MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Kavanaugh Accuser Says Nominee Abetted Gang-Rape, Groped Girls, and Spiked Punch With Drugs at High-School Parties

The allegations were released on Twitter this morning by lawyer Michael Avenatti, who is asking for an FBI investigation.

Avenatti pic: MEGA / Newscom; Swetnick pic via @MichaelAvenatti/TwitterAvenatti pic: MEGA / Newscom; Swetnick pic via @MichaelAvenatti/TwitterA woman who allegedly partied with Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a teenager has come forward with serious allegations about him and his former classmate Mark Judge. According to the sworn declaration from Julie Swetnick, both Kavanaugh and Judge abetted the drugging and gang-raping of girls at parties in the early 1980s. Swetnick also implies that Kavanaugh and Judge participated in the assaults themselves.

As Georgetown Prep students, both Judge and Kavanaugh were known to "'spike' the 'punch' at house parties" with "drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say 'No,'" Swetnick says in the declaration, which was released on Twitter this morning by lawyer and recent TV news fixture Michael Avenatti.

Swetnick says she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys" and that she has "a firm recollection of boys being lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh."

Around 1982, Swetnick states, she herself was a victim "of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present." (It is unclear whether she is saying that Kavanaugh or Judge personally assaulted her.) She adds that she believes she was drugged via Quaaludes dropped into her drink.

Kavanaugh called Swetnick's claims "ridiculous" and "from the Twilight Zone," adding that he doesn't know who Swetnick is and "this never happened."

Swetnick says she told others about the incident at the time and knows of other witnesses who can confirm her statements.

"We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations," Avenatti tweeted this morning. "Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed absent a full and complete investigation."

Swetnick—a graduate of Gaithersburg High School in Maryland and a former employee of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Mint, the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. State Department, with several active security clearances—says she first met Kavanaugh and Judge in 1980 or 1981 at a house party. She describes the pair as "joined at the hip" and says she "consistently saw them together in many social settings." She estimates that she attended "well over ten house parties" from 1981 to 1983 where both were present.

"On numerous occasions at the parties, I witnessed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking 'no' or an answer" as well as "fondling and grabbing girls without their consent," Swetnick says in the declaration. She continues:

I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abusive and physical aggressive behavior toward girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, "grinding" against girls, and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts. I likewise observed him be verbally abusive toward girls by making crude sexual comments to them that were designed to demean, humiliate, and embarrass them.

After calling Kavanaugh a "mean drunk," Swetnick says that she not only witnessed this behavior herself but heard about it from other women and that his claims in a recent Fox News interview about being virginal and mostly sober during his high school years are "absolutely false and a lie."

Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford—the first woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexually predatory behavior in high school—are both scheduled to be questioned before members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

On Wednesday afternoon, President Trump commented on the latest allegations against Kavanaugh, tweeting:

Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is just looking for attention and doesn't want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!

This post was updated to add responses from Brett Kavanaugh and from President Trump.

Photo Credit: Avenatti pic: MEGA / Newscom; Swetnick pic via @MichaelAvenatti/Twitter

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.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why don't these people ever testify under oath or provide any corroboration?

  • DJK||

    This is a sworn affidavit to the Senate. The woman claims to hold a security clearance. Lying on such an affidavit is a criminal act and would result in the loss of her clearance and basically the end of her career. She (and the others) certainly could be lying but that's a hell of an extreme risk to take if so.

  • Just Say'n||

    I think you raped me. Prove that I'm a liar

  • DJK||

    Submit a sworn statement to the Senate.

  • Just Say'n||

    OK. I did. Now prove me wrong

  • Cathy L||

    So then why are you bitching about whether they testify under oath?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I don't get it, man. I really don't. Why do you think Kavanaugh is worth defending? And don't give me some crap about justice and rule of law. Kavanaugh is a priviledged insider with his hands on the reins of power. Why would a libertarian spend all this energy defending a government lifer?

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't think flimsy rape accusations are worth defending, yet here you are doing that? Why is that?

  • Just Say'n||

    A lot of people care a hell of a lot more about principals over principles

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am not defending anything. I am enjoying the potential downfall of one of the probable architects of the Patriot Act and someone who believes in an Imperial Presidency. Kavanaugh is dangerous for liberty.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's a fair point. But, that's not what's being discussed here against him. If he was being opposed for his views, that would be one thing. But, if these allegations are what brings him down than that sets a dangerous precedent.

    For instance, attacking Trump for not being bellicose enough with Russia is a problematic criticism in my opinion, versus criticizing him for ending the Iran deal.

  • Just Say'n||

    I must admit though that I wasn't familiar with Kavanaugh's involvement in crafting the Patriot Act. That would have been a nice point to have dwelled on during the hearings

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    The Patriot Act is not controversial in the senate. Loved by Rs & Ds alike. Not surprising that a committee hearing, without Rand Paul in attendance, would ignore the issue.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So all you need to compromise your principles is to not like someone. Well at least that pretense is gone.

  • MoreFreedom||

    This story is beyond believable. Consider:

    What is a college age woman doing going to multiple high school parties?
    Why didn't she call the police?
    Why did she continue going to such parties?
    Can she name any of the locations or other witnesses or victims?
    This woman has faced misconduct charges at Portland based Webtrends with a civil suit filed against her.
    If there's so many victims, where are they?

    And from what I've read if Kavanaugh was out partying, there were a bunch of his friends out with him besides Judge, who's an admitted drunk.

    It's so easy to create plausible allegations that can neither be verified or falsified. And it's been a Democrat tactic for many years against their political opponents, usually at the last minute. That's the simple explanation. Heck, read Greg Jarret's article about how Ford's lawyers appear to be working for the Democrats, rather than Ford as they claim, which would be an ethical violation.

  • Marshal||

    Why would a libertarian spend all this energy defending a government lifer?

    Ask it differently: Why would a libertarian defend principle over identity politics?

    Gee, because that's what we believe in?

  • TuIpa||

    The people you are explaining that to aren't libertarians.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    Perhaps he's defending a principle? Just sayin'

  • Oli||

    Lots of the commenters on this site don't have a single libertarian bone in them. Maybe they read some libertarian criticizing the left and automatically assumed that libertarianism means right-wing, who knows.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But the commenters tend more libertarian than the Reason staff these days.

  • Just Say'n||

    Would be nice if writers at Reason were honest that they are willing to accept any and all accusations against Kavanaugh, absent any corroborating evidence or any consistency in these stories, because they fear that Kavanaugh may weaken abortion precedent.

    At least be honest

  • Dillinger||

    whatever the reason the "credible accusation" line was baloney

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    At least be honest.

    THAT will never happen around here in a million years. Gillespie, Welchie Boy, and most of the rest of the gang have managed to forge a career based on lying.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    And that makes you jealous (and slighly horny too)....

  • Myshkin78||

    Slightly?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Reason is saintly honest compared to the DOD, CBP, IRS, Bureau of Counterfeiting and Deutsche Hauptstelle für Suchtfragen, and this is turning out every bit as funny as the Chicago Seven Circus and the Wallace shooting. All actors are committed to the initiation of force, robbery, violence and fraud, so let them go the way of the Calico Cat and Gingham Dog!

  • Dillinger||

    >>>result in the loss of her clearance and basically the end of her career

    doesn't happen though

  • DJK||

    Having worked in national security, I've personally seen people lose clearances for much less. You mean that it doesn't happen to politicians of the right ideology.

  • Dillinger||

    or the Help like Julie, if they help.

  • DJK||

    There are two possibilities: 1) Kavanaugh is a piece of shit and did all of this; or 2) We're in the middle of a vast conspiracy that's going to take weeks or months to uncover. Kavanaugh is not going to be confirmed any time soon. There's a very strong likelihood he will never be confirmed. The best course of action is to cut bait on Kavanaugh and nominate someone new. Amy Coney Barrett is similar in judicial philosophy and has the advantage of being a woman. Trump should have nominated her from the start.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its been uncovered.

    Lefties are lying pieces of shit and will do anything to derail another conservative sitting on the SCOTUS.

    You lose Lefty.

  • DJK||

    It's funny how you think I'm a lefty, given my many stated right-wing positions. But whatever; facts literally don't matter to people like you. Righty tears are just as delicious as lefty ones. Have fun losing the House and maybe the Senate. Take off those red blinders and see the light.

  • Just Say'n||

    What are the "facts" here?

  • albo||

    Depends. "Facts" are what "your truth" is, in this Oprah World we live it. If a woman says it, it's a fact.

  • Just Say'n||

    I told you, that's a tough call, because you're real stiff competition

  • DJK||

    They're both morons. No idea why anyone of conscience would support either.

  • Just Say'n||

    ^

    See. Stupid

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No dummy, YOU are.

    Now shut up, the adults are talking now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DJK, its funny and very telling that you confuse Libertarian positions with right-wing positions.

    My predictions of Democrats losing more seats in the House and Senate are even more supported because YOU LEFTIES know it too.

    Its why you're such losers. You Lefties reek of utter desperation.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It's not even gonna be enjoyable when you turn out to be completely wrong, lovecon89, because you are so dumb.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Baculum, ypu were wrong about hillary, Trump, and will be about kavanaugh being confirmed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Then's there Buttplugger who gets so mad at me, his single brain cell shuts him down for days.

    Buttplugger, does not even realize that I comment over him.

  • PTSD||

    In support of the issue raised by DJK, anybody who uses the word "lefty" on these boards loses all credibility with me, since on virtually every policy issue, libertarians hold positions that are most vehemently opposed by the GOP and regularly characterized as "leftist" -- drugs, immigration, incarceration, abortion, gay marriage, foreign policy, etc. About the only positions held in common by "conservatives" and libertarians are on gun rights and the economy, although that last one is seriously debatable. I'm guessing that most people who identify as libertarian (and actually know what that word means) think conservatives are just a bunch of illiterate totalitarians who desire nothing more than to impose their parochial nationalism on us or -- even worse -- their religious views, which most closely resemble those held by the medieval peasantry.

    I'm not sure when the comment section of Reason was hijacked by conservative fucktards, but back in the day, you could be relatively sure that people on these boards had at least a passing knowledge of what libertarians believe. Now, all the real libertarians are drowned out by this asinine righty-lefty shit.

    What website do all the people who actually believe in free minds and free markets visit these days? That's a serious question.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties are not for drug decriminalization and re-entry to the free market. Lefties hate the free market. Lefties are against gay rights...most rights of most people in fact.

    Your post is just nonsense, ptsd.

  • Oli||

    Are you really so indoctrinated that you aren't able to realize that there's more to the political spectrum than "left" and "right"?

  • Just Say'n||

    Or 3) people are willing to accept accusations that have less sourcing than the UVA rape hoax because the Abortion Gods command it.

    This is religious fervor

  • DJK||

    Not inconsistent with 2)....

  • Just Say'n||

    You know that the same smear would have been brought against Barret, as well. Except that would revolve around her religion. Reason would have run with those smears too. This is all about abortion

  • Nardz||

    What did Kavanaugh do?

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    You don't have proof of either of these things. But your wild assumptions are delicious!

  • chipper me timbers||

    Unless their religion is the state of course.

  • Nardz||

    How do you know he committed sexual assault 30 years ago?

  • damikesc||

    The sexual assault as a teen 30 years ago. I am willing to overlook that completely.

    Except he did not;

    Creepy porn lawyer who is already losing the case for his porn starlet doesn't really scream "credibility".

    If she was credible, she'd have gone to LITERALLY anybody else.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Her lawyer is a pimp.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That invalidates every progressive from vet being a SCOTUS Justice.

  • Just Say'n||

    You keep proving my point that you are the resident idiot here

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *whispers into Just Say'n ear*

    Buttplugger is one of those crazy people that don't realize that they are crazy. He traded in his shopping cart and aluminum cans for a free Obama tablet years ago.

  • DesigNate||

    It's funny to me how Dem worshipers never think that they're religious whackjobs just like the Westboro people. They just worship different gods.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1 DesigNate

  • Fancylad||

    So what you're telling us SPB is that you're a frothy New-Atheist Dawkinite.

    To be honest, I'd rather spend my days stuck between a Salafist imam and a snake-handing Pentecostal, than listen to the unhinged, extremist raving of you demented anti-theist cunts.
    I can't think of a more intellectually repellent group of lunatics than you and your ilk.

    And don't say you "don't worship ANYTHING". Every one of you sociopathic zealots worships the fat greasy cunt you see in your bathroom mirror each morning.

  • NashTiger||

    lol

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    What a crock. It doesn't require a vast conspiracy.

  • Siegzon||

    +1

  • Siegzon||

    +1

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Kavanaugh is not going to be confirmed any time soon. There's a very strong likelihood he will never be confirmed.

    You may be right, but I still think this Ford lunatic isn't showing up tomorrow (she really doesn't want to commit perjury, which is a felony), and if she doesn't this entire circus will instantly collapse like the disgusting farce that it is, and a confirmation vote will be held by Monday at the latest.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    The left did exactly what they intended to do: Create an air of distrust around Kavanaugh and try him in the court of public opinion. And it worked swimmingly!

    The GOP needs to stay the course and let the Dem's arguments get defeated one at a time. This is a long-haul battle and the loser will pay a considerable cost. I'd stuck it out until after midterms.

    This is the Dems' Garland revenge, pure and simple. This has nothing to do with the political process, but everything to do with revenge.

  • damikesc||

    Then it's time to not confirm ANY Dem judges ever again. Blood for blood here.

  • Juice||

    This is the Dems' Garland revenge, pure and simple.

