MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

From 'Believe All Victims' to 'Who Cares If It’s True,' the Brett Kavanaugh Accusation Has Produced Shameful Certainty

Leftist partisans say he's guilty, conservative partisans are convinced he's innocent. How convenient.

KavanaughJeff Malet Photography/NewscomRight now, no one can say for sure that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford at a house party 35 years ago. But neither should anyone be certain it didn't happen.

A lot of people nevertheless seem completely convinced, one way or the other. Quite coincidentally, their conviction that Kavanaugh has been slandered, or that Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, seems to line up perfectly with whether they oppose or support Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. If you like the guy, you know he's innocent, or that it doesn't matter. If you fear he will provide a decisive vote against abortion rights, you know he's guilty. Fence sitters are betraying women everywhere, according to the left, or are letting the Democrats pull off a con, according to the right.

Case in point: At 3:24 a.m. today, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D–Calif.), a self-anointed #resistance spokesperson, sent a thunderous tweet to Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine). Collins, who has not yet decided whether she will vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite the sexual assault accusation against him, had complained that her office was receiving threatening messages from furious constituents.

"Boo hoo hoo," said Swalwell. "You're a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can't sleep in her home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She's on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing."

Swalwell was referring to Ford, the woman who has claimed that Kavanaugh dragged her into a room and attempted to rape her when they were both in high school. Swalwell's certainty about Ford's status as a sexual assault victim is shared by many on the progressive left. MoveOn.org, a progressive organization born in 1998 out of an effort to dissuade Congress from impeaching President Clinton over his sexual misconduct and instead "move on" to other matters, released one of its famous celebrity videos. Julianne Moore, Gabrielle Union, and America Ferrera make appearances, chanting, "We believe you." The video calls for a full, fair, and "trauma-informed" investigation.

Trauma-informed investigations, in which it is assumed that victims will have trouble recalling details of their assaults and even exaggerate or make up details, are popular on college campuses. The federal government has encouraged their use in adjudication relating to Title IX, the federal statute that obligates college administrators to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct. Emily Yoffe, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, has criticized this thinking as akin to the recovered memory movement of the 1980s, in which therapists goaded confused people into remembering sexual abuse that never happened.

"Believe the victims," the mantra of fourth-wave feminists on campuses, often sounds disturbingly like recovered memory. The injunction implies that virtually all women who make allegations of sexual assault are telling the truth, and that all the reasons we might disbelieve them—e.g., they waited a long time to come forward, they changed their stories, or they don't recall all the details—are actually proof of trauma, and thus evidence that they were actually abused. It's a mistaken view, at odds with established science, principles of basic fairness such as cross-examination and the presumption of innocence, and recent history, which has shown that some women do in fact lie about sexual assault—not because they are women, but because they are people, and people lie.

We tell big lies and small lies. We lie because it suits our purposes: Asia Argento is currently threatening to sue former friend Rose McGowan because the latter has contradicted Argento's claim that she was sexually assaulted by a 17-year-old boy, Jimmy Bennett, who credibly accused Argento of sexually assaulting him. We lie by accident, because our memories have deceived us: Steven Avery, the subject of Netflix's Making a Murderer, was arrested for sexual assault after the victim mistakenly identified him; he was exonerated of that crime after someone else confessed. (Avery was later convicted of murder in a separate case.) We lie for reasons known only to us: "Jackie" fabricated a horrific story of assault at the hands of a man who did not exist.

None of this means that Ford is lying, or mistaken about what happened. One does not have to subscribe to a believe-the-victims mentality to think that the alleged victim in the Kavanaugh case is indeed believable. Ford's accusation is unproven, but it's hardly unthinkable. She has alleged that Kavanaugh and his friend, the conservative writer Mark Judge, attacked her during a party after they consumed copious amounts of alcohol. Alcoholism is the theme of Judge's book about his teen years, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk, which makes a reference to Kavanaugh's drunken partying. References to such carousing can be found in Kavanaugh's yearbook and a joke he made during a 2015 speech.

That Judge and Kavanaugh were heavy drinkers does not confirm that they did what Ford alleges. Kavanaugh shouldn't be convicted based on this. Even by the lower burden of proof required in campus Title IX tribunals—a preponderance of the evidence—it would be difficult to conclude that anecdotal evidence of his adolescent lifestyle shows Kavanaugh attacked Ford at a party he says he did not even attend. But this isn't a criminal trial, and it isn't a Title IX issue either. This is a vote to determine whether Kavanaugh should join just eight other justices on the highest court in the land. There is no prescribed standard here. If it's just 30 percent likely that Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, should he be confirmed? On what basis would it be inherently unreasonable to reject Kavanaugh because he might have committed sexual assault, provided his accuser is actually willing to testify about it at a Senate hearing?

Many conservatives, of course, want a vote on Kavanaugh regardless; they seem to think the odds he did anything wrong are very low, if not zero. Conservative columnist Dennis Prager, who often accuses the left of subverting traditional Christian values and peddling moral relativism, wrote earlier this week that the charge against Kavanaugh should be ignored, "even if true." Taking the accusation seriously "undermines foundational moral principles of any decent society," says Prager, who blames the "moral chaos sown by secularism and the left" for causing people to think Kavanaugh's alleged actions could somehow disqualify him from the Court.

Prager's column drew a powerful rebuke from National Review's Alexandra DeSanctis, who correctly accused Prager of being "wholly uninterested in the truth—simply for the sake of political expediency, and worse yet, based on a twisted definition of morality." DeSanctis warned that Prager's excuse making for Kavanaugh is "destructive to the conservative movement." It certainly lends credence to the left's contention that conservatives don't take violence against women seriously.

Indeed, the Kavanaugh episode is bringing out the right's worst tendencies. On Fox News the other night, Ann Coulter railed against the unfair, false sexual assault allegations leveled at "white male Republicans." But while it's true that white men are sometimes falsely accused, black men are more likely to face false allegations. Wrongly portraying false accusations as mainly a problem for people who look like Kavanaugh is an exercise in white identity politics that betrays a lack of interest in social problems that plague minorities.

It's frustrating that so many people are beholden to their partisan convictions and blithely insistent that they know whether Kavanaugh is innocent. That may be something not even Kavanaugh knows, since he may have been blackout drunk at the time of the alleged incident. It's frustrating that so many progressives would believe the accusation automatically, no matter how distant or unverifiable it may be. And it's frustrating that so many conservatives think protecting Kavanaugh and elevating him to the Supreme Court is so important that it's worth forgiving serious wrongdoing in just this one case.

It would be a different matter to argue that we should be more forgiving in general of immoral or criminal behavior by teenagers. I have long argued that the authorities are far too willing to arrest kids for youthful indiscretions of a sexual nature. I once covered the case of a North Carolina teenager who was charged as an adult for sexually exploiting a minor—himself. That paradox was legally possible because he had texted nude pictures of himself to his high school girlfriend. At the time of his arrest, he was 17, the same age as Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged assault. If you think we need criminal justice reform so that teenagers—especially poor and minority teenagers, who are less likely to have the resources to defend themselves—do not suffer for their mistakes the rest of their lives, I'm with you. If you don't care about any of that but think Kavanaugh really needs to sit on the Supreme Court no matter what, you've lost me.

Similarly, I support due process rights for people accused of sexual misconduct. I have covered extensively the manifest unfairness of campus Title IX tribunals, which often operate as if the accused male is guilty regardless. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has rightly decided to reform these practices to bring them in line with basic principles of justice. Students accused of sexual assault should be able to consult lawyers and have them question their accusers. If you think Kavanaugh is not entitled to the same presumption of innocence that we would typically extend to people facing sexual assault charges, I see your point. If you think no man deserves a presumption of innocence because women never lie about this sort of thing, then once again you've lost me.

Where do we go from here? Ford should agree to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee should do its best to ascertain the truth of her allegation, even if that means taking a little extra time. The committee should ask Judge to testify as well and subpoena him if he refuses. The FBI should also conduct an expedited investigation. There is still time. The surest way out of this mess is for the FBI to determine conclusively that the party never happened or that Kavanaugh didn't attend it—or, alternatively, that he was in fact there.

We should gird ourselves for the possibility that we may not learn anything useful, at which point the way forward won't be obvious. Confirming Kavanaugh in spite of the accusation and voting against him because of it both seem like defensible moves. At present, the only indefensible position is certainty. We don't know anything for sure, and we shouldn't presume that we do merely because it's politically convenient.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

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

  • Mark Question||

    Robby, any libertarian should know by now that if the left makes an accusation, that accusation is baseless until proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

    At that point, the question becomes, "do we really care?" Because leftist are mentally incapable of common morality.

    In short, believe the victim if the accuser is from the left. Always and forever. You do that, and you have prosperity, but you're too concerned wringing your hands over a Marxist's precious "freedom" to plot the establishment of tyranny to see it.

  • Libertymike||

    + many mucho

  • Mark Question||

    If that's the case, come down the pipeline and get out of this deluded libertarian tent.

  • Just Say'n||

    Dude, she said it happened at some time, somewhere, during some time of year. What more proof do you need?

  • Just Say'n||

    If Robbie just admitted he's all in on this partisan smear because he's worried Kavanaugh would rule in favor of abortion restrictions he would at least look like less of a hack.

  • Just Say'n||

    If we're being honest that's what this is really all about

  • Mark Question||

    Now you see the intellectual dishonesty of libertarianism. He's all for murdering babies cuz "freedom".

    The world needs less freedom.

  • Just Say'n||

    Not really. Nearly every other libertarian commentator not associated with Reason has realized this is a charade. Even though they don't care for Kavanaugh

  • Just Say'n||

    Are you going to be honest and just admit that this is all about abortion, Robbie?

    The only explanation seems to be that you're a dishonest hack who runs with Democratic conspiracy theories or you're a profound idiot.

    So just admit the obvious here

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He's all for murdering babies cuz "freedom".

    Another superstitious, bigoted yahoo convening a meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Certain Clinics.

    Stale-thinking, disaffected right-wing goobers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh lord, not this asshole

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    What will St. Peter say at the pearly gates, Alex.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • yawbus||

    100% correct. It is all about abortion.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Because leftist are mentally incapable of common morality.


    Open wider, you bigoted rube, or stand aside. Your betters are not tired of effecting American progress against your right-wing wishes and efforts, and our liberal-libertarian alliance has plenty more progress to shove down your whimpering, disaffected, irrelevant throat . . . but if you get out of the way and just mutter bitterly, perhaps you will be spared the indignity.

    Carry on, clinger.
  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nice

    tag closing.
  • tgrondo||

    What is it with you and clingers Rev ?
    If you are having that much trouble with those pesky "clingers" I suggest a more abrasive brand of toilet paper!

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Or that his boyfriend lick more vigorously.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You need to be beaten about the face repeatedly.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    He needs to be ignored. He would hate being ignored more than he would hate a hot acid enema. He LIVES for the attention he gets. Leave him alone.

  • Brad1966||

    And yet you and your philosophies have been soundly rejected by those who think and reason. You have lost the house, you have lost the senate, you have lost the presidency( to Donald "I can't string a coherent sentence together"Trump no less) and you are about to lose the supreme court. You are not sound sir and your words fall like the metaphorical turds they are. Please have the good manners to restrain yourself from verbal defecation in the future.

  • Barnstormer||

    Robby, you're an imbecile. But I state the obvious.

    No rational person can compare what is known about Kavanaugh with what is known about his accuser, and find the facts in balance.

    The preponderance of evidence points to a scam engineered by the Dems to delay his appointment. For that reason alone, the accusation should be ignored.

  • Mark Question||

    There's no preponderance of evidence. There doesn't need to be. The Left could produce a videotape graphically depicting the event and it still wouldn't mean what they want you to think it means.

  • IceTrey||

    The mere fact Feinstein had it for 7 weeks and released it after the hearings were over proves it is a baseless smear and shouldn't be indulged.

  • Incredulous||

    Yes, if the allegation came a day after the supposed incident, its veracity would be a coin flip at best. Now, the timing makes it almost certainly a lie or a delusion.

  • ThomasD||

    Ed Whelan has posited an alternate theory of the crime - that it is a case of mistaken identity and was actually committed by a classmate who closely resembled Kavanaugh back in the day (he's posted pics of both men for comparison.)

    Is it any wonder Froot Sooshi has not deemed to evaluate the credibility of this alternate explanation?

    Not really. Because he cannot do so without revealing just how biased he is.

    Which also explains why almost nobody is touching Whelan's explanation, even though it has at least as much factual matter as Ford's own account.

  • PTSD||

    I'll bet the other guy was really happy about that. Thanks, Ed.

  • Tom Dial||

    There really is not anything that could plausibly be called "evidence" to support the allegation. Unless considerably more factual claims are added to it, no amount of any kind of evidence could prove it wrong.

  • dbs5347||

    Evidence? Christ there aren't even the basic details like date, time and location to determine if it is technically possible for the incidents occurred to have happened, much less anything remotely resembling evidence to prove they did. The latest accuser claims attendance at more than 10 house parties where this alleged drugging and gang raping activity was supposedly ongoing. How man dates and times for any of the parties does her statement specify? Right none.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    Lots of blather from those who think that's not supposed to apply.

    If there were any actual credibility to this claim, it would have been presented long before Feinstein threw it out there.

    It's nothing more than a deliberate tactic to delay it beyond the mid term elections.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    If there were any actual credibility to this claim, it would have been presented long before Feinstein threw it out there.

    this

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Where do we go from here? Ford should agree to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee should do its best to ascertain the truth of her allegation, even if that means taking a little extra time. The committee should ask Judge to testify as well and subpoena him if he refuses. The FBI should also conduct an expedited investigation. There is still time"

    Flat out wrong on all points.

  • Ryan Frank||

    I'll give him "Ford should agree to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee"

    Fuck giving them extra time.
    The judge has already testified, under oath, that this is a load of bullshit. Not sure how he can add to that.
    Fuck the sudden demand from that the FB FUCKING I somehow needs to investigate something that is not in their jurisdiction, likely past the statue of limitations in any case, without a time and place to start with. The fuck they supposed to do, interview everyone in that county who was in high school between 80 and 83?

  • Libertymike||

    Ryan, not an inch.

    No hearing as Dr. Ford is not entitled "to be heard," either in camera or in front of the whole country.

    The failure of Senator Grassley to have had the Judiciary Committee vote on Judge K's nomination perfectly captures the cuckiness of the Republicans.

  • Mark Question||

    You want to talk cuckiness, try the wimp who sent this woman death threats but were too chickenshit to follow through on them.

    In a perfect world she'd be shot for having opened her mouth.

  • rudehost||

    I think it is overwhelmingly likely that she is lying but there is certainly a slim chance she is telling the truth. In either case I shudder to think what the rest of your perfect world looks like when the penalty for this is being shot.

  • Mark Question||

    There is no chance she's telling the truth.

    You stupid libertarians. You think a world where leftist stooges get shot for being the cancers that they are is somehow less desirable then the one we got.

  • rudehost||

    Tell you what then. I'll bet you a nickel she is telling the truth. If you win you get my nickel. If I win you give me all of your assets and commit suicide. Since there is no chance she is telling the truth I think this is a fair deal.

    Stranger things have happened than a progressive telling the truth. For example I bet you said something once that if looked at in just the right light looked intelligent.

  • Mark Question||

    Oh so you're a Marxist, then.

    Don't worry. If you read my words and squint real hard, you might actually figure out what I'm saying.

  • perlchpr||

    He called your bluff, son. Don't act like an ass just 'cause you got caught out.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you and the other faux libertarian, conservative, half-educated bigots ever get sick of watching your betters effect decades of American progress -- reason, liberty, science, tolerance, education, inclusivity -- against your wishes while you mutter bitterly and whimper inconsequentially at life's sidelines, Mark Question?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I came across this tweet from an anti-Kavanaugh yesterday: "He will dismantle the modern regulatory state with frightening efficiency."

    I cannot imagine a better endorsement, nor a better reason for progressives to obstruct his confirmation by any means necessary.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    If only it was true.....we can always dream/

  • Azathoth!!||

    Jeez, you're worse than the tool who's trying to ape OBL.

  • Toranth||

    There is no way to evaluate how likely Ford's claims are to be true at this time.
    That's because there IS no specific claim. No time, no date, no place, contradictory descriptions of the alleged events, descriptions being released second- and third-hand...


    To put it mildly, her accusation is non-falsifiable. It cannot be proven or disproven. To make any decision off of non-falsifiable factors is not rational. It is, in fact, a perfect example of irrational "faith".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And it does not matter.

    If it happened, she should have reported it to police 35 years.

    When you wait to drop the a she said/he said claim for political purposes, you get a political response.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I think it matters if someone taking a lifetime position on SCOTUS has criminal tendancies (not that I believe this to be true of the current nominee).

    Where Robby fails (unsurprising) is saying Republicans are saying even if it's true, they don't care...but that's not what they wrote. They wrote basically what has been written here: if all we have is the accusers word and no other corroboration or not a detailed enough complaint to defend against, then it doesn't matter if the allegation is true.

    Innocent until proven guilty, better 10 guilty go free, etc, etc, etc.

    And this isn't, or rather shouldn't be controversial - as an example, if I called the police to report the bank I own just got robbed and they left with tons of cash, but I don't actually own a bank and cannot prove I had large sums of cash on hand, cannot state for certain when it happened...it doesn't matter if my allegation is true. Even if true they are limited by the details given and those details cannot be proven nor disproven.

    FFS - This is the foundation for the fairest safest legal systems in the world.

    But Trump or something...

    Disclaimer: The US legal system has tons of issues causing people untold misery and those things can and should be fixed immediately, but if we stop giving at least a presumption of innocence in he said/she said cases, it's going to get much, much worse.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Better a million guilty democrats are set free than one innocent republican escaping false conviction.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Better a million democrats are set on fire than one republican convicted.

