MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

From a 'Due Process' Perspective, the Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Will Be a Farce

"If this were a legal proceeding, many (if not all) of the members of the [Senate Judiciary Committee] would have to recuse themselves."

BKJoshua Roberts/REUTERS/NewscomChristine Blasey Ford has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday about her sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who will also take questions from the senators about the matter.

Kavanaugh strongly denies committing the assault, and will submit his calendar from the summer of 1982 as evidence that he never attended a house party with Ford and the other people she has claimed were there. On Saturday, a long-time friend of Ford, Leland Ingham Keyser, lent some credence to Kavanaugh's denial: Contrary to Ford's claim that Keyser attended the party 35 years ago, Keyeser said she never met Kavanaugh and was not present at any such party.

"Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," said Keyser's lawyer in a statement, according to CNN.

It's possible, of course, that she did meet Kavanaugh, and was there on the day of the sexual assault—she just can't remember. Even so, the fact that no relevant witness has been willing or able to back up Ford's eminently plausible but unproven account is notable.

When it comes to the truth of the accusation, I can understand why people might have a hunch one way (evidence of a pattern of alcohol abuse among Kavanaugh's social circle, lack of unbelievable details in accusation), or the other (no other accusers, extensive testimony of Kavanaugh's good treatment of women). But plenty of political experts sound as if they are already certain of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence.

What's more, some of these people sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee—the very authority charged with deciding whether the allegation is credible enough to deny Kavanaugh a spot on the Supreme Court. This should serve as a reminder that despite all the conservative defenders of Kavanaugh invoking due process, Kavanaugh is not actually entitled to it. If he was, most members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would have to recuse themselves from the vote, since they have made prejudicial statements about Kavanaugh that signal their lack of impartiality.

Take Sen. Mazie Hirono (D–Hi.), who told Jake Tapper that she put Kavanaugh's denial "in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases." She described Kavanaugh as "very outcome driven" and having "an ideological agenda," and appeared to suggest that his hostility toward abortion rights somehow gave credence to Ford's accusation. (These remarks drew a rebuke from Tapper, "It sounds to me like you're saying that because you don't trust him on policy… you don't believe him about this party in 1982.")

Or consider Sen. Lindsey Graham (R­–S.C.), who asked Fox News, "What am I supposed to do, go and ruin this guy's life based on an accusation?"

Senators are not actually objective fact finders trying to decide whether an accusation has cleared some prescribed burden of proof. They are political partisans elected to their positions by the American people. That's a huge problem, from a due process perspective—due process requires impartiality from the people rendering the verdict.

"If this were a legal proceeding, many (if not all) of the members of the SJC would have to recuse themselves based on public statements that they've made either about this particular issue or the BK nomination more generally," wrote Carissa Byrne Hessick, a criminal law professor at the University of North Carolina, in an informative Twitter thread.

A rival framework for considering the Kavanaugh nomination also has some problems, though: the idea that this is a job application, and thus the senators can reject Kavanaugh even on the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. For many employers throughout the U.S., that's not actually true.

"The law varies by state, in terms of what you are allowed to do, but it's tricky territory," wrote Patrick Chovanec, an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, in a similarly useful Twitter thread. "The basic idea here is that unproven allegations alone are not an adequate basis for rejecting a job applicant. In fact, depending on how you handle it, it could be an unjust and illegal basis for making your hiring decision."

Neither of these perspectives tell us what the senators should do. But Kavanaugh defenders and detractors should avoid the mistake of claiming what the senators must do is obvious. It's not.

I say this as a staunch defender of due process, even in cases other than criminal trials. Campus Title IX adjudication, which similarly deals with allegations of sexual misconduct, is an example of a quasi-judicial proceeding where due process protections have not always been so strong, to the detriment of the validity of the process. Students accused of sexual misconduct under Title IX may not have the exact same rights as people charged with committing rape, but courts have held that they do possess some of those rights: The Sixth Circuit recently held, for instance, that students in Title IX hearings should have some opportunity to cross-examine each other. (The author of that decision, Judge Amul Thapar, was on President Trump's Supreme Court shortlist, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly lobbied hard for Thapar, to no avail.)

