American||

    it's not credible. There's no evidence to support for it. There's little detail on when & where. All the alleged witnesses & BK denied it. She never mentioned it for 30+ years and never named BK until July (husband is too biased to believe). Her claim to wanting privacy is belied by the fucking letter she wrote to Eshoo, contacting the WAPO and hiring a famous Trump hating lawyer.

    Oh, and even the Dems, who supposedly take this allegation seriously (lol) sat on it for months until the perfect moment to obstruct the confirmation. Now they're demanding more delays, which they've been demanding the entire time for a host of bullshit reasons. They want the FBI to investigate a 36 year old high school party with no federal nexus to avoid testifying? She's given them all the detail there is. There's no potential federal crime to investigate. The only relevance this allegation has is to the confirmation of BK to SCOTUS. After the FBI investigates then what? The Dems will find some other reason to demand further delay. This is just another transparent attempt to obstruct the confirmation until after the midterms.

    Oh, and she's a pussyhat wearing Bernie loving member of the "resistance" which gives her all the reason to lie for political gain. It's pretty damn obtuse not to be even a tiny bit skeptical of her claim. Hey, at least she didn't go shoot up a bunch of Republicans.

  • Tony||

    Brett Kavanaugh has no incentive to lie for personal gain?

  • JWatts||

    That makes it a "he said, she said" story. If that's the case, then the matter is ancient history and the nomination process should go through on schedule.

    In order to validate a delay, I believe that someone wishing a delay has to, at a minimum, show a logical path to a conclusion that's actionable.

  • Tony||

    Or we could simply nominate another Republicunt who isn't credibly accused of sexual assault.

  • IceTrey||

    That would be Kav because she has zero credibility.

  • Tony||

    No, she has nonzero credibility, and any honest person would say so. You're obviously just a whorepig for Republicunts, and thus why bother even expressing your boring stupid opinions when all they're going to be is telling Daddy not to stop?

  • TuIpa||

    "No, she has nonzero credibility, "

    Because you're the arbiter of that for anyone but you.

    Fuck off already you cowardly, can't take what you say is an easy 10k bet piece of garbage.

  • Tony||

    You cannot say she has zero credibility. That itself is an extraordinary claim requiring evidence. You're invoking all sorts of things with that claim, including a convoluted and baffling conspiracy theory.

  • TuIpa||

    "You cannot say she has zero credibility. That itself is an extraordinary claim requiring evidence."

    No you fucking moron, it's a personal assessment based on what she has said and done.

    How stupid are you?

  • TuIpa||

    And I can absolutely say she has zero credibility.

    The lying bitch Ford has Zero Credibility

    So, you were wrong about that too.

  • Tony||

    Now there's no point to you. You're just being hysterical. That's not a mature claim to make and you know it. You're just lashing out in desperate, weepy defense of the worst fucking president fathomable and his stupid rapey nominee.

  • TuIpa||

    "Now there's no point to you. You're just being hysterical"

    You have finally realized you lost this and resorted to your usual projection.

    How sad.

  • Kay Faibe||

    Hey Tony, what if someone came out of the woodwork and claimed you did something untoward to them 35 years ago? And you can't remember the person and the other person she names an't remember either?

    And why do you use juvenile terms like "republicunts"? It makes you sound pretty stupid. Oh, wait....

  • Nardz||

    "and any honest person would say so. You're obviously just a whorepig for Republicunts, and thus why bother even expressing your boring stupid opinions when all they're going to be is telling Daddy not to stop?"

    This is my favorite Tony

  • JWatts||

    No, that's essentially just allowing a Heckler's Veto.

  • Tony||

    The Senate is the voting body here. They can presumably make up their own minds.

  • TuIpa||

    They have, and you hate it.

  • Tony||

    Because my political beliefs have actual substance and concern for human well-being, whereas yours are simply a matter of slapping your perceived enemies with your dicks (and making sure women are forced to give birth against their will).

  • TuIpa||

    "Because my political beliefs have actual substance and concern for human well-being,"

    Except when it comes to destroying a man with no evidence, beyond the questionable allegations of a partisan accuser on a billionaire's payroll.

  • Tony||

    I might have more sympathy if not for Garland. I admit it. The gloves are off. Fuck the potato-faced rapist, and I hope his children cry.

    This is my country you morons are trying to destroy.

  • TuIpa||

    It's an innocent man you're trying to destroy.

  • Tony||

    So was Hillary Clinton.

    The crocodile tear receptacle is elsewhere.

  • TuIpa||

    What the fuck do I care about Hillary?

    Take that up with someone going after her you admittedly no principle partisan hack.

  • TuIpa||

    ". I admit it. The gloves are off."

    Why are you acting like you haven't admitted this many times before?

    It's the reason you get treated like a partisan with no principles.

    YOU KEEP TELLING US YOU ARE A PARTISAN WITH NO PRINCIPLES.

  • Tony||

    I'm a partisan because I have principles. Y'all are a bunch of partisans who either don't realize it or are lying about it, your brains pickled by American right-wing propaganda, no principles involved except "destroy the enemy," which are "leftists" in this version of the story.

  • TuIpa||

    "I'm a partisan because I have principles."

    This stupid motherfucker actually said this.

  • TuIpa||

    Hey Tony, why is one of your principles to offer a 10 k bet then ghost when it gets accepted and you know you don't have 10k?

    Oh right, you're a liar.

  • Tony||

    I should have known better than to poke the bear that is your 4th grade mentality, but it's rather difficult to avoid.

  • TuIpa||

    More projection. It's all you have left.

  • TuIpa||

    Tony thinks keeping his word is "4th grade mentality"

    We knew that, but the mission is nice, I fully intend to remind him of it often.

  • TuIpa||

    *admission

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I might have more sympathy if not for Garland.

    Have no sympathy for Merrick Garland, because he tried to rape me many many years ago, at a party or a friend's house, and some other people may have been there, but I've never told anyone about it until today.