    FIFY

  • Nom de Sobriquet||

    Plus, it's always an option to take the Pinocchio approach: It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.

  • D.D. Driver||

    Just because its impossible to do doesn't mean would should deprive ourselves of the spectacle of trying.

    Let's get one of those TV hypnotists, line up Kavanaugh and Ford, put them in a deep trance, and use psuedo-science to get to the bottom of what happened. I'm only half joking. If we want a circus, let's have a real circus.

    ALSO: The hypnotist should make Kavanaugh cluck like a chicken every time someone says "stare decisis."

  • JesseAz||

    This is an article where Robbie could have played the unverifiable facts of Ford with the contemporary facts that Ellison's accuser has (2 medical notes from the time she claims abuse) and how the standards of credibility are completely opposite of what one who guessed would seem more credible. It's opposite world in politics.

  • The Last American Hero||

    She can explain what happened in a closed session, or a session with him, her, and 2 lawyers. Sitting on this until the vote is about to happen casts serious doubt on the veracity of the accuser. BK was considered a safe nomination - qualified, clean record, right of center but not radical - so there was no chance he would not get the vote. The matter could have been raised earlier, and dealt with by the Senate privately until more was known. The way it's unfolded makes it look like pure political calculation or revenge for the recent ruling against her family by BK's mom.

    But there is no reason to delay. If there is something worth discussing, it can be discussed on Monday.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And you dumbfucks wonder why the Republican Party has been branded with racism, misogyny, superstition, xenophobia, gay-bashing, authoritarianism, and general backwater backwardness for a generation or two.

  • JesseAz||

    We don't wonder. Your ignorant pieces of shit have no formal or logical arguments so you resort to name-calling. See every post you've ever made.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "You are a raaaaaaaaacist",

    or, "You are a rapist".

    That's all the left has these days.

    Despicable.

  • FlameCCT||

    Does it hurt being this ignorant Artie?
    Or just normal for a Progressive serf?

    BTW: Most people wonder why the Progressive Democratic Party hasn't been branded with their actual racism, misogyny, superstition, xenophobia, gay-bashing, authoritarianism, and general backwater backwardness.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    Maybe because the left is on the wrong side of nearly every issue, and have nothing but name calling in their bag of tricks? And false accusations. And putting on masks and breaking things. But mostly name calling.

  • Douglas Proudfoot||

    I don't wonder. Marxists believe that the ends justify the means, so lying and name calling are just openers for them. The left wants to eliminate the Constitutional checks on government action. The left wants a dictatorship of unchecked regulatory agencies staffed with leftist "experts." The left thinks government by consent of the governed is suboptimal because the people are too stupid and ignorant to give informed consent.

    Identity voting is a way to make good government irrelevant to voters. No matter how bad government gets, your identity doesn't change. So you vote your identity and keep leftists in power. Identity voting took Detroit from the richest city in America to bankruptcy. Democrats wouldn't stand a chance without it.

  • ||

    Right now, no one can say for sure that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford at a house party 35 years ago.

    *I* can say for sure that Brett Kavanaugh isn't guilty of assaulting Christine Blasey Ford at a house party 35 yrs. ago.

    ::Looks around for other Spartacuses::

  • H. Farnham||

    Spartacai*

  • JesseAz||

    Corey Booker is Spartacus. Corey Booker admitted to sexual assault in a 1992 Stanford article. All spartacai are rapists.

  • Nardz||

    I feel like...
    Spartacci is more correct.
    Don't remember my Latin enough to be an expert, but I do like the ring of Spartacci.
    Either way, it's certainly not Spartacai. Maybe Spartacui

  • FlameCCT||

    Sen Booker is Fartacus!

  • MasterThief||

    Kavanaugh and Ford are realistically the only ones who could/should absolutely know for sure. Anyone else can make assumptions and feel that they are sure about the truth of the matter.
    I'll say that I seriously doubt her story and that the pieces being offered are too far past and not serious enough to be an issue at this time. This all looks too blatantly political with a personal angle regarding her parent's house. That she is a left wing activist really doesn't help lessen the appearance that this is all a political ploy.
    I'm tired of unproven and unprovable sexual claims being used to ruin people's lives. It seems like far too often the accusations are done maliciously and that the accuser never faces justice for the attempt.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    The judge decided in favor of her parents, in a pro-forma proceeding. There isn't any angle regarding her parents' house.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Right now, no one can say for sure that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford at a house party 35 years ago. But neither should anyone be certain it didn't happen.

    Every man for all time has potentially sexually assaulted a woman. We just have to debate it over and over to see if unicorns fly out of Soave's butt.

  • Mark Question||

    Why do you bother, LC? Come down the pipeline with me to where people really care about liberty and America.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Where liberty = statist womb management and authoritarian, bigoted immigration policies?

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

  • tgrondo||

    Speaking of "womb management" Rev....Have you paid your child support this month ?

    Or are you a dead beat inseminator ?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kirkland, the troll that volkoh brought.

  • Nardz||

    So... a site transmitted disease.
    An STD, if you will.
    I think we all will

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    If Ford wanted or expected to be taken seriously then she needed to come forward at the start of the hearings, not after they had concluded so her allegations could be taken up in proper course. That Feinstein, who knew about this in July, raised this when she did exposes the real reason behind the "revelation" -- to spin this appointment out until after the November midterms. It is a blatantly political move with nothing at all to with Ms. Ford and should be repudiated as such.

    If the GOP allows this to go forward then all the GOP will prove is that it can and will dance like a spastic marionette at the end of whatever strings whatever Democratic demagogue chooses to pull at any given time. The GOP Senate leadership collectively needs to grow a pair and tell Feinstein and her slimy myrmidons "sorry, but we won't play" and proceed with the vote. Holding hearings cannot possibly produce a result satisfactory to anyone anyway, so why bother.

  • D.D. Driver||

    I sort of agree, which is why I was rather surprised to see all the GOP (including Trump) seemingly eager to hold a hearing on Monday. It leads me to suspect that they know something we don't know (ex. Kavanaugh was studying abroad the summer of his junior year, etc.) It's certainly feels like the dems are getting set-up.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Seem's more likely they just anticipate that she'll (further!) impugn herself by just refusing to answer any questions. One thing is for sure: She's not going to get specific enough under oath to be proven to be lying.

    The capper would be if she took the Fifth under questioning.

    Frankly, if Kavanaugh had been abroad for a year, we'd already know. And it was a two year window anyway. This thing was almost perfectly designed to be unfalsifiable.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Given the history of the GOP's caving in response to blatantly obvious smear tactics, Occam's razor suggests incompetence and cowardice as their primary motivation for making concessions to Democrats in this matter. Both parties are repugnant, but the Democrats are just plain evil--the latest, most ridiculous example being the idiot junior Senator from Hawaii, Maize Hirono.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Alternatively, Ford might reasonably have held off coming forward, in the hope that somehow she could avoid extreme upheaval in her personal life, while relying on the possibility that Kavanaugh would not be confirmed for other reasons. Even if she understood that was a long shot, I think she (or almost anyone similarly situated) can't be faulted for hoping it would come true.

    Coming forward once events had shown her hope was vain is entirely consistent with responsible behavior, if the assault actually took place as described.

  • JoeBlow123||

    We are currently debating an act that possibly occurred 35 years ago when said individuals were teens. No evidence, one persons word against another's.

    What's the point of this?

  • CDRSchafer||

    Because justice will never sleep until the FBI investigates every alleged drunken dry hump ever.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    What's the point of this? To discover whether it really is, as you say, just one person's word against another's.

    Here we are at Reason, after all. Which means we ought to be using critical thinking. I suggest the single most important characteristic of critical thinking is that the person doing it knows where he got his information, and whether the source is adequate for the conclusions offered. Your remark can't pass that test.

    You are in plentiful company, on both sides. And, more generally, that is the point of the OP—that almost everyone speaking with certainty on one side or the other of this controversy can not possibly know, yet, on the basis of critical thinking, what happened. Not enough information has yet come to light. Possibly, that will never happen. But under the circumstances, demands that any process to discover what happened be terminated are not reason, but its opposite.

  • Grifhunter||

    The time for "process" has passed. Stale claims are stale claims, and by any sense of justice and fairness there must be some statute of repose. Who's telling the truth? Its too late to pursue the answer. Period.

    Feinstein's sandbagging the allegation until just before the vote also parallels the principles of precluding evidence when a party is strategically withholds that evidence until the middle of a trial. Such belated disclosure in stricken from consideration in the process of truth finding.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "And, more generally, that is the point of the OP—that almost everyone speaking with certainty on one side or the other of this controversy can not possibly know, yet, on the basis of critical thinking, what happened."

    You cannot "critical think" your way into parsing who is lying when it is one persons word against anothers.

    Furthermore, again, the alleged incident happened when they were teens over three decades ago. It is not relevant and it was not rape or even sexual assault. It sounds like a clumsy attempt at sex which I am fairly certain almost everyone has experienced.

  • Rock Lobster||

    That's a big "if," Kemosabe. Thus far, all four people named and claimed by Ford to have been present have denied not only any recollection of the alleged assault but also any recollection of the alleged gathering at which it allegedly occurred.

    That the allegation and the circumstances in which it allegedly occurred can't be proven or disproven renders it a moot point, unless you don't believe in the presumption of innocence and that the burden of proof resides solely with the accuser.

    That the Democrats only pay lip service to these principles when it is politically convenient for them to do so (Keith Ellison, anyone?) is no surprise. But I'm curious, so please indulge me.

    As a matter of principle, do you believe that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof lies with the accuser?

  • Tom Dial||

    Dr. Blasey raised the issue with Representative Ashoo and Senator Feinstein before July 30, requesting confidentiality. Both Ashoo and Feinstein have served in the congress for a quarter of a century, and certainly knew that any use of the information would certainly result in Blasey's identity becoming public, after which hell would break loose. If they did not tell her, shame on them; if at least one of them did tell her, and she still provided the letter, the request for confidentiality was arguably disingenuous.

    That Senator Feinstein held the letter back for almost six weeks, until the rumors reached the Intercept and were published, is all but incomprehensible except as either seriously wishful thinking or withholding for use as a last resort to abort Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. She should either have destroyed the letter without reading it or arranged to get it into FBI hands by about August 1 to augment Judge Kavanaugh's background review.

  • damikesc||

    That Senator Feinstein held the letter back for almost six weeks, until the rumors reached the Intercept and were published, is all but incomprehensible except as either seriously wishful thinking or withholding for use as a last resort to abort Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. She should either have destroyed the letter without reading it or arranged to get it into FBI hands by about August 1 to augment Judge Kavanaugh's background review.

    We're also supposed to ignore that it was Democrats who "leaked" it. Republicans couldn't have done so. So, can anybody explain how this isn't a smear job?

  • Longtobefree||

    Dr. Ford has been abused by Diane Feinstein, and by the democratic party.
    That much, at least, is true.

    For me to have the slightest belief in this story, DiFi would have to have taken the letter in her hot little hand the first time she read it, and RUN straight to the proper authorities.

    #nother
    #notthistime

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Is it abuse if you willingly sign up for it?

  • HGW xx/7||

    This has nothing to do with standing for women's rights; this is filthy, scorched earth political kabuki! If anything, this is only going to make more folks doubt women who are actually abused.

    There isn't time to investigate. The idiot cannot remember any fucking details! The left will see to it that Ford attends some mystic, incense-drenched retreat for six months. You know, she's gonna need time to recall those "memories".

    You are a fucking fool, Soave, if you think otherwise. Fuck the Left, every one of those soulless mongoloids.

  • Mark Question||

    This is why libertarianism is stupid. It insists that these awful people have "rights"

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Says the guy whose political aspirations rely on maintaining an electoral coalition of bigots, half-educated yahoos, and superstitious goobers in a country whose electorate becomes less religious, less white, less rural, less backward, and less bigoted every day.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You forgot less vaccinated.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Rights for these people who will slit our throats en masses when they finally get the opportunity. They are ultimately like Terminators. They cannot be bargained or reasoned with. You have tod estrous them before they do the same to you.

  • Mongo||

    Kavanaugh supporters are bringing up the hypocrisy of the accusations against Keith Ellison but grabbing your unwanted ex-gf and throwing her off of your bed while yelling at her is hardly abuse.

  • JesseAz||

    Her contemporary medical and psych notes paint a different picture.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The FBI should also conduct an expedited investigation.

    Are the agents who investigated Hillary Clinton still available?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Robby, I think you meant that MoveOn.org was founded in 1998, not 1988.

  • Robby Soave||

    Thanks.

  • JesseAz||

    This is the one comment you respond to?

  • MasterThief||

    On the positive end, it does mean he's looking at the comments and has no excuse for not being aware how terrible his coverage is.

  • Bearded Spock||

    To be fair, I doubt Robby has either the time or the desire to spend several hours in a flame war on the H&R comments section.

    There's a real world outside of the internet. I've seen it, and it's amazing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or his time is spent on option C, his hair.

  • JesseAz||

    Yes.. the legendary d.c. cocktail circuit.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Especially the cocktail parties.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"Believe the victims"

    when I see victims.

  • In Time Of War||

    As the greatest living American once said, "What difference at this point does it make?"

  • DiegoF||

    It seems awful egomaniacal to think Soave sets out to troll the readership. But come on.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Sometimes I wonder that too. These are the kind of articles that generate hundreds of incredulous comments, which in terms of web traffic is probably catnip for the Reason advertisers.

  • Cathy L||

    Something tells me the sockpuppets aren't clicking and buying much.

  • BYODB||

    Not on purpose, they aren't. The fact that if you click somewhere you don't necessarily know what you're clicking on with this awful web design probably means there are lots of inadvertent clicks.

  • TuIpa||

    "Cathy L|9.20.18 @ 6:07PM|#

    Something tells me the sockpuppets aren't clicking and buying much"

    So you're saying you aren't clicking and buying much.

  • Ryan Frank||

    "Leftist partisans say he's guilty, conservative partisans are convinced he's innocent. How convenient."

    Fuck you.

    I'm convinced he's innocent because he hasn't been accused of anything that can be proven using ANY standard of evidence other than "Always believe women not matter what"

    There is no time or place given for the assault. No supporting witnesses are provided.

  • Mark Question||

    Always believe the conservative partisans. Come down the pipeline.

  • damikesc||

    Funny that all of her lawyers are Democrat activists, ain't it?

    Isn't the utter lack of any history of him doing this kinda indicate there is a problem?

    How many jackasses in high school don't have similar jackass stories in college and adult life? Are we to believe that this attempted rape was a one-off event --- that he never got caught or punished for, but still utterly changed his life anyway?

    Clinton didn't treat ONE woman like shit. He did it to many.
    Most philanderers do that.

    How many attempt to rape one woman ONLY and then completely change, 100%, with no punishment whatsoever?

    It defies logic.

  • Mark Question||

    What defies logic is the idea that his potentially raping a left winger in the past is any kind of disparagement on his character.

    Hell, if it's true, I think I like him even better. Anyone who creates lefty tears is a hero in my books.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I prefer my progtards face down, in a landfill.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "Always believe women ACCUSING Republicans/Conservatives no matter what". Don't believe women accusing Democrats.

    fify

  • Tom Dial||

    Al Franken, and possibly quite a few others, might take exception to this formulation.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    DeSanctis warned that Prager's excuse making for Kavanaugh is "destructive to the conservative movement." It certainly lends credence to the left's contention that conservatives don't take violence against women seriously.


    The #MeToo and #MeThree movement showed that the left only cares about violence against women when the alleged violence creates the perfect political battering ram to attack rivals with or to engage in hypocritical virtual-signaling when the accusations and evidence against "one of their own" accumulate to the point that ignoring it makes them look ridiculous. The left didn't care when the alleged attacker was Bill Clinton, for instance.

  • Mark Question||

    Shut up, progtard. You don't get to advance the left wing agenda of Mexican conquest of fine decent white people then pretend you care about stopping them.

    If you did, you'd be right here with me, singing Freedom is Slavery.

  • Libertymike||

    He's not a progtard.

  • Mark Question||

    He doesn't want there to be any restrictions on brown people invading our country to set up the Marxist Utopia. Sounds pretty progtard to me.

  • Libertymike||

    He's against the state imposing such restrictions.

    He would not seek to prevent you from keeping brown and black trespassing on your property.

  • Mark Question||

    How do I keep the brown and black people away if the patriotic state doesn't do it for me?

    I mean this question very, very seriously.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    You have every right to keep whomever you want off your property. So the solution is for you to accumulate enough money to buy all the land in the United States.

    You're welcome. Now shut the fuck up.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's yet another parody-sock.

    Or one of the old ones trying a new tack.

  • Shirley Knott||

    It's interesting to see some of the entries in the accuser's yearbooks across the vague time in question.
    That these were hastily scrubbed from the web seems highly questionable if not outright suspicious.

  • ||

    Somewhere I heard she deleted a lot of social media stuff right before coming forward, too, but I have no idea how credible that is.

  • BYODB||

    Easy enough to determine since Google keeps copies of pretty much the entire internet, but yeah it would be more effort than I would care to go through.

  • ||

    it would be more effort than I would care to go through

    That's sorta my issue, too.

  • Cathy L||

    Google doesn't keep copies of Facebook posts.

  • BYODB||

    Couldn't say for sure since I've never had occasion to try, but they keep archive snapshots of most websites. Even websites that are dead and gone are still able to be found as they were on this or that date.

  • Cathy L||

    Facebook is called a "walled garden" for a reason.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And what do they call you?