If Kavanaugh were a criminal defendant, he would be entitled to a range of protections designed to ensure that no innocent person is wrongfully deprived of life or liberty, even if these protections mean that some guilty people go free. If Kavanaugh were a college student, he would be entitled to equal treatment irrespective of his gender, certain procedural safegaurds, and according to new guidance soon to be released by the Education Department, the presumption of innocence. But Kavanaugh is neither of these things, and thus the decision to confirm him to the Supreme Court is ultimately a political one. No matter what happens at the hearings this week, no one should mistake what they're watching for due process.

Photo Credit: Joshua Roberts/REUTERS/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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kavanaugh will be confirmed and this little Lefty trick to derail the GOP majority will have failed.

    The next time lefties try to pull it, it wont even work this badly.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I expect the Supreme Court to be enlarged in a few years, relegating Brett Kavanaugh to a life of authoring whiny dissents so long as he wishes to do so.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Libtards will do anything to rig the system in their favor. They have no honorl

  • CDRSchafer||

    Which is why the left needs to be destroyed. They are all aspiring totalitarians.

  • ||

    The only thing that might get enlarged in a few years is your prostate.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Pining for FDR's court packing days (well he tried), like mourning the loss of a 3rd term for the Clinton Administration, sounds, well, like clinging.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • ||

    We will, ignoring your like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Col. Jessup: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It only matters what you can prove. Ford cannot prove shit.

    The Left should be really scared of Kavanaugh now. He will try his damnedest to be impartial on the SCOTUS but the Left accusing him of rape and trying to destroy him, will make it hard not to be biased against how much the Lefties are lunatics.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It only matters what you can prove.

    Right-wingers have certainly changed their tune since the birther, Benghazi, and 'Kenyan Muslim communist' days.

    Also, so much for superstition-based arguments.

  • Eddy||

    The first "Birther" was Obama's own literary agent.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    And the left-wingers keep on losing.

  • Sevo||

    "Right-wingers have certainly changed their tune since the birther, Benghazi, and 'Kenyan Muslim communist' days."

    One of those isn't like the others, but asshole here can't tell the difference.

  • ||

    The left really believes Benghazi wasn't a bit of a scandal, eh?

  • ThomasD||

    I never thought this possible, but the more I read Froot Sooshi drone on about this topic the more I hear the sound of the adults from those old Peanuts cartoons.

    Him 'explaining' the principle of due process will surely be something proudly remembered in the Reason archives.

  • Trigger Warning||

    You're nicer than me. I refuse to regard him as any kind of adult. I think is he is basically a good person, though, and I hope he manages to undo/outgrow his wokeness.

  • ThomasD||

    Not nicer, maybe not as good at conveying disdainful sarcasm

  • Ryan Frank||

    "eminently plausible"

    Really? That everyone else that she claims to be there is willing to say this never happened under the penalty of perjury. Its still eminently fucking plausible.

    Fuck you

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I was upset that the Senate committee majority didnt just do a vote and ignore this lady.

    Then I saw the Lefties falling on their swords to get blood all over the SCOTUS justice seat. Thursday is plenty of time for more of these lefty jackasses to destroy what is left of their reputations and Kavanaugh will still be confirmed.

    I didnt think Chuck Grassley had it in him.

  • Eddy||

    I would think that the people to please are the Republican Mavericks, like Susan Collins and Flake, who are eager to get in front of the cameras and stroke their chins about their maverickness.

    Keeping them on board means consulting Mr. and Mrs. Maverick to see what they would deem respectful to Ford, and what they would deem disrespectful.

    Let the chin-stroking centrist mavericky Senators have their day in the sun - stroke their egos by caving to their demands, even if it means no brown M in Ford's dressing room.

    Don't give them the excuse to switch their votes.

    It's not due process, exactly, it's just sensible politics.

  • Eddy||

    No brown "M and M"s.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    everyone else that she claims to be there is willing to say this never happened

    'I don't remember' and 'this never happened' are distinguishable by ostensible adults, you half-educated, bigoted rube.

    Carry on, clinger.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Doesn't qualify as evidence in either case.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Doesn't qualify as evidence in either case.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Doesn't qualify as evidence in either case.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Doesn't qualify as evidence in either case.

  • Naaman Brown||

    OK, three of the five people who Christine Ford claims to have been at the party are not willing to say this happened.
    Not Brett Kavanaugh.
    Not Leland Keyser.
    Not Mark Judge.
    Who does that leave besides her? P.J. Smyth?