  • JesseAz||

    Tony is going to be so embarrassed when he learns there were nearly another dozen other nominations to the USSC that never received a vote prior to Garland...

  • damikesc||

    Well, "cis" hetero men don't matter to progs.

  • TuIpa||

    TuIpa|9.19.18 @ 4:50PM|#

    It's an innocent man you're trying to destroy.

    reply to this report spam
    Tony|9.19.18 @ 4:52PM|#

    So was Hillary Clinton.

    Credible allegations of Hillary lying about her gender ITT!!!

  • leninsmummy||

    "Nobody gives a shit whether person A attempted to rape person B. It happens every day. People give a shit about whether SCOTUS gets turned into a right-wing horror factory or not."- Tony upthread

    "My political beliefs actually have substance and concern for human well-being" - Tony downthread

  • Tony||

    I fail to see how those are in any way inconsistent.

  • TuIpa||

    Which is the reason we are laughiing at you for it.

  • Mr. JD||

    Any person in the world could be subject to an accusation that is as credible as this one.

    You aren't arguing in good faith, as your choice of words plainly demonstrates.

  • Brendan||

    They did - Kavanaugh wasn't even accused until AFTER the hearing was over.

  • Seamus||

    Except that whatever Republican, we can expect someone to come out from the woodwork and accuse him/her of sexual harassment, using the n-word, bullying classmates, or whatever else is thought necessary to derail the nomination.

  • Seamus||

    Except that whatever Republican, we can expect someone to come out from the woodwork and accuse him/her of sexual harassment, using the n-word, bullying classmates, or whatever else is thought necessary to derail the nomination.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To Tony, everyone who is not a Lefty is a liar.

  • Tony||

    It's just that they have no respect for facts.

  • bvandyke||

    An the left does? Really?

  • Tony||

    Yes. You have to watch something other than FOX News to understand that.

  • TuIpa||

    I'm watching YOU right now, and you have no respect for facts.

  • Furzeydown||

    Hell, he doesn't even know what a 'fact' is.

    This is the most bizarre part about him : definitions are these strange, fluid blobs that seem exist very differently in his head compared to what's agreed upon in a dictionary.

  • DenverJ||

    Christy on a cracker. WTF is this twit talking about? Exactly what is the EfBeeEye supposed to investigate after 30 plus years? If the "victim" can't remember details after all this time, who will? What are they supposed to do, interview everyone of his and her classmates and ask if they remember both of them at the same party? Swab around her mouth for his finger prints?
    Why does this idiot still have a writing job?

  • Seamus||

    And if the FBI,per impossible, were to conduct such an investigation, I'm guessing it would probably wrap up around, oh, December of 2020.

  • Ron||

    thats the goal

  • Jerryskids||

    Gloria Allred, is that you? Because I heard her make much the same argument on NPR, that in the interests of fairness and due process and blah blah blah, the accuser is entitled to an FBI investigation just like any other sexual assault victim. And of course the interviewer neglected to inform the noted lawyer and defender of females that sexual assault is not a federal crime and therefore literally nobody is entitled to an FBI investigation of a sexual assault claim. The normal FBI investigation should take about two seconds - "What sort of investigation do you need? Sexual assault? Yeah, no, we don't do those. What you want is your local authorities, they do sexual assault investigations." Or even assuming they're doing it as a special "request" by their bosses in Congress, what's there to investigate? "Once upon a time, somewhere, some things happened and there were some people involved." Yeah, we'll get Professor X right on that.

  • Rich||

    Kavanaugh has denied that he was even at the party where she says the incident occurred. If the FBI can confirm that, that'll clear him pronto.

    "It *might* have been a different party."

  • Ryan Frank||

    She can't possibly be this stupid. The whole problem is that Ford has not named a date and place to deny *being* Kavanaugh hasn't denied being at a party, he has flatly denied every engaging in the behavior that Ford accused him of. Noone can prove or disprove they weren't at a party when you can't even say when the fucking thing was.

  • John||

    Shika can and is that stupid. Her record in that regard speaks for itself.

  • Ron||

    Can you see the FBI talking to every former student from a four year period from that school to see who may have know about a party that may have occured and then investigating every person from any overlapping school who may have attended any parties. the numbers would be exponential in scope and thus take forever, longer than the Russian dossier investigation and like that investigation it will go no where. the commonality is not the investigation but who it can ruin during the investigation

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    I suggest the point is that although you are plainly partisan, everything you say could be true. But until some non-partisan investigator reaches the same conclusions—based on exhausting the evidence, as you could not have done—national business of paramount importance will work better afterward if the appearance of buckling to partisans is not part of it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I suggest the point of your call for a non-partusan investigation into a vaguely spatially and temporally defined party comes purely from your obvious partisanship and desire to at least delay kavanaugh's appointment.

  • Eddy||

    I can't read the accuser's mind - technically I have no way of knowing why she's getting cold feet. Maybe she's the truthfullest witness since the boy who said the emperor was naked. But at least the kid blurted it out in public. Gotta admire his gumption.

    If she *does* get cold feet, who should pay the penalty? Kavanaugh, even if he testifies on his own behalf?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The real problem here, is this entire spectacle of a kangaroo circus known as "confirmation hearings".

    What is even the point of having Senate "advice and consent" anymore? If this is how the Senate is going to behave, then perhaps it's not such a terrible idea to just let the President appoint whomever he/she wants to be on SCOTUS and leave it at that.

    (And yes I realize it's been a circus for a while now, but it seems this time around the circus got rather out of hand.)

  • JWatts||

    "The real problem here, is this entire spectacle of a kangaroo circus known as "confirmation hearings"."

    Yes, and this 11th hour incredibly vague accusation is a perfect example of the circus.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think it's a red flag that it's become so feared. This should be a relatively benign administrative action. That there is this much politics behind it now suggests that something needs to be done to turn own the heat on these interactions.