  • BYODB||

    Just because something is a walled garden doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't archived somewhere, but it could very well be somewhere only Facebook itself could reach.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Or the FBI?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They don't keep snapshots if your robots.txt file says not to. Probably the NSA could produce her social media posts, but not Google.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

  • Luxferia||

    Somewhere I heard she deleted a lot of social media stuff right before coming forward, too, but I have no idea how credible that is.

    A quick Google search uncovered these examples. They're not great, but frankly I didn't want to dive too deep into it. There are a zillion reports like this. See, e.g.,

    "Meanwhile, the determined-to-remain-anonymous Ford came very publicly forward, after scrubbing her social-media accounts and retaining Debra Katz, a notoriously partisan Democratic lawyer."

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ brett-kavanaugh-democrat- accusations-not-enough-evidence/

    "Christine Blasey Ford's social media accounts have all been taken down. But according to her archived LinkedIn page, she got her PhD in educational psychology at USC 20 years ago.

    https://abc7news.com/politics/ christine-blasey-ford-has- deep-roots-in-palo-alto-area/4269764/

    Forgive the extra spaces: Reason is screaming at me that I used words that are too long. And I'm sure not using Bitly.

  • DenverJ||

    How to make a link.

  • Luxferia||

    That's odd. They didn't preview properly when I tried that. I figured it was the squirrels. Mea culpa.

    Reason no. 4,230,318 why we need an edit feature.

  • DenverJ||

    If we had an edit feature, certain posters amongst us would go back and change what they said when called out on it.
    The html is very picky: no extra spaces allowed, you must close it, etc. But once you get the hang is not so bad. I did the above link on my phone.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Formatting in preview including link highlighting doesn't work. Hover over where the link should be and you'll see that it's there.

  • Luxferia||

    Formatting in preview including link highlighting doesn't work. Hover over where the link should be and you'll see that it's there.

    Serves me right for generally lurking here for, oh, eight years and almost never posting—I had no idea preview worked that way.

  • DenverJ||

    It must depend on browser; or speed just fine in Chrome.

  • DenverJ||

    Stupid phone *it works just fine in Chrome

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, I get the same issue on Firefox and Brave, the latter is the same render code as Chrome. Again, this is only during the preview. The final post looks correct.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "From 'Believe All Victims' to 'Who Cares If It's True,' the Brett Kavanaugh Accusation Has Produced Shameful Certainty"

    If anything is shameful, it's the idea that minors should be disqualified from public office 35 years from now for something they did today.

  • Cathy L||

    If he did it 35 years ago, he's lying about it to the public today.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    That's true. If he did it. And lying about should be an issue. But we don't know if it's true. Trying to find out is the problem. If it was true, why not bring it up when he was being appointed as a federal judge? Why is it only important for a SCOTUS appointment?

  • Cathy L||

    I don't know. Blasey Ford should testify to explain that.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    She should. Without trying to make some stupid demand that need be investigated first.

    But he said vs she said, doesn't bring us closer to the truth.

  • Libertymike||

    The vote should have already been taken.

    She is not entitled to be heard.

  • Mark Question||

    No leftist is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Not remembering something that happened during a drunken party 35 years ago is not necessarily lying.

    And because there is no way to substantiate the allegation, there is no way to substantiate whether he's lying.

    I'll give you two points, anyway, for conceding that disqualifying someone from public office because of what he or she did 35 years ago when they were minors is ludicrous.

  • Mark Question||

    Progtard.

    You've just outed yourself as a closet leftist for even hinting that she could be telling the truth.

    And people wonder why I despise libertarianism.

  • Libertymike||

    Mark, wait.

    Not all libertarians think that Dr. Ford is entitled to be heard.," as we recognize that she doesn't.

    Do I think that she is telling the truth? Fuck, no.

  • Mark Question||

    See that's your whole problem right there, why you need to ditch this stupid tent. Let's do a thought experiment here.

    Let's say she could somehow substantiate her claims.

    What's the proper response?

    A libertarian would say "well, maybe he doesn't deserve the nomination."

    You justify your position based on the improbability of her telling the truth. I am here to say, it doesn't matter if she's telling the truth or not. Her efforts help the left and hinder the righteous. Reason enough for her to be silenced and ignored.

    A right thinking, sensible patriot would say "It doesn't matter if it's true. He could have raped her and beaten her skull in, he's still more then qualified for the job." She's a leftist, she deserves it, he's an enemy of the left, which makes him a friend to America and Americans (real ones, anyway).

    Libertarians need to give up on this stupid idea that anything bad can and does come from the far right.

  • perlchpr||

    This is the troll that LeaveTrumpAlone-atarian wishes he could be.

  • ||

    Dammit - I should have refreshed.

    But your sense of humor is genius.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    That's what I was thinking-an excellent right-wing troll. Except he doesn't pretend to be a right-leaning libertarian but a pure right-winger, so he's kind of out place here.

    I'm honestly torn as there's just enough substance to believe he might be real, but his insistence on calling literally everyone a progtard seems false.

  • ThomasD||

    He's better than LTAL, but that's not saying much.

    OBL actually fools people sometimes.

    I'll be surprised if MQ ever does.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was thinking this exact thing. This guy is the alt-right version of OBL. He can parody the mentality because he gets it.

  • Nardz||

    Bingo

  • JoeBlow123||

    I think he's a troll also. Not a supe good one.

  • ||

    Message to "LeaveTrumpAlone-atarian:" ^^ this is how it's done.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You think he's GOOD at this?

    THIS is the 'ggod' you wanted from Bizarro OBL?

    Bizarro OBL just sounded like a tard trying to be clever.

    Mark sounds like the right-winger from lefty fever dreams.

    OBL sounds like a standard lefty when it's on it's game.

  • Cathy L||

    Lol

  • TuIpa||

    That's probably the smartest thing you ever said, odd that it comes out when someone shuts you the fuck up like he did.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You've just outed yourself as a closet leftist for even hinting that she could be telling the truth."

    Are you so dumb, you can't even follow a simple conversation?

    I wasn't suggesting that Ford might be telling the truth.

    I was saying that Kavanaugh isn't necessarily lying if he can't remember something that happened 35 years ago.

    The argument that Kavanaugh could be disqualified for lying is specious because not remembering a drunken something from 35 years ago isn't necessarily lying--even IF IF IF it actually happened.

    All this means is that whether it happened doesn't really matter.

    If you're one of these people who thinks that you have to pretend that it couldn't have happened in order for the Kavanaugh confirmation to go forward, then that's a different kind of stupid. The fact is that the confirmation should go forward--regardless of whether it actually happened--because making people ineligible for public office because of what they did as minors 35 years ago is absurd. And that's in addition to the fact that substantiating this charge is impossible--since by the victim's own admission, she told no one about it for 30 years.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's the same kind of stupid that thinks, for instance, that you'll only support gun rights if higher gun ownership isn't correlated with higher rates of violent crime. If that's the only reason you support the Second Amendment, you're a phony gun rights advocate. I'd support the Second Amendment even IF IF IF gun ownership were correlated with higher rates of violent crime. And what will the shitheads who hang their hats on that do if the statistics change? Listen to the gun grabbers laugh at them while they play back all the stupid shit you said about the statistics?

    If you're somebody who can't be persuaded by facts and logic, then you're a drag on whatever cause you're supporting. No, because I don't want SJWs shutting down civil society just by making an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it never could have happened--certainly not if assuming it did happen helps show why the confirmation should go forward regardless of whether it happened.

    I still haven't seen a feminist or progressives clearly explain why what children do today should disqualify them from public office 35 years from now. It's the assumption underlying the whole thing, and they can't justify it. I guess they can count on some conservative imbecile who's proud of being invulnerable to facts or logic to come along and take the pressure off of them having to explain themselves. How's it feel to be so dependable?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I was at so many drunken parties in high school that there is no way I can remember everything about all of them.

  • Cathy L||

    If he doesn't remember, he should know better than to give a categorical denial.

  • TuIpa||

    That's a stupid thing to say, but par for the course for you.

    Slightly less stupid Cathy - "He should know he doesn't remember something herp derp"

  • Ken Shultz||

    Unless he honestly doesn't remember something that happened while he was drunk 35 years ago.

    You're not going to be able to prove perjury based on that "lying" you're talking about.

    The fact is that disqualifying him from public office because of something that happened when he was a minor 35 years ago is absurd.

    Your suggestion that he's somehow ineligible to be a Supreme Court justice if he doesn't remember something that happened when he was drunk 35 years ago--because that's lying--is likewise absurd.

    That's not the way logic works. Things don't become what you want them to be just because that's what you want them to be. That's not reason. That's not logic. That's not the real world. That's magical thinking, Harry Potter.

    Expecto Patronum!

  • Ben_||

    But there's no way to find out what happened back then, so there's no way to find out if he's lying now.

    Ancient history high school he said/she said about something where, even if there was video you might have trouble proving was a crime and not just teenagers goofing around, is about as ridiculous as it gets.

  • BadLib||

    ...IF he also remembers it. Ford asserts that both Judge and Kavanaugh were very drunk so it's possible that Kavanaugh was there but doesn't remember it. It's not lying if you say something that is incorrect but that you believe to be true.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Based on the yearbook, more likely Ford was so drunk SHE doesn't remember who assaulted her. Which would explain why she didn't say who during the marriage counseling. She just "remembered" who when it became politically useful.

  • Cathy L||

    Man you guys are predictable.

  • HGW xx/7||

    "Man"? A woman can be predictable, too, you backwater bigot

  • Cathy L||

    You should have complained about me saying "you guys," since "man" was only an interjection.

  • HGW xx/7||

    True, though "guys" has taken on a more genderless term for a group of people.

    I bet you find that offensive, huh?

  • Cathy L||

    You bet wrong.

  • HGW xx/7||

    I don't believe you. I demand an FBI investigation.

    Fortunately, I actually know the time and date. And I won't wait 35+ years to report you for gaslighting me.

  • DiegoF||

    3 0 9 1 9 2 5 1 2 6 8 8 6 8 9 2 8 2 3 6 5 4 0 5 3 5 5 1 7 3 5 4 9 9 6 7 9 5 7 5 8 4 4 0 0 6 6 2 8 5 3 6 9 8 3 9 3 4 1 5 8 2 0 0 6 8 5 6 6 1 8 2 2 2 5 7 6 2 8 8 2 1 3 1 6 5 1 1 3 7 9 1 5 8 3 7 9 5 9 2 6 2 4 1 1 2 8 4 9 9 8 4 0 8 4 6 1 9 9 9 6 2 0 5 4 3 4 9 1 2 9 0 0 5 9 2 1 2 6 0 5 1 1 3 2 2 4 0 2 1 2 6 8 3 3 0 7 1 9 8 9 4 4 5 2 9 2 7 9 5 2 9 8 6 7 4 6 1 9 5 1 7 1 0 2 9 6 0 4 4 2 7 3 1 6 8 6 1 1 0 1 3 8 6 9 3 7 4 0 9 4 6 0 4 8 8 9 6 4 9 2 7 3 6 7 9 1 5 4 6 3 9 8 3 1 6 4 2 1 7 5 4 0 7 1 9 4 0 4 1 6 3 0 2 4 3 6 8 1 0 2 8 5 6 1 4 6 8 1 4 3 7 9 2 7 8 6 0 0 7 9 2 4 6 3 2 7 6 7 0 6 1 9 1 4 5 9 8 6 1 1 7 7 8 8 7 6 8 5 0 0 2 7 0 5 4 7 9 6 7 0 3 9 8 4 8 2 1 3 6 3 9 4 6 6 3 4 0 2 1 3 4 8 7 2 8 3 7 0 9 4 5 8 1 6 7 3 5 9 2 3 7 4 1 4 3 8 6 2 8 1 1 6 2 3 8 2 6 2 7 7 1 4 5 7 7 2 2 3 5 8 2 8 8 0 8 7 2 4 3 5 5 3 7 1 6 7 3 0 4 8 8 8 8 0 6 8 3 6 8 6 8 1 5 3 6 4 9 4 1 0 8 5 2 2 3 4 9 6 9 1 5 4 4 4 2 5 8 6 1 8 1 3 4 8 7 1 4 0 8 6 4 6 4 5 5 0 1 7 7 1 4 1 7 7 8 0 1 2 4 5 8 7 7 1 8 0 0 3 1 2 1 9 6 0 8 4 4 9 8 3 7 1 5 7 2 2 1 4 2 4 1 0 6 8 5 3 4 6 8 1 8 0 3 9 1 8 0 2 6 6 3 1 5 1 7 9 6 0 5 9 6 1 5 7 8 0 2 1 8 7 4 5 8 3 2 5 1 8 8 1 5 3 0 0 3 6 3 2 4 1 1 0 6 6 3 7 5 8 3 8 6 3 6 3 4 5 7 4 5 3 8 0 5 1 9 8 1 3 5 9 7 3 9 6 1 1 8 4 4 5 2 1 0 1 3 6 5 5 5 7 8 1 4 5 3 7 4 3 2 6 7 3 0 9 0 1 4 4 5 9 8 6 5 0 1 4 3 1 6 4 5 5 5 2 9 0 4 2 8 3 6 9 2 3 2 1 6 0 7 3 5 4 5 7 4 6 5 7 3 9 9 7 3 7 3 6 5 8 8 1 2 4 8 8 8 4 7 2 7 2 8 1 2 4 4 5 3 6 7 3 7 2 7 2 6 4 5 7 8 3 7 6 7 1 6 4 0 5 4 2 0 2 5 8 6 9 7 0 6 0 7 7 1 8 2

  • ||

    Fair enough - I did not see that coming.

  • Ken Shultz||

    42

  • TuIpa||

    That's all the response that stupid fucking sock Cathy deserves.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Am I supposed to see a middle finger or something if I stare at that long enough?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The accuser has the burden of proof. The negative need not be proven.

    Granted, I do not know if it happened or not. But for denying someone anything based off an accusation alone is BS.

    I don't support Kavanaugh. But accusations alone should not hold up his vote. Nor should the benefit of the doubt be given to the accuser.

    Notice how in partisan politics, those accusing the other team should be treated with the benefit of the doubt, but when your team is accused, that benefit should not exist.

  • Tony||

    Kavanaugh is also an accuser though. He's accusing her of lying, and hence of participating in a conspiracy to kill his nomination.

  • ||

    Kavanaugh is also an accuser though. He's accusing her of lying

    Did he "accuse her of lying" before or after she accused him of sexual assault?

  • Tony||

    Didn't realize there was a "You started it!" clause to the burden of proof on an accusation of wrongdoing against someone.

  • ||

    Didn't realize there was a "You started it!" clause to the burden of proof on an accusation of wrongdoing against someone.

    That's because you're an ignoramus and a self-admitted unprincipled partisan.

    If I accuse you of being a child molester, the burden of proof is on me. It is not the case that we go "oh, well Tony said that's not true, so therefore both of these people are just hurling accusations. We'd better make Tony prove his accusation that the other guy is lying, because justice."

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    His comment shows he has no concept of how the burden of proof works.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    His comment shows he has no concept of how the burden of proof works.

  • Tony||

    What if I said "You're a liar!" first?

    And again for the record, I am partisan because I have principles, unlike you people.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Did he say she was lying. Or did he deny it and therefore you think he's accusing her of lying?

    Would you even understand the difference?

  • Luxferia||

    This.

  • MasterThief||

    Not to side with Tony, but a denial of someone else's claim is tangentially an accusation that the person is lying. Of course I agree that there is the difference that one is a personal slight while the other is a dispute over facts. It is possible that she isn't "lying" even if her story isn't true if she believes it to be true. I doubt her claims are true, but I'll accept some aspects may be true and/or that she believes them to be so. That's about as charitable as I can be with what has been presented so far.

  • Luxferia||

    It is possible that she isn't "lying" even if her story isn't true if she believes it to be true.

    That's the whole point of the distinction.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Do you think a disagreement equals an accusation? I don't.

    To deny is to disagree. It's not an accusation of anything. Now if in the disagreement I said you were lying, then that's an accusation.

  • Brian||

    It's somewhat telling when you just can't accept the English language to mean what it means.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You idiot, asserting your innocence isn't an "accusation" in any normal sense.

  • Tony||

    But it doesn't stop the trial does it?

  • D.D. Driver||

    "It takes two people to lie. One to lie, and one to listen."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm not sure it's much of a conspiracy when every Democratic senator and pundit wants to kill his nomination.

  • damikesc||

    Kavanaugh is also an accuser though. He's accusing her of lying, and hence of participating in a conspiracy to kill his nomination.
  • damikesc||

    Tony, he didn't comment on her one way or the other. He discussed himself. He didn't do any of this.

    Who gives a fuck what the bitch thinks?

  • SteveMG||

    When did he accuse her of lying? That's not a gotcha; that's a question.

    Denying that he assaulted her is not calling her a liar.

  • Luxferia||

    To my knowledge he never has. And it would be stupid for him to make such a charge.

  • JesseAz||

    Kavanaugh didnt say she was lying fucktards. He was actually very civil and said she may be mistaking him for someone else.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Bill Buckley had a parable: A man pushes an old lady in front of a bus. Another man pushes an old lady out of the path of a bus. It does not do to say both men are the sort of people who push around old ladies.

    A false equivalency is false.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    That's some of the most dense shit I've seen from you, and you've been really fucking dense on this entire topic.

  • BadLib||

    I don't recall any time that Kavanaugh accused Ford of lying. Do you have a cite for that?

    It's quite different to truthfully state your recollections when those recollections differ from those of another party than to say the other person is lying.