  • Naaman Brown||

    Kaitlan Collins, "Former classmate of Kavanaugh's denies being at party in sexual assault allegation", CNN, 19 Sep 2018.
    "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."--Patrick J. Smyth
    Four of the five people who Christine Ford claims to have been at the party are not willing to say this happened.

  • Brian||

    Occam's razor says she's full of shit.

    That's science.

  • Rossami||

    At risk of being pedantic, Occam's Razor is a tool of logic, not science. (Or more precisely, a tool fo classical Rhetoric.) While science often uses logic, logic is not necessarily a part of the scientific method. Quantum mechanics, for example, is quite illogical but entirely observable and verifiable. Even relativity was initially rejected as illogical yet completely validated by the scientific method.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's a lot more substantive than "I can't remember the year, or place, but it happened," you subliterate hicklib..

  • CE||

    Lacking any credible corroborating witnesses is distinguishable too.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    For the last week Reason has been telling us that these charges are "credible". Now they're "eminently plausible". Baby steps but maybe Robby has finally realized he's been making an ass of himself.

  • CE||

    Anything is "eminently plausible", as long as it doesn't involve time travel or magic.

  • earthandweather||

    Robbie's work is getting to be worse than bad.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hes trying to prop up a dying Lefty propaganda machine.

  • Eddy||

    You can call it due process or not, but I don't think even STEVE SMITH should be subject to a decision this old, and yet which surfaced only so recently.

    It's not like Roman Polanski, caught and convicted shortly after the crime but with his sentence still-unserved.

    It's not like the Catholic scandals which were reported promptly to the church authorities - and then covered up.

    It's a matter of the question coming out, shall we say, really late.

    Unless it's a question of murder or complicity in genocide, I would hope the Senate would have the self-discipline not to deal with charges this old which weren't reported within a reasonable time of the alleged offense.

  • Eddy||

    Did OBL say something about a new accuser? Was this skilled trolling or based on a real story?

  • Brian||

    Ostensibly this is about interpreting the constitution, right? Or is it all just sex?

  • Eddy||

    Nowadays you get a bit of an overlap.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Dr. Seuss Ford:

    "I will not testify on a boat,
    I will not testify with a goat.
    I will not testify,
    Here nor there.
    I will not testify anywhere.
    I will not testify first. Or last.
    I will not testify slow or fast.
    There's nothing more for me to say.I can't remember, anyway."

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    Oh so very SWIPE!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

  • Eddy||

    The lawyer is extra credible because his Twitter profile calls him a fighter for good.

    With its strict new policies, Twitter wouldn't allow him to describe himself that way unless it were true. /sarc

  • Eddy||

    I checked Wikipedia - the poor guy has had a bit of bad luck in the business area.

    Also, he represented a couple members of The Eagles, and Stormy Daniels too (not in related litigation, let me add).

  • ||

    The ambulance chaser with a big mouth who struck it big by buttlicking the right liberal orifices.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Ford's eminently plausible..."

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    "but unproven account"

    Unprovable would be more accurate.

  • Tony||

    Ronan Farrow strikes again. Second accuser.

    I wish you people would just say what you really think instead of cave to MeToo political correctness. "It's not so bad to thrust your penis in a girl's face when you're 18 or to hold girls down and attempt to rape them when drunk. Boys will be boys." The conspiracy theories are tiresome.

  • Mark22||

    I wish you people would say what you really think: if it's up to you, no white male and no conservative shall ever be confirmed for SCOTUS again, and to make that happen, you will do anything it takes: procedural delays, lying, smear campaigns, etc.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Oh, NOW Tony is a prude.

  • Mark22||

    Tony is just extremely frustrated and jealous nobody has waved anything in his face for so long.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    He's just confirming what we believe. The left isn't interested in facts, just the allegations.

    We the media starts to dogpile allegations hoping that just saying without proving will gain traction among certain people, they are referring to people like Tony.

  • JesseAz||

    Did you read the full story Tony? It's less plaisoboe than the first. She admits she was blacked out drunk, doesn't remember the dates, doesn't remember what most of the night entailed... Then after 10 days with democrats working through the story she now remembers a single vivid detail of someone yelling out kavanaughs full name. It's a more laughable story than Ford's. 10 days to reconstruct her memory?!? And she won't give out the names of two others she claims were there.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Do the recovered memories-that-must-be-believed involve a day care worker, a helicopter flight to an island surround by sharks, the sacrifice of babies to Satan?