    What that might be, (Term Limits? Someway limited the power of the SC?) I don't know.

  • ||

    It'll be when it backfires politically, which may well happen this very year.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Massive backfiring against one-side or the other does not cool down everything that is happening here.

  • ||

    Maybe not everything, but I think the voting public is getting tired of what shameless spectacles these confirmation hearings have become. The protest where the protesters actually forgot to fill in the blanks on their signs about who they were protesting made it clear to a lot of people to whom it wasn't already clear that this is 100% political posturing with no substance. And the observation that the SC wasn't nearly this controversial even one generation ago has been starting to circulate.

    OTOH, the fact that the Dems are now engaging in the same sort of obsessive impeachment-oriented investigations that backfired on the Repubs in the 90s doesn't really back up my hope that politicians will learn from their political failures.

  • BYODB||


    And the observation that the SC wasn't nearly this controversial even one generation ago has been starting to circulate.

    I keep waiting for people to notice that one major school of political thought has been trying to use specifically the courts and the Supreme Court for nearly 100 years to bypass constitutional amendments.

    I honestly do blame Congress, ultimately. They're feckless, and they shoved off their jobs onto agencies that are out of control.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Have you noticed which party is making it a circus? I'm not a Republican by any stretch, but the GOP has NEVER behaved the way the Dems are behaving now. They really should be embarrassed, but they're not, because they're following the best strategy an ideologically and morally bankrupt party can.

    And big fat NO on getting rid of the senate advice and consent. There are far too few checks and balances on the courts as it is.

  • Jerry B.||

    I wonder, if the FBI does investigate this and finds a nothingburger, what the next delaying tactic from the Democrats will be.

  • Eddy||

    A new surprise witness?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Even if they investigated and found nothing, with such a vague description of who/what/where/when, the most they could say would be "couldn't find enough evidence to sustain a charge".

    Like science with vaccinations "no evidence exists which links vaccinations to autism" which to science people means "vaccines don't cause autism" to the anti-vaccine crowd it proves it does because the pharmaceutical industry refuses to investigate everything the anit-vaxers claim.

    So in the end, even if FBI said "nothing here" - to all those who fully believe this unsubstantiated assertion, given without any corroboration, it will simply be proof he did it and why the victim should always be believed regardless of other details.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    She's can't say when it happened, or where it happened, or who else was there....

    What exactly is the FBI supposed to probe?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shikha is a moron.

    What is the FBI supposed to investigate?

  • Mark Question||

    Of course she's a moron. She's an immigrant, what do you expect?

  • TuIpa||

    My dentist is an immigrant from Pakistan, and she is awesome.

    So, competence?

  • Mark Question||

    Not when it comes to liberty. Certainly not when it comes to being an American.

  • Tony||

    See, wouldn't you rather have me as a friend than this goober?

  • TuIpa||

    Nope.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason really sent in the intern trolls today to get more web traffic.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Steve Sailer makes this observation:

    I'm guessing she doesn't want to stumble in to perjury charges, so let the FBI figure out what really happened, and then she'll testify to that.

    She has motive to lie:

    As I've been pointing out, so far nobody has come forward to stay that Ms. Blasey-Ford accused Kavanaugh by name before he became famous in late 2011 voting against Obamacare and then got talked up in early 2012 as a Supreme Court nominee. Her husband says she was worried about Kavanaugh getting on the Supreme Court when they went to marriage counseling (although Kavanaugh's name doesn't appear in the therapist's notes).

    Kavanaugh Accuser Wants FBI to Figure Out What Happened Before She Testifies Under Oath

  • John||

    The idea that having to answer questions and be cross-examined after you accuse someone of a felony is "being subject to an inquisition" and something that should be avoided should offend every bone in your body if you care about civil liberties. You know what another word for "inquisition" is? Due process Another word? A fair trial.

    Everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty. And everyone has a right to confront their accuser and make them prove their case. Making someone go on record and be questioned about their accusation is fundamental to any kind of fair process. According to Dalmia, anyone can accuse someone of even the most heinous offense and deny them employment or career advancement and never have to so much as explain themselves or allow the person accused to confront them. That is appalling. It just further shows that reason doesn't care about any rights or liberties beyond the big three of pot, Mexicans, and sodomy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    These are the same people who say they want accused rapists to be able to cross examine their accusers. I don't think this means they are full of shit on that. I think it means they have TDS, and that's what this is about to them.

  • Luxferia||

    For some reason this comment brought to mind Justice Scalia's unassailable dissent in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). For kicks, check out the justices who joined that dissent (Brennan (!!), Marshall (!!!), and Stevens (!)).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    John, being interrogated by the Senate is not the same as being interrogated in a court of law. Lawyers in court have rules they have to follow. Senators, not so much. So yeah it isn't so strange to think that it would be an inquisition.

  • John||

    Being interrogated in court is much worse than being interrogated by the Senate. The rules of evidence allow all kinds of embarrassing facts about a victim to be introduced. A skilled defense lawyer can tear apart a victim in ways the half wits in the Senate would never dream of doing. A defense lawyer gets paid to get his client off. He doesn't have to run for re-election.

    Regardless, "its hard" isn't a reason not to do it. If you want to derail someone's confirmation in the Senate, you should have to stand up under oath and explain to those Senators why you think that should happen.

  • Eddy||

    Half the country - the half represented by the Dem Senators on the committee - thinks she's the living embodiment of the Fearless Girl statue facing down the raging bull of patriarchy.

    It's hard to get a good inquisition going when a large number of the inquisitors are saying "you go, girl" and "fight the power"!

  • Rigelsen||

    Not a lawyer, are you? At least, not a CDL.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    John, being interrogated by the Senate is not the same as being interrogated in a court of law. Lawyers in court have rules they have to follow. Senators, not so much. So yeah it isn't so strange to think that it would be an inquisition.

    But you're A-OK with forcing Kavanaugh to testify more, based on no evidence.