    I, for example, have at least one example in my life of an (fortunately noncontroversial) event that I was sure happened and I would have sworn under oath that it did. Another party involved in the event might have sworn that the event didn't happen the way I recalled it. My stating my belief is not saying the other person is lying. Indeed, it turns out the event couldn't have happened the way I recall it (because as I recalled the event, it included a reference to something that simply didn't exist until years after the event happened). I would not have been lying if, before years later discovering my memory had to be wrong, I stated my memory of the event as factual. (Similar events certainly happened -- I think what may have happened is that I had a dream that twisted one of the similar events into a very believable additional instance that never happened and that dream didn't get "pruned" upon awaking, in part because it was very credible and not obviously weird in any way).

    It is possible, for example, that Ford has done much what I did with the event that I remembered incorrectly and neither party is lying.

  • DarrenM||

    So, you are accusing Kavanaugh of accusing Ford of lying?

  • Mister Bear||

    > Ford's accusation is unproven

    What site do you write for? Reason? Okay, great, so let's apply some Reason.

    The accusations are unproven. There's no evidence.

    Could it have happened? Sure. But since we cannot say that it did - it is unproven, remember, and we have zero evidence - then discounting the story is the Reason-able thing to do.

    I don't understand what has happened to Reason the past few years. So many of the articles being posted seem to run contrary to what Libertarianism is all about.

  • Cathy L||

    A+ concern trolling, would read again

  • TuIpa||

    Cry more.

  • Mark Question||

    No, the problem is that they ARE consistent with libertarianism, a self-defeating, wimpy, amoral, doublethinking belief system that has the intellectually vapidness to assert that people deserve freedom for simply existing.

    They are so hung up on opposing the state no matter what that when the state actually passes in the hands of people who have the common sense to care more about what's right for America then "freedom" or "liberty" or "prosperity (a buzz word for decadence, really), they lose all sight of the greater good and become stooges for the Marxists who despise them.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I don't understand what has happened to Reason the past few years.

    Unfortunately, it has been hijacked by a bunch of dishonest left-wing assholes.

  • BYODB||

    Robby is so close to that job at WaPo that he can almost taste it. Or maybe that's just the fruit sushi.

  • Cathy L||

    How close are you to Trump's ass?

  • Tony||

    Have you see that ass? We're all in danger of entering its orbit.

  • Cathy L||

    It's tremendous!

  • SusanM||

    It's YUGE!

  • BYODB||

    Amusingly, I'm capable of mentioning when I think Trump does something immensely stupid vs. when he does something actually good yet somehow my willingness to examine issues on a case by case basis is considered partisanship these days.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    More enlightened argumentation from Cathy-I-like-'em-young L.

  • Cathy L||

    Yawn.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you prefer them napping? Well that helps narrow the range down.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Not really. That could mean that she likes them really, really young or really, really old.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But she already admitted to a preference for the left side of the curve.

  • Tony||

    Fruit sushi, whatever that is, sounds like a waste of the word sushi.

  • DiegoF||

    What, you're telling me you prefer the fish kind?

  • Tony||

    I can see where you might find this situation ironic.

  • JesseAz||

    Sushi refers to the rice... Not the fish.

  • Tony||

    Nobody likes a nerd.

  • rsteinmetz||

    Seems to me if you want to investigate an allegation the first step is to talk to the person making the allegation to see if there is additional information that can be checked then allow the accused to respond.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Exactly.

    The first step is to interview the complainant. But as soon as the FBI would start doing that, you would hear cries about why is she being investigated.

  • Juice||

    scroll scroll scroll

    tldr

  • Tony||

    They should really get one of the non-Robby, non-Shikha writers to say this so they're not dismissed out of hand by everyone. Or do the commenters like any of the writers at all?

  • ||

    Or do the commenters like any of the writers at all?

    The problem is that it's like kryptonite. Anybody who would take Robby's position lacks a certain amount of scruples and the writers Reason employs who have them aren't interested in making it look like they don't.

    You think Bailey or Tuccille is going to risk their objective reporting bona fides in their unrelated areas of coverage for an issue like this?

  • Cathy L||

    Lol, yes, the guy saying no one knows what happened and we can't be certain is the one who lacks scruples. Definitely.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We don't know that Cathy L isn't a pederast. It's just unproven at this stage, along with her scruples.

  • TuIpa||

    No, I think that fucking clown Cathy has already demonstrated her "cool to fuck kids" scruples repeatedly.

  • Tony||

    Brett Kavanaugh tried to fuck a kid. You probably think he's a pussy for not succeeding, right?

    Oh no, he has an (R) after his name, you think he belongs on the supreme court.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Goebbels would be proud. You're such a good pupil.

  • DarrenM||

    Kavanaugh was 17 at the time of the alleged incident, so he was also a "kid", but I suppose it's more convenient to ignore that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That Shackford bloke is ok, despite his sexual leanings.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Er, about that:

    I will say, though, that the insistence by some that the warrant didn't have enough to justify surveillance suggests that certain Trump supporters will settle for nothing less than a full smoking gun, which would make the need for surveillance unnecessary in the first place. This was a hunt for evidence based on probable cause, not a full indictment. That there's uncertainty in the warrant doesn't invalidate it and it doesn't necessarily tag it as a "fishing expedition." The warrant is for the purpose of finding out whether Page was violating the law in the scope of his relationships with Russia. If it turns out he was not, that doesn't actually mean the warrant was bad or politically motivated. Sometimes investigations show that people are innocent.
  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Honestly, I like everyone but Suderman.

  • Tony||

    I think Gillespie is in a spiral of insanity, and while I like Bailey he definitely is a propagandist against scientific fact, which is the worst crime imaginable in my book, but he did stop publishing that ridiculous Christie-Spencer crap as if it were the only climate change science in the world. Now we just get no climate change reporting, so I'm not sure what's worse. If I talk about Robby I'll either stroke an ego or something else. Dalmia is doing yeoman's work reminding you idiots what freedom is vis a vis brown people. Is Welch still here or is he in prison for trying to strangle Stephanie Ruhle for mispronouncing his name?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Tony-it's-science-because-they-voted thinks he understands science.

  • Tony||

    But that's not how science works and I understand that. If only someone as talented as Goebbels had been the one to poison your reasoning abilities.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No you don't. You literally think that science works by majority rule. You literally believe that authority makes it correct. That is your entire justification for CAGW.

    But keep telling the big lie, Tony. Do you like the dressing up too?

  • Tony||

    You're beclowning yourself, peasant. Just read Wikipedia if you want to be lightly educated on the subject. Or is Wikipedia part of the conspiracy? Do tell.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    HAHAHAHAHA. You think citing Wikipedia does anything but prove what I said about you?

    Be honest, Tony, how many volcanoes did you build for your science fairs?

  • Roger Knights||

    "Or is Wikipedia part of the conspiracy? "

    Yes. A Green crusader named ___ (William?) Connolly has made over 5000 edits to ensure that Wikipedia's text follows the consensus line, and he has dozens of others like him who do the same. Appeals are rejected by boards consisting of other greenies. (Although Connolly get temporarily blocked from being active on the climate topic for about a year because of his egregious violations of Wikipedia policies.)

  • Roger Knights||

    PS: "Appeals are rejected by boards consisting of other greenies." Other reasons for rejections are that complainants aren't deeply leaned in Wikipedia's procedures and policies, that way the entrenched green mind guards are, so they lose cases based on technicalities, or they get worn down by reading up on them (they aren't all in one place—not nearly—and by the number and biliousness of opposing commenters.

  • DiegoF||

    There may be some gray areas where you might think, well if Stossel said something like this they might give him a bit more benefit of the doubt, but for the usual villains the HnRers immediately pile on.

    But this is not one of those cases. It's not the messenger here; this is a clear case where the message is more than enough to get smoke coming out of the commentariat's ears. Whether you happen to think that is bullshit or not, is a different issue.

    Commenters might save their deepest, if not always their loudest, contempt of all for the man they consider the leather-jacket-clad Fagin to this band of young contemptibles. But when he unexpectedly delivered the right message on one recent occasion out of the blue, they duly piled on the zealous (if rather shocked) praise. And again, think of their message preferences what you will.

  • MasterThief||

    Exactly this. I think most of the commentariat was absolutely shocked by that Gillespie article. He hit pretty much all the right notes and any bitching was on the perimeters. It's the constant pushing of left wing narratives by most writers here that really bugs commenters. Robby, Shikha, and Chapman are probably the worst examples but they are certainly not the only ones who push the Democrat party narrative 95+% of the time. I'll give Robby that he is a bit more subtle, but after reading enough of his articles there is a pattern that his equivocating and preferences are reliably in favor of the left.

  • Tony||

    I don't know why I am the one who has to explain this to you, but libertarianism is not the same thing as jerking off to everything every Republican ever does no matter what amen.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    What should libertarians jerk off to?

  • Tony||

    Delusions of grandeur?

  • JesseAz||

    Idiotic arguments always get dismissed quickly. See responses to your posts.

  • chipper me timbers||

    For god's sake Robby.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The BIG unanswered question still lingers which is "OK, AND THEN WHAT?"

    Ok, so she testifies. And then what?
    So he testifies. And then what?
    So she testifies and her story is found to be credible. And then what?
    So he testifies and his story is found to be credible as well. And then what?
    So witnesses testify before the Judiciary Committee. And then what?

    What is it that is supposed to happen? Let's assume Kavanaugh's candidacy is removed. And then what?
    Let's assume Kavanaugh's candidacy is NOT removed. And then what?

    Don't anyone see that the end result is the same? whether they like it or not, DJT will place a conservative (or a reasonable facsimile) in the empty SCOTUS seat. That's inevitable.

    People are criticizing Feinstein for 'releasing' the name too late in the game but what if she was asking the same questions - AND THEN WHAT?

    In the end, two people's lives are forever changed for no good reason whatsoever: Ford's and Kavanaugh's. Perhaps Ford will suffer the most. I hope she can afford further therapy lessons.

  • Cathy L||

    And then each senator can decide whether they believe the accusation to whatever degree necessary to vote to confirm or otherwise.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Cathy, I'm not expert on politics, but I believe every senator decided three months ago.

  • BYODB||

    We're supposed to ignore the clown show that was on full display before Democrats suddenly remembered they had a 'credible sexual assault allegation' that they must have accidentally forgotten about for months under their hat.

    If anyone is a villain in this story, and I mean in a 'for sure' kind of way, it's Diane Feinstein. That's true regardless of who is lying between Ford and Kavanaugh.

  • SteveMG||

    No, I think some red state Democrats - Manchin, for example - were undecided. And I think the Ford claims caused Flake and Corker to reconsider. If Ford comes out very credibly and Kavanaugh stumbles I can see Flake and Corker voting against him.

    Sure, that's maybe three or four out of 100.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah I was disappointed by the Kavanaugh nomination. I don't see a whole lot for libertarians to like in this guy except possibly his record on the 2nd amendment. He's a swamp dweller and I have no problem imagining rich prep school boys being total assholes. But despite Reason's continuing assertions, I see nothing credible about this accusation. Not a shred of evidence has been presented other than this woman's claim, some notes by a psychologist that don't provide a name, date or location and a "lie detector" score. Maybe she can find a witch doctor to read chicken entrails and testify in the senate on her behalf as well. And frankly the event described sounds more like a clumsy drunken grope than an assault with intent to commit a violent rape. Millions of women, and men, have lived through similar events but manage to survive into their 50s without obsessing about it because for most people it's inconsequential. I would be happy if Kavanaugh dropped out and Trump went to whoever is next on his list. But this is straightforward character assassination by the Democrats for bald faced political purposes so once again I'm forced to defend a guy I don't even like.

  • chipper me timbers||

    Absolutely correct assessment. Kavanaugh is crap, and so is this accusation against him.

  • Mark Question||

    Progtard.

    You just outed yourself as a closet leftist by suggesting Trump's choice is anything less then the best available for the job.

  • Libertymike||

    No, if one does not understand that an Ivy pedigree plus a lifetime of feeding at the public trough is textbook swamp, one must be a progtard cuck.

  • ||

    I would be happy if Kavanaugh dropped out and Trump went to whoever is next on his list.

    There is a danger here, though, that I don't think the Democrats are thinking about, which is that this whole spectacle may well create a notion that if even a milquetoast right-of-center guy like Kavanaugh is getting this treatment, why not find some actual right-wing extremist?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I believe we've been through this before and this kind of politics is mostly checkers, not chess. Burn the piece immediately in front of you, worry about what's down-board later.

  • ||

    Indeed.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    It would be deliciously ironic if the D abortion orgasm if they derail K is followed by getting Barrett instead, That'd be a real boner killer for the progs.

  • Libertymike||

    Viewed through the lens of whether, and to what extent, a particular person is a swamp creature, has been a swamp creature, has been his whole adult life, and would not ever, ever want to leave the swamp, "milquetoast" is not the word that comes to mind in describing judge K.

    Ivey pedigree + clerk for federal court + most, if not all, of adult life, feeding at the public trough = swamp creature. Throw in a life in D.C. = Super Swamp Creature.

  • ||

    How about "Establishment."

  • Libertymike||

    Swamp is more accurate, appropriate, illustrative, precise, and timely.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I hadn't heard the term before the Age Of Trump but I think it's pretty apt. But then he goes and nominates this guy. Go figure.

  • ||

    Swamp is more accurate, appropriate, illustrative, precise, and timely.

    Fair enough. My main point is just that the Dems are likely misguided if they think the next nominee is going to be someone they'll like better.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, of course, your main point is really unassailable.

    As for the swamp, not everyone will agree with me that the Ivy pedigree adds to the profile, but, I think it is simply irrefutable that it does.

  • Mark Question||

    If Trump likes him, how can he be a swamp creature?

    Check and mate.

  • ||

    not everyone will agree with me that the Ivy pedigree adds to the profile

    Oh, I completely agree that it does.

  • Ron||

    I don't want Kavanaugh to drop out unless truly found guilty otherwise at this stage it would only embolden the left and as many have said everyone has had their hand slapped before so no one is guiltless there is always someone in everyones past and its not hard to find a person who could would things wether it happened or not just like the Duke woman and mattress girl etc.

  • Mark Question||

    Why is an actual right wing extremist any kind of a danger? We need more of those fine people in office.

    Stupid libertarians.

  • newshutz||

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I laughed out loud. Helluva cross to bear.

  • ||

    I'm bookmarking that.

  • BYODB||

    Jesus Christ, this is how I feel every day. Thanks for that you beautiful bastard.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Fantastic post. Spot on.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A pox on the whole duplex!

  • chipper me timbers||

    I'll give you this: "Who cares if it's true" is the worst response.

    "How could this ever be shown to be true? and in that case, we must dismiss it" is a better response.

    "This is the most obvious bullshit character assassination since Anita Hill" is the most accurate response.

    Also, I think Kavanaugh is a terrible SCOTUS candidate. So bad.

  • Tony||

    I was gonna say, on the other hand, getting through high school with good enough marks to go on to an impressive judicial career while getting fucked up and raping people all the time is sort of impressive by itself. But then that wouldn't have happened if was at a normal school, would it?

    Is that why conservatives are so dumb even when reaching the pinnacles of society? They just get dragged through school without having to make any effort beyond learning to be smug douchecanoes?

  • Cathy L||

    Please, you know most of the trumptards on this thread couldn't afford prep school.

  • Tony||

    None of them are at the pinnacle of anything either.

    Whatever happened to noblesse oblige among the smug douche classes anyway? Did we get rid of that along with the aristocracy during the revolution?

  • Brian||

    Actually, it's understood that Trump voters have relatively higher income than Clinton voters.

    Just sayin'.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Most high school students can't afford prep school. Trumptard or otherwise. Their parents can. So these people are Hiltards? Was that your point?

  • JesseAz||

    It's weird watching Cathy so desperately to get a gay friend.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Is that were you raped little kids, Cathy?

  • damikesc||

    while getting fucked up and raping people all the time

    Funny, there has been zero credible claims of him doing so.

    Meanwhile, ex-girlfriends for decades have said he was a perfect gentleman.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    If you think Kavanaugh is not entitled to the same presumption of innocence that we would typically extend to people facing sexual assault charges, I see your point.

    I'm not sure I do.

    Unless the point is that a Senate confirmation hearing isn't a criminal trial, and therefore the Senators are all well within their rights to presume Kavanaugh is guilty if that's how they want to see it (which I'm sure will correlate closely with what letter is after their name). Maybe that's the point? A little more explanation would have helped there to explain what, exactly, the point of throwing the presumption of innocence out the window is.

  • Tony||

    When did "presumption of innocence" become "there can be no investigation!"?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Turn it over to the police then.

  • HGW xx/7||

    I think they did that. Appearantly, the FBI didn't provide the desired response.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    No that would be the cops in Maryland who actually have jurisdiction if an actual crime is alleged with any supporting evidence and prior to expiration of possible prosecution under their statutes of limitation. Presently no police force has jurisdiction because none of these circumstances exist. The FBI could do a sixth or seventh background check if the senate tells them to.

  • ||

    When did "presumption of innocence" become "there can be no investigation!"?

    Why wasn't the investigation called for two months ago when there was plenty of time?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    By two months ago, did you mean 35 years ago?

  • Tony||

    There's still plenty of time. There's infinite time, in fact. The McConnell Rule.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You misspelled Biden. But you're right, there is infinite time. They can always impeach him in the future if any evidence ever shows up, so why delay the vote now?

  • Tony||

    Why not delay it?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No need. Corrective action can be taken any time in the future. And for the same reason that Democrats needed to nuke the filibuster in order to make sure that the DC circuit had its full complement of judges. Why would you deny the American people their right to a full 9 justices on SCOTUS. After all, you were very, very concerned that only 8 were seated during Garland's nomination.

  • Tony||

    I'm very, very concerned that I can't find a single fucking libertarian to talk to at reason.com.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    For one thing no one's saying that, but by all means continue burning that straw man.