    Why didn't they pull this bullshit with Goresuch then?

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    Because midterms weren't about to happen and it wouldn't energize their voter base.

    If the GOP moves forward and confirms Kavanaugh before midterms, Dems go to the polls in massive numbers. Even if they don't confirm him and wait until after confirmation, the GOP faces the same risk of an energized Dem base voting at midterms. Dropping Kavanaugh at this point in the process is a win for Dems, which will energize their base and get them to the polls.

    This particular confirmation is all about timing, and the Dems timed it right.

  • Echo Chamber||

    that, plus Gorsuch was a trade for Scalia's seat (same for same), whereas BK is taking Kennedy's swing seat. Stakes are higher now

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    If Kavanaugh gets tossed over a series of thirty-five year old uncorroborated allegations Republicans and many independents will be energized this November and not in a way Team Blue would like. We could be looking at a Republican supermajority in the Senate if that happens. I'm no fan of Kavanaugh, but I'm prepared to vote straight GOP over the way the Democrats have behaved for the last two years.

  • JonBlack||

    Three liars is not a "vast conspiracy." It's just three liars who know there are a lot of people desperate to believe absurd nonsense.

    Capitalizing on marks is the American way. And these marks are as easy as a girl from Yale who drinks the punch after she knows its spiked in order for girls to get gang-raped.

  • DesigNate||

    It doesn't take a vast conspiracy to realize that the Democrats and the Media will protect you even if you're found lying your ass off.

  • Brandybuck||

    People who behave in the way that Kavanaugh has been accused of have a known history of it. Yet Kavanaugh's record and reputation is spotless. Everyone know about Weinstein. People inside the industry even know about Cosby, even if the public at large didn't. Kavanaugh's reputation within his sphere is spotless.

    This new accusation rises to the level of conspiracy theory. No way an otherwise reputable prep shool's culture of gang raping students from other high schools in the D.C. area stayed absolutely silent through thirty five graduating classes.

    The idea that Kavanagh got too handsy while drunk as a college student is plausible. It's still he-said/she-said, but plausible. But no way in hell were rape gangs prowling the halls of a major prep school and no one ever heard about it until yesterday.

  • DesigNate||

    With Weinstein, even uber liberal people like SNL joked about it from time time. How can anyone seriously expect us to believe that this rampant behavior was never discussed or brought to light until he got the SC nom?

  • DiegoF||

    Yes. That is the most unfathomable thing about these "rape cultures"--these real rape cultures--that had arisen. Weinstein, Cosby, Spacey--you can look at comedic material produced over the years before the "revelations," and you'll see jokes being made about them as a sort of showbiz-culture inside baseball gag. Really revealing of that world, I'd say.

  • Dizzle||

    Why'd this lady keep going to at least 10 parties with a bunch of guys looking to rape girls? Were her friends into it or something and she couldn't say "no, i have to study tonight"?

  • dbs5347||

    So what are you going to do when baseless allegations supported by no evidence and no corroboration are leveled against the nominee you go with after cutting bait on Kavanaugh? Certainly you aren't so naive as to think that if it works this time it won't be done again, are you? Got any plan for this other than wishful thinking?

  • Truthteller1||

    His appointment to the Supreme Court is an absolute certainty. The liberals have painted themselves into a corner. Don't be an idiot.

  • jdd6y||

    The problem is that if the Republicans don't support Kavanaugh, nobody is going to want to be nominated - certainly no men. These accusations are so clearly fabricated and designed to avoid potential defamation by virtue of their vagueness. There was obvious coordination and sandbaggging. Grassley made the mistake of not telling people before hand, anything withheld from the Committee will not be considered. If the GOP tries to play high-minded then every potential candidate will know this is what they have in store -- subject yourself to serial defamation, character assassination, and harassment all just to have your team go squeamish. I think Barrett was/is the worst person on the list of 25 - the least accomplished and the most nutty. I think Trump could have done marginally better than Kavanaugh. Although, now, with what he been subjected to, I look forward to 30 years of vengeance in SCOTUS rulings. The entire purpose of the GOP has been to get to this moment -- if Murkowski and a couple of lame ducks undermine it, the party is finished. They have to understand that. There is no middle ground because of the ridiculousness and outrageousness of the allegations.

  • Hank Phillips||

    God's Own Prohibitionists think the purpose of the US Constitution is to bring back the Comstock Laws and force women to have coathanger abortions and like it. It's in their platform, the one dedicated to men with service pistols who shoot family pets over plant leaves. I'll spit on ALL their graves!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You must be quite proud of yourself, being such an infanticide enthusiast. One does hope ithat its your grave that will be spat on.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Amy forced me to screw her when I was in junior high!!...POOF....She's history too now!!!

  • KevinP||

    On page 3, this woman's signature appears WITHOUT ANY OTHER signature to attest it. Who did she swear to? Avenatti?

    An accusation of gang rape is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof. In this case, no proof at all is offered. And the idea that gang rapes were a regular part of parties among the daughters and sons of influential DC people without ever being noticed or reported is.... absurd.

  • Jgalt1975||

    On page 3, this woman's signature appears WITHOUT ANY OTHER signature to attest it. Who did she swear to? Avenatti?

    It's a declaration made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, you moron. It doesn't need to be signed by anyone else other than the declarant: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746

  • OGREtheTroll||

    Its not an affidavit though, as it apparently lacks attestation by a notary or other official, unless there is another page containing such.

    It can be treated the same as an affidavit in some jurisdictions or for certain purposes, but in most jurisdictions it wouldn't be admissible. Where it is considered sufficient the underlying premise is that the lawyer involved in its creation is providing attestation as to the declarant's identity and competency.

    Which raises the question: Why would you not have such an important statement attested to by a notary? Every lawyer and law office staffer I know is a notary public, and you can go into any bank and for a nominal fee get a notary's attestation. Its such a minor thing and gets done multiple times a day in pretty much every law office.

    The result is that we are left relying on the honesty of Michael Avenatti as to the existence, identity, and competency of this declarant.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Most bank notaries only break out their commission stamps for bank-related business. Pickup truck sales agreements on the back of a tit bar napkin--or kleptocracy faeces flingfests--are not their bailiwick.

  • MikeP2||

    Apparently you know nothing about notaries

  • Ben of Houston||

    I have to agree with this. It's an extraordinary claim, but that's what's good about it.

    On one hand, if it's true, then you have an entire Me-Too movement by itself, and you should be able to get dozens of witnesses and victims. This should be fairly easy to prove. There is no way that this occurred without at least someone filing a police report or a school complaint. It doesn't even have to be specifically about Kavanaugh. Being part of a fraternity that would do this so often as to be "routine" is enough to not approve the nomination.

    On the other hand, if there is no corroborating evidence, then we can clearly say that an explosion this big could not have gone unnoticed and comfortably set this aside. This is the polar opposite of the Ford claim, which was unprovable either way, and so while not sufficient to convict, is still uncomfortable due to the uncertainty.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    She's claiming that this stuff happened multiple times over a two-year period, and that she continued going to these parties for at least a year AFTER she was supposedly raped herself.

    That's why this doesn't pass the smell test. If you know that a frat is conducting rape orgies, and *it actually happens to you, too,* what the fuck are you doing going back there for at least a year after the incident, unless it's to document what's going on and report it to campus security or the police?

    Swetnick's basically admitting that she abetted multiple rapes, if what she claimed actually happened.

  • I can't even||

    And she supposedly witnessed multiple gang-rapes while continuing to party - making her an accessory for not reporting it.

  • dbs5347||

    Proof? You're not even entitled to dates or locations where the alleged incident's happened and you want proof? Surely you jest. It happened in 1982 or 83 or maybe 81 or it could be 80 or 84 or possibly some other year that is maybe in the 1980's, and that's all you need to know.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Specifics? In a knife fight?!

  • ThomasD||

    "This is a sworn affidavit to the Senate."

    Well that certainly is impressive.

    Have you read it DJK? Can you tell me specifically what claims she makes regarding Kavanaugh?

    You can leave off all the 'became aware of' hearsay. Just tell me exactly what specific things she attributes directly to Kavanaugh.

    Thanks

  • ThomasD||

    (Or did you just come here to pimp the spin.)

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I actually read it. A lot of effort is put into establishing her bona fides and her declaration that she is aware of potential perjury charges in the event that it can be proven that she is making false statements. The problem is that, like her predecessors, she provides not a single location,date or witness that could deny or corroborate her story. She accuses Kavanaugh and Judge of boorish behavior and being present for the whole rape room thing but does not specifically claim that either one actually raped anyone including herself. In short, she has exposed herself to zero risk by swearing out a statement because her vague charges cannot be disproved. The whole thing is transparently crafted to give the impression that this woman is credible because she could be charged with perjury when in fact she can't be by design.

  • ThomasD||

    "he accuses Kavanaugh and Judge of boorish behavior and being present for the whole rape room thing but does not specifically claim that either one actually raped anyone including herself."

    Yes, I read it too. Her only specific claim regarding Kavanaugh is that he was present.

    But ENB chose to (mis)represent the accuser's claims with the specific term 'abet.'

    Which means that Elizabeth Nolan Brown either did not read the very thing she is writing about, or she is willfully lying about it.

    This place is shit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The democrats will ensure she is never prosecuted, no matter what. Democrats, and their allies are almost never subject to the rule of law.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Whining, persecution-claiming, conspiracy-gobbling right-wing rubes are among my favorite faux libertarians. Please go on . . .

  • DesigNate||

    Fuck off.

  • rexy||

    "Whining, persecution-claiming, conspiracy-gobbling right-wing rubes are among my favorite faux libertarians"

    Then why are you constantly crying about them?

  • David1234||

    Why are you whining about whiners who whine about whiners? It's just a lot of whining as far as I can tell.

  • rexy||

    Akshully... You and he are whining. What I was doing is called "asking a question"

    Glad I could educate you.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    David, after that I think I need to open a bottle of wine.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    David, after that I think I need to open a bottle of wine.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Whining, persecution-claiming, conspiracy-gobbling right-wing rubes are among my favorite faux libertarians. Please go on . . ."

    So much projection from you. I have to womder if you have the guts to talk so big face to face. I'm guessing not. In fact, like all your kind, you are almost certain,y a weak, sniveling little pussy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Whining, persecution-claiming, conspiracy-gobbling right-wing rubes are among my favorite faux libertarians. Please go on . . ."

    So much projection from you. I have to womder if you have the guts to talk so big face to face. I'm guessing not. In fact, like all your kind, you are almost certain,y a weak, sniveling little pussy.

  • newshutz||

    Just as much of a risk as a Sec State keeping secret documents on an unsecure server.

    At this point, what difference does it make?

  • dangfitz||

    Possibly, but I'll go out on a limb and predict that future employment won't be a problem for any of the accusers. Anita Hill went on to teach at Berkeley and Brandeis, and the funds ($250K + a mandated $250K match from the state) got raised to endow a chair for her at the University of Oklahoma (where she taught before and after the Clarence Thomas confirmation), but Oklahoma politicians quashed it.

  • Robert Crim||

    You must be reading a different account than I saw. The "declaration" contained a paragraph at the end, saying it was sworn, but there is neither an attestation from a court clerk nor a notarization under seal (it is NOT sworn).

    Nor does it sport the heading of an affidavit.

    Finally, her ex (a Miami Democrat) says she's a liar ( https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ ), and her story itself is internally inconsistent.

    She is two years Judge Kavanaugh's senior and outside his social circle, yet claims that, while attending a local community college, she was also attending HS parties on weekends where she witnessed a 16-year-old Kavanaugh add alcohol to a punchbowl. She claims to have been drugged with Quaaludes, but how would she know they were Quaaludes (she is no chemist) unless she had had previous experience with Quaaludes? At this point, her declaration switches back and forth from active to passive voice to hide whether her claimed gang rape and being drugged with Quaaludes even happened at the same time, which she THINKS was SOMETIME in 1982. And, despite this, she continued to go to the parties and claims she continued to have social intercourse with Brett Kavanaugh into 1983, even though she insinuates that he was party to her gang rape.

    The judge called this one right: It's a story from the Twilight Zone.

    Avenatti should have his license pulled for representing such drivel.

  • Robert Crim||

    Please add to citation: ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order- and against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348 . (Reason's 50-character-per-word limit did not allow the full cite.)

  • fdog50||

    She can lie for the same reason Kavanaugh can't prove his innocence: these allegations are so old that nothing can be established one way or the other. Everyone talks about completing an FBI investigation, but after all this time, investigators won't be able to find any witnesses and if they find anyone relevant, that person is not likely to remember anything. Do we even know when or where the incident involving Prof. Ford took place? Will anyone be able to prove went and where the Swetnik incidents allegedly took place? A rookie deputy prosecutor would look at either case and decline prosecution due to insufficient evidence. Likewise, Swetnik can't be successfully prosecuted for perjury or false swearing, because no one could ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly lied.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh DJK, I though you knew! Democrats and their cronies aren't subject to silly little things like perjury laws, or national security agreements. Her democrat friends will make sure nothing bad ever happens to her. Just like Hillary.

  • ||

    IMO, the fact that she was raped and she told other people, but not the police, makes her a bona fide facilitator of rape culture.

    Liam Neeson shows up to the rape party and you're present

  • ||

    Liam Neeson shows up to the rape party and you're present

    Goddamnedmotherfuckingeditbutton

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If she'd told police, there'd be a record of it. If she tells friends, it's plausible that there would be no record.

    Therefore, if she's making it up, she has to have only told friends.