  • DPICM||

    Shikha has to go back.

    She is a walking example of the anti-immigration argument who shows that, as many critics claim, immigrants don't give a shit about the fundamental values that set our society apart and made it prosperous.

  • Tony||

    Y'all forgot that Kavanaugh isn't a libertarian and neither is Trump and neither is the practice of taking powerful government men at their word. Where can I go talk to libertarians instead of boring, stupid, garden-variety Republicunts?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • John||

    I don't care if Kavanaugh is a communist. He shouldn't be slandered as a rapist. You really are incapable of separating politics from reality. You can't write two sentences about this without referencing Trump or Kavanaugh's politics. You do not seem to understand that the question of the truth of this accusation has nothing to do with politics. You really are terrifying sometimes.

  • Tony||

    They should examine you in a lab when you're gone.

    I can probably name 100 public people whose delicate sensitivities you not only didn't give a shit about but who you actively slandered yourself--all based on their political leaning. What a spectacle you are.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony, I have called a hundred public people a rapist. Sorry but the voices in your head are not part of the debate.

    Beyond that, all you are doing here is saying that you are okay with Kavanaugh being slandered because you are convinced the other side does it too, which just confirms my point that you are incapable of thinking about reality outside politics.

  • Tony||

    I don't know if he's being slandered or not. That's why a fucking investigation is called for.

    I'm sorry John, you're right, you've been nothing but fair and deferential to Bill Clinton.

  • Here for the outrage||

    I'm convinced Tony isn't real. Just a shit stirring troll driving traffic.

  • John||

    You are not the first one to think that. And it is certainly a position that has some merit.

  • TuIpa||

    I have thought that for some time.

    But it doesn't matter because I enjoy kicking him around like I have today.

  • ||

    But it doesn't matter because I enjoy kicking him around

    It's pretty much the only thing he's good for. You might eventually corner him into admitting he's wrong today, but tomorrow he will be back with the exact same tomfoolery.

  • leninsmummy||

    Yeah.. probably on Reasons payroll since the comments were the last bastion of libertarianism on this site.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Tony, I'm not a Republican.

    And you don't seem too libertarian from what I can tell from your posts.

  • Tony||

    I call myself a liberal. I support in much, much more freedom than libertarians. And even more than Republicans who call themselves libertarians.

  • Mr. JD||

    Almost as much freedom as Chavez brought to Venezuela, I imagine.

  • Mr. JD||

    Almost as much freedom as Chavez brought to Venezuela, I imagine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony's a Socialist and tries to hide by calling himself a term that used to mean pro-Liberty and laissez-faire economy.

  • Here for the outrage||

    There it is, the big reveal... "more freedom than libertarians"

    Just a shit stirring clown

  • Tony||

    I've had libertarian after libertarian explain to me that their belief system is about minimizing the number of human rights on the books. Ironic, yes, but very true.

    Libertarians are stuck in some fantasy 19th century romance where all you need is your property, your gun, and your speech. After all, nobody in the 19th century could possibly have had any other needs.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Self proclaimed "needs" have nothing to do with rights.

  • Tony||

    So you don't need a gun for any reason?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I don't need the government to provide me with one free of charge - nor is there any right to receive one free of charge.

    That would be an affirmative right and there is no such thing.

  • Tony||

    So the guns that soldiers receive from the government... unlibertarian?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Irrelevant nonsense - as usual.

  • Rigelsen||

    Rights to free stuff are rights to free stuff. They don't generally fall under civil liberties.

  • Freelancelot||

    It seems to me that Tony is trapped in some fantasy about libertarians.

    Hey, Tony, the unicorns are hungry. Go out back and feed them some Skittles.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that having the FBI investigation is going to satisfy the Left. If the FBI has the temerity to come to the conclusion that there is still no evidence of Kavanaugh committing this crime, you'll just say that the FBI was subverted by Trump or the Russians or the Illuminati or who the fuck ever.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I doubt it. I wonder if they can do anything to diffuse this for people who are skeptical, but are not slavishly devoted to any side though.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, they would absolutely say that Trump obstructed justice. I mean, they're saying that already. To think it's a stretch they'll say it about this is extremely unlikely.

    You were watching this clown show before the accusations right? It's a shit show, and after Democrats pulled this I'm satisified that they'll do a hearing and that if she's a no show they put it to a vote.

    Frankly, it's about two weeks overdue for a floor vote given the antics of Democrats on this one. I wonder how badly this will hurt them in the midterms too though, and do agree that moderates are probably going to be pissed about this one.

    For Feinstein to sit on this letter since July is either A) gross mistreatment of a sexual assault victim bordering on covering it up or B) a gross mistreatment of a sexual assault victim for political gain.

    And those are just the two big options if it turns out to be true.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The problem is that she has provided enough details to be credible...

    Debatable.

  • Mr. JD||

    The concern seems to be that Christine Basley Ford might be subjected to a tiny fraction of the misery that Brett Kavanaugh is being subjected to.

  • Tony||

    We know where Kavanaugh's been hiding out, and that wasn't even because anyone threatened to murder his family.

  • Eddy||

    I'm sure the only messages he's been getting have been messages of love and support.

  • Tony||

    He's not being forced to do this.

  • Eddy||

    Obviously the accuser isn't either. She hasn't even been subpoenaed so far as I know - if she had been we'd hear about it in the form of outraged statements from Feinstein and the others.

  • Tony||

    Do none of you find it odd that you are are more committal to Kavanaugh than Trump is?

  • Eddy||

    If true it's not odd in the least. Trump isn't committed to putting conservative judges on the courts, it's a deal he made to get the support of certain voters.

    He'd probably nominate Judge Wapner if he could.

  • Eddy||

    Which wouldn't be a bad idea. Think of all the bad opinions Wapner would be unable to join.

    Being dead and all.

    Which would also limit his ability to get into any sex scandals.

  • Eddy||

    Or so I would hope.