    You can still do an investigation even if you presume the accused is guilty. In a lot of countries and in the military justice system, the burden of proof is on the defense, for example.

    But in our country's civilian court system the burden of proof is on the prosecution. So I'm not sure what the point of turning that on its head in this one case is, unless the point is that a Senate confirmation hearing isn't a criminal trial, and the individual Senators are free to start with whatever presumption they feel like. In which case, OK then. I just wasn't sure what Robbie was trying to say at first glance, but I suspect it's that.

  • AFSlade||

    Sorry to be a pedant, but the burden of proof is NOT on the accused in the military justice system. NOT NOT NOT. That would render the entire system unconstitutional. (Yes, I was a Judge Advocate and practiced and taught in that system for quite some time).

  • TuIpa||

    When did "investigation" become" hold up the vote?"

    Oh, you don't actually care about the truth.

    If he actually did this, he would have to step down even if he were already confirmed. You know this, it's why you don't want to allow the confirmation, because then an ACTUAL investigation can be done, with no concerns for time, and the truth would come out. And you already know it wouldn't go your way.

  • Drig||

    I think Robbie is missing a huge part of the equation here: MOTIVES.

    What are the motivations for each of them to embellish the truth or lie?

    Both are subjecting themselves to making sworn statements, so both would potentially expose themselves to a charge of perjury should they be found to be untruthful.

    But on the other hand, what are the motivations to be less than perfectly honest?

    For Kavanaugh, the answer is obvious - he wishes to sit as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

    For Ford, the answer is more nuanced, but we cannot discount the fact that she is a progressive democrat ardently opposed to the nominee in question and the views he would bring with him to the court.

    Outside of personal animus towards Kavanaugh as a justice, there are also two competing motivations that likely come into play. One is the fear of backlash should she come forward with her accusations. The other is the promise of the praise and adulation from the progressive community attendant the coveted victimhood status of a woman who stands up to a conservative boor and prevails.

    All of this factors into how we are to assess the situation and it would be naive to believe otherwise.

  • chipper me timbers||

    The timing, the obvious motive, and the overall situation make it quite easy to dismiss her accusation.

    You'd have to be out of your mind to take this seriously.

    It's even WORSE than the patent nonsense that took down Senator Franken. At least they had a pic. It was obvious he was just goofing around and somehow that pic from 30 years ago took him down. I can't stand Franken but his takedown was BS.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah the Franken thing was bullshit. Again defending a guy I don't even like.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    That's the way the left rolls now days. Sometimes the torpedoes acquire the wrong target. It's hilarious when it happens because they absolutely don't care about collateral damage. They are really vile people.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It seems to me that Ford was playing a game of gotcha, when she insisted on an FBI investigation ahead of Kavanaugh's testimony on Monday. She may have more witnesses than she's letting on.

    The point of an FBI investigation would be to get Kavanaugh on the record, under oath, and making specific statements that would subject him to a perjury charge. There certainly wasn't any point in the FBI investigating the claim itself from 35 years ago.

    The other likely explanation is that it's all about delay. They hope to make Trump appoint a new nominee under a potentially Democrat controlled senate, and they'd love to turn the midterms into a referendum on rape.

  • BYODB||

    It's already been pointed out that it would be a simple matter for Ford to demand an FBI investigation than simply sign off on it as 'yeah, that's what happened' but needless to say given the lack of any other witnesses she'd have to testify one way or another so that observation is probably wrong.

  • Luxferia||

    The point of an FBI investigation would be to get Kavanaugh on the record, under oath, and making specific statements that would subject him to a perjury charge.

    You are subject to perjury charges by testifying before Congress. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1621. The result is the same. (That's one reason why the demand for an FBI investigation is so obtuse.)

    She may have more witnesses than she's letting on.

    Perhaps, though I think this would be a very dangerous game to play. By her own admission, she spoke to no one about this incident until at least 2012. Procuring witnesses out of the woodwork could potentially blow apart her (already tattered) credibilty. But it would depend on the nature of the witnesses and testimony.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You are subject to perjury charges by testifying before Congress."

    The point is that once Kavanaugh spoke to the FBI on the record, he couldn't contradict what he'd told the FBI when he went to speak before congress. That's why I think she wanted to get him on the record with the FBI via an investigation.

    Like I said, she may have more shoes to drop. Once she sees his testimony to the FBI, she can look for ways to prove anything he said wasn't true. And if she drops some shoes he doesn't know about in the congressional hearings, he won't be able to respond to that unless it's in harmony with everything he's told the FBI during an investigation.

    If he just speaks about it before congress, he can't contradict testimony he gave to the FBI--because there is none.

  • Luxferia||

    I agree with you. I had interpreted your sentence as suggesting that he wouldn't be subject to perjury charges by testifying before Congress, but would be if he testified to the FBI. If the point is to lock him down to a story, then yes, that's absolutely one reason why having a preliminary FBI investigation would benefit her (and him, too, actually, except for the whole delay portion of this circus). Thats why these types of accusations should be tried in courts of law rather than Congressional charades. Discovery works.

    Though, and I'm just riffing here, it seems to me like the FBI would have a tough time constraining Kavanaugh to a particular story when the accusations are so vague. It's not like he can fairly remember where he was on a particular night 36 years ago. It seems like every answer (other than the big ones) would be some flavor of "I don't remember" or "I simply don't know."

    And yeah, Feinstein's tactic is totally one of delay. This conclusion is only supported by Harris's interruption of Grassley in his opening sentence of the committee hearing, and Ford's continuous bait-and-switch tactics on testifying (I will testify -> but it'll have to be later -> on my terms -> after a FBI investigation -> not on the date you demand -> . . . )

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Procuring witnesses out of the woodwork could potentially blow apart her (already tattered) credibilty."

    The point is to delay the confirmation as long as possible to, hopefully, stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed and, from Feinstein's perspective, to drag this out as long as possible so that the midterms can be a referendum on both Trump and rape.

    And, like I said, I'm not sure that's the game plan, here, but it's one explanation. More revelations would mean another news cycle week of headlines. The longer it takes, the better it is for Feinstein.

    The other likely explanation is that it's just about that last part. They're just trying to delay because it may help them take back the House and the senate.

  • Luxferia||

    Agreed. They'll need to do better than the two hams who tried to support Ford and then immediately confessed that (a) they had no knowledge of the incident but just felt "empowered" to write something or (b) they had no knowledge of anything relating to Kavanaugh at all.

  • D.D. Driver||

    Motive? A vocal group on the left have convinced themselves that the Kavanaugh appointment will usher in an era of totalitarianism. Would you lie about an assault to stop Hitler from coming to power? Everyone would.

  • Mark Question||

    I wouldn't. An American Hitler is just what we need. It's the only way the left will be defeated.

  • Libertymike||

    No, the power of paleo-libertarians will batter, bloody, crush, decapitate, defenestrate, destroy, eliminate, maim, murder, rape, and vainquish the forces of progressivism and each and every one of its agents, attorneys, assigns, associates, brothers, constituent parts, defenders, emissaries, envoys, mandarins, panjandra, propagandists, soldiers, successors, and troubadors.

  • Mark Question||

    Lovely thought. Not going to happen as long as you cling to this idea that "Freedom" is so awesome.

    With a name like Libertymike, I suspect not.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Nazism will come to America but they'll call it anti Nazism.

  • ||

    You misspelled "Antifa."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You misspelled "progressivism".

  • damikesc||

    Both are subjecting themselves to making sworn statements

    Umm, she has not done so.

    Kavanaugh did. The two dudes she claimed were witnesses did.

    She has not.

  • Luxferia||

    This.

  • Ron||

    ford has nothing to lose, if she is caught lying she will make some psych excuse about the trauma confusing her about the real culprit if there ever was one and then she will keep her job

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's entirely possible that this DID happen, and she DID convince herself that it was Kavanaugh. She was in therapy, the first time she decides to tell about this attack is in 2012, and Kavanaugh's name came up in the news once or twice. She recognizes the name, vaguely remembers him from his time at Georgetown Prep while she was in high school, dislikes his politics, and suddenly her attacker has a new face.

    She's not actually lying if she misremembers the incident, but a professor of psychology should understand the mutability of memory. That may be the reason she's refusing to swear under oath and wants the FBI to investigate so she can write off on it-she's smart enough not to trust her own memory, but still is politically motivated to use the attempt to smear Kavanaugh.

  • posmoo||

    "For Ford, the answer is more nuanced, but we cannot discount the fact that she is a progressive democrat ardently opposed to the nominee in question and the views he would bring with him to the court."

    she's also going to make a lot of money off this as every 'progressive victim' does now whether real or hoax. that's not bug, it's a feature. they want more victims, whether real or not. so they subsidize the mere claims.

  • DarrenM||

    I wonder what kind of book deal she'll be getting?

  • damikesc||

    She provided no evidence.

    Sure, seems unfair to assume nothing happened.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    How much more evidence do you need than "Sometime, somewhere, at some party, with an unspecified number of people present, none of whom have names aside from two people who will deny it, I was attacked and escaped unharmed 35 or 36 years ago."

    That's ironclad, open and shut.

  • Luxferia||

    Actually, a third person (not accused) has denied it as well.

    "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in the statement. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/36053/ another-potential-witness-named- kavanaugh-accuser-james-barrett

  • Jim Logajan||

    "I support due process rights for people accused of sexual misconduct. [...] If you think Kavanaugh is not entitled to the same presumption of innocence that we would typically extend to people facing sexual assault charges, I see your point. If you think no man deserves a presumption of innocence because women never lie about this sort of thing, then once again you've lost me."

    As best I can make out, "presumption of innocence" is not part of Soave's definition of "due process" nor is the need for evidence. As a result, Soave is at a loss on how a decision on the issue should be made. If he really understood (and could practice) due process he would have written a completely different article and been able to argue for a definitive conclusion.

    The last paragraph of his article was mush.

  • Mickey Rat||

    One thing is certain, Rep. Eric Slalwell is a nasty child.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I was a liberal until the 90s. I voted for Bill Clinton in '92. Over time I began to realize that liberals are the meanest nastiest people in the country. They are consumed with hatred for the straw man du jour. It's literally the only thing that gives their life meaning. They don't give a shit about economics or justice or liberty. If they can't find some "other" to hate they can't be happy.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Metoo, I left after Maxine Waters essentially praised the LA rioters. The scales fell from my eyes and I realized what lowlife scum the Democrats were are are. They've only got worse and that witch is still around.

  • SIV||

    Trump shoulda nominated Don Willett. Imagine the debauchery of Baylor U's party scene back in the 80s

  • Trigger Warning||

    Robbo, pearls clutched
    Clucking hen, lectures us all
    A shitstain is woke

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    Needs one more syllable in the first stanza... But not bad

  • DWB||

    If you think we need criminal justice reform so that teenagers—especially poor and minority teenagers...

    Why the qualifications?

    What the FUCK is so hard in trying to protect everybody?!?!?!?!?????!!!?

    Equality my ASS!!!!

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I'm not sure Robby is right about the partisan lines stuff. I actually don't care for Kavanaugh because I suspect he'd be bad on 4th Amendment stuff, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be falsely smeared. The timing of this, plus the fact that it is 35 years old and no one remembers enough details to actually investigate the chafes seems impossibly convenient for Feinstein.

    I'm so grossed out by DiFi's venality in this that it actually makes me feel somewhat sympathetic for Kavanaugh. And here I really wanted a libertarian on the court. Thanks a lot, Senator Fiendish. Go jump in the Bay.

  • ||

    Go jump in the Bay.

    What did the Bay ever do to you? Sheesh.

  • JeremyR||

    I think part of the problem is how it was revealed. Not months ago, when Feinstein first learned about it, not by the accuser publicly coming forward, but as a calculated political stunt designed to derail the confirmation when they couldn't stop it any other way.

    Beyond that, looking at it as a crime, I don't see how it has any merit. It reminds me of those satanic panic convictions, cooked up by psychologists. While I think some people are still in jail over those, clearly there is a credibility problem with things coming up in psychiatric sessions.

  • DWB||

    With NO witnesses, nothing can be proven.

    "Believe her."

    "Don't believe her."

    It amazing me that every day someone goes to jail in this country because some authority's testimony after the fact was deemed credible and believable -- no actual evidence or witnesses required.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Kavanaugh helped write the "PATRIOT" Act. He also apparently doesn't understand what probable cause is or anything else in article in amendment 4 of our constitution. Don't see how most Democrat nominated justices are much worse.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Yes, he's got a terrible record on the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, almost nobody cares about the 4th amendment, so Democratic Senators vetting him barely even mentioned it.

  • Just Say'n||

    One thing is certain any argument that this site has anything to do with libertarianism and logic has been flushed down the toilet

  • Mark Question||

    This site IS libertarian. That's the whole problem. Libertarianism is just a stalking horse for the left.

    The sick part is that so many of you actually believe the opposite.

  • SIV||

    You're not wrong.

  • Macaulay McToken||

    Will, then.

    Hi,

    My name is Macaulay McToken, and I'm a proud right wing partisan hack. Nice to meet you all.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Are you that kid that did those movies and then your career went it the crapper? Well I'm hoping this whole right wing partisan hack thing works out for you. I always thought you were underappreciated.

  • Eddy||

    One useful result of all this is that it's restored my faith in statutes of limitations.

    Because of the massive debauchery and corruption of the Pope and the bishops, I was prepared to tear down any obstacle in the way of purifying society of their filthiness, even if our statutes of limitations had to be repealed.

    Now I've taken a step back and realized that attitude is wrong. Give the devil benefit of law, etc.

    So by all means, now that they've scheduled a hearing on the subject, give the accuser (that's Prof. Ford, in case Tony is confused) the chance to get up, testify, and answer questions from the Republican and Democratic Senators.

    If she doesn't want to testify, or pretends sure she wants to testify, she just needs more time, a friendlier venue, a free teddy bear, or whatever, then she can go and fuck off.

    And in future we can keep in mind the importance of adjudicating claims of misconduct within a reasonable time of the alleged offense, with exceptions for murder or genocide. If the accusation isn't made in a timely way, leave it to the historians.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Similarly, I support due process rights for people accused of sexual misconduct. I have covered extensively the manifest unfairness of campus Title IX tribunals, which often operate as if the accused male is guilty regardless.

    No, you conditionally support due process rights when it involves someone you find sympathetic.

    Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has rightly decided to reform these practices to bring them in line with basic principles of justice. Students accused of sexual assault should be able to consult lawyers and have them question their accusers. If you think Kavanaugh is not entitled to the same presumption of innocence that we would typically extend to people facing sexual assault charges, I see your point.

    Because the difference is...? It's not a criminal hearing? You mean just like Title IX cases aren't criminal hearings? The same ones that you think deserve due process rights?

    Seriously, Vox MUST have some opening for you right now.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Sushi du Fruit would actually be the perfect token "right winger" at Vox. He would equivocate just enough to still be granted access to their world-renowned, multicultural, peyote-fueled, Rastafarian orgies.

  • BYODB||

    He occasionally does good stuff, I'll give him that since I can at least understand the reasons journalists do things. It's a business, clicks are king, and wide audience appeal are all things publications want. It's just that if this is what gets clicks, than maybe you're at the wrong publication or maybe the libertarian brand isn't anything that different from the big two, just more sullen about not being included.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "MoveOn.org, a progressive organization born in 1998 out of an effort to dissuade Congress from impeaching President Clinton over his sexual misconduct and instead "move on" to other matters, released one of its famous celebrity videos. Julianne Moore, Gabrielle Union, and America Ferrera make appearances, chanting, "We believe you." The video calls for a full, fair, and "trauma-informed" investigation."

    We have truly reached the Post Credibility Era for political advocacy groups across the spectrum...…..

  • DPICM||

    If this wasn't important enough for Ford to say something about it for the past 35 years, why should I give a shit now? That's basically where I am with any of these allegations that are more than 48 hours old. Either speak up immediately or fuck off. If Ford was willing to let some predator walk among us for 35 years secretly raping his way into the second highest court in the land when she could have halted that 35 years ago, she's an accomplice.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Gird yourself then. Soave, because the possibility that nothing useful will be learned is just shy of unity, as there is little of substance to investigate much less make any kind of determination from.

  • Eddy||

    But...the FBI! They'll adjudicate this matter fairly and effectively!

  • SIV||

    Except they won't be allowed to question the accuser. Her lawyers would refuse any interview Which doesn't matter anyways because the G-men don't want to be involved and wouldn't do anything if they were forced into it.

  • Jerryskids||

    Let's just see a show of hands here amongst the commentariat - how many of you were raped by Dianne Feinstein? Careful now - if you were raped by Dianne Feinstein, isn't it entirely plausible that you would have found the incident so traumatic that you would have blocked it out of your memory? So if you have no memory of ever being raped by Dianne Feinstein, isn't that just as much evidence that you were in fact raped by Dianne Feinstein as evidence that you were not? So search your memory well - are you sure you were never raped by Dianne Feinstein just because you don't remember ever being raped by Dianne Feinstein?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Well there was this party somewhere that I was at back in the day and she tried to rip my clothes off and do bad things to me. I thought she was gonna inadvertently kill me. Thank god Elizabeth Warren stumbled in and fell on top of us. They were both pretty loaded but I only had one beer I swear. Anyway I managed to escape and hid in the bathroom. I totally forgot about for it 30 years until I told my psychologist about those 4 women who got all rapey at that party that time. Turns out I'm damaged for life.

  • DarrenM||

    No one wants to hear about your fantasies. OK, maybe a few do.

  • ThomasD||

    I may never sleep well again.

    You bastard.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Even if I had consensual sex with Feinstein that would have been traumatic.

  • esteve7||

    "Believe Women"

    ... Why? Why should I believe anyone without evidence?

    JFC you people, how in the hell you do think you got the Salem witch trials?