    What we're looking at is the Democrats working themselves up to a state of hysteria where more and more women, feeling safety in numbers, are willing to level accusations. Soon they'll be getting together in advance to get their stories straight, and they'll show up in groups.

    But, never with contemporaneous records, it's all going to be word of mouth. That's my prediction: No matter how many accuse him, not one will have dropped a dime with the police. Because you can't retroactively manufacture that sort of evidence.

  • ||

    Read her words. She went to 10 parties where she observed girls getting gang raped. Never reported anything, and KEPT GOING BACK??

    Bullshit from here to Nebraska! Yet this sounds hauntingly similar to any number of movies from the early 80s. All of them starring Demi Moore or Jody Foster.

  • JFree||

    Yeah - unfortunately the behavior on the Judge/Kavanaugh side is identical to any number of movies from that era as well.

    Judge is really central to all of these. Kavanaugh is basically the no-name moronic tag-along who no one really seems to remember except he was always also there.

    Even more oddly, I remember that particular dynamic in my high school as well (around the same era) - the loud charismatic drunk who everyone knew was trouble but wasn't actually trouble because everyone knew it - and the guy who laughed loudly at all his jokes, disappeared when he wasn't drunk, but actually was a mean sob when drunk and not too many remembered the next day when everyone was sober.

  • ||

    And what was the name of the Jody Foster movie? Oh, yeah, THE ACCUSED.

    These chicks are channeling shitty movies they saw when they were drunk...

  • JFree||

    Well most of those movies had the women enjoying it and nothing 'wrong' at all - Animal House, Porky's, etc

    Spiking the punch is exactly what I would have expected guys like Judge (and whoever his best friend was at the time) to do. Not only completely normal - but those guys saw it as almost their drunken duty to 'keep the party going'.

    The stuff after - well that doesn't fit with my HS experience but then again I was in London in those years and we drank mostly at pubs not house parties

  • damikesc||

    Read her words. She went to 10 parties where she observed girls getting gang raped. Never reported anything, and KEPT GOING BACK??
  • damikesc||

    This site is so bad.

    How can she go back to parties with her rapist?

  • dbs5347||

    Yeah she kept going back until 1983 after her alleged gang rape in 1982, well maybe 1982, it was not memorable enough to say for sure what year it happened in apparently. Through all that time she apparently had no concern over the over girls allegedly being gang raped in this ongoing rape conspiracy run by, wouldn't you know it, the only two people named in the statement, Judge and Kavanaugh. This is by far the most ridiculous claim yet and my bet is it's where Democrats overplay their hand.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe she likes ,masturbatong while she watches younger girls being raped.

  • damikesc||

    She was in college and attending HIGH SCHOOL parties.

    Does that make ANY sense?

    Who the fuck does that?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Typically, the only people in college attending high school parties are either losers trying to impress the high school kids with how "mature" they are, creeps, or people who are dating one of the high school kids.

  • damikesc||

    But I've literally never heard of college girls attending high school parties. That is just really fucking weird. I don't think Avenatti coached her well enough.

    Especially since she confessed to multiple crimes.

  • David1234||

    There has to be some action that can be taken against Avenatti for his failure as a coach.

  • damikesc||

    But I've literally never heard of college girls attending high school parties. That is just really fucking weird. I don't think Avenatti coached her well enough.

    Especially since she confessed to multiple crimes.

  • jdd6y||

    And who does it, sees minors getting gang raped, says nothing, does nothing, and keeps coming back until 17 year olds gang rape her, then, for another year, keeps coming back for more parties. This chick is probably in financial distress and is being funneled cash. If I'm Trump, I say, wow, what a liar, and insta-revoke her security clearances.

  • AustinRoth||

    Wait! More breaking news on Kavanaugh!

    Another woman now claims that she, too, was gang raped multiple times while Kavanaugh was in the same city as her, and yet another woman is reporting that Kavanaugh shot her dead on at least four separate occasions!

  • perlchpr||

    I have in my possession irrefutable proof that Kavanaugh was the third shooter in Dallas.

  • damikesc||

    Umm, she GRADUATED in 1980.

    Why was she going to high school parties in college?

    And aren't adults obligated to kind of report kids being raped?

  • dbs5347||

    Don't get bogged down in actual details. Next thing you know you will have the audacity to ask for actual dates, times and locations, and those are NOT going to be forthcoming nor are you entitled to them in the #MeToo age. The important thing here is that she has "credibly" accused a GOP SCOTUS nominee of facilitating gang rape sometime in the 1980's although this is subject to change if she reassesses her memories, or talks to her lawyer some more.

  • damikesc||

    I feel like I'm blaming the victim in asking why she didn't report kid rapes to the police...

  • dbs5347||

    Over an ongoing period of several years. Instead, of doing anything to stop it, she just kept on going to the parties where the gang rapes were allegedly occurring and said nothing. Supposedly. In reality it's total BS. There simply are not this large a number of sociopaths to get together in one place to ignore this going on much less over a period of years. it never happened. Guaranteed. When I was in school, somebody would have gotten away with trying something like this for about 2 minutes and as soon as it was known every other guy there would have beat the crap out of them and sent them to the hospital.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I saw Buttplugger rape Tony while Hihn was instrumental in the drugging and raping and WATCHING.

  • Rockabilly||

    Me too, I saw Buttplug do this and I will swear under oath.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You can still rape gay boys, gay boy.

    Hihn calls his ass "piece" so no surprise there.

  • DiegoF||

    EWWW. You're taking this too far. Even in Yellow Tony's world people are vomiting.

  • dbs5347||

    You've got your own child molestation claims to worry about cupcake. I saw you molest a 10 year old in the early 2000's and no I am not sure of the location or the exact date and nor do I need to provide you with any of that irrelevant stuff. My claim is sufficient to prove you did it. The burden is on you to prove an alibi for the entireity of the early 2000's or any other date range I see fit to change my allegation to. If you can't do that you are clearly guilty.

  • AustinRoth||

    The "new" statements via Avenatti do not claim he raped anyone. It is careful, lawyerly weasel wording, to whit "I saw a line of boys...that included..." and "I became a victim...he was present" at a party.

    They purposely avoided directly accusing him, and simply smeared him by association.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans are just seeing right through these bullshit claims.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    In general it's pretty thin on details, and I'm sure that's on purpose.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They need wiggle room as the light gets shone back on them.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Avenatti is a pimp.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And he's a whore.

  • David1234||

    >The "new" statements via Avenatti do not claim he raped anyone.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    These allegations are either true and validate #METOO and high school rape culture, or are some of the most histrionic expressions since the Salem Witch Trials.

    Next up: Kavanaugh and Judge orchestrated alien abductions?

  • Don't look at me!||

    No, that would make them sympathetic victims. What they were doing wasGANG RAPING ALIENS THAT THEY DRUGGED.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Around 1982, Swetnick states, she herself was a victim "of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."...She estimates that she attended "well over ten house parties" from 1981 to 1983 where both were present.

    So she was raped at one of those parties but kept going to them even though her rapists were present. Sure.

  • Just Say'n||

    Spoiler: Weinstein is being charged with more than "jerking off into a potted plant"

  • Just Say'n||

    What are you even talking about? If you want to investigation then why don't these women file police reports? There is no statute of limitations on sex assault in Maryland

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its Lefty crazy season.

    The Narrative has come down to fight Kavanaugh at all costs.

    The Aborto-freaks are willing to lie to prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed- which he will anyway.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Was there a statute of limitations in 1982?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Harvey Weinstein should receive due process. But if you're comparing this BK bullshit to Weinstein, you're an even bigger idiot than you already were.

  • damikesc||

    The TEAM RED! bitches here wanted HW convicted but Kavanaugh immediately exonerated and confirmed.

    Can you explain why Feinstein sat on accusations since July?

  • rexy||

    How come you never link this conversation so we can see what you actually said, and what they said to you?

  • dbs5347||

    There is considerably more evidence and critical details in the accounts about HW than there is about the allegations against Kavanaugh. Any of Kavanaugh's accusers come up with a date or specific location yet? Right, no they haven't because as soon as they do that Kavanaugh, who apparently still has calendars from the freaking 1980's will provide an alibi and it's game over.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    LOL, you're one shameless motherfucker, I'll give you that. You're actually proud of your lack of scruples, aren't you?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    No, because you're willing to dick around with the definition of one of the most heinous crimes in our society, just to help you "win".

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Well, gee, you "fucked a lot of drunk chicks in college". That certainly establishes your moral creds.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    So we only need to find one of those with regret willing to say she wasn't willing at the time to and we can use that to ruin your life.

    That's how simple this game is played.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Buttplugger has no life to ruin.

  • DesigNate||

    Except you always support one Team over the other.

    The same thing you accuse many people here of because they aren't critical enough of your perceived enemy.

  • rexy||

    The evidence should be plentiful then, and as is the case with these women, it is instead conspicuously absent.

  • damikesc||

    The definition of "rape" has changed over time.

    True. It's far more expansive NOW than then.

    She was she was raped back then. Gang raped, to boot. How do you make a non-violent gang rape occur? I can get she wanted a bunch of dudes to run a train on her. I mean, she went to creepy porn lawyer Avenatti, so her judgment is suspect.

    Just seems weird that she kept going back to parties where her rapists were at. Cannot fathom anybody who would do that.

    I know, "DON'T BLAME THE VICTIM!!" and all --- but who actually chooses to hang out with dudes who raped them REPEATEDLY?

  • ||

    And never filed a claim.

    Judge and Kavanaugh were schoolmates with no authority over her or ability to compel her to attend anything or dissuade her from involving any administrative official or police department.

  • ||

    ^^this!

    Prep school boys are not judges or movie directors. They cannot compel young women with their power or their money to do things they would not otherwise do. Why should we hold teenagers behaving like dicks to the same standards as those with real authority. Not one person has said Kav did anything like this when he had the power to punish anyone who opposed him.

    Not one of these accusers claims that they were not drunk or doing drugs at these parties, yet somehow they were the only ones with enough composure to realize what was 'really happening'? Fuck that! Get over it you bitch.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

  • ||

    "I'm happy to say that the little guy is back in place at the end of the line."

  • dbs5347||

    Yes, well, no she isn't sure about the year because the GANG RAPE was not memorable enough to state the year with certainty so she has the option of changing when it happened at will pending a better memory or further consultation with her lawyer.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So nobody slinging these allegations is going to testify under oath on Thursday?

    Its your last chance before Kavanaugh is confirmed.

  • DJK||

    Ha. The necessary soft votes were already on the fence before this allegation. There is zero chance of a confirmation at this point. But keep lying to yourself.

  • rexy||

    It's easy to prognosticate when you have nothing on the line.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even funnier than Kavanaugh being confirmed soon, is that he will assuredly be changed as to how he deals with lefties from now on. This would include Lefties bringing frivolous appeals before the SCOTUS.

    Even funnier than that is the Democrat bloodbath in election 2018 will be from even more voters being sick of blatant Lefty lies and defamation.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    OMG, now we have even more credible accusations???!!

    If the Republicans were smart, they would have withdrawn his nomination way back when the baseball ticket scandal broke. Now they have to deal with his #MeToo problem, which has not only ensured Kavanaugh will never be confirmed, it has also energized Democratic voters for the midterms. The #BlueWave is officially now a #BlueTsunami.

  • dbs5347||

    By "credible" I guess you mean another person who can't say when, where, or provide any other verifiable details of the BS story they are telling. Democrats have now over reached by embracing this rip off of the discredited Rolling Stone University of Virginia gang rape allegations . You're screwed.

  • perlchpr||

    Dude, I'm disappointed. That's clearly #BlueNami

  • Ron||

    Pretty soon they will be telling us that Kav personally got Putin into the country for one of his parties and that Kav also worked with the CIA to get cocaine into Los Angeles for all the darkies to consume. Kav the white powder killer is what they called him back in high school.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Maybe, when you look at the timeline these allegations did not exist until after attacking Kavanagh's abortion stance failed.

    It's starting to look similar to Bush changing the reason for the Iraq invasion until something stuck, and Hillary's throwing excuses for her loss at the wall hoping any of them stick.

    ""Kav also worked with the CIA to get cocaine into Los Angeles for all the darkies to consume.""

    He's no Bill Clinton.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    None of this was important when he was appointed to the federal bench.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Alcibiades||

    They have nothing.
    Testify tomorrow, Ford won't show up, it'll just be Kavanaugh.
    Vote on Friday.

  • Just Say'n||

    Then ENB will write an article about how the Senate intimidated these women into not testifying.

  • ||

    I honestly hope Ford shows up and somebody like Hatch or Grassley lets her have it with both barrels, votes, and then steps down.

    Phrases I would like to hear/themes I would like to see touched on:
    "Thank God John McCain isn't alive to see this." (If only for the ironic lulz.)
    "For every father, son, brother, uncle, and nephew falsely accused, for every mother, daughter, sister, aunt, and niece verifiably assaulted and dismissed, for the women and men who've suffered actual violent assaults from which they didn't survive or never recovered whether justice was served or not..."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I already wrote my Senators to not allow any more delays on voting.

  • Alcibiades||

    Already called and made my feelings known.
    Also want the witch censored by the Senate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Feinstein should be ejected from the Senate.

    The Senate has rules about confirmation hearings and she purposely violated them to sabotage the proceedings.

  • albo||

    I think Ford will show up, but complain and leave a few questions into the hearing.

  • ThomasD||

    She will appear, may make a statement, but will never answer questions under oath.

  • albo||

    This is all about abortion. Goresuch didn't get this because he wasn't replacing a moderate swing vote. The Ds fear he'll be the vote against Roe, and their supporters are hysterical about stopping him at all costs.