  • Tony||

    The question raised being "why do libertarians want a conservative Republican judge on the bench?"

  • TuIpa||

    No, the question is "why does Tony hate due process and want to discard it"

    And the answer, which you have given, is to win at any cost.

    So, now that you have fully exposed your motives, you can stop posting. We get it. You'll say anything to win.

    You said so yourself.

  • ||

    The thing you're consistently missing that you find so confusing is that libertarians are attached to the rule of law. No one here has been particularly excited about Kavanaugh, generally speaking, due to his seeming inclinations on the Fourth Amendment and "Executive Privilege" (not that anyone in politics or the media wants to discuss anything relevant to the actual job he's been nominated for).

    What people find somewhat disgusting is someone like Feinstein sitting on this vague, fact-free accusation for months and then cynically using a witch-hunt atmosphere to derail and delay a process that was already complete.

    And before you sputter "b-b-but, GARLAND!!", this isn't the majority deciding to simply delay a vote. This is the minority (who deprived themselves of the ability to filibuster in their own cynical ploy from a few years ago) making up an accusation against a (probably) innocent man merely to throw a wrench into the system and cause some sort of pain to their political enemies.

    You don't understand why libertarians would be sticking up for someone they don't actually like that much because you don't understand people who aren't blind, knee-jerk partisans.

    Predicted Tony response: "You're only saying that because you like to suck Trump's dick!"

  • BYODB||


    The thing you're consistently missing that you find so confusing is that libertarians are attached to the rule of law. No one here has been particularly excited about Kavanaugh, generally speaking, due to his seeming inclinations on the Fourth Amendment and "Executive Privilege" (not that anyone in politics or the media wants to discuss anything relevant to the actual job he's been nominated for).


    Pretty much exactly this. I don't particularly care about Kavanaugh, he's just another establishment type as far as I can tell. He's not special, which makes it all the more glaring that Democrats are on a kamikaze run due to their own previous political malfeasance.


    What people find somewhat disgusting is someone like Feinstein sitting on this vague, fact-free accusation for months and then cynically using a witch-hunt atmosphere to derail and delay a process that was already complete.

    I don't see enough people pointing out that if this woman is telling the truth than it means that Feinstein sat on the confessions of a sexual assault victim for political gain. If a Republican had done that, I wager they would be hung by the neck until dead. Possibly literally.

    That should disgust the left, and yet there's been silence. The leftist media has really exposed how political they really are with this.

  • John||

    I don't really trust Kavanaugh. He might be great or he might suck. There is no way to tell. And if it were up to me I would not have put another former prep school Harvard Law political climber on the court. We have enough of those and the court desperately needs some diversity of experience and perspective.

    That said, none of that matters. There may be good reasons to not want Kavanaugh on the court but this isn't one of them. And ensuring that this doesn't keep him off the court has become far more important than the reasons to not want him there.

  • Tony||

    To make the world safe for accused rapists? To make sure Dems don't get a win once in their life? What's the reason again?

  • John||

    To make the world safe for accused rapists?

    When those rapists are innocent, which Kavanaugh clearly is, yes. You actually seem to think that being accused of something makes you guilty. You are just a hideous morn.

  • BYODB||

    The thing I really don't get is that if a justice turns out to be not who you thought they were, why is it so unthinkable to just impeach them and try again? They're not actually life time appointments, you can remove them at any time.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed if it's OK for Feinstein it shroud be OK for the Catholic Church. Afterall, they likely knew allegations would get out, they just wanted to delay them until a better time politically.

  • Tony||

    Actually McConnell nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, and I trust you won't insult our intelligence by blaming Harry Reid for his action as if he has no willpower of his own. Republicans looking to Democrats as role models--that's a rich idea. Nobody can match Mitch for cynical partisanship, and I hardly blame him for it except for the terrifying, anti-human causes he employs it for.

    No "libertarian" except maybe you and one other has once criticized Kavanaugh or hoped he goes down to save us from his disastrous positions. You really expect me to believe all of this nonsense is about anything other than getting a "win" for Team Red? How do you honestly think they'd be acting if everything were the same except the president and his nominee had (D)s after their names? Most of the people here jerked off to the treatment of Garland, so spare me the tears for this guy.

    Obviously my efforts here are largely futile but my cause is noble: trying to remind libertarians that there's a difference between them and Trump's Republican party.

  • BYODB||

    I find it curious that only ever expect Republicans to take the high road. Very curious indeed. What is with your bizarre belief that Republicans are the more moral and righteous party between Republicans and Democrats, and what does that say about your unflinching support of Democrats?

  • Tony||

    That would indeed be a bizarre belief, but I obviously do not hold that Republicans are the more moral party, and I never expect them to take the high road. We've both been watching the same news, right?

  • BYODB||

    If you don't believe Republicans are the more moral party, than why would it be a surprise to find out that Republicans are using the same tactics as the Democrats deployed against them?

    I mean, this obviously assumes you have some level of intelligence or consistency which are notably not character traits you possess.

  • Freelancelot||

    "You really expect me to believe all of this nonsense is about anything other than getting a 'win' for Team Red?"

    Yes, Braying Jackass, we do. Because that's all it is.

    Fall to your knees and bray elsewhere.

  • Freelancelot||

    My bad. I think I mis-read your statement and replied to the wrong ding-dong.

  • ||

    Predicted Tony response: "You're only saying that because you like to suck Trump's dick!"

    Actual Tony response:

    You really expect me to believe all of this nonsense is about anything other than getting a "win" for Team Red?

    I think my work is done here.

  • Luxferia||

    You don't understand why libertarians would be sticking up for someone they don't actually like that much because you don't understand people who aren't blind, knee-jerk partisans


    /subthread.

  • Rigelsen||

    Better than a Merrick Garland whose only commitment was to the state outside of a few narrow civil liberty concerns. Kavanaugh at least questions the administrative state. None of the Democratic nominees of the past 30 years have done that.