    Avenatti at Wikipedia: "In 2017, a Florida man named Gerald Tobin alleged Avenatti failed to pay him $28,700 for private investigatory work. As a result, Avenatti's firm was abruptly forced into bankruptcy. In various news reports, including work done by CNN, Tobin was found to be an ex-con with four decades of convictions and jail time and not a licensed investigator. Tobin's claim forced Avenatti into bankruptcy which caused Avenatti to cancel a deposition in an unrelated lawsuit days later, raising the question of collusion between Avenatti and Tobin. The issue was resolved when the pair entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and Avenatti paid Tobin the $28,700.[46]
    "46. Maeve Reston, Scott Glover, Sara Sidner and Traci Tamura, "Exclusive: How a 'nobody' ex-con pushed Avenatti law firm into bankruptcy", CNN, 2 Jun 2018.

  • Truthteller1||

    You didn't do well in school did you Tony?

  • Brian||

    Democrats just want to go into the midwterm with the seat open so they can turn out the vote to stop Trump's nominee.

    That's it. That's why the timing is 100% optimized for politics.

    At that point, it's unclear that Republicans proceeding with the nomination aren't fighting fire with fire.

  • Tony||

    They've known about the second accusation for a week.

  • Brian||

    That's interesting.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So we have all four witnesses named by Ford contradicting herself and one unnamed source with possible information that they will only give up if their demands are met? Hmmmmm, smoking gun there.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And what is the unnamed witnesses demands? More delays. Does that surprise anyone?

  • Echospinner||

    Can't find anything about that. Where did you hear about it?

  • JesseAz||

    It's in the New Yorker. It's a hilarious tail of spending 10 days reconstructing her drunken memory. They basically did recovered memory therapy which is notoriously bad.

  • Tony||

    Oh, and there's the third.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yet another one where multiple witnesses state it never happened and completely at odds with Kavanaugh's character. In fact, the accuser herself states she was drunk and doesn't really remember what happened, and the witness she named denies it ever happened.

  • XM||

    I think another accuser is being represented Aventti, who's also going after Mark Judge.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    who's also going after anything anti-Trump.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Pics or it didn't happen. Or a stained dress.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lewinsky was attacked by Lefties as a liar and she had the dress.

  • ||

    This is all a scam and you're a useful idiot to believe this story.

    Like the Russian Dossier.

    Stop being roped in lefties.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The bitch failed to provide the date or the address of the event in question.

    There is nothing to go on!

  • Macaulay McToken||

    I like to believe I'm somewhat right of center, but this entire episode is starting to drive me hard right.

    Kavanaugh wasn't my first choice (that was Barrett), but I fear what the long term repercussions are if an obvious ploy like this is allowed to work-- all to protect a woman's ability to have an abortion (the only thing the left really cares about).

    Grassley need to grow a pair; tell Democrats to go fuck themselves; insist fence sitters like Flake, Collins and Murkowski get in line; and vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

  • Eddy||

    I'd distinguish between telling the Dems to fuck off and telling the mavericky swing voters to fuck off, which would *not* be a good idea...indeed, their votes can still be obtained if they're flattered enough and consulted on details of the hearings and their "optics."

    Treat them like valued centrist mavericky moderates, pour the compliments like syrup, either accept their procedural suggestions or credit them with procedural decisions you would have made anyway. Tickle them under the chin, whatever it takes.

  • Eddy||

    Especially Flake, they'll only have to put up with him a few more months, spend those months flattering him into getting his centrist mavericky vote.

  • Mark22||

    Grassley need to grow a pair; tell Democrats to go fuck themselves; insist fence sitters like Flake, Collins and Murkowski get in line; and vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

    Grassley screwed up in so many ways. He could have had the FBI go out and interview Ford the day the accusations first surfaced. He could have subpoenaed Ford to appear last week. Instead, he completely lost control of the process and allowed himself to be jerked around by both Ford and Feinstein. It's a total failure of leadership. Republican voters will not like this.

  • Whahappan?||

    I would disagree on one point, Grassley couldn't have had the FBI interview her, as I believe her lawyers said she wouldn't talk to the FBI. It would have been portrayed as an "attack" if he sent them out to her. Plus, I'm not sure he has the authority to send them.