    It's crazy season

  • Just Say'n||

    "The writers at Reason fear he'll be the vote against Roe, and they are hysterical about stopping him at all costs"

  • albo||

    Huh?

  • Alcibiades||

    If the GOP back down, they're in for beating in November.

  • albo||

    This. The working class white folk who voted for Trump don't back down, either.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kavanaugh fighting back turned a luke warm SCOTUS candidate into another great choice for the SCOTUS from Trump as far as his supporters are concerned.

    This is really backfiring on Lefties.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Only 3 accusations? Pfft, try 20. Strictly amateur hour.

  • sarcasmic||

    Trump might as well nominate Bill Cosby at this point.

  • Just Say'n||

    Except for the fact that Cosby had multiple accusers that told the same story and had corroborating evidence. These accusations include all named supposed witnesses denying the accusation and all of them are unwilling to testify.

    Other than that, exactly the same

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do you feel the need to fiercely defend this guy? I can't imagine being emotionally invested in a fucking Nazgul nominee. Jesus.

  • Just Say'n||

    You don't find smearing people with flimsy sexual assault accusations to be disturbing?

  • Just Say'n||

    Accusations against Roy Moore were credible, because their story was consistent and they told people about the incidences when they occurred. These are not credible, because they meet none of those standards. If you think that this new smear campaign against people because of their politics are OK, then have fun with the new rules when they will inevitably be deployed against a Rand Paul or anyone who threatens the Left

  • sarcasmic||

    Digging up dirty laundry from decades ago is pretty dumb.

    Thinking that one guy will magically outlaw abortion from sea to shining sea is pretty dumb.

    Reflexively defending the guy and attacking the accusers because Trump is pretty dumb.

    Getting emotionally involved in a Supreme Court nominee is pretty dumb.

    It's a whole lot of stupid all around.

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't disagree with any of those points. I'd add though that finding the new rules disturbing is NOT dumb.

    The new rules have basically become "prove it's not true". A standard that will not be applied in future cases.

  • Just Say'n||

    Expecting accusations to at least be credible should not be a partisan position. The assumption being made is that if you don't accept accusations disputed by witnesses identified by the accuser than you're Team Red. Which makes absolutely no sense.

    I believe that Roy Moore was a pedophile. I believe (and find it hard for anyone to not believe) that Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels and attempted to pay her off.

    I don't believe these accusations against Kavanaugh, because they are based on nothing more than the word of the accusers who have already been contradicted by others, including their friends.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    One need not be "emotionally involved" to call bullshit on something that stinks. And these accusations don't hold up. It isn't any more complicated than that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties were trying to take advantage of Republican principles for fairness if a claim of misconduct was true.

    Democrats didnt give Al Franken any chance to defend himself.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Democrats didnt give Al Franken any chance to defend himself."'

    Al Franken was a sacrificial lamb.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you find it all so dumb, then go away and comment on something else.

    You aren't required to be here. Why hang around? To whine?

  • Nardz||

    "Why hang around? To whine?"

    Have you never seen sarcasmic before?
    He seems to be a very unhappy person

  • sarcasmic||

    Why hang around? To whine?

    I find it entertaining to watch Trumptards trip over themselves to defend everything the guy says and does.

  • DesigNate||

    Thinking this whole scenario is bullshit and tomfuckery of the highest order on the part of the Democrats (and calling it out as such) doesn't make you a "Trumptard".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We know that some Anarchists are unwilling to support basic notions of fairplay and ability to defend themselves against defamation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Does being called "Anarchist" by a retarded farmer count as "defamation"?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It upsets you. You not being able to accept that I correctly call you what you are, is not an insult or defamation. I am giving my opinion as to why you would be opposed to defending anyone's right to be free from defamation that is being used to destroy your career.

    As you huddle over your Soy block and Ramen for dinner, remember who grew that food for you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, no. It doesn't upset me. Don't flatter yourself. It just makes you look stupid to people who actually understand what words mean. Which is, well, everyone. Everyone except you.

  • ThomasD||

    "inking that one guy will magically outlaw abortion from sea to shining sea is pretty dumb."

    Thinking that that is what the Democrats fear is even more dumb.

  • dbs5347||

    It doesn't take emotional involvement to realize that an allegation that doesn't even include a date or location of the alleged incident is not credible for those reasons alone.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You can't imagine being emotionally invested in the presumption of innocence, either, apparently.

  • sarcasmic||

    What a bunch of bull. People on both sides have decided the guy is guilty or innocent strictly based upon their politics. Nobody gives a shit about any facts unless they support a predetermined conclusion.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    What "facts" are you talking about?

    - The fact that all 4 of the people named by Blasey Ford have denied knowledge of the alleged incident?

    - The fact that despite asking "dozens" of people, the Ramirez story could not be corroborated by anyone from the New Yorker or the NYT?

    - The fact that over 200 women have vouched for Kavanaugh's character?

    - The fact absolutely no criminal charges were ever filled against Kavanaugh (or Judge) despite this allegedly rampant predatory behavior?

    - The fact that - so far - not one of the accusers has offered a location, or a time any more specific than "sometime in the early 80s in suburban Maryland"?

    - The fact that in 6 previous background investigations by the FBI absolutely NONE of this ever turned up?

    Which facts do no one care about?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    - The fact absolutely no criminal charges were ever filled against Kavanaugh (or Judge) despite this allegedly rampant predatory behavior?

    Predatory behavior can go on for years without someone filing charges. Just look at Cosby and Weinstein. The difference here is that if Kavanaugh really was some kind of sexual predator, he wouldn't have just stopped after prep school or college, because that's not how they operate. This would have gone on all the way through his legal career, with former employees, interns, and clerks coming out of the woodwork even now (this is why Farrow's coverage of this is so disappointing. He ought to know that those should be the first people to contact when allegations like this surface) to claim that he groped them on a routine basis, exchanged sexual favors for Supreme Court clerkships, crude language around the office, etc. It definitely would have come out during the previous FBI investigations on him that took place.

    Weinstein's behavior was one of Hollywood's biggest open secrets for decades (even average people who weren't in the industry knew he was a creep and expected some sort of scandal to happen to him eventually), and the stories about Cosby were common amongst African-American comedians for the same amount of time. This isn't even remotely the same situation, and the fact that Feinstein in particular sat on Ford's claim throughout the entire first hearing shows that this is a political hit-job, plain and simple.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The default should always be innocent.

    The accuser has to convince us.

  • chipper me timbers||

    That's not entirely true sarcasmic.

    Kavanaugh is clearly a shitty nominee from a libertarian perspective . In fact, I'm surprised that Team Dem is fighting it so hard he is practically everything they want in a SCOTUS justice. It's pro 2A but they forgave Bernie for that one too.

    Yet even so I can use reason and see that these allegations are clearly unprovable, unfounded, the timing and the source show they are patently political, and they are decodes old stories leveled by people who were teenagers at the time. WTF. how can anyone if any political stripe take these seriously?

    And it's not invalid to be concerned about the effect here. Anyone can just manufacture a claim about something decades ago with no chance to prove it and now someone is ruined? This is a scary thing to accept whether it's men, women, right wingers, left wingers, whatever.

  • ThomasD||

    "Anyone can just manufacture a claim about something decades ago with no chance to prove it and now someone is ruined?"

    Rest assured, once this case is done multiple Reason authors will patiently explain to us why this time was different, and no one ever should be subject to such a standard. Especially if they are a Democrat.

    Anyone who disagrees will be met with cries of whataboutism and/or hypocrisy.

    Not like we haven't seen that pattern before.

  • rexy||

    "People on both sides have decided the guy is guilty or innocent strictly based upon their politics. Nobody gives a shit about any facts unless they support a predetermined conclusion."

    I haven't, and I do.

    I thiNk your pronouncements are pretty worthless TBH.

  • D.D. Driver||

    "Both sides"?

    Are we down to two sides? I am not a fan of Kavanaugh, but I'm even less of fan of The Accuser's Veto.

  • Echo Chamber||

    +1

  • Hank Phillips||

    The looters are referring to the commie Dems and nazi Gee-Oh-Peers who flock here to attract LP intellectual voters to their scat showers.

  • dbs5347||

    Typical idiot argument lacking any basis. Anybody who can think critically can understand that when allegations are made lacking even basic details like the date and location where the alleged incidents allegedly occurred they are not credible. Likewise anyone who can think critically can understand that when all the witnesses named to corroborate something instead deny all knowledge of it there is a problem with the accusation and it is uncorroborated.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ^^^ A 1,000 times this

  • BYODB||

    If you don't understand, I'm sorry but you are a fool. A very useful tool to those who wish to rule you absent any constitutional authority, no less.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kavanaugh's record on the 4A was not good. The debate could have been over this point and he might not have been confirmed.

    Instead, he will be confirmed because he's a fighter and the only bad things against him are 35 year old lies.

    BTW: The Nazgul would have less power overall with more originalists on the SCOTUS who reign in all government excesses, including the SCOTUS's.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Kavanaugh's record on the 4A was not good. The debate could have been over this point and he might not have been confirmed.

    Among who? The 4 Senators who actually care about 4A?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It was a close vote in the Senate early in the discussion about Kavanaugh. 4 Senators could have decided the confirmation vote.

    Point is that Kavanaugh's actual jurisprudence record will not be discussed any more. He will be confirmed based on countering the Lefty unsupported accusations.

    I predict he will be more Originalist now after these personal attacks by the Lefties. He has experienced first hand what deferring to government power instead of the Constitution will get you.

  • ||

    Why do you feel the need to fiercely defend this guy? I can't imagine being emotionally invested in a fucking Nazgul nominee. Jesus.

    It's got nothing to do with Kavanaugh. It never did. This is the next hill in the Title IX battle plain and simple. I have 3 sons, I don't want any of them to lose a job at 50 because they got drunk and/or their pants fell down in the presence of a female between the ages of 15 and 20. Mob rule and almost literal witch hunts are a universal evil, the victim being a member of the elite class may, somehow, lessen the evil but disregarding it is ultimately just another form of being a useful idiot to socialist ends.

  • sarcasmic||

    I see your point, but I think you missed mine.

    Seems to me that most people have already decided this guy's guilt or innocence based upon their personal politics. If you don't like Trump then he's guilty. If you like Trump then his accusers are all liars.

  • lap83||

    It doesn't matter whether they are lying or not if they have no evidence. Wtf does that have to do with personal politics?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sarcasmic can't be bothered to be coherent. He's staking out the 'aggressively apathetic' PoV and defending it with dedicated ambivalence.

  • sarcasmic||

    He's staking out the 'aggressively apathetic' PoV and defending it with dedicated ambivalence.

    Damn straight! Er, I mean meh.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Always defer to innocent until the accuser proves otherwise.

  • BYODB||

    Stop and consider that accusations that can't be proven, that rely utterly on belief or hearsay, should be categorically ignored.

  • Mark22||

    Of course, I have decided this guy's innocence. No case was brought against him and no case can be brought against him because it's so long ago. That means he is not guilty of these crimes.

  • DesigNate||

    Not everyone that thinks all of the accusers are lying through their teeth are Trump supporters. Jesus Christ.

  • damikesc||

    Seems to me that most people have already decided this guy's guilt or innocence based upon their personal politics. If you don't like Trump then he's guilty. If you like Trump then his accusers are all liars.
  • damikesc||

    God this site sucks.

    Sarcasmic, it is always "Well, this is not the hill to die on".

    That belief has led to progressives effectively trying to kill off the First Amendment by teaching new lawyers and, eventually, judges that "hate speech" is illegal. It has led to progressivism being shoved down everybody's throat indefinitely.

    This is a hill to die on. There should be no more surrender.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'd rather not die at all. If anything, this is a hill to brutally slaughter our enemies and decorate said hill with their entrails.

    Progressives need to receive a series of political beat downs so vicious that they learn not to say shit, even if they have a mouthful of it.

  • dbs5347||

    What part of the fact that deciding guilt in America is supposed to require evidence confuses you? Show me the actual evidence against Kavanaugh. Show me the witnesses that corroborate the accusers accounts as opposed to the alleged "witnesses" that all deny all knowledge of what they are supposed to be witnesses to. Tell me when and where the incidents being described occurred because the accusers can't and that alone renders their accounts not credible. You cannot credibly tell me someone who was gang raped does not remember the date or the place it happened and you cannot tell me she can't name any of the people who did it, after, based on her own claim, being on the particular party circuit in question for years. You also can't tell me it makes any sense for her to go back to the same parties AFTER the gang rape supposedly occurred knowing all along that girls or women there are being drugged and targeted for rape. It doesn't even make any sense that she would know this and do nothing even before she was raped either. To believe her allegations you have to believe she knew other girls were being drugged and then gang raped on a regular and ongoing basis and that she did nothing. That makes her one psychopathic nutjob right then and there.

  • ThomasD||

    "Why do you feel the need to fiercely defend this guy?"

    I get your schtick, but say horsehit to that sophistry.

    It's not about defending Kavanaugh, it's about opposing a clearly horrific political tactic and the soulless people orchestrating it.

    That you cannot, or will not recognize this speaks volumes about you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, I see it. I just don't believe it only because loudest whiners complaining about lack of due process are people who would find a way to excuse Trump if he roasted kittens on the White House lawn.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Like Jack Marshall?

  • ThomasD||

    Hey, if you want to wrestle strawmen I guess it is only fair that you build them first.

    Likewise feel free to argue about things I never said.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dude, I wasn't arguing. Just making an observation.