    When Leftists don't have facts on their side, they argue feelings. Well fuck your feelings.

  • esteve7||

    I'm not that disappointment in these leftist hack politicians and media members, because that's what they do. I'm disappointment in all the people on FB and twitter who lack any basic analysis skills and immediately buy into the leftist line without any critical thought.

    As soon as you hear "but the FBI should investigate".... what the fuck? The FBI does not investigate these types of crimes. What do you think they are, some super police? They've already said they have nothing to go by, and that's exactly the point.

    Believing someone is guilty without evidence... fuck all you people.

  • Olga||

    Since this is a job interview and not a legal proceeding to determine if he goes to jail, the bar is low.

    Before the allegations came out there there were many reasons to have reservations about Judge Kavanaugh. He supports Presidential power. He basically believes a president is not beholden to checks and balances. Even if you are a Republican, you don't want that kind of thinking on the bench. You are not always going to be in agreement with the President. He also may have committed perjury. Those are reason enough to not confirm him.

    The woman that came forward (at great personal cost) is adding to the list of reasons that he may have assaulted someone. The fact that all the Senators are defending them either means they are overly partisan or they all raped someone when they were 17 and never want to have to experience consequences for it.

    It is a sad state of affairs all around.

  • HGW xx/7||

    ...or they all raped someone when they were 17 and never want to have to experience consequences for it.

    Subtlety is a general rule of thumb for concern trolls.

  • Just Say'n||

    You seem to know next to nothing about Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy

  • TuIpa||

    I'm not saying you should drown yourself in hot oil.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "The woman that came forward (at great personal cost) is adding to the list of reasons that he may have assaulted someone. The fact that all the Senators are defending them either means they are overly partisan or they all raped someone when they were 17 and never want to have to experience consequences for it."
    Wow. I can't even. You really need to work on your talking points.

  • perlchpr||

    The FBI should also conduct an expedited investigation.

    What federal crime that the FBI would have jurisdiction over is alleged?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Here's what I do in programming terms

    Define a as accuser
    Define b as accused
    Define c as Boolean

    If a="Juanita Broaderick" or "Kathleen Willey" or "Paula Jones" and b="Bill Clinton" then c=true
    Else
    c=false

  • Just Say'n||

    Except Broderick and Jones knew the time, date, and location of their assault. And they had corroboration. None of that can be said for this accusation.

    You're really really bad at this parody, Cathy.

  • Just Say'n||

    But, you draw an interesting comparison. Reporters admitted that they ignored Broderick's accusation because of Clinton protecting abortion. And now Kavanaugh is being attacked because of the threat he poses to abortion.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's like a perverse religious sacrament to some. Like you, Cathy

  • Bubba Jones||

    "Presidential knee pads"

  • ||

    You're really really bad at this parody, Cathy.

    I'm starting to think it's AmSoc, actually.

  • Just Say'n||

    No. Cathy is smarter than Amsoc. He wouldn't have thought of creating a parody.

  • ||

    I think Cathy is smarter than that parody, though. And when Sevo called him "commie-kid" the other day he did a pointed "I don't know who you think I am, but. . . "

    Add that to the obsession with Vietnam and capitalism being all about invading brown people countries.

    And it's such a pointedly shitty parody, that I could see him floating it and thinking he's really sticking it to us.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're a good detective

  • DenverJ||

    Maybe we can get him to investigate Ford's allegation.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Ma'am! Really! I don't engage in absurdism, ok? Libertarianism isn't about Poor Brown people. It's about rich White guys who can program in Python. Geesch!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Since this is an unverifiable claim, the investigation could be interminable.

  • Just Say'n||

    Which is the point.

  • ||

    Indeed.

  • DarrenM||

    Nonsense. I'm sure the investigation it would be finished within a few years.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Child molester Roy Moore has endorsed Kavanaugh's nomination.

    You can't make this shit up.

  • Just Say'n||

    Except Moore's accusations were credible. These are not. This is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain

  • TuIpa||

    Hence, the response from the idiot who can't remember his password and loses his account. Twice.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Shut up, you fucking tampon. I've had three accounts here - about 1/10 the number you have.

  • wreckinball||

    Whatever happened to those accusers?

    Yea he was a creeper but seriously

  • wreckinball||

    Holy fuck Robby
    The both sides thing is ridiculous
    On one side we have a politically motivated accusation that has zero evidence backing it up
    On the other side we have someone trying to counter a fucking nothing accusation

    Reason the anti libertarian site

    Really dumb fuck article

    Geez Nick

  • Just Say'n||

    This is what happens when Planned Parenthood is a major advertiser for your magazine

  • lap83||

    really?

  • wreckinball||

    Yes money talks

    But why would Ford bring up such a lame claim 36 years later

    Rather than invent some wild story first consider the obvious

    The Ds paid folks to disrupt the hearing. It's pretty obvious they would pay for this

    Simple Ford is getting paid

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't think Ford is getting paid. I don't know what her motives are. All I know is that she hasn't provided any evidence to support her accusation and is being uncooperative. The fact that the only witnesses that she named dispute her story makes me less likely to believe her

  • Cyto||

    Someone is paying for that high-priced Washington attorney who is making the rounds on all of the progressive talking-head shows, spouting DNC talking points. I doubt that Ford is picking up the tab, even though she's the stated client.

  • wreckinball||

    The woman is getting fucking PAID

    If they are willing to pay not cases to protest at the hearing you think just maybe they would pay for this?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I'll sum up my own position: I don't care BECAUSE I don't believe her allegations.

    The reason I don't believe her allegations is because she, by her own account, told no one about this for 30 years, and is only bringing this to public attention when the person in question is nominated to a high position 36 years after the fact.

    If evidence came to light that she had told someone about this at the time-school friends, a school counselor, a teacher, and the story was hushed because of Kavanaugh's influential family, it might lend credence to her accusations. The issue that she's framed any such evidence that comes forth in a manner that would prove her as a liar, since she said she never mentioned it before. If she claimed that maybe she'd mentioned this to her husband long ago, or a boyfriend in the past, then that would provide more opportunities for the claim to be verified.

    As it is, the claim is unverifiable and it's insufficient to give as a cause for delaying or inhibiting Kavanaugh's career. If we for one second claim that it is, we're supporting a position that would be untenable for a working society.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    One of your better articles, Robby. Thanks.

    I do think there ought to be a distinction between the argument of, "Kavanaugh should be confirmed because the evidence presented against him is not persuasive", and the argument of, "Kavanaugh should be confirmed because the Dems' dirty tricks should not be rewarded". The first argument IMO is very defensible, but the second one is less so. Because the second argument suggests that the evidence itself is really just immaterial, and the whole affair should just be treated like a political power play. Sure the Team Red partisans might like it, but I'm not sure why libertarians should.

  • wreckinball||

    Dirty tricks?
    Is that was this is?
    So maybe their had to be some evidence regarding accusations
    Maybe you don't wait 36 years and then spring it at a political moment?
    Is rape political ?
    What a dumb fuck

  • Just Say'n||

    Can you provide us with the material that you think is persuasive?

  • Just Say'n||

    Hello?

  • Just Say'n||

    Your non-response basically discredits your point. She has provided nothing to make her accusation credible. Even the witnesses that she identified as being there have disputed her accusation.

    You seem to really think that people who don't buy this narrative are just partisans. Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe it absent any evidence.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good Lord man. I do occasionally do things other than post at Reason.

    You seem to really think that people who don't buy this narrative are just partisans.

    No, I made it rather clear that I think there are those who don't believe it because of the lack of evidence, but then there are also those who don't believe it and wouldn't believe it anyway even with evidence because they just don't want to reward the Dems' dirty tactics.

    And I've also said time and time again that I don't think he did it. I think Kennedy had it basically right on her show tonight: that something probably did happen to Dr. Ford, but it likely wasn't Kavanaugh who did it to her.

    Furthermore, I think we should all recognize that the real villain here, when it comes to the dirty tricks, is not Dr. Ford, but Feinstein. She's the one who sat on the letter, and she's the one who disclosed Ford's name against her wishes as a part of her plan to try to stop the nomination.

  • Just Say'n||

    *tips hat*

    My mistake

  • DenverJ||

    Holy shit, I find myself agreeing with chemjeff. WTF?

  • Tony||

    There is absolutely nothing about the official narrative that strains credibility. Feinstein didn't release it because Ford didn't want it released. She came forward when her name leaked and wanted to be in charge of what was reported about her and her life.

    If Feinstein was involved in some sort of plot, holding this until after the hearing makes absolutely no sense.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Feinstein didn't release it because Ford didn't want it released.

    You mean until she released it. Oh, and that was before her name came out since it was the precipitating reason for her name to come out.

    But that would be another one of those facts that you claim you understand.

  • Tony||

    The worst-case scenario here is tiddlywinks compared to McConnell-level politics. Why don't you cry some more into your cabbage patch kid. There's no rush, unless you really want to get a Heritage Foundation approved Republican appointed to the Supreme Court before it can be found out whether he's a rapist, and why on earth would you want that?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mad, bro? Bork got your tongue? Estrada got your tongue?

    For that matter, Feinstein had a Chinese agent in close proximity to her for years. I think she needs to step down immediately until we can prove that she isn't a Chinese asset. We need an FBI counterintelligence investigation. And it appears that there is a credible allegation of sexual assault against Corey Booker, so we'll need him to recuse himself immediately as well, until he can be cleared, of course.

  • Tony||

    Whatabout the Chinese! Whatabout Cory Booker!

    I am against putting either of these on the Supreme Court, thanks for asking.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think dirty tricks should not be rewarded. The democrats completely undermined the confirmation process by not raising this issue when it would have been easy to substitute another candidate.

    Given that this is a political misdeed and there is no evidence that Kavanaugh is unfit at this time to serve, then the only solution is a political one. Push through his confirmation.

    The clever alternative would be to put forward the most right wing candidate on his list and schedule an up or down vote for him 90 minutes after the vote for Kavanaugh.

  • Tony||

    How unfortunate that you were in a coma for the past 40 years. Let's get you up to speed on political dirty tricks. Start with Gingrich, read until you get to McConnell, and then after you catch your breath after absorbing the sheer global, historical audacity of those guys, get a load of the orange fuckstain who the Republican party got installed as president with the help of fucking Russia.

    Then get back to us about Democrats' dirty tricks.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Democrats deserve to have dirty tricks used on them because they aren't human.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    While I don't completely disagree, I don't think that distinction is as clear as you make it.

    I think the presented "evidence" is exceedingly flimsy. I also think the 11th-hour ambush was obviously motivated by a political desire to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation—as are the calls for a delay until some sort of undefined "investigation" into unverifiable circumstances is conducted.

    The virtually non-existent evidence, coupled with a demand for a pointless "investigation" is quite clearly a stalling tactic. I don't think there's any reason to pretend otherwise, or to give Democrats what they want by delaying—at least until/unless they offer up some actual substance.

  • JoeBlow123||

    chemjeff I honestly think you just like staking out an opposite position from everyone else, pretend it is the only moral position, then decry everyone else for being partisans with no morality or principles. Then act shocked when abuse is hurled on you like you are some persecuted Jesus Christ figure.

    Rather obnoxious.

  • ThomasD||

    The shitshow is reaching it's denoument, so Froot Sooshi goes all 'pox on both houses '

    This place sucks, but not as much as Robby Soave sucks by himself.

    Piss off you smarmy little fuck.

  • ||

    It would seem to me that proving that Kavanaugh and Mrs. Ford were at the same party at the same time 37 years ago would be a tad difficult to actually prove. However, it would remove or confirm any doubts. But its still based on flimsy testimony where the "victim" does not even recall the exact place the party took place. Normally, victims of trauma remember vivid details for the rest of their lives... Just a thought

  • Just Say'n||

    And the two witnesses that she identified have disputed the story.

  • wreckinball||

    Times up
    Both on the original crime and the nomination hearing.

    It's ridiculous to even entertain this now.

    She's had 36 years!

    Bring whatever you have Monday and then vote

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    It would seem to me that proving that Kavanaugh and Mrs. Ford were at the same party at the same time 37 years ago would be a tad difficult to actually prove. However, it would remove or confirm any doubts.

    So... being at the same party as someone is evidence that you attempted to rape them?

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Right now, no one can say for sure that Robby Soave is guilty of fucking sheep. But neither should anyone be certain it didn't happen.

  • creech||

    To be fair, such a charge would only be credible if the person making it could demonstrate some proximity to a sheep enclosure that Robby already has claimed to have hiked across, camped in, or tended. I think everyone would think Mrs. Ford looney if she went to high school in Arizona and never set foot within a thousand miles of Kavanaugh.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    According to USDA statistics, Michigan had 75000 head of sheep (inc. lambs) in 2002. We know that Robby has spent extensive amounts of time in Michigan, so the allegation would appear to be credible.

  • ThomasD||

    Those poor lambs...

  • Bubba Jones||

    The whole point of this exercise is to motivate the dem electorate in November.

    No more. No less.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    If they can delay the vote until the next Congress that would be a bonus. Wouldn't be hard either, with Flake on the committee.

  • Luxferia||

    I think she'll testify. She'll submit her papers at 9:58 a.m. tomorrow, just meeting the 10:00 deadline. And Monday will come. And it'll be an absolute carnival.

    We're talking unrelenting tears, completely new facts, emotional pleas at every juncture, righteous indignation, wanton disregard for consistent chronologies, overtures to women's struggles, grotesque descriptions of the incident hitherto unspoken to anyone, disparaging remarks against prep boys (and probably white, rich prep boys in particular) . . . the real works.

    And it could actually destroy Kavanaugh.

    Because there's a dirty little secret that the Ds know and the Rs haven't seemed to figure out yet: when a woman is weaving a story about being raped, pointing to man in the room (literally or figuratively), naming her alleged attacker, and proverbially emerging from the shadows to discard the putative horrors of her past, there's almost no way Kavanaugh wins that PR battle. It almost won't matter how hysterical or incredible she appears. It won't matter what he says or how ardently he denies it. In fact, any perceived sincerity on his part will be viewed by some as evidence of his guilt.

    Now, I very well could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. But there are many more ways this could hurt Kavanaugh than help. It'll be difficult for Ford to appear less credible than she already does, so her faults are already baked in.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Maybe 10% or less of the population is going to see these hearings. It ain't 1989.

  • Bubba Jones||

    If true, is there any reason to believe that it reflects upon how he would perform as a Justice at this time? Does his judicial record reflect a disrespect for women?

    Zomg abortion.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " The surest way out of this mess is for the FBI to determine conclusively that the party never happened or that Kavanaugh didn't attend it"

    I can't wait for the FBI to "conclusively" prove that no party ever happened anywhere at anytime.

  • Bowfish||

    Let's get the upper echelons of the FBI involved since their reputations are impeccable.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "And it's frustrating that so many conservatives think protecting Kavanaugh and elevating him to the Supreme Court is so important that it's worth forgiving serious wrongdoing in just this one case."

    Reason wants people *convicted* of crimes to be able to get jobs, but not people accused of crimes in a political setting. If they're Republicans.

  • ThomasD||

    We can clearly start discussing the high water mark for libertarianism at Reason. Because, with this sordid episode we are well and truly passed it.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    "Boo hoo hoo," said Swalwell. "You're a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can't sleep in her home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She's on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing."

    Don't we have a general process to protect people who receive death threats, or are the recipients of those death threats shit out of luck if they aren't accusing someone who might sit on the Supreme Court?

    In related news, my roommate appears to be sleeping soundly at the moment. ;)

  • Bowfish||

    I appreciate the attempt at balance in your article. But you erroneously paraphrased Prager's position, which was: Perfect people do not exist, especially when forced to consider childhood behavior. He's pointing out that there are people currently serving, in the millions, in a wide array of professional, political and judicial careers whose misbehavior and "assaults" (with all their indefinite meanings) as adolescents have been accepted by millions of people since the Republic was formed. It is the adult character that is important.

    Likewise, you did the same with Ann Coulter. Her issue, being made all day, is that the media drives the anti white male Republican narrative far more than any other narrative. Despite the facts. That is not to say that white male Republicans don't commit crimes. The presumption of innocence is now secondary to the claims of the accuser. This is too convenient during the political grandstanding and spectacle before us in Congress, when Democrats said they would oppose with all their might whoever Trump named to the court, and before they knew who it was.

  • Winthrop||

    The FBI should also conduct an expedited investigation? There is still time? The surest way out of this mess is for the FBI to determine conclusively that the party never happened?
    Are you kidding me Robbie? Your solution is to bring the FBI in to crack the case? I love your stuff, but you missed the mark on this one.

  • Cyto||

    Hey Soave!

    Nice attempt at splitting the baby. That's a libertarian's god-given right, nay, it is his reason for existing. Everyone else is wrong, that's the perfect libertarian position.

    Unfortunately, you fail to understand any of the positions in this case. The biggest issue I see has nothing to do with supreme court nominees and has everything to do with the nature of the complaint - a 35 year old private grudge that has never been raised before. By waiting so long to raise the complaint, she has rendered the accusation completely unfair. Because people are pretending that this is a serious matter - Soave included - this guy is put in the position of having to prove the unprovable, that he never did something that nobody except the accuser remembers. Ask yourself this ... if you were accused of something from 35 years ago (pretend you've lived an extra couple of decades) - something that would have been debatable at the time, but now there is nothing to debate.

    When the Duke Lacrosse players were falsely accused, the accusation was timely. And it was widely believed. But because the accusation was timely, they were able to produce proof that they were not present at the time the events were supposed to occur.

  • Cyto||

    So, Robby.... what exactly would you say to defend yourself if the lady who lived down the street when you were a kid said you molested her 5 year old daughter 35 years ago, but she never told anyone because she didn't want to traumatize her kid further? It was sometime over a 6 month period. Maybe you were 15 at the time. Go ahead. Defend yourself.