  • jkj||

    FBI reports to the president. A request for investigation would have to come from Trump.

  • Mark22||

    Plus, I'm not sure he has the authority to send them.

    No, but he knows they guy who does. Grassley could also have subpoenaed her and charged her with contempt if she didn't show up.

    Grassley couldn't have had the FBI interview her, as I believe her lawyers said she wouldn't talk to the FBI.

    It's not up to her.

    It would have been portrayed as an "attack" if he sent them out to her.

    Yes, and the way to deal with that bogus narrative is to stand up to it. Ford is behaving like an little kid throwing a temper tantrum. An adult making a serious accusation against someone else has to accept the consequences of such an accusation.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Grassley needs Jeff Flake's vote to get the nomination out of committee. That's who the accusers' lawyers are playing to, not Grassley.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Public relations person for the US Senate made it clear that the FBI does background checks as a courtesy for the judiciary committee.

  • Echospinner||

    As if what really happened matters.

    This is pure dark art of politics. His confirmation is not the issue.

    They already have him pegged as a privileged rich elite who had a drunken frat boy youth. That is how the Dems want to paint the Republicans as a group.

    At this point she is an actress playing a part. How far it will go in swaying perception depends on her performance.

  • creech||

    Wow. Do any of you guys still have your calendars from 1982? On the other hand, there are probably girlfriends of hers who have their "secret" diaries from 1982. Wonder if any of her besties recorded anything like "Chris told me she got wasted last night and a boy named Tommy felt her up. She got scared and pushed him away. Prude!"

    Remember that just because a story is credible or plausible doesn't mean it is true.

  • TW||

    I might - my parents saved a lot of things from when I was in middle and high school that they put in their attic and later ended up in my storage unit that I've never gone through. It's not so much that anyone consciously saved these things as never threw them out.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But Kavanaugh is neither of these things, and thus the decision to confirm him to the Supreme Court is ultimately a political one.

    It's just as eminently plausible that this accusation actually a political one. We'll see, however, when the court of public opinion convenes to adjudicate this fresh accusation that Drudge is currently on about.

  • XM||

    This is a bit of a semantics on Robby part.

    Should someone be denied due process protection if he's not formally charged with a crime? Imagine if someone alleged that BK grew his own pot in his back yard or assaulted a police officer 35 years ago, but the witnesses have no recollection of such incidents happening. If conservatives / prohibitionists find it "politically" convenient to torpedo his nomination, libertarians would be fine with that?

    College kids of accused rape aren't officially charged with any crime. Same thing BK and the senate. So why does the former require more due process protection? Because the courts have publicly affirmed that college students have some due process rights even in an unofficial adjudication? Why should that be different for a SC nominee?

    If "Jane Doe" agreed to appear and make a statement only after the school met certain conditions (the terms not revealed to the accused) Robby would have a problem with that. So...... what's changed?

  • esteve7||

    Due process is important in everything, not just criminal cases. It is an American value, which explains why the left trashes it so much. What they can't get accomplished because of our constitution, they will try as end-arounds.

    Look at the show trials on college campuses. "But it's not a criminal case!" the left would say. Yet but you are unjustly punishing someone, when they have no presumption of innocence, so right to cross-examine, etc. That;s immoral. But to the left, it's "social justice", proving how really evil that despicable ideology is.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Fifth amendment due process does not apply as Kavanaugh is not in peril of life, liberty, or property.

  • TW||

    That is not correct - Ford accused him of a crime for which there is no statute of limitations in Maryland.

  • Chris_Halkides||

    At his blog Simple Justice, Scott Greenfield said words to the effect that although this is not a criminal proceeding, the reasons behind some of what one would be entitled to in a trial still apply here. For example, Dr. Ford said that she did not want to be in the same room at the same time as Judge Kavanaugh. Yet if someone is going to accuse someone else of a heinous act, it should be done to his or her face.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    I hope you say that when your own daughter is raped.
    Now explain why Mark Judge has not been subpoenaed?

  • Chris_Halkides||

    I hope that you remember this conversation when your son or daughter is accused of something. Although I believe that Mr. Judge has submitted a letter, I would prefer to have seen him served with a subpoena to appear.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Add Christine Ford to Asia Argento and Amber Heard in the #NoSheDoesNotHaveToBeBelievedUnconditionally

    To understand what's going on here, I would recommend "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench".