    Yes, smearing the guy based upon uncorroborated accusations is an ugly thing. Not disagreeing with anyone there.

    It just seems to me that the loudest Trump supporters are declaring all the accusations to be completely false, or admitting that they might possibly contain a grain of truth but should be overlooked, while the Trump haters have already decided he's guilty.

    Doesn't seem like anyone really cares about the merits, or lack thereof. It's all about politics.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing.

  • damikesc||

    It just seems to me that the loudest Trump supporters are declaring all the accusations to be completely false, or admitting that they might possibly contain a grain of truth but should be overlooked, while the Trump haters have already decided he's guilty.

    The supporters seem to notice that the accusations are all comically vague (at some point over these years in this state something happened) and we watch as the critics decide that Kavanaugh possibly drinking is, apparently, proof that he raped somebody.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Completely unsupported accusations from individuals doing so in highly questionable manners, and timed for maximum political results should be overlooked for those very reasons. This all could have been brought up during the confirmation hearings, but were not for the express purpose of delaying and derailing his nomination. That behavior should not be rewarded.

  • rexy||

    "I just don't believe it "

    1) yes, you've made that clear, a lot actually

    2) stop assuming anyone cares about what you believe.

  • dbs5347||

    Thrash that strawman little guy, thrash it hard. Teach it a lesson. Pummel it.

  • tommyboy||

    I am am upset out this for the same reason I was upset about the satanic preschool cases. The accusations are weak and defy logic. I also feel the same way about Louis CK although I really don't like him or think he's funny. I don't really like Kavanaugh as I don't agree with several of his stances, especially on 4th amendment jurisprudence. But when guys like you call him a Nazgul because of weak sauce allegations from decades ago and everyone screams to delay, delay, delay, it feels a lot like "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." The process is the punishment. Liars who bring serious charges at the last minute by artificially delaying disclosure don't deserve any benefit of the doubt. I don't want the loudmouth crybabies to subvert our system. That's why I hate you and others of your ilk for bringing me to the point where I will defend Trump and his appointees. I would rather just dislike them because of their actual merits vs being pulled into the Salem witch trials. It sickens me that "victim blaming" is being used to shield accusers from any scrutiny no matter how warranted. The term is now utterly without merit, much like calling someone a NAZI. It loses its power with abuse and overuse. Thanks for all of this you sanctimonious asshat.

  • chipper me timbers||

    ^^ well done

  • Echo Chamber||

    *golf clap*

  • BYODB||

    Well said, few seem to actually care about what this may mean for actual cases of abuse in the future. Feinstein has done more damage to victims of sexual abuse than any Republican by politicizing rape. That she isn't being hoisted on a lamp post by feminists is telling.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sarc, these bullshit accusations are not only political theater designed to derail a legitimate, qualified nominee, but also are a slap in the face of every real rape victim out there.

    I've had friends who were raped for real. To see what they had to go through and then watch this disgusting display is sickening.

    And do you really want to give the rogitards credence to start a witch hunt over any past drunken high school groping when it suits them? You should seriously give that some thought. You amd I disagree about certain trade issues and immigration, but you manage to get it right on a number of other subjects. I hope this is one of them.

  • John||

    Because he is innocent. Why do you think it is okay for someone's career and reputation to be ruined based on lies because you don't like them?

    I am sorry Sarcasmic, but you are just pathetic on this issue. If you are not willing to defend people you don't like when they are falsely accused of something, you are just a piece of shit who doesn't believe in civil liberties or anything beyond getting whatever it is you want. Sorry but that is the truth. You are better than this.

  • ThomasD||

    "You are better than this."

    Could be? maybe.

    Is? Not based upon the evidence.

  • ||

    Other than that, exactly the same

    Also, Cosby was in his 30s or later and a massive star with clout. Kavanaugh was a no-name half-drunk teenager/college student.

  • Brandybuck||

    Not to mention the fact that Cosby's behavior was a known insider secret. Stuff like this doesn't happen in a vacuum.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Trump might as well nominate Bill Cosby at this point.""

    Or Bill Clinton. Or Bill Clinton's enabling wife.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Trump might as well nominate Bill Cosby at this point.""

    Or Bill Clinton. Or Bill Clinton's enabling wife.

  • VinniUSMC||

    If Billy boy was nominated, the Democraps would vote for him, 100%.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Look how many voted for his enabling wife.

    I can't take someone serious about the #metoo movement when they voted for Hillary.

    It just shows principals over principles.

  • dbs5347||

    Cosby had multiple accusers providing verifiable details. The only verifiable detail her is that Kavanaugh was indeed alive and in the Washington metro area when some of these alleged things are alleged to have occurred.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    The thing I hate about this whole thing is how a good man and his family are being dragged through the mud for partisan political purposes. Shame on Dianne Feingold

    But shortly after the Senate report was released, Mr. Kavanaugh convinced Mr. Starr to reopen what he called a "full-fledged" investigation of the Foster matter, telling his colleagues, as justification, that "we have received allegations that Mr. Foster's death related to President and Mrs. Clinton's involvement" in Whitewater and other alleged scandals.

    Who were these unnamed, presumably reliable sources on whose word the case should be reopened? Mr. Kavanaugh's files in the National Archives make clear that they were some of the most ludicrous hard-right conspiracy-mongers of the time.

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh my God, you don't get the irony here

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The thing I hate is how you didn't pay your mortgage.

  • croaker||

    Is this another 4chan troll?

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck you

  • DJK||

    This place really has become a right-wing echo chamber, it seems. Too bad. Reason had such promise years ago.

  • Rockabilly||

    fuck off commie loser

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty much.

  • Ron||

    we want due process this is not that this is a lynching

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't understand how not accepting accusations at face value is a right-wing echo chamber. If you read other libertarians outside of Reason they aren't buying these accusations either

  • BYODB||

    If presumtion of innocence and empiricism are 'right wing' I guess I'm guilty.

  • Here for the outrage||

    I am guilty too.

    Also, DJK raped me. Time and place TBD

  • Don't look at me!||

    I think I saw it.

  • ||

    And i saw him at a bunch of different parties around 'that' time. I am sure he was in the line at that one party where a bunch of guys fucked the school mascot. It was an old toothless donkey.

  • Here for the outrage||

    I'm glad we can all confirm it happened. #Metoo

  • General_Tso||

    Named Hihn?

    Snort

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    General Tso - Evil General Tso = 0

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, we are all reichwingers now.

    ...

    No, not really.

    But I'd say, with this incident, many others have clearly self identified.

    Trump is having that affect on a lot of people.

  • rexy||

    When someone says "This place really has become a right-wing echo chamber, it seems" they aren't doing it to further any discourse. It is bait.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason wont be a full-blown Left echo chamber as long as I am here.

    DJK, Lefties lost. Go away fuck-o.

  • Here for the outrage||

    How about a place where people with half a brain come to agree on broad ideas. Like due process.

    Maybe people here can see a smear job, and don't like watching the left ruin good people's lives, regardless of whether or not they like the people themselves.

  • VinniUSMC||

    This place really has become a right-wing echo chamber

    This is either next level parody, or extreme stupidity.

  • dbs5347||

    By right wing echo chamber you apparently mean refusing to believe as fact allegations that are not supported by any evidence or corroboration.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And you have thrown away any pretense to having any principles.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Hmmm, I guess Michael Avenatti wasn't being fooled by members of 4Chan. Too bad... i'm A member of the tolerant Right, but i've Reached my limit with him. Someone needs to take him out because he's threatening the free speech rights of White men everywhere—WHICH IS LIKE THE GREATEST PROBLEM EVER— EVEN BIGGER THAN GAMERGATE!!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The greatest problem ever is not paying your mortgage.

  • geo1113||

    "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys"

    What the fuck does that mean. If she saw them spike the punch, then she should say I saw him spike the punch.

  • Ron||

    and what high school party didn't have spiked punch, thats why everyone was there, for the alcohol and members of the opposite sex

  • geo1113||

    I graduated high school in '73. We had beer and Boone's Farm. But the reasons were still the same.

  • General_Tso||

    Dear God the bottles of Ruin-ur-nighty, er Riunite, we drank in the early 80s.

    Gross

  • OGREtheTroll||

    Riunite on ice, Riunite so nice

  • SteveMG||

    "Witnessed efforts... to cause girls to become inebriated....."

    Efforts? I thought they did spike the punch/drinks? Did they "effort" to do this or did they do it?

    She is saying she saw "efforts" to do something. Not that they did it. And "to cause girls to become inebriated..."

    Did they drug/spike the drinks and the girls became disoriented or not?

    This is either just sloppy writing or it's written in a way to cover what she's claiming.

  • dbs5347||

    Shouldn't she have said that at the time at at least one of the many incidents where she apparently claims it happened?

  • jdd6y||

    Much of this "declaration" is inadmissible. She doesn't actually say that she has personal knowledge of anything. She says she "became aware." How? Someone told her? If she saw those guys putting something in the punch then she would have said so. This is so obviously an attempt to appear to say something without actually saying something. Then she is trying to testify to the purpose of an action without any foundation. How does she know why these guys spiked the punch? Did they tell her? Can she read minds? Plus, she is making disjunctive statements. This guy, that guy, and others, put drugs and/or booze into some punch. That could be true only if "other guys" put "grain alcohol" into some punch. You mean jungle juice? OMG. The horror!

    Put aside the other credibility issues like going to parties, seeing rapes, doing nothing about it, then getting raped, but then bringing a sixer of Zima next week.

  • Lester224||

    Why not admit he partied in high school and college a lot and got drunk a lot? There are too many people who can witness otherwise. The outright denials are going to get him in trouble.

  • colorblindkid||

    But he hasn't denied it. He was coy in the interview but he didn't deny it. He said he drank (legally) and made mistakes when he was younger. In fact just today he came out with another statement saying he drank too much a few times in high school but never did any sort of behavior remotely similar to the accusations. The press and Democrats have been waging a full-blown propoganda campaign even before these last minute accusations.

  • geo1113||

    I had a reputation for drinking and I never drank that much. What I could do was outdrink everyone in my circle (mainly because I was bigger) and be in better condition.

  • Juice||

    "I didn't drink that much, just more than everyone else."

  • geo1113||

    Have to be so fucking precise with you guys.

    I didn't that that often.

  • Ron||

    i had a trick that i taught my friends kids. when at a party always carry a half full glass of beer. When ever anyone ask to get you one always say i just got this one. same half beer all night and i could make it home. I was so good at this that when other kids saw me anywhere with a drink they always accused me of drinking even in resturaunts etc even when it was coke they thought i had a dark beer. it was funny even the local theater would check my drinks though I deserved that one.

  • damikesc||

    I don't remember him denying drinking.

    He denied fucking around.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Since any evidence is scanty, at best, and there's obvious and tremendous political motivations at work here, why not go ahead with the vote? If you're going to vote against for political reasons, you were going to do that, anyway, and if the evidence is compelling to you, the vote against him. If there's real evidence, then impeach him. That's a win for the Democrats, right?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Because of your unreliable attendance, we can't take anything you say seriously.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's a fair cop.

  • ||

    I agree. From the start I've been confused about how, should bona fide evidence come to light, he can't be removed or step down after the fact. Then you'd have the GOP by the balls metaphorically-speaking as anyone who didn't vote to impeach/convict him would be rather literally supporting a rapist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    To the Democrats, Impeaching a judge is the nuclear option, one I suspect they'd never use. Because even Democrats aren't dumb enough not have a sense that it would be used against them in the future.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Abe Fortas comes to mind.

  • John||

    Just vote and confirm him and be done with it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I bet the Lefties are regretting okaying the lowering of social standards for politicians and bureaucrats when Bill Clinton was in office.

    Non-Lefties not caring about these sex claims are a direct result of this behavior being okay with Bill 'The Dress' Clinton.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    The only standard Congress should hold on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings is to one we apply in a court of law when we're going to execute a criminal. Any standard less than that is positively lynching a guy— literally— to a tree outside the SC. That's also, BTW, the standard I applied to all of the positively airtight rape allegations against Bill Clinton, who was definitely guilty of raping like thousands of women.

    I'm a White man and Trump supporter and I say i'm Being oppressed by SJWs who say we can do better than the creepy guy dumping a suspicious white powder in the punch bowl.

  • Just Say'n||

    "is to one we apply in a court of law when we're going to execute a criminal."

    Or at least a standard that passes the smell test. The UVA rape hoax seemed more credible than this

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not to mention Juanita Broaddrick.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    It could have been worse, he could have forced her to make him a sammich.

  • An Innocent Man||

    She saw this happen multiple times, but kept going to the parties, and never warned girls they were being set up to be gangraped? What kind of sicko is she?

  • ThomasD||

    But, but, she's got a security clearance!!!

    And she made a sworn statement!

    She's totes legit!

  • Vernon Depner||

    She's still upset that she never got to be the one getting gang-banged. TEN rejections in a row! The indignity!

  • John||

    That is my impression. What woman keeps going to parties where there are gang rapes? And how was she not concerned about the victim?

    This is by far the most retarded thing I have ever seen.

  • Ron||

    she may have been an enabler to get her own jollies off.

    that said kids talk and just one party with a gang rape would have made the gossip rounds, but ten parties no, people would have been caught and there would have been police records and everyone in town would know about that it, would be, wait for it....... LEGENDARY

  • NoVaNick||

    It should be obvious that these women are being paid by someone to drag out the confirmation process as close to or after the mid-term election as possible. They are coming out one by one-very suspect...

  • NoVaNick||

    For the record, I am not a passionate supporter of Kavanaugh or Trump, not really a fan at all. But this whole thing seems very scripted.