    Use your own acceptable standard --- that if you are as much as 30% likely to be guilty then you lose your career.

    Go on. Defend your life. You've got a tearful mother who will recount how her daughter was traumatized and it took years for her to trust people. She'll tell a tale of how you always seemed to be nice to your daughter, but one time on the playground you were touching her inappropriately. And her daughter ended up developing bipolar dissorder, just like her mom. Even at the time it would be very difficult to disprove.

    What could you even in theory say, 35 years later?

  • Cyto||

    But where you really go off the rails is claiming that the demand for an FBI investigation is reasonable. What exactly do you suppose they can investigate? Establish that the party happened? Really?

    She claims that she never told anyone about the events. She claims that she took steps to ensure that nobody would notice that anything was amiss at the party. Therefore, anyone who claims that they know what happened and isn't Kavanaugh or Judge is a liar (if we are going to pretend to follow some sort of standards for our evidence).

    She has a vague claim of an approximate year and an approximate location.... maybe.

    Even if the FBI were to for some reason spend the time to interview everyone that attended the two schools in question during the time frame, exactly why in the world would you expect to get a reliable result? It has been 35 years. And you think that interviewing a bunch of people about something that has been in the news wall-to-wall for a couple of weeks is going to result in the truth? Memory doesn't work that way. Any memories dredged up about a gathering 35 years ago where nothing remarkable happened are going to be embellished by current events. It is impossible to believe otherwise.

  • Cyto||

    And what's the probative value? That some teenagers met up at a house and had a beer? You could have gotten that from Judge's book. Find me someone who went to high school and never met up with other teens. Even putting the exact people in a house together only proves that she has a hook to hang her story on, it doesn't say anything about the veracity of her version of the assault charge.

    There is literally no way to form an opinion that has any reliability at all. Whether she's preternaturally accurate in her memory, mistaken about either the persons or the real seriousness of the assault or completely fabricating the thing from whole cloth, she's going to sound nicely upset and perfectly believable, particularly given the construct of the accusation.

    That is why this does not deserve to be treated seriously. There is nothing that can be learned about his fitness for office, and there is no way for him to avoid having his reputation sullied.

    And what you seem to be in denial about is that it could just as easily be you. The standard here is that you be male, and then your reputation can be destroyed with no proof. Not even any corroborating evidence.
    People are going to believe your neighbor from down the street, no matter what you say. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

  • mpercy||

    Thanks for these posts. Well done.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Use your own acceptable standard --- that if you are as much as 30% likely to be guilty then you lose your career.""

    Well Reason said we commit 3 felonies a day. I expect everyone to report to the nearest cop shop and turn yourself in.

  • posmoo||

    'But while it's true that white men are sometimes falsely accused, black men are more likely to face false allegations.'

    that's a nice evidence free claim. you're as always full of shit. you can't possibly point out progressive hypocrisy once without out saying both sides suck, can you? is it a contractual obligation, or just a constitutional one?

  • SIV||

    "Women and minorities hardest hit..." replaced the 5 Ws more than 35 years ago.

  • DenverJ||

    He's either just straight up trolling, or, my opinion, living in a bubble such that he's assuming everyone else takes for granted all the things that he takes for granted, without actual proof- things that simply must be true because everything else is built upon those untested assumptions. The claim you quote is a perfect example: if it's true and Roby has seen studies or some such, then why not link to them? It's because he has not seen such studies; its just something that "everyone" knows is true.

  • Duke of url||

    " My clumsy attack on Kavanough made me look foolish and dishonest, I sure hope somebody else's backfires more spectacularly ".
    /Kamala

    "SPARTICUS"!!
    /Corey

    "Hold my beer"
    / Dianne

  • Dan S.||

    What Robby wrote is obviously correct: we don't know whether the incident happened or not. I was going to say the only people who know for sure are Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and the alleged witness whose name is Judge, but even that isn't true. My best guess is that Ms. Ford's memory is mixed up: she may be mistaking a bad dream for reality (finding yourself unable to scream is how actual nightmares often end), or confusing other people for Kavanaugh and Judge. But we don't know, that's just a guess, and it's painful to see all these commenters saying we do know. It's conceivable that it happened, but that Kavanaugh and Judge have no memory of the incident because they were "blackout drunk". If they had a tendency to be so when in high school, that in itself could be problematical, but since he does not seem to have any such tendency now, probably not. At any rate, I don't think Ms. Ford's motive for coming forward is political, although obviously people are using her story for political purposes.

  • DenverJ||

    "... finding yourself unable to scream is how actual nightmares often end..."
    If you are describing yourself then you suffer from Sleep Paralysis. Used to be called Night Terrors. Was the source of many legends such as the succubus.
    My last deep dive into the subject was at least a decade ago. At that time the consensus was that there was no consensus on the cause.
    As for treatment: do not sleep on your back. That's it. It prevents like 99.99‰ of cases. I haven't had one episode since I read that and stopped sleeping on my back, except for a few times when I fell asleep in the recliner, which could be argued is sleeping on your back.
    Google it.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Getting blackout drunk when you are young is problematic? Baloney.

  • ||

    Right now, no one can say xxxxxxx that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford at a house party 35 years ago. But neither should anyone be certain it didxx happened.

  • earthandweather||

    Well, Kavanaugh could be...right?

  • ||

    happenxx

  • John C. Randolph||

    Kavanaugh isn't in my top thousand picks for the court, but I've got to say that the Democrats are doing everything possible to make me sympathetic towards him.

    The accusation is preposterous, and those who pretend otherwise are just knee-jerking. It's not merely unproven, it's unprovable. As Hitchens once said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    -jcr

  • John C. Randolph||

    Kavanaugh isn't in my top thousand picks for the court, but I've got to say that the Democrats are doing everything possible to make me sympathetic towards him.

    The accusation is preposterous, and those who pretend otherwise are just knee-jerking. It's not merely unproven, it's unprovable. As Hitchens once said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    -jcr

  • John C. Randolph||

    Kavanaugh isn't in my top thousand picks for the court, but I've got to say that the Democrats are doing everything possible to make me sympathetic towards him.

    The accusation is preposterous, and those who pretend otherwise are just knee-jerking. It's not merely unproven, it's unprovable. As Hitchens once said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    -jcr

  • Average Guy||

    Just how did we get here? How does a s.c.o.u.t.u.s. interview turn into this circus?

  • Luxferia||

    When these circuses worked against Bork and almost worked against Thomas (52-48). That's how.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Another pitch-perfect contribution from Soave. Why isn't Soave the editor of Reason?

  • SIV||

    Reverse sexism

  • earthandweather||

    That's good sarcasm.

  • esteve7||

    Man the GOP is the stupid party, but these lunatics on the left can never be trusted with power. This entire situation is disguising and is the full social justice left on display. Social Justice is actually evil. As one MSNBC nutjob actually said, it doesn't matter if Kav is guilty or not, but what matters is 'how he responds to her pain' ...

    Fuck all those people. Who do you want in power so I can vote the exact opposite?

  • Liberty Lover||

    Supreme court nominees and hearings are no longer about the person nominated. They are about the two parties, Democrats and Republicans winning and losing. The Republicans were successful in stalling Obama's nominee until the election and Trump was in office. Now the Democrats look to do the same thing. It just proves again neither political party is working for the US citizenry, but for their own parties alone.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Merrick Garland didn't deserve to receive a vote for the simple reason that poor Antonin Scalia was ruthlessly murdered at Cibolo Creek Ranch in west Texas, most likely by an assassin on the Clinton/democratic party payroll, asphyxiated to death with a pillow.

    This vicious murderer even left the pillow lying on top of his head, almost as if to mock us all, saying to us "We can and will assassinate us if you oppose us and stand in our way." Needless to say no autopsy was done, because many of the American people frankly couldn't handle the truth of the sort of banana republic we've become.

  • mpercy||

    This is about as believable as Ford's story...

  • Liberty Lover||

    There in lies the problem, we have two bananas (Democrats and Republicans) and only one republic.

  • cosMICjester||

    I personally want leftists to have abortions till their uteruses fall out. I don't care if the gov't subsidizes birth control or abortions. Less future fascist far left loons, parasites, thugs, SJW commies & demoRAT voters is a WIN!! WIN!!
    At the same time an underaged drunken teen having horseplay w/ some groping back in the 80's isn't attempted rape so I wouldn't disqualify the guy from SCOTUS. Especially after the way the allegations were presented & if this is a ploy which I'm sure it is anyways.

  • MikeP2||

    It is shameful Robby that any rational, thinking being would give an time or consideration to an accusation without supporting evidence, or even enough detail to investigate. Notwithstanding one so far in the past as to be legally meaningless.

    This is pathetic, and a terrible indictment of the irrational partisan games that have infected the country. Not sure how anyone can view Ford as anything more then a political whore, selling herself and her family for absurd partisan games. She should be pitied and ignored, not given a moment of the country's time.

  • Michael Cook||

    Jane Fonda, right on cue, pronounces that accused sexual harassers shouldn't come back. Her whole life has been a demonstration of why it took so long for women to get the vote and why, perhaps, the dangers of that innovation are not insignificant.

  • Merl3noir||

    At the moment you have 3 people that have given sworn testimony or statement that this never happened. In doing so they risking jail time and perjury charges if found to be lying. They are also the 3 people the alleged victim says were present. On the other hand you have someone that does not want to make a statement under oath, is refusing to speak to those that the constitution charges with investigating such claims. Has not even given sworn statement, just a statement to the press. As things stand right now, even by the lowest standards, of guilt, there is no case here. Until ford agrees to make a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is the body charged with investigating Kavanaughs fitness to be a Supreme Court Judge there really is no evidence against him.

    This has all the appearance of a purely partisan delay tactic. If there was something of merit here Sen Feinstein would have question Kavanaugh about this during his several hearing. If there was something here it would have been made public before or during his hearing, with sworn statement.

    Until this situation changes, all the evidence supports Kavanaugh.

  • vek||

    So to play hyper devil's advocate:

    In what world is it logical to lose a MASSIVE political victory, one that will protect the rights of hundreds of millions of people for decades to come... Over a bit of excessively aggressive flirting by a 17 year old boy, who turned out pretty good in the end?

    Keep in mind, in NO story, and the lady has thus told multiple versions, did K. ACTUALLY rape her, or even do anything especially horrible. If she had been into it, him grabbing her from the hall, throwing her on a bed, and then going in and ravaging her would have probably been the biggest turn on in the world. I've pulled some similar moves myself in the far flung past (after positive indications), and chicks LOVE IT.

    But even with the slightly worse versions of the story, he backed off when it was clear she wasn't down. So he didn't ACTUALLY rape her, or murder somebody here.

    So, again, why would it be logical to lose such an important political victory even if it were true? All our founding documents were written by men arguably morally worse than K here. Thomas Jefferson probably banged his slave girl, which she had no control over... Serial rapist! Does that mean his work outside of his moral failings is worthless?

    There's a time for principles, and a time for Realpolitik. I'd say we're at too late an hour in trying to save the Republic to let the left and their shitty games win, even if we have to throw some morals under the bus now and again.

    END DEVIL'S ADVOCATE PLAYING

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    For a site called "Reason," there's sure damned little of it practiced by a lot of its writers.

  • Mark22||

    Robby and Shikha are really the worst; they never have anything worhwhile to say.

    Some of the other authors are libertarianish some of the time.

  • CDRSchafer||

    You can't spell TREASON without REASON

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    I'd have a lot more suspension of disbelief if the person who couldn't remember when or where and who couldn't produce a single witness from the time to back her up wasn't also a registered Dem who'd protested this president. Whatcare the chances?

    Ed Whelan presents a much better case than she, and his is spun out of her lies...uh, I mean, her story.

  • Todder||

    If this was just a regular person would we be making such a big deal of this? I think a few questions should be answered first like 1. Was he legally minor at the time of the alleged incident? If so, isn't the rule generally whatever happens as a minor stays with the minor? 2. Is there a statue of limitations for sexual assault and how long is it? If the statute of limitations has run out then let the vote begin. If not, then there should be a real investigation and hearing and if found guilty, then Kavanaugh should be punished accordingly. And by a real hearing I'm not talking about a Congressional clown-show.

  • tlapp||

    I don't know if any of this happened or not. Right now we have someone who claimed this happened to her when she was 15 years old. Too young to drive but doesn't know how she got to the party or got home. Can't identify where it happened or when. Says Kavanagh and his friend were in the room but can't name a single other person at this party. No one who drover her to and from the party, no on at the party to even say there was such a party and that both were seen there.
    Unless there is more this needs to be thrown out.

  • DRhodes||

    "Where do we go from here? Ford should agree to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee."

    Why? To tell us what she doesn't remember? What an asinine comment!

  • freedomscribe||

    What is it with Reason and the trend to make dishonest arguments? You lump Prager in with the partisan hacks, when in fact he made a general argument about the actions of children being held against them. Not only was this alleged assault 36 years ago, but would have been the only such action in 36 years, and took place when he was a minor. Are we going to hold future nominees to the standard of a blameless CHILDHOOD?

  • A. Human||

    Soave for President anyone?

  • BillBrennan||

    It can't be proved. Even if Kavanaugh gets to the court they have half the population believing he's a sexual criminal.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Less than half the population believes this half-assed accusation so that's encouraging.

  • earthandweather||

    The only thing more dissappointing than a piece on this subject by Robbie Suave is a long piece on this subject by Robbie Suave. Seriously...Just horrible.

  • Nardz||

    Gillespie: "Hold my... cosmo!"

  • Chris_Halkides||

    Mr. Soave's bringing up Steven Avery emboldens me to say that aside from other factors, the actual attacker in the 1980s resembled him with respect to facial features. The person who attacked Jennifer Thompson resembled the man she falsely and mistakenly accused, Ronald Cotton. Finally, the 1989 retrial of Tim Hennis largely turned on the defense's locating a man who strongly resembled Mr. Hennis, and may have been the man seen by a witness on the street of the crime, some time later. Could Dr. Ford be mistaken about the identity of the person who attacked her? At this point I would not rule it out.

  • Chris_Halkides||

    Elsewhere at Reason is an article that rejects the hypothesis of mistaken identity. I accept its conclusion.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Ford's claim should be ignored because it was obviously meant to derail the nomination without her ever having to face the public.

    The Dems should have tried to use it during the hearings or before but they didn't because they knew it was an unprovable claim and that it would have gotten shredded in confidential committee hearings.

    The only way that it had any value was to publicize it and smear Kavanaugh. So they purposely waited until the 11th hour to toss the hand grenade.

    They've pledged to stop K by any means. That by itself was reason to ignore this claim.

    The Reps should grow a pair.

  • JeffreyL||

    As a libertarian, it stops at where and when. When neither of these facts can be located, no further consideration is necessary. Anything else is salem witch trials level stupidity. I mean seriously, the individual making the accusation can only limit the timing to "potentially - not sure" sometime in the summer of 1982 and the best limitation of the place is in the neighborhood of the country club.

    No consideration should have been given to accuser. The vote should have occurred as scheduled last week. No comments like we cannot assume the crime did not occur. That is also salem witch trial level stupidity. That comment by the OP should never have been made. The only comment on a libertarian article should be stop when someone accuses another person, but is unable or unwilling to provide any facts other than a potential 3 month window 35 years ago, in a location within a 5 mile box (ie, given the local density, approx 66,000 people)

  • FlameCCT||

    "The surest way out of this mess is for the FBI to determine conclusively that the party never happened or that Kavanaugh didn't attend it—or, alternatively, that he was in fact there."

    So what is the FBI supposed to investigate/determine conclusively? Seriously, there is no date, no time, no location, etc. Dr. Ford may have been assaulted however she can provide no details that would allow an investigation. Then we have the lack of action by Progressive Dem Sen. Feinstein for over two months; which creates an appearance of using Dr. Ford to further the Progressive agenda not find the actual truth of the accusation. Not to mention the Prog Dems ignoring the abuse claim against DNC co-chair Rep. Ellison and their attacks against his victim(s) that is no different than HRC's Bimbo Eruption crew attacking and denigrating Bill's victims.

    BTW: There is a reason why cold case files are rarely solved even with real evidence.

  • Mark22||

    While I'm not entirely sure about Ford or Kavanaugh, through his columns, Robby has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an idiot.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I second that motion.

  • Mark22||

    While I'm not entirely sure about Ford or Kavanaugh, through his columns, Robby has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an idiot.

  • Mark22||

    Where do we go from here? Ford should agree to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee should do its best to ascertain the truth of her allegation, even if that means taking a little extra time

    Well, and that's why Republicans invited her to testify on Monday. So far, she is refusing. And that's likely because she knows she would fall apart under cross examination of an experienced prosecutor.

  • Mark22||

    Here's a simple solution: the Senate should simply subpoena Ford and hold her in contempt if she doesn't appear on Monday.

  • Ozymandias||

    The FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate this matter. Sexual assault is a state crime. The FBI can only investigate matters relating to national security or specifically enumerated Federal crimes. They aren't the American KGB (yet).

  • Two Buck Chuck||

    They're workin' on it

  • Fooseven||

    This reminded me of Obama's old nonsense:

    "some want death and war everywhere, some others want to disband our military completely. I reject these notions..."

  • CDRSchafer||

    Fearless slayer of strawmen, that's our dear Barack.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Yes, the Democrat's Kafkaesque/Catch-22 demands for show trials is exactly the equivalent of the GOP's demand for a semblance of reasonable proof. Nailed it.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    BOMBSHELL*

    Neil Gorsuch was probably at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted Ford. That conclusion is based on the the fact that Gorsuch attended Georgetown Prep along with Kavanaugh. He was closer in age to Kavanaugh's accuser than Kavanaugh himself was. As fellow conservatives, they would have bonded, and likely hung out together. Given the close social ties between Georgetown Prep and Holton Arms, and the small class sizes at both schools, Gorsuch almost surely knew Ford himself.