  • Tony||

    While the smartest people can be rapists, college Republicans are never going to be the smartest people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember when college aged kid Bill Clinton ran to canada to avoid the draft?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Says the brainless, retarded dingbat punching bag with L and R printed on his shows. Okie moron.

  • Rossami||

    I can see an argument that "what the senators must do is [not] obvious" in the context of making the actual decision about Kavanaugh.

    That argument is false in the context of what Feinstein should have done when she first became aware of the situation back in June. Feinstein had a duty to report. There is absolutely no legitimate excuse for her to have sat on the information as long as she did. If she believe the allegations were true, Feinstein undercut their credibility through her gamesmanship. And if she believed the allegations are false, then Feinstein is directly culpable in attempting to defraud her fellow senators.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    How does Feinstein's action affect the facts here?
    Translation: relevance?

  • Rossami||

    To a degree, it speaks to the credibility of witnesses that she (and apparently, only she) has brought forward.

    To a considerably greater degree, it's a tangent from the main discussion. Whatever the Senate decides to do about Kavanaugh, it definitely ought to sanction Feinstein.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    I'm keeping track of how many outlets report the full story on Kavanaugh's calendar. In the release, he acknowledged that the calendar DOES NOT necessarily discredit Ford's assertion. So I've added Reason the the FAIL column.

    The calendar itself is hysterical at several levels.
    That a 17 year rolf would record his social actions in a calendar
    AND STILL HAVE IT! (omfg)

    Trumptards ridicule Ford for not revealing the assault for 30 years -- revealing again their sheer stupidity regarding sexual abuse. MANY women have come forward to recount how their shame kept them silent for decades ... including Patti Davis ... umm, Ronald Reagan's daughter! Reagan's daughter says you're fools.

    But 30 years with a calendar is believable! Why did HE wait nearly a week for something he knowingly kept for over 30 years.

    It's sad to see how low the Party of Reagan/Goldwater/Buckley/Friedman/Kemp has sunk. They ARE the sewer. :-(

  • vek||

    You know, my dad still has his day planners from the 80s... It's a bit odd for the average person, but some people used such things, and tended to toss them in a box when they ran out of pages... Then the box moves along with you. Hence my dad has 20-30 year old day planners still. That a go getting like K would have a calendar is not that surprising.

  • n00bdragon||

    Robby Soave raped me in 1982 and forced me to touch his penis. Due to the lack of unbelievable details in my story I expect you all to believe me and my survivor's tale and immediately censure this disgusting rapist and remove him as a contributor to this noble e-magazine. Admittedly, I may have been drunk off my ass and there weren't any witnesses who can back up my claim, but let's be honest: this isn't a criminal trial so the truth doesn't actually matter. Robby Soave is a piece of shit hack of a writer and these claims are all that's necessary to disqualify him from writing more stupid shit on this website.

  • vek||

    What a baller for having a calendar from back then still! He's a fool for telling them he has it though. He should have waited, and hoped she pinned down the date more accurately to try to make her story more credible, and THEN busted it out, hopefully with the date she claimed being one where it vindicated him.

    Either way this liars story seems to be unraveling more and more. I REALLY hope she gets caught red handed in a lie. I don't believe her story for 1 second, and if there is even a grain of truth to any of it I doubt it was Kav.

  • idic5||

    the real farce is the astounding lack of paper that is Kavanaugh's mark and trail indicating a kangaroo court ramming thru on arguably the most important position in the country ( a senator a prez are around for a short while; this guy will be issuing opinion for 2 generations for millions of americans . Only 7 pct of paper trail has been revealed vs the typcial 95-99 pct.

    Sen Merkley is suing MccOnnell on this , I read, at least to document this travesty

  • idic5||

    Due Process is TECHNICALLY a criminal court concept, and so you are misusing this term here in this hearing, which is better described as a job application

    'In order to avoid fairly exploring Blasey's allegations, Judge Kavanaugh's partisans have a two-part trick. First, they falsely frame this important job interview as if it were a criminal proceeding in order to invent an unduly high burden of proof they claim Blasey must meet. This is nonsense; it is the applicant, Judge Kavanaugh's, burden to prove he is worthy.'

    'The Burden Lies With Judge Kavanaugh ' huffpost
    Larry Krasner'
    https://www. huffingtonpost. com

  • idic5||

    criminal/civil COURT is what I meant

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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