  • Here for the outrage||

    This is very obvious to anyone who isn't a total hack. You're far from alone.

  • DesigNate||

    I was assured upthread that this means we are all right wingers and Trumptards.

  • John||

    IF the Senate came out tomorrow and said they were turning Kavanaugh down because he went to Yale or because they want someone who has practice law more or because they don't like the looks of him, I wouldn't care. It is their prerogative. And Trump would just send up someone else who would be just as likely to be a good justice as Kavanaugh. Supreme Court Justice is one of the most overrated positions on earth. A lot of people could do it and do it better than the ones we have.

    But if they were to turn him down over this bullshit, that is a problem and I would care about that. We cannot have a system whereby any man who isn't a Democrat can have their reputations and career ruined because Democrats find it convenient and some crazy bitch is willing to take one for the cause. That cannot be allowed to happen.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, the bullshit factor is pretty high here. It's also fairly textbook for the de ocrats to pull this shit. Remember Herman Cain?

  • Here for the outrage||

    In 4 years, when Robby is defending democrats from the same type of smears at Slate or Buzzfeed, I'll be right there ready to direct him to the half dozen garbage articles he wrote defending this hack job

  • Trigger Warning||

    Robbo has written dozens and dozens of garbage articles. That's what he does.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. There are plenty of women rabidly partisan enough to do this for free.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Julie Swetnick, both Kavanaugh and Judge abetted the drugging and gang-raping of girls at parties in the early 1980s.

    That's a pretty serious allegation. And one that should produce a truckload of both victims and perpetrators. That is, if we take the charge of "gang rape" seriously.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In addition, if these charges are found to be "credible"-- and I have a slightly more narrow definition of "credible" than many seem to-- then I would say these accusations should result in criminal charges.

  • ThomasD||

    Does she name anyone other than Kavanaugh?

    Maybe, say, someone who is not a 'public figure' as concerns laws governing libel/slander?

    Or is everyone else nameless 'guys at the parties?'

  • ||

    It's the '1 in 5' rape culture narrative bullshit. Presumably dozens of guys presumably and at least several girls involved in setting up, attending, and serving drinks at all these parties which likely included complete strangers as members of the guest list and not one of them thought to mention the rape parties that happen at Yale.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "It's the '1 in 5' rape culture narrative bullshit."

    That number might be right when you consider rape culture now covers catcalls.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I bet, miraculously, she doesn't know the names and can't identify any of the actual rapists, at these parties she repeatedly attended, but Kavanaugh -- she's totes sure he was present at the party, somewhere.

  • ThomasD||

    Well, if she does not know their names it is quite possible one of the perps was an adult at the time.

    Meaning no statute of limitations.

    Meaning if she is serious, then she needs to report the incident to the appropriate local authorities.

    Absent such an act it is very difficult to consider her credible.

  • ||

    Meaning if she is serious, then she needs to report the incident to the appropriate local authorities.

    Absent such an act it is very difficult to consider her credible.

    If she can name names and isn't she's arguably shielding a rapist.

  • ThomasD||

    Seems to me any reputable lawyer would also advise her to file a police report, and would probably not proceed with any other action until this was done.

  • dbs5347||

    Nope. The statement names nobody but Kavanaugh and Judge as drugging girls to enable the alleged ongoing gang rapes. It makes no allegations of actual rape, gang or otherwise, against any specific person, not even with regard to the gang rape the accuser claims happened to her. She was on this party circuit for years and went to well over 10 parties but can't say where or when they were and can't name a single rapist. It also provides no specific locations or dates, big shocker there.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    What does she mean by abetted?

    Spiking the punch doesn't necessarily rise to that claim. The owner of the house may have abetted more, since they are responsible for what happens in their home. I don't see anyone making that claim because there is no political end to it. That's what this is about, politics. Not the welfare of a woman.

    Unless I'm missing something the new allegation are he went to parties where women were taken advantage of, and he spiked the punch. Neither supports he gang raped anyone one, nor does she make the claim the was involved in the rapes. Just that he was present at the party.

  • John||

    It doesn't even rise to the level of being an accusation. She doesn't actually accuse him of doing anything.

  • dbs5347||

    There isn't anything to abet anyway as evidenced by the fact that she fails to name a single one of the gang rapists who allegedly raped multiple girls, including her, over multiple years at multiple parties she regularly attended.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    An accusation doesn't have to have grounds in reality to be an accusation. She clearly accuses him of abetting the drugging and gang-raping at parties.

    Ask her to prove it, and I'm sure you'll get crickets.

  • Ron||

    If just his presence at a party alone determines guilt then her presence at the party also makes her guilty

  • Here for the outrage||

    Watching Robby virtue signal / flounder on twitter is the most satisfying part of the day so far. Those dinner parties must be something to behold.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Robby Soave
    ‏Verified account @robbysoave

    Sometimes, you gotta admit you lost. They lost this one. Fortunately for them, the only consequence will be the nomination/confirmation of an equally conservative justice a few weeks from now.
    9:08 AM - 26 Sep 2018

  • Here for the outrage||

    When baseless accusations are used as political tools to smear, no matter the outcome of the confirmation, we all lose. That's what he doesn't seem to get.

    This is a new low, and the bar doesn't ever raise back up. Just like to government never shrinks.

  • Eddy||

    OK, screw President Trump, he had an awesome candidate in Barrett, but he passed her over, supposedly because he thought "this Kavanaugh fellow doesn't have baggage like her, he's a mainstream conservative, he'll get the votes Barrett wouldn't plus he makes me more comfortable."

    Trump has one job - getting people on the Supreme Court who don't suck, and hopefully don't kill babies. For once, skipping Barrett, he probably patted himself on the back for "playing it safe."

    Now we have a distinctive possibility of the Democrats taking over the Senate and inflicting another Kennedy - another glad-handline babykiller - on the country.

    "But Barrett isn't mainstream!"

  • Just Say'n||

    Eddy, Barrett would have been smeared just the same. The only difference is that it would be about her religion. Reason would have run with those accusations and call them "credible" and "important" just the same.

    Take a step back and realize that those who worship abortion put nothing above that God and will gladly smear anyone who threatens their God.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I'm confident the progressive / libertarian alliance would have found a way to prevent Barrett's confirmation as well. And in case you need some remedial biology lessons, abortion doesn't "kill babies." It kills clumps of cells, similar to how yeast infection remedies work.

    #ILoveScience

  • Mock-star||

    9/10. I laughed.

  • Nardz||

    Kennedy retired upon condition that Kavanaugh would replace him.
    Establishment Rs were in agreement about him, and Trump found him acceptable enough.
    I doubt he would've been chosen if Trump really had his pick.

  • Eddy||

    Kennedy either resigned or didn't. If he resigned conditional on a specific successor, that would have been an attack on the power of the President to nominate, and the Senate to confirm, their own choices.

    Here's what appears to be Kennedy's resignation letter,

    https://bit.ly/2zwmBgt

    he doesn't impose conditions, nor could he - if he wanted Kavanaugh, that would be damning against Kavanaugh.

  • John||

    Eddy you are an idiot. They would have done this to anyone. And Kavanaugh has a sterling professional reputation. There was no reason for Trump to have not appointed him. By your logic, only women can be on the Supreme Court now because men will be slanderd as rapists during the confirmation process. And that is just retarded.

  • Eddy||

    " idiot...just retarded."

    That's our John!

    If only prolife women can get confirmed, give us some prolife women for the Supreme Court, rather than another Kennedy.

  • John||

    If only pro life women can get confirmed, then you need to fix that not go along with it. And who says Kavanaugh isn't pro life? Do you think only broads can be pro life?

  • Eddy||

    It's not that he's pro-abort, it's that - according to the logic of my position as defined by yourself - maybe only prolife women can get *confirmed*

  • Nardz||

    Yeah, I'm not thrilled with the Kavanaugh pick - just guessing it was a wink wink thing between Kennedy+R leadership and the admin.
    Maybe not, but either way the witch hunting purigressives must not be appeased

  • dbs5347||

    Barrett is a confirmation problem with Collins and Murkowski because of her writings on abortion. You can accept that or not but that's the way it is.

  • Eddy||

    If Kavanaugh doesn't have a confirmation problem because of his prolife views, what on earth is wrong with him, and what no earth is the Republican Party for having platform language for years in favor of prolife judges while laughing up their sleeves as any pro-lifer stupid enough to believe the Republicans.

  • Eddy||

    Just rereading my post, I observe I *didn't* say Reps should vote against Kavanaugh or that Trump should withdraw his name.

    I'm commenting on the fact that Trump's effort at "pragmatism" doesn't seem very pragmatic.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...his claims in a recent Fox News interview about being virginal and mostly sober during his high school years are "absolutely false and a lie."

    I don't think there's any call to slut shame him.

  • FreeRadical||

    When you are a civil servant and work in so many different agencies, it usually means you're a bad employee for some reason. Since you can't get fired, you get pawned off on some other hapless victim.

    I know this from first hand experience. Most of the time, they play hot potato with you inside one agency. But she worked in 6 agencies. God knows how many jobs she had in each one.

  • Palatki||

    She was never a federal employee. She is an independent IT free-lancer, and did contractor work for each of those named agencies, for which she needed a security clearance. The clearances must not be very high, as she once had a restraining order for stalking an ex-boyfriend, and threatening to kill him and his family. Also, she once sued a former employer for sexual discrimination, and her lawyer in that matter was Katz, who is Blase-Ford's lawyer now (but there's no conspiracy). Lastly, she apparently never told her dad about this, and the first time he heard of it was when reporters called him (they haven't spoken for over ten years). Apropos of nothing, i guess, but still kind of interesting.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    She adds that she believes she was drugged via Quaaludes dropped into her drink.

    This sounds like an 80s high school comedy.

  • FreeRadical||

    Exactly. You know, if it sounds too bad to be true, it probably isn't.

    I admit, when I was in college in the 80s we regularly made "jungle juice" for our house parties. We definitely put grain alcohol in it and yes, we tasted it to make sure we thought the ladies would like it.

    We're all rapists! Right? The only problem is that all the ladies knew exactly what it was and exactly what we doing, and still quaffed large quantities of the stuff.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Jungle juice... makes me want to put on my parachute pants.

  • General_Tso||

    I've got that Members Only jacket around here somewhere...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'M STILL WEARING MINE!

  • Nardz||

    We still called it jungle juice in the early aughts.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You're standing on the shoulders of midgets.

  • rexy||

    Moose juice!!!

  • John||

    Qualudes were withdrawn from the US market in 1982. And they were pretty hard to find for several years before that. This woman is lying her ass off.

  • BYODB||

    I just wonder why someone would give away such a hyped drug. I'll tell you this, I won't share my LSD. That shit can be hard to find.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Amazing what the FBI missed during all those background checks at every stop along the way of Kavanaugh's career. Next it will be "look Evangelicals, here is an accusation he participated in Satanic rituals".

  • Cloudbuster||

    FFS, he was 14 years old in 1980. This shit is getting ridiculous.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Swetnick—a graduate of Gaithersburg High School in Maryland and a former employee of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Mint, the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. State Department, with several active security clearances—

    Sounds like they couldn't move her around fast enough.

  • FreeRadical||

    Yup. I've seen that in action..

  • Ron||

    there is some truth to that but also sometimes the only way to move up the government job ladder is to go into open positions in similar departments.

  • IceTrey||

    So she basically calls every boy within say a 30 mile radius of Kav's school a potential gang rapist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    There were gangs, raping, many women. Who these criminals and victims are remains a total mystery. But girls were raped, by gangs.

  • Just Say'n||

    Remember when Reason use to call out moral panics rather than egging them on?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    no

  • ThomasD||

    Back when authors vetted the substance of the information, rather than just hyping the allegations.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    When was this?

  • Don't look at me!||

    Every. Single. One. At every party. Everyone was raped, nobody said a word. For over 30 years.

  • Chipper Jones||

    Hide ya husbands, hide ya wives...

  • Nardz||

    What reasons would a legitimate victim have to choose Avenatti as their representation?
    I guess that's not suspicious. Nope, not at all.

  • Just Say'n||

    #BASTA

  • Mindscape||

    Let's hear her name all the other rapists. If it was gang rape, and she remembers it so vividly, she should be able to name at least four or five other men. Put their names out there. Name other people at the party (not necessarily rape victims, just attendees). Sure one of the 10 girls who were raped also told other people or reported it to police. Surely another man at the part would be willing to vouch for her. In the absence of hard evidence, you must at least have corroborating witnesses that can recount dates, locations, attendees, etc.

    I really hope there is a full FBI investigation. Either Kavanaugh will be proven a rapists, or the Dem smear factory will be exposed. Win-win.

  • IceTrey||

    I think I went to the lamest high school in history. Sure we had a few parties but I definitely missed out on all the rape.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I know, parties, booze, 'ludes, rapes. Who had time for getting grades to go to college?

  • Rat on a train||

    I wen't to a small school. We had to rape other schools. Sometimes we would just pillage.

  • ThomasD||

    Ah yes, an old number six...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The FBI doesn't investigate non criminal, non federal, thirty six year old bullshit.

    Nor should they.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I suppose the most "credible" claim yet, but ...

    She estimates that she attended "well over ten house parties" from 1981 to 1983 where both were present

    is hard to reconcile with

    Around 1982, Swetnick states, she herself was a victim "of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes


    So she herself enjoyed this whole process? Stockholm syndrome?
    Naw, I just don't by all these 35 year old horror stories coming out at the last minute. One might even call all these accusers a peculiar left brand of gang banging.
    It just don't add up. None of them do.
    As for worries about losing her security clearance, the cynic in me wonders if she is nearing retirement age, or if she wiill take some plum do-nothing propaganda job with the DNC soon.