  • Luxferia||

    Better than a Merrick Garland whose only commitment was to the state outside of a few narrow civil liberty concerns. Kavanaugh at least questions the administrative state. None of the Democratic nominees of the past 30 80 years have done that.

    FTFY

  • Mickey Rat||

    More of, make an an extraordinary accusation of of a serious crime against someone with an otherwise upstanding reputation based on her words alone, and somehow not have her claims be subject to scrutiny because of her alleged pain.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    There is no evidence they knew each other then that I've heard. How can she remember it was this total stranger, but no other details? This could very well be a 30 year later "that's him!!".

  • buybuydandavis||

    There was a 2012 Atlantic article about Evil Nazi Mitt Romney potentially nominating Evil Nazi Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The Horror!

    But I haven't yet heard a specific claim about the date she first knew it was Kavanaugh. Did she always know? Was this a recovered memory?

    The counseling notes contain no name. The first time the name was given to anyone beyond the accuser was this summer.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Uncle Jay||

    "It might clear him without subjecting her to an inquistion"

    Hey, don't knock inquisitons.
    If it worked in Spain, it will work here.
    Where's Torquemada when you really need him?

  • Eddy||

    I oughtn't to laugh, but I laughed anyway.

  • leninsmummy||

    "No less than Don Jr., President Trump's son, mocked her on Instagram" OMG NOOO

  • posmoo||

    even if we assume everything she said is correct, what she alleged is a misdemeanor sexual battery whose statute of limitations expired 35 years ago. that's as far as any legal inquiry need go.

  • buybuydandavis||

    All the talk about the event as described being an "attempted rape" doesn't seem right, although I wonder just what the legal standard is for attempted rape versus sexual assault.

    How do you know that something which admittedly *wasn't* a rape was attempted rape, and not just sexual assault?

    I haven't heard anything saying that he whipped it out.

  • posmoo||

    taking everything she said as true, I don't know where the evidence for intent to rape is. I also don't know where the threat of force is. or her manifestation of her nonconsent is.

  • OGREtheTroll||

    The terminology varies from state to state. The term "sexual assault" can mean rape in one state or it could include over the clothes petting in another.

    Rape typically requires both the use of force and penetration of some sort, thats usually the dividing line--that there must be penetration of one persons genital cavity, anus, or mouth. If its not called rape in a given jurisdiction it will likely be called sexual assault instead. The next level down would be sexual acts short of penetration...fellatio, cunninlingus, analingus, etc. The lowest level would be sexual contact, the touching of anothers genitals or other intimate areas for sexual gratification.

    The description given by Ford of what Kavanaugh did would, absent further facts, constitute at most Attempted 4th deg Sexual Offence (per current Maryland statutes), a misdemeanor. In order to prove Attempted Rape (from a criminal standpoint) it would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to penetrate her and that can't simply be inferred or implied absent evidence of such. His actions are consistent with wanting to take her clothes off to do no more than to touch her breasts; assuming anything further absent some manifestation of intent is not permitted.

    Point being: calling it attempted rape is legally inaccurate and inflammatory. Even sexual assault is a stretch.
    Attempted Sexual Abuse would be a much more accurate phrase.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Actually no inquiry required as the inquiry can only start with an interview with the complaintant.

    Don't get me wrong - telling authorities you're sure your friend was raped might lead them to question that individual, but if that individual rules to,provides details which can be verified/corroborated or in this case, refuse to provide any details at all, there is nothing to inquire about.

    And note this is true of all crimes which have a victim - whether robbery, assualt, burglary, rape, vandalism, etc - without a victim detailing the harm to the authorities there is nothing to investgate.

    Lastly, even if she did discuss it with them, if she gave so few details that it would be impossible to find corroborating or exculpatory facts, the inquiry would end their too.

    For example what if she said he extorted her with threat of violence and he stole 10k in cash from here, but can only say in 82 or 83. I was a young kids then barely able to walk more than a block away without supervision, but I cannot disprove I didn't do that.

    So either the complaintant speaks with details that can be investigated or she gets treated like any other adult lobbing accusations without proof - ignored.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Shikha does not disappoint, delivers the tard.

    Will the FBI investigate Tony for touching my wiener without permission?

  • BYODB||

    Or investigate Shikha for all those children she raped over in India? She'll need to answer for that eventually.

  • Trigger Warning||

    A-ha! She's never proven that she's not a rapist!

    Shikha raped ME in Calcutta in 1978! We were at a boarding house! She made me wear fake tusks and called me Ganesh! It's true.

  • Presskh||

    Let the FBI investigate - her - under oath. In the mean time, go ahead and vote.

  • Tony||

    Look at big shooter right here. Democracy by fucking political enemies in they eye socket. MAGA bubba, MAGA.

  • TuIpa||

    Cry more about losing this one.

  • BYODB||

    Says that guy that cheered on Democrats as they nuked the filibuster and still doesn't regret it.

  • Tony||

    I am against the filibuster as it was being employed, period, and I was then. There is a reasonable pragmatic defense of it for judicial nominations (it forces moderate choices), but in general I support majority will rather than minority will in a voting body without very good reason.

    I'm also not suffering under the delusion that poor Mitch McConnell would have carried on letting Democrats block SCOTUS appointments if not for mean old Harry Reid.

  • Freelancelot||

    "I support majority will rather than minority will in a voting body without very good reason..."

    That reason being tyranny.

  • BYODB||

    If Tony supported the will of the majority, he would be in favor of this nominee being confirmed. That he isn't makes his lie perfectly obvious.

  • Tony||

    Without Collins and Murkowski, he isn't. And he absolutely isn't the choice of a majority of the American people he seeks to impose his will upon.

  • Freelancelot||

    Democracy is tyranny, and against the Constitution. Hey, get me some gum-gum, DUM-DUM.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    "Go here to read the full piece."

    Um, NO!

  • damikesc||

    Juanita Broadrick has more proof of her rape claim.