    *Based on reasoning as rigorous as the points being made on both sides in this thread. In short, satire.

  • Two Buck Chuck||

    Good read. The only thing you forgot to mention is the 30,000 foot pile of circumstantial evidence that this is a political hit job meticulously planned by partisans following a well established pattern of timing, subject matter, and exploitation of a useful sycophant. The Left has a history of this sort of thing. They also have motive, and opportunity.
    They want us to believe Kavanuagh has hidden an elephant in a closed shoe box. While you cannot say what IS in the shoe box, you should be able to divine that it's not an elephant. The old question "When did you stop beating your wife" is well worn in American politics, and anyone who asks it is up to something.

  • vek||

    That's the problem with crying wolf!

    They've been trotting this kind of stuff out so often, unbelievably often, so at this point I will knee jerk not believe them even if a given instance happens to be true. The left has really turned into temper tantrum throwing children who just make up false allegations to try to get their way, because they have no real path to power in most of the country through legitimate means.

  • DarrenM||

    Right now, no one can say for sure that Brett Kavanaugh Robby Soave is guilty of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford some girl at a house party 35 years ago. But neither should anyone be certain it didn't happen.

  • Iron Eagle||

    No, you sir are in fact wrong. She didn't go to the police, her story has changed a few times, she doesn't remember details, there's literally no physically evidence to possibly investigate, the cited witnesses by the woman challenge her story, no court in the world would allow "witnesses" from 35 years ago to testify because memories change and fade, on top of that this women just magically came to her recollection of this "attack" years ago when there was talk that a President Romney might put forward Kavanaugh's name but she in no way and definitely not with political convenience sat on her revelation until now.
    The Democrats are pushing this farce for two reasons: 1) To stall the vote as long as possible. That's why they're calling for an FBI investigation even though there's nothing to investigate, and why Ford is making demands in regards to her testifying 2) The Democrats know that the longer this thing takes and the longer their propagandists in the mainstream media keep pushing narratives that suggest Kavanaugh is a rapist predator the more public opinion will be swayed against him. This is the same crap they pulled with Clarence Thomas in the 90's. They don't care about the facts or the truth of the attack, they just want to delay the confirmation, that's it. And they've got "genius" people like you Robby feeding right into what they want by saying an investigation is a good idea.

  • M Scott Eiland||

    The fact that her attorney is making demands that they know will never be met--and which are transparently designed to make it impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to defend himself *and* to produce a lot of video of "old white male Republicans are being mean to the victim" (rather than "unhelpful to the Democratic narrative" video of a professional attorney asking relevant questions in a polite manner)--is making me think that either Professor Ford made these complaints in bad faith, or she is allowing herself to be used to proceed in bad faith. She should order her attorney to stop making unreasonable demands and agree to testify without further delay under the terms offered by the Judiciary Committee. Period.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    "The surest way out of this mess is for the FBI to determine conclusively that the party never happened or that Kavanaugh didn't attend it—or, alternatively, that he was in fact there."

    After 36/37 years how exactly could the FBI do such a thing? These days lots of data could potentially be used (Emails, Tweets, Cell phone records, etc.) 36/37 years ago?

    Note that the accuser has said that she can't identify either place or date of the party. The FBI has nothing to work with.

  • ||

    The author is right.
    I suggest we make a thought experiment. Let us assume that Kavanaugh had said that he can't recollect each and every drunken night as an adolescent but then points out to the many voices who attest to his impeccable behavior by numerous women. What would the reaction be? Is it out of question that people would align according to the preference for his confirmation, ones pointing out his honesty, the others his trying to find excuses?
    And should he have admitted to the youthful transgression (a sexual assault, nevertheless) who would forgive him? Anyone crossing the aisle?
    Now let's revert the scenario: Barack Obama were the candidate in question (sorry, Mr. President, it's a hypothetical!)
    Same accusation, same questions. The alignment would be inverted, would it not?
    (Full disclosure: I am very much opposed to a Justice Kavanaugh.)

  • ||

    The author is right.
    I suggest we make a thought experiment. Let us assume that Kavanaugh had said that he can't recollect each and every drunken night as an adolescent but then points out to the many voices who attest to his impeccable behavior by numerous women. What would the reaction be? Is it out of question that people would align according to the preference for his confirmation, ones pointing out his honesty, the others his trying to find excuses?
    And should he have admitted to the youthful transgression (a sexual assault, nevertheless) who would forgive him? Anyone crossing the aisle?
    Now let's revert the scenario: Barack Obama were the candidate in question (sorry, Mr. President, it's a hypothetical!)
    Same accusation, same questions. The alignment would be inverted, would it not?
    (Full disclosure: I am very much opposed to a Justice Kavanaugh.)

  • Ed Haines||

    Given that both of these individuals had roommates and classmates with whom they shared experiences, a fairly brief FBI investigation including queries of these individuals would provide valuable information for the Judiciary committee. Sadly, Senator Grassley and President Trump who are the individuals able to make that happen refuse.
    I suspect that many of us have empathy for teenagers caught up in the snare of those intent on finding sexual manipulation. Mutually acceptable sexual relations between young teens may be not a good idea but should not be a crime and should not be treated as such. However, Professor Ford is alleging an assault and battery. Actual penetration did not occur in her allegation but there was clearly threat of battery and actual battery in that she was held down, muffled, and mauled. If this occurred, it was a crime. I heard that Maryland does not have a statute of limitations in such cases. If that is true, perhaps the State of Maryland can carry out the investigation that Senator Grassley and President Trump seem opposed to.

  • JoeB||

    Fine. Good luck, State of Maryland. Let's proceed with the confirmation. Thanks for agreeing with us, EH!!

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    EH, Barring a confession or very strong corroborating testimony, the state of Maryland is very unlikely to conduct an investigation. After 36/37 years there nothing to go on. The standard for a criminal prosecution (which is the goal of an investigation) is 'reasonable doubt'. After 36/37 years that standard is hopelessly out of reach. Add to it, the inability of the plaintiff to identify the location or date of the alleged incident, and the whole thing becomes a joke.

  • JoeB||

    Jeez, Robby, if you think two horny teenagers dry-humping drunk at a party should have permanent consequences, then I think you've lost the rest of us. Furthermore, context matters. Late-hour revelation with no detail whatsoever equals enough doubt to justifiably dismiss her claim. Period. Roe v. Wad be damned.

  • Echospinner||

    If she wanted to testify she should have been there by now. They should just finish up and call a vote Monday. This has gone on long enough.

  • ejhickey||

    I think it worth asking whether Ford fabricated a story that cannot be proved or disproved in order to derail the appointment of a justice who might overturn Roe v. Wade. That may be politically incorrect and impolite but the question should be asked.

  • Echospinner||

    It might have happened it may not have happened. Something may have happened but not in the way either remember it. They could both be telling the truth because people do not recall events the same way. Or one of them could be lying.

    Whichever it is her story is totally unsubstantiated. She did not say anything until many years later. She recalls no details like where it occurred. They were teens 37 years ago and drinking was involved. There is no evidence at all.

    The whole thing is a farce and unfortunately her life is ruined for now. Nothing she says will prove a thing.

    It would be different if other women came out with similar accusations like Weinstein or Cosby but no. Perhaps that is what she was hoping for.

  • Fmontyr||

    The question is a simple one, is Brett Kavanaugh an ideal person to serve on the Supreme Court? No, if you think that a common person from an ordinary background who is ethical and well-skilled in jurisprudence should sit in the final judgement of legal matters brought before the court. Yes, if you believe that a privileged Washington, DC raised prep school, college, and law school party boy will be the kind of person to make final judgement of legal matters brought before the court. Does Kavanaugh have the experience of living a typical life of a citizen of this country or will he perform with a bias as the result of an affluent up-bringing and privilege? He has demonstrated numerous times that at the fringe his legal work that he is a prick. Also, is it proper for the Supreme Court to be greatly overweight with graduates of Yale and Harvard Law Schools? Shouldn't there be more Justices from Heartland law schools?

  • JoeBlow123||

    These points are much better than any brought up against him in any publication so far.

    Personally, I agree. I do not like his type of priveleged Beltway insider latching onto the Supreme Court. Does not do it for me.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "Then as soon as war broke out it was the pro-Nazis of yesterday who were repeating horror stories, while the anti-Nazis suddenly found themselves doubting whether the Gestapo really existed." --George Orwell

  • JoeBlow123||

    Good quote.

  • Martin Brock||

    Don't agree. Unless you expect Kavanaugh to break down, sobbing, and confess, this woman's testimony can only provide opportunities for grandstanding. Everyone knows the accusation and denial, and after 35 years, cross examination can reveal nothing more. Read her written testimony into the record, and hold the vote.

  • Michael Cook||

    Won't the committee invite in Jane Fonda to express her belief that the accusation alone is sufficient to disqualify the nominee, or indeed any male (Republican) candidate for high office?

  • RUExperienced||

    Robby, I'm more than willing to bet paychecks with you that it never happened. It's a scam from top to bottom. Of course you know that, but you're a hack.

  • majil||

    Wow,the writer cuts and pastes Prager's statements on this issue so as to change what he was stating and then takes the same stand he was actually making about 4 paragraphs later ! . Hate to tell you this Robbie but you agreed with Mr Prager. Heavens to Betsy!
    I don't always agree with Prager but he has opposing views on his show and is not a bomb thrower. So i listen once in awhile
    I heard his statements on this issue and you misrepresented the point he was making until you used the exact point 4 paragraphs later .
    Hack much ?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have a better idea. Tell the silly bitch she can withdraw the accusation or face trial for being part of a blatantly fraudulent attempt to obstruct the process. Censure Feinstein (Hell, burn her at the stake; it isn't like the witch doesn't deserve it). Play fucking hardball. The Left has been doing so since 1968. It's beyond time they got a little back.

    There is no equivalence. Yes, the Conservatives believe their man and the Left say they believe their woman. The Conservatives have sound reasons to believe. The Left does not. They Left, furthermore, has a decades long documented history of tellng lies to achieve short term goals.

    The Left has no benefit of the doubt left to cash in. They are known serial liars, unusually blatant even for politicians. Half of their p9litical slogans are transparent lie they have repeated so often that nobody challenges them anymore from simole exhaustion.

    "Girls don't lie"

    Bullshit. When they want to 'get' somebody, boys punch, girls lie. Think about it. You know it's true.

  • vek||

    3/4 of the cases of so called rape or borderline rape I know of from my own life were total bullshit. I know this from either being there myself, from people that were there that I trust, knowing the people in question and the type of person they are, and even some of them basically admitting they were bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is LOW by todays standards, since they've now been pushing "call it rape if you feel bad the next day!" as a thing for years now.

  • polijunkie100||

    This article manages to neatly balance the Left and Right arguments while completely ignoring the elephant in the room. You don't weigh her accusations against his denials equally. You weigh her accusations against a 17-year-old boy against his 30-plus years of exemplary service.
    As for the FBI "investigation"? Please. What 'facts' are there left to find? ALL of this is a delaying tactic. Just so the Dems can say his appointment has to wait until after the midterms. McConnell should give them a class in the exercise of raw power. That is all they seem to understand.

  • jagjr||

    "Indeed, the Kavanaugh episode is bringing out the right's worst tendencies."

    yes, but that ignores that it is bringing out the worst tendencies of both right and left. the next paragraph on the frustrations of every side being willing to believe whatever supports their political perspective is the better commentary. the very last line of the piece is really the best summary.

  • damikesc||

    Nick, can it not just be "You know, her allegations are unbelievably vague and she is certainly not acting interested in testifying. Nothing she says matches her claims"?

    Do I disbelieve ALL charges. By default, yes. We're supposed to --- that whole presumption of innocence. Here, in this case, Kavanaugh has been the only one to put himself on the line. He testified under oath and volunteered, quickly, to do so again. Ford has not and has thrown up ridiculous roadblocks.

    He comes across like somebody wronged. She comes across as a political tool.

  • damikesc||

    Thought I was re-reading Nick's column. Same stand applies.

    Is there anything in Ford's behavior or requests that make you think this is legit?

  • damikesc||

    And her response waa to ask for MORE time.

    Grassley needs to cut this.

  • damikesc||

    Hmm, sources indicate "libertarian leaning" Flake is not going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. So all of his grandstanding is, well, his usual grandstanding.

    What a quisling little fuck.

  • Luxferia||

    Sauce?

    I think the usual suspects are signaling like this because the vote seems too abstract and theoretical at this point. I wonder if they would feel differently once called upon to actually cast a vote. (Expressing initial ambivalence also has the benefit of making your eventual vote seem more reasoned and considered.) It's one thing to indicate that you're having reservations about a vote before it occurs. It's quite another to be known for all time as the senator who destroyed his/her own party's Supreme Court nomination.

    For example, is Flake's TDS really so bad that he would rebuff a perfectly qualified Supreme Court nominee just to stick it to Trump? Does Collins think she would ever get reelected if she foiled her party's SCOTUS pick? Maybe. I honestly don't know. But it seems unlikely on the face of it.

  • vek||

    Those people are fucking idiots and traitors. They've both already ruined things that any good conservative or libertarian should have been in favor of, over bullshit nothing burger reasons or pure TDS.

    Flake isn't a libertarian, he's just a shitty progressive who ran as a Republican, and by dumb luck has a couple views that line up with conservatives/libertarians. He's no better than Bill Weld or people of that ilk.

    If one of them stops this nomination, I hope they die a slow and painful death for it. This country is on the edge of falling into darkness for all eternity, and it may or may not come down to a good SCOTUS judge saving us on some massive issues that will inevitably come up in the coming years, especially if a Dem ends up back in the white house in 2024.

  • Nuwanda||

    But neither should anyone be certain it didn't happen.

    And the collective IQ of the Reason writing pool takes another hit.

    The certainty or otherwise of something having happened is neither here nor there. Innocent until proven guilty isn't about balancing views in a fuzzy grey area of we'll-never-know-for-sure, it's about being presumptive of innocence until evidence shows otherwise. An accusation is not enough. And Reason should know better.

  • Mnemonicmike||

    The woman is a Democrat, political-activist, left-wing college professor from California. Why are we discussing her claims at all? The prep school Ms Ford went to was notorious for binge-drinking and promiscuity, but we're to believe that she was traumatized by the idea of drinking and sex, particularly if all the people involved say nothing happened? The world has gone mad.

  • Kirk Solo||

    Where is the Tony comments?

  • gphx||

    In the Kavanaugh case it's pretty simple. There was no police report filed and the statute of limitations is expired. It cannot be tried in a court of law and certainly not in an extrajudicial setting. This is pure delay tactics on the part of Democrats.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    We do know one thing with certainty. Whether or not the alleged attack happened, whether or not Ford is lying, mis-remembering or telling the truth, whether or not an allegation from 36 years ago about a minor who was, according to the allegation, to drunk to consent to sex himself should be enough to derail this nomination, we know with certainty that the Democrats sat on this so that they could prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed before the beginning of the SCOTUS term in a week. If the allegations are credible and Kavanaugh withdraws or loses the confirmation vote, it will take time for confirmation hearings on the next nominee.

    We also know with certainty that if there is another nominee there will be yet another last minute revelation to postpone that hearing. If the Democrats can't stop a nomination they will settle for a delay.

    If the allegations are not deemed credible what penalties should apply to Ford? And to Feinstein for sitting on this until the last minute?

  • Michael Cook||

    I pretty much have to take anything anyone says about what I did in college as potentially true. I remember waking up once in a bathtub in a strange house, full of strangers, twice in backyards, and once under a picnic table at an interstate rest area in another state. The latter I vaguely recalled someone saying, "Hey, let's go to Reno. We can be there before sunrise!"

  • Freelancelot||

    Gotta love that Robby Soave's comic book understanding of good and evil.

  • Lloyd Clucas||

    The big lie works. The Rs and Ds are using it in every aspect of what they do today. Why expect better morals in the smear attack on Kavanaugh? (or in his defense) Ds are fighting desperately for power. They will not be constrained by anything so mundane as simple human ethics.

    Hillary COULDN'T have lost! Oh! "The Russians are Coming; The Russians are Coming!" Sure. The Ds finally noticed? Decades late? As with the assault on Kavanaugh?

    I wasn't there 35 years ago and neither were any sentient, responsible, people we have heard from so far. Not a shred of credible evidence. The predators smell blood in the water. They seek the comfort of a wild dog pack.

    "At present, the only indefensible position is certainty. We don't know anything for sure, and we shouldn't presume that we do merely because it's politically convenient." Mr Soave, I think you are a good guy and your position very defensible. I've lived a long time and seen too much of this "pubic hair on a Coke can" stuff before. No more!

  • CGN||

    Baloney. Dems use it as a matter of course, as lying is their only hope in these types of situations. I do not believe Repubs are 100% honest, but their honesty rating is miles above Dems/Liberals. In fact, Progressive belief REQUIRES lying and other dishonesties, and most Dem/Liberals, whether they know it or not, are Progressives, which belief is no more than Communism without the death camps.

  • CGN||

    Another nonsensical liberal / Dem bunch of lies. Why did exactly NONE of these "ladies" report Kavanaugh's supposedly bad behavior when it happened? One or both of two answers are possible:
    1.)They are liars and don't want to be jailed for making a false report to police.
    2.)They are liars and the Dems/Libs promise they WON'T go to jail for lying in this case.

    It matters not which one you choose, they are the ONLY remotely logical answers to this matter.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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