  • wreckinball||

    She won't lose anything. One, its hard to prove she is lying for the same reason Kavanaugh can't necessarily prove his innocence. Besides how preposterous this whole thing is.

    And we have the Sessions DOJ to take the lead which means nothing will happen even if evidence of lying is found.

    As long as she doesn't mind being outed as a nut case she has nothing to lose.

    Also, she apparently returned to the "rape parties" after she graduated from HS in 1981. Because she liked the young boys? That always happened back in the day, you know older HS girls girls coming back to party with the under classmen.

  • dbs5347||

    Don't worry, she'll reassess her memories and consult with her sleazebag lawyer and they will revise the dates when they realize that glaring error.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    These leftist retards will believe absolute anything involving upper middle class white boys and gang rape.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    The left has finally done it. They are now radicalizing the right against them. Now we're going to have a fair fight. The Democrats decided to go all in on identity politics back in the '60s and now everyone is seeing the results. Trump is just the tip of the iceberg of what is coming to America, and to Western Europe.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties forgot about the Silent Majority and its willingness to fight back when attacked.

    As you say, Trump is just the first salvo. Kavanaugh fighting and having tons of support is another shot across the Lefty ship of nonsense.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Trump is just the first salvo.

    Yep. If you hate Trump, just wait for President Nugent.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Makes mes think of that scene in Tombstone where they push Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) too far, and he begins exterminating the entire Cowboy Gang.

    "You tell 'em I'M coming... and hell's coming with me, you hear?"

    It's about time the republicans start breathing fire. Trump must replace Sessions, and begin the long process of convicting and incarcerating the core of the de ocrat party and to money people. Every one of them legitimately guilty of serious crimes.

    Destroy them all.

  • chipper me timbers||

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Once Trump released that final short list of four or five people, I was hoping he would go with her as well.

    Smearing a woman is a million times harder and politically riskier for the democrats than smearing a guy is.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Smearing a woman is a million times harder and politically riskier for the democrats than smearing a guy is.

    True, but I'm confident the Democrats have the skills to make it work.

    #SaveRoe
    #OverturnHeller
    #StopAmyConeyBarrett

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I'll be a LOT more impressed by your work when you can make up decent parody excuses for Hillary not just covering up for Bill's rapes and child sex flights, but her demonization of Bill's accusers on a far vaster scale when they had police reports and everything, and none of it had to wait 36 years to come out in the open.

    I can forgive Hillary for a lot of her political hackery, because it was just ordinary political hackery -- email server, Benghazi, even her false memory of coming under sniper fire in the Balkans. But her support of Bill was calculated in cold blood. She went after his rape victims in cold blood, ruined their lives for the second time after Bill did it the first time. Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds!

    I will never forgive her for that.

    #StillWithHim
    #InternsToo
    $ChildrenToo

  • Wally||

    Remember Palin?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Smearing a woman is a million times harder and politically riskier for the democrats

    Which is why Kavanaugh should immediately seize the high ground by coming out as transgender.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    When asked why he became a judge and wants to be a justice, he should say he likes the dressesrobes.

  • Juice||

    Smearing a woman is a million times harder and politically riskier for the democrats than smearing a guy is.

    It would bring up buried memories of her getting gang smeared in high school.

  • dbs5347||

    They don't need to smear her. Collins and Murkowski likely won't vote for her.

  • Ron||

    the Left had no problems smearing Palin and Condi Rice so i see nothing to stop them from smearing even Mary Magdeline if it will get them what they want

  • GoatOnABoat||

    These so-called "accusers" are getting paid to fabricate stories. I have no proof, but it seems like something that could be true. Isn't that litmus test for accusations these days?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Seems credible.

  • Anonymous Source||

    35 years ago (or so), Kavanaugh turned me into a newt.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He was also a temporary receptacle for one of Voldemort's souls shards, and I have it on good authority he frequently pissed in punch bowls. Or maybe he punched piss bowls. Could have been both.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Burn the witch!

  • BYODB||

    Well, he got better....

  • 10percenter||

    If I was at a party and saw drug induced gang rapes going on, I certainly would not keep going to those parties.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And she attended all of these parties, right?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    She attended as many parties as jobs in federal agencies.

  • Mark22||

    She estimates that she attended "well over ten house parties" from 1981 to 1983 where both were present.

    So let me get this straight: she kept going back to "house parties" where girls were drugged and gang raped? She wasn't concerned for her own safety? She didn't think this was worth reporting to the police?

    Seriously?

  • Just Say'n||

    Mindy: Are you going to that Bret Kavanaugh party tonight?

    Julie Swetnick: You mean the guy who gang rapes girls with his friends and for some strange reason no one has ever said anything remotely related to that ever to police or teachers?

    Mindy: That's the one

    Julie Swetnick: Sure. That sounds like fun.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pretty much.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Guys,

    I'm on hold on the Glenn Beck program right now so i'm Going to run by what i'm Going to say:

    First of all, Glenn, thank you for totally coming off the cross that you were on in 2009 and for volunteering to get back on a bigger cross in 2018. It's what Jesuse would have done.

    I'm a Trump supporter and I blame liberal SJW for dividing the country up into MeToo, NotMeToo and the NotNotMeToomovements and would suggest that in order to unite the country back to what it was when it was invading and accepting a sovereign country that we set aside blame and elect Democrats to Congress because uniting it under aRepublican Congress and President hasn't seemed to work too good.

    How do you think it's going to go?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    jonahhillno.gif

  • ThomasD||

    Can someone tell me how - specifically - did Kavanaugh 'abet' any crimes?

    That's a real word - abet. It has actual meaning.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Just like "gang" and "rape" have real meanings.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, whoever wrote the headline of this article has most certainly gang raped truth and the English language.

  • Mark22||

    After peegate, how can anybody take this crap seriously?

  • Heraclitus||

    I'm enjoying reading all the trolls trying to defend the elite prep-school boy. Whatever happened to the drain the swamp, anti-elite, tell 'em like it is presidency? Instead we get a guy who was groomed to be an elite since he was a teenager nominated by a fellow crotch-grabbing, silver spoon in his mouth, elite school prepster. Meanwhile, Obama uses words with more than 4 syllables and all the MAGA trolls freak out that the liberal elites are taking over. Nah, they just wanted a loyal bro in power who would protect his buddies' financial interests. You would think libertarians would get this. Kavanaugh is a crony. With the likes of him in power you don't get a free-market system, you get crony capitalism. Trump and the GOP are playing y'all for fools. You may not like how this is going down but at least these women are peeling back the origin story of the folks that are holding the levers to power in this country.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure your handle constitutes a sexual assault.

  • Incredulous||

    Haha, so true, it's seems pretty rapey

  • wreckinball||

    I enjoy reading the idiots who believe this dumb as shit stuff. Like you.

  • wreckinball||

    I enjoy reading the idiots who believe this dumb as shit stuff. Like you.

  • John||

    I really enjoy reading a retard who thinks that being an "elite preppy boy" or a "non elite white trash girl" is somehow relevant in determining whether you should defend someone falsely accused of something.

    The fact that you think "defending some elite preppy boy" is any kind of a relevant point in this discussion is conclusive proof you are a complete retard incapable of rational thought or discussion. People are not guilty or innocent or worthy of defense based on whatever class slander you can come up with. We moved on from that a few thousand years ago in rational society. Perhaps your IQ is just a bit too low to function in a rational society.

  • Ben of Houston||

    A good part of the swamp is the idea that you use politics and connections to select people instead of selecting the best.

    The standards around justice nominations is insane. "Did you pay social security on your housekeeper?" was used on at least one occasion.

    And now this? Horrific accusations coming out after all hearings have occurred. One is unprovable, and the second doesn't even stand up the standards of an accusation (she wasn't sure it was Kavanaugh). This most recent one is on the level of a conspiracy theory. If it's true, then it's horrific, but it's unbelievable.

    Who we want to nominate doesn't matter. HOW they are confirmed is the more important issue.

  • Mark22||

    I'm enjoying reading all the trolls trying to defend the elite prep-school boy. Whatever happened to the drain the swamp, anti-elite, tell 'em like it is presidency?

    You're confusing libertarians with socialists. Socialists classify people based on the social class they were born into. Libertarians judge people by their actions. The kind of "elite" we object to isn't people born into wealth, but people who use their membership in a small social circle to impose their will on us.

    Nah, they just wanted a loyal bro in power who would protect his buddies' financial interests. You would think libertarians would get this. Kavanaugh is a crony.

    Kavanaugh isn't an ideal libertarian candidate, and Trump isn't an ideal libertarian president. Both are better than the alternative. And the kind of character assassination that the left has loosed on Kavanaugh is reprehensible no matter who it is directed at.

  • Mark22||

    You may not like how this is going down but at least these women are peeling back the origin story of the folks that are holding the levers to power in this country

    Oh, they most certainly are: we see that privileged, wealthy women only need to point their anorexic, trembling fingers at any male to erase him from existence. If those women failed at life, they expect an extra dose of credibility.

  • ||

    You may not like how this is going down but at least these women are peeling back the origin story of the folks that are holding the levers to power in this country.

    No, they aren't.

    To be perfectly clear, I dislike Kavanaugh. He is, as you say, the perfect picture of a douchy, over-privileged prep-school swamp-dweller who is confident that his righteously lived life gives him authority over the little people.

    I won't be sad to not have Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS (except for my concern over who might get nominated in his place, since we could do worse).

    The concern for any libertarian here is that these are very vague claims concerning things that happened almost 40 years when all involved were teenagers. How thin and unverifiable does an accusation have to be before we won't take it seriously? Because these accusations almost couldn't have less substance than they do.

    That's the real concern here.

  • Tony||

    God I hope this is a Democratic conspiracy. One, it means less rape in the world than otherwise. Two, Democrats are finally good at this?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, they couldn't take Clarence Thomas down with allegations that were marginally more credible than these (you can read that how you will) so it looks like they're going for broke on this one and just hoping something-- anything sticks.

    Interesting strategy, I'll give them that. Ballsy even.

  • Tony||

    I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor and assume they are not engaging in a coordinated strategy involving hiring crisis rape actors (which must be true if this is all a big con). That's because they are not good at this, and Chuck Schumer is not the person to have changed that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait, now I'm confused... which conspiracy are we talking about here? I was focused on the one where devil-worshiping and gang rapes were happening at house parties involving multiple victims, dozens of perpetrators all taking place at numerous parties across a 3 year period and no one made a peep and kept it an absolute sworn secret until there was a high stakes political appointment in the mix.

  • Tony||

    You mean the country didn't hear about it until a national appointment was in the cards? Because they certainly discussed it among themselves. He even wrote it into his stupid calendar.

  • Ron||

    Now that his calendar is public its easier to make up stories to fit his time frames

  • Ron||

    latest on the news is the horendousness of the accusation alone is enough to require withdrawing Kavanaugh .

    so now just make the most absolute outlandish claims without proof as all thats needed.

    if this fails next they will tell us he drove a rape victim of his to an abortion clinic. i could see someone voluntering to make that claim and claim no proof due to age they used false names.

    As others have said this is only harming real victims

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You get rid of Bill and Hillary, that's quite a few fewer rapes and rapists.

  • rexy||

    You call this obviously crazy broad "good at this?"

    80's bro. Satanic Panic. Shit like this broad is peddling is what made people wise to the nonsense.

    "Rockets to the moon for rape parties!!!"

    "Good at this" he says.

  • Incredulous||

    This is total bullshit. Why is this all coming out at the last minute after 35 years? Total bullshit. It's all still completely unprovable bullshit. Like many here, I didn't really care too much about the Kavanaugh confirmation (although probably light years better than any Democrat nominee from a libertarian standpoint) but now he needs to be confirmed. Otherwise, we're allowing total bullshit last minute unprovable allegations to destroy somebody. It would be a horrible thing on it's own and only encourage more of the same. We need to stop this bullshit right now.

  • Tony||

    Why are Republican judges better from a libertarian standpoint?

  • Incredulous||

    They actually seem to care about freedoms other than the freedom to have an abortion. They're far from perfect from a libertarian standpoint but not totally statist jerks like the Democrats favor - the ones that will rubber stamp any other expansion of state power while nullifying the Bill of Rights.

  • Tony||

    You just said nothing.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You used fewer words to say less. Congratulations!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They actually seem to care about freedoms other than the freedom to have an abortion.

    Freedoms with respect to avoiding government discrimination consequent to being gay?

    Freedoms with respect to contraception?

    Freedoms with respect to torture?

    Freedoms with respect to the drug war?

    Freedoms with respect to abusive policing?

    Freedoms with respect to endless detention without trial?

    Freedoms with respect to immigration?

    Freedoms with respect to government imposition of (certain) religion?

    The easy way to identify a genuine libertarian is the disdain for Republican and Democratic positions in roughly equal measure. An easy way to identify a faux libertarian is the garish, unconvincing drag of a sheepish right-winger masquerading as a libertarian.

  • rexy||

    Cry more.

  • esteve7||

    Citizens United, Helyer and Keto. That's why leftists can never be on the court

  • Mock-star||

    keto?

  • damikesc||

    So, youre a hack?

    At least youre aware of it.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    I'll bite. In the case of Neil Gorsuch, yes for at least four of your points:
    Freedoms with respect to the drug war?
    Freedoms with respect to abusive policing?
    Freedoms with respect to endless detention without trial?
    Freedoms with respect to immigration?