    Just sayin.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I'm sure we'll find out tomorrow that Haven Monahan was a witness, too.

  • buybuydandavis||

    There's no more to investigate than with Trump's supposed collusion with Russia
    Both are completely nonspecific allegations
    "Once upon a time, something happened"

    And there's absolutely no one for anyone to talk to but the one person in the universe who claims to know about it

    Shikha is doing the usually Lefty projection
    The person suffering under an inquisition is Kavanaugh, not his accuser
    He's the one being accused in a witch hunt

    The Woketarian is strong at Reason
    Sad

  • Brendan||

    Perhaps we should subject all illegal immigrants to an FBI probe before they're allowed out of custody. Same with asylum seekers prior to entry into the country.

  • earthandweather||

    My immediate / automatic response to her coming forward with this is - I would never do that. I mean, 35 years after the fact...? It seems to me justice can't possibly be her motivation.

  • Freelancelot||

    It never is, even when there's the trace of a case, which here there is not.

    This is femme power-grabs and a perverse lust for vengeance.

  • Rockabilly||

    Probe this ===================== ()

  • Freelancelot||

    How many fucking times do you want the FBI to investigate this man? Just to be where he is, he has already been investigate, by the FBI for months on end, three different times!

  • Freelancelot||

    *investigated, by the FBI

  • chipper me timbers||

    "The problem is that she has provided enough details to be credible but hasn't met the burden of proof to be convincing."

    Is this a joke?

  • ||

    She's shady.

    So no.

    And Dalmia.

    More so no.

    Is this a reasoned libertarian site or not?

  • Trigger Warning||

    It's not. Not with Shikha, Robbo, Richman, and Chapman getting published.

    It seems like they have a lot of new staff, but their clickbaiters like Robbo are commanding the traffic. KMW is MIA.

    I rarely comment anymore. Everything I type is a variation of "Robby is a woke millennial shitstain," or "Fuck you, Shikha." I hate being so negative, but those two ruin every post.

  • jagjr||

    the problem with all this is: how does this fit in the FBI's job jar?? doesn't make the slightest bit of sense - they don't have jurisdiction over local sexual assault investigations.

  • Sevo||

    And it's not like there is even a hint of interstate issues involved.
    I think somebody pulled "FBI" out of their ass, since it makes it sound all officially-stuff.

  • wreckinball||

    The why would she make this up cracks me up.

    Because they are paying her.

    It usually is the reason for a lot of what happens .

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Whining, delusional, bigoted right-wingers may be my favorite faux libertarians.

  • Mark22||

    Whining, delusiona fascists like you, on the other hand, are just run-of-the-mill modern Democrats.

  • wreckinball||

    But found the dumb fuck Readon article of the day

  • harpac||

    The FBI already did dismiss an FBI probe. Where you been?

  • Azathoth!!||

    REASON
    Socially Just Minds, Socially Just Markets

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Here Lies
    Reason Magazine
    1968-2016

  • Trigger Warning||

    To be sure.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Since she reluctantly went public, her e-mail has been hacked and she has faced a barrage of harassment including death threats.

    Bullshit. Show the receipts. Leftists ALWAYS claim they're getting death threats when they do something that blows up in their face, but never show the police reports. Until they do, it should be deemed a cheap attempt at generating sympathy.

    Of course she probably expects the police to investigate and throw people in jail BEFORE she files a police report.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Whiny, cranky right-wingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The important point is that Kavanaugh and the Republican process have both been tainted enough to provide ample foundation for a push to enlarge the Supreme Court when Democrats next control Congress and hold the presidency.

    I wish a Justice Kavanaugh a lengthy career of writing whiny dissents while a progressive majority rejects the prudish, backward, authoritarian positions of social conservatives and other right-wingers.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Fascists are my favorite faux libertarians.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I'm now wondering if you're a parody as any good progressive knows discussing earing SCOTUS is a third rail as it highlights FDR might not be the shining paragon of virtue as currently portrayed.

    People that read history know his many, many other mistakes, but threatening to enlarge SCOTUS is universally agreed to be the worst thing he did (lying about being handicapped, interning Japanese-Americans, and prolong the Great Depression don't rank as problems for today's Ders- in fact 2 of 3 of those things are still actively sought today).

    Parody? Or really that stupid?

  • Mark22||

    The last American fascist president tried that and it didn't work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its going to be a bloodbath for democrats at the polls this election 2018.

  • Carlos Inconvenience||

    Nothing says "libertarian" like a federal investigation into a high school kegger.

  • Mark22||

    What discredits Ford is that she sat on the accusation for 35 years. Ford's behavior is deplorable.

  • Duelles||

    This Ford thing has nothing to do with the FBI. What crap. Feinstein held it and could have had all the allegations looked into long ago. Dems can't stand that Trump won, that Obama's SCOTUS choice was blocked, that the court might become dominated by right of center, that they are losers so they will do anything to scuttle Kavanaugh's nomination hoping for a change in the Senate. This has nada to do with Ford and Kavanaugh 36 years ago in high school. What

  • Chris Paige||

    This is so bizarre - it's like none of you journalists have any idea of the mechanics of an investigation. She has NOT provided enough details to permit anyone to investigate this claim. She doesn't know the YEAR of the event. She's not sure of the county, but she thinks it's Montgomery County (which is a bit like saying it happened in Queens). She told one therapist it happened AFTER Kavanaugh had graduated high school & moved to New Haven, but now she thinks it might have been when she was 15 or 14 or whatever. What do you propose these investigators do? Interview everyone who happened to be in suburban Maryland at any time between 1982 & 1979 to ask if they ever saw Brett Kavanaugh and/or Dr. Ford at a party, which she now says might not have been a party? Are you insane? Do you have no idea how this works? Look we don't require accusers to make accusations because we're mean to accusers; we require accusers to make accusations because it's literally impossible to investigate if they don't -- that's what Kafka was talking about. It's not just a principle of justice; it's a principle of logic. This isn't an allegation; it's barely even gossip. By her own account, she knows so little of the incident that I seriously doubt she'd be deemed qualified to testify.

  • Chris Paige||

    Here's my point about her qualifications to testify: how does she know when this happened? How does she know where it happened? How does she know who did it? Does she remember that? Or did someone tell her these "details" about which she's been so vague? If she doesn't remember how she got to the party or how she got home, then how does she know it was Montgomery County? How does she know it was Maryland? Did someone at the party tell her those things? Then she can't testify to them because she doesn't know them. Since she's been so vague, we actually don't know what she claims to remember and what she claims to remember about what other people told her. Literally, she probably doesn't have foundation for much of this. (Maybe she doesn't remember how she escaped, maybe someone told her etc.). One of the reasons investigators start with the victim is that only the victim can tell them where to look for other evidence (like who told her the stuff she "remembers" or if she's the actual witness).

  • Chris Paige||

    And don't think my foundation objection is idle speculation: you'd be shocked how often a potential witness doesn't actually know what you think they know. You can believe every word she says, but what does it matter if she's actually relaying what somebody else told her? If she's stumbling drunk as she claims, how would she have been able to perceive the things she claims she perceived? Isn't it possible that other people told her about the events & that she's repeating their hearsay? This is not a technicality; it's the sin qua non of justice: we just don't allow people to condemn people based upon what they heard, only what they actually know from their own personal knowledge. At this point, we have no reason to believe that Dr. Ford actually perceived any of this; we simply have to guess what she perceived & what she heard - which is why this charge is too vague to be investigated. [What if she only knows this is Kavanaugh because someone told her it was? What - you think the real perp would rape her, but not use a fake name? People who commit felonies often lie, especially about their names, and - remember - there's no evidence she ever met Kavanaugh prior to this incident.]

  • Mickey Rat||

    Grassley had this response to the Democrat's request for an FBI investigation

    "Your letter requests that I demand that the FBI conduct an additional investigation into this matter. This request demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the FBI background investigation process. Before nominating an individual to a judicial or executive office, the White House directs the FBI to conduct a background investigation. The FBI compiles information about a prospective nominee and sends it to the White House. The White House then provides FBI background investigation files to the Senate as a courtesy to help us determine whether to confirm a nominee. But the FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. Nor is it tasked with investigating those matters that this Committee deems important. The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominees and consenting if the circumstances merit. We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee's qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone"

  • Mickey Rat||

    It also had this little gem:

    "I understand how difficult it might be for Dr. Ford to publicly testify on this subject. I have therefore offered her many options. We've offered her a public hearing, a private hearing, a public staff interview, or a private staff interview. The staff is even willing to fly to California, or anywhere else, to meet her.

    An open session would be a matter of public record, while a closed session will remain confidential. I certainly can understand that Dr. Ford might be distrustful of the Committee's ability to keep matters confidential based on the Democratic members' recent conduct, but I sincerely hope that, if she chooses to testify in a closed session, that my colleagues can see their way to plugging the leaks which have plagued this nomination and gain her trust."

    "

  • higgyb||

    So this is 'Reason' now? So damned anti-Trump that they abandon limited government. They want the FBI in this. Really?

    Your betrayal of your mandate simply because of your Trump hate is sickening.

  • Tony||

    What kind of cousinfucking hillbilly could look at the wannabe Mugabe Donald Trump and see a leader who wants to maximize liberty for other people? Someone who fucks his cousins probably.

  • tlapp||

    The author says enough details to be credible? I would challenge that. A party at an unknown location in an unspecified year. She does not recall how she got there nor how she got home (alone or with friends). Can't name any other people at the party other than Kavanaugh and his friend. Didn't she have any friends attending the party that could have said both were there? Not a single person she confided in after the alleged incident family nor close friend. She accuses Kavanaugh of being intoxicated but such spotty memory would make any sane person ask if she was the one impaired.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    lShikha Dalmia: I been reading articles, and comments, on this site for a few years now, but I never quite understood why so many couldn't stand you; now I do. There is absolutely nothing even remotely "libertarian" about you. Why are you even on the editorial staff, to provide grist for the mill?

    Perhaps you could try backing up and starting with a reasonable definition of "credible." And just how the hell long do you think a "thorough" FBI investigation would take? What are they supposed to do, go through the lists of every student and teacher and staff of both of those schools from 1980 whatever and interview them to find out if any one recalls any aspect of this alleged event? And just how long do you think that would take [rhetorical question: well beyond the midterms, and quite possibly after all newly elected senators are seated, which is the whole point of this exercise in case you haven't noticed the presence of realpolitik here]; do you honestly think even then that "all sides" of this controversy would be satisfied short of Kavanaugh not being confirmed? And about your "credible" complainant? You want to point out the bias of any and all Republican senators, but we also know your views on Trump, politics, and even the Supreme Court.

    I call hogwash on your entire piece.

  • Duelles||

    Shikha Dalmia, are you forgetting the everyone in the room when the accused and Judge are being questioned in a partisan hack with nothing but a political agenda at stake? FBI investigates crimes of Federal proportion not some local assault even if it happened last week. He has had 6 background checks which probably covered much of the same ground each time, but having been involved in several of these there is always new sources to be found. There is no fact finding that will happen, merely accusations, emotional heart tugging, and innuendo. I have no clue what happened to Dr. Ford and since her revelations come from regression therapy. . . .eh?

  • cheapmcmbelt||

    I agree!!! You can discuss with other side. That's how you learn and expand your view points.
    MCM Mini Polke Star Eyed Bunny Backpack In Beige
    Shop www.mcmbackpacksoutletonline.com Cheap MCM Backpacks Outlet Store and Buy MCM Mini Polke Star Eyed Bunny Backpack In Beige, Save Big Discount, Fast Delivery and Free Shipping...
    http://www.mcmbackpacksoutleto.....beige.html

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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