  • wreckinball||

    Wow,

    Whats next? Lets see this woman attended "gang rape" parties and apparently was a regular. Yea "gang rape" parties that is a thing. They happen trust me. And women return for more. And no one says anything for 36 years because ? who knows? Its some kind of secret society I guess.

    And she graduated two years before Kavanaugh. So after graduating HS she returned to the "gang rape" parties being held by the under classmen.

    Just dumb as fuck.

  • Tony||

    His lawyer says he didn't even know the name of the woman he gang raped. So that's case closed.

  • wreckinball||

    So that seals it in your book.

    His lawyer is Avenetti. Yea believe everything he says. Geez And this whole "gang rape" party with returning members apparently even two years after she graduated HS is so believable. What did she like it? Whats the rationale for one not reporting it ,and two going back. And all the other gang rape partiers both givers and receivers are just hunky dory with it.

    Gang fucking parties would seem only plausible in the sense that there are prostitutes involved.

    But Tony, sometimes really you post some dumb shit. Get some help.

  • Tony||

    Why no additional FBI background check just to be sure?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Because this is clearly partisan. Bullshit.
    Because thieve stories are very unbelievable
    Because the sources of these stories are likely politically motivated
    Because the FBI doesn't investigate shit like groping at high school parties 36 ears age

    I could go on. Anyone else feel like tagging in?

  • Tony||

    If that is all clear then what better way to establish it to everyone's satisfaction?

  • ||

    If that is all clear then what better way to establish it to everyone's satisfaction?

    Which is why you also support continued investigation into the Clinton Foundation and HRC's private email server, right?

    I mean, if she has nothing to hide, why not just continue to investigate to everyone's satisfaction?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Anyone else feel like tagging in?

    Don't make it gay.

  • rexy||

    "Why no additional FBI background check just to be sure?"

    Why no confirmation then FBI followup?

    He can be impeached.

    Oh right, cuz you know this is nothing and you'd get nowhere.

  • Mark22||

    Why no additional FBI background check just to be sure?

    The only "evidence" so far comes from these women. So, I'm all for having the FBI question each of these women for a few hours each under a bright light in some spartan office in some FBI building.

  • CA_is_doomed||

    "She states that she attended "well over" ten house parties with them between 1981-83." What woman would continue to go to these parties knowing that this behavior is ongoing?

  • Tony||

    Blaming the victim is just going to be the baseline here, right?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait, before anyone can be accused of victim blaming, don't we have to first identify a victim?

  • DJF||

    How is she a victim, she voluntarily went to at least 10 of these parties.

    Did Kavanaugh go to her house, drug her and then drag her to the parties?

  • Tony||

    So that's a yes.

  • rexy||

    She sounds more like an accomplice by her own testimony.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So if she attended nine more parties after seeing all this at the first one, isn't she an accessory after the fact? As opposed to a victim?

  • Tony||

    If she said she was gang raped after being drugged without her consent, that's what she said.

  • rexy||

    So that"s a yes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    We are trying to vet an extraordinary claim. It is not established that there are any victims, but does what she described as attending on multiple occasions make sense if she had been serially raped or had witnessed other girls being serially raped as a regular occurrence at these parties?

  • Tony||

    Who's trying to vet it? Not the FBI. The fucking president the world just laughed at won't call for that.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The FBI does not have jurisdiction.

  • rexy||

    We are. The people. And it's laughable.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Have you found one of those in this shitshow? victims I mean.

    FFS Tony her story is she regularly attended "gang rape" parties, she was a "victim" of them at some point and then kept attending them. and her smoking gun is Brett attended some of them with no allegations that he participated at all.

  • ||

    Blaming the victim is just going to be the baseline here, right?

    It's pretty sad that you reflexively spread these talking points without even bothering to learn what they mean.

    "Blaming the victim" = yes, she was raped, but she brought it on herself by going there/dressing the way she did, or whatever.

    Saying "I don't believe that there is any truth to this accusation" is not "blaming the victim."

  • dbs5347||

    You can call it what you want, it makes no sense, nor does her claim that she herself was gang raped in 1982 but continued going to the parties until 1983. It also makes no sense that she cannot provide a date or location for any of her accusations.

  • IceTrey||

    Alleged victim.

  • Mark22||

    She's a liar or delusional; she's not a victim (other than perhaps of Avenatti).

  • NashTiger||

    You and your ilk condoning this shit will make "victim blaming" a necessity. It is all on you, expect it to be just like the 1990s, when we heard what happened when you drug a $100 bill thru a trailer park...

  • wreckinball||

    One who is either a sex addict, a prostitute or a liar.

  • Tony||

    Well she's not up for the supreme court is she?

  • wreckinball||

    I can't take the idiocy Tony, I'm not replying to any more posts of yours.

  • Tony||

    But your tears are so yummy. What's Russian for schadenfreude?

  • John||

    No one is crying here Tony. Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. And if by some chance he is not, someone even farther right will be.

    The only issue here is the justice of not allowing creatures like you to slander people. The Supreme Court is not an issue. If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, it will likely result in the Court moving even further right. That won't make it okay. But, it isn't going to work out well for your side no matter what happens.

  • Tony||

    Out of curiosity, the next time your mouth-breathing cohort slander a president as a traitor because of his skin color, does that mean you are going to elect an actual traitor after him again?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Leftists always refer to race as "skin color." It's obviously absurd, yet your tribe insists on it. What's up with that?

  • John||

    You know Tony, you send guns to Mexican drug gangs and a few billion dollars in cash to Iran and everyone gets upset about it. Poor Obama.

    But hey, I guess that makes it okay to destroy Kavanaugh. Someone on 4Chan said mean things about Obama. Did your parents teach you to grow up to be a completely amoral person or did they do their best and you turned out that way anyway?

  • dbs5347||

    "But but but but but whatabout......"

  • TuIpa||

    Tony|9.26.18 @ 2:27PM|#

    But your tears are so yummy

    I remember back when you pretended you always take the high road and never said anything like this.

    And we knew you were lying.

  • Cathy L||

    Did you lose your password or something? How long have you been resorting to the capital-I trick for this handle?

  • TuIpa||

    Forever actually, I have always been tu i pa.

    Which you already knew, since you whined about it with your Kivlor sockpuppet.

    Now, don't you have something else to make a fool out of yourself with? Like when you admitted you are a child molester?

  • Drave Robber||

    What's Russian for schadenfreude?


    zloradstvo

    (Reason won't let me type Cyrillic)

  • IceTrey||

    And was in college

  • esteve7||

    You know I was really on the fense voting for the GOP this midterm, with their tariffs and government spending being ridiculous, but these leftists are completely unhinged lunatics and should never be near power. How easily they trample individual rights and justice for their own goals...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    My house of reps choices are Cathy McMoriss Rodgers, a Paul Ryan devotee, or Lisa Brown, who is a far left former employee of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, and economist who endorsed said regime and their Marxist command economy.

    See how easy democrats make it to pick a bad republican over them?

  • agentalbert||

    Can you imagine the dirty tricks Repubs will pull in retaliation for this in the future when Dems are nominating a justice?

  • Tony||

    They might even hold their nominee for 8 months without so much as a courtesy meeting.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They were just following the rules Senator Biden set. But rules only apply to republicans, right?

  • Tony||

    You guys really don't need much in the way of words and sentences before you believe a line of horsecrap, do you?

  • ThomasD||

    "without so much as a courtesy meeting."

    Which is just like accusing him of 'abetting' serial sexual predators.

  • Mark22||

    Can you imagine the dirty tricks Repubs will pull in retaliation for this in the future when Dems are nominating a justice?

    Senile Republican Senators? Not capable of it. If they had any backbone, they wouldn't have let the situation spin out of control like this.

    They should have taken tough and decisive action early on: subpoena Ford or have her questioned by the FBI, the day after she made her accusations.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Around 1982, Swetnick states, she herself was a victim "of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present." (It is unclear whether she is saying that Kavanaugh or Judge personally assaulted her.)"

    If she were saying that Brett Kavanaugh had assaulted her, I think it's safe to assume she would have said so. Regardless, it's safe to assume she should have said so if she's accusing Kavanaugh of assaulting her. It is certainly not safe to assume that she's accusing Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she didn't say so. Why are you suggesting she might have said something she didn't say?

    This confirmation used to be about the Fourth Amendment to me. Now, it's about whether people should be disqualified from any position of responsibility predicated on unsubstantiated accusations or guilt by association. I hope Kavanaugh is confirmed on Friday, and I hope the people who are supporting this disgusting display are someday ridiculed like McCarthy was for what he did during the Red Scare--another time when unsubstantiated accusations and guilt by association ruled the day.

    If no one ever taught you to be ashamed of your shameful behavior, you should be subjected to public ridicule for it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This confirmation used to be about the Fourth Amendment to me. Now, it's about whether people should be disqualified from any position of responsibility predicated on unsubstantiated accusations or guilt by association.

    That certainly explains your vote for Hillary Clinton and associated rejection of the 'lock 'er up' crowd of gullible, bigoted, half-educated right-wingers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records."

    ----Mother Jones

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....rms-deals/

    That isn't an unsubstantiated accusation or about guilt by association. That's substantiated by the public records of both the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

    Don't you know anything?

    P.S. I didn't vote for Trump, not that it matters.

  • John||

    Hillary was found with a treasure trove of classified information on her private server. That is not guilt by association you half wit. And it is not some 35 year old allegation no one ever made until now.

    I know you are stupid Rev. And it is not just a trolling act. You really are profoundly stupid. But at some point, being stupid stops being an excuse. Even stupid people can become so stupid they realize how dumb they are. You have gone well past that point. The Volkh Conspiracy needs to take some responsibility for infecting this board with your stupidity. Tony is just your typical neurotic idiot. We can handle that. You are a form of stupid well beyond that. And it is a problem. I can't imagine how big of a problem it must be for you. Can you even feed yourself?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I remember this guy from before Volokh moved to the Post. It's been the exact same shtick all day ever day for what must be at least a decade now. Kinda impressive in a way.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I've read one piece at the Post in the last many years -- a short thing on PFT Commenter -- and the most recent comment was none other than the Rev calling him white trash, etc.

  • John||

    It is quite a record of consistent stupidity Sidd.

  • Mark22||

    That certainly explains your vote for Hillary Clinton and associated rejection of the 'lock 'er up' crowd of gullible, bigoted, half-educated right-wingers.

    I didn't vote for Hillary not over her criminal history, but because of her political positions and her lies.

    And those lies were documented, in her own words.

  • Tony||

    In the Tit and Clit club, no means yes and yes means anal.

    Supreme Court material!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Projection, Tony.

  • TuIpa||

    Why are you telling us about what you do to children in your basement?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I just hope Kavanaugh skeptics do not stoop so low as to start chanting 'lock him up' in unison, let by a tiny-fingered orange clown with ridiculous hair. Our society deserves more dignity than that.

    The better elements of our society, anyway.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm the better element of our society and I say you should probably be executed for treason.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Stand aside and perhaps your betters will let you observe them improving society against your wishes rather than just shoving more progress down your whimpering, irrelevant, authoritarian throat.

  • TuIpa||

    So by irrelevant, you mean drives you to compulsively display your jealousy about?

  • ||

    your betters will let you observe them improving society against your wishes

    ^ Un-bigoted libertarian.

  • prolefeed||

    So the Dems would like to make the bar to clear to be on SCOTUS is that one never attended a party where the punch was spiked to the point that the alcohol could be tasted, and then sexual activity occurred?

    Or if one never attended parties ever, that the Dems wouldn't manufacture witnesses to lie about it anyway?

    If the GOP caves on this nominee, they better expect ALL their nominees to be subjected to the same treatment, and then to either continue to cave and be tarred as the party of rapists, or grow a spine and call them on their bullshit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has he ever laughed at a racist joke?

    Did he ever call one of his best friends a "fag"?

    I hate to put my faith in the American voter. They're ultimately to blame this mess in the first place. That being said, one of the big reasons why Trump won the presidency was as a rebuke to the social justice warriors who are now running the Democratic party, and, although I'm more aware than most that the first midterm after a new president is elected is typically a statistical disaster for the new president's party, the Democrats don't seem to have learned their lesson from the last election.

    There need to be negative consequences for misbehavior, and for political parties, that should come in the form of election losses. I think the last time I voted Republican was George W. Bush in 2000 against Al Gore. There were a number of things I liked (privatization of social security, for instance), but I really wanted Gore to lose because of his disgusting association with the corrupt Clinton fundraising apparatus. I felt like there needed to be negative consequences for that. I'm feeling like that with these midterms coming up--first time in a long time. I'm not in the Republican base, and even I'm charged up! I want to vote Republican just to make the Democrats pay for what they're doing, and I can't be the only one.

  • Tony||

    Members of the electoral college were independent agents with a special concern for social justice overreach? Or are you latching onto a story you like to hear?

    You need to get your head out of your ass apparently. The corrupt Clinton fundraising apparatus? More corrupt than Republican politicians each being essentially an employee of one evil corporate interest or another?

    Those bad Democrats! How cynical and corrupt they are unlike Republicans who are basically teddy bears.

  • Alcibiades||

    Ditto, this kind of McCarthyism and abrogation of any semblance of due process is dangerous. Many Dems truly have no sense of shame.

  • Tony||

    Garland, bitch.

  • John||

    Garland was turned down by a partisan Senate. The Senate is not obligated to confirm the choice of the President. No one slandered him or said he wasn't qualified. They just said no and waited to see what happened in the next election. They had every right to do that and the Democrats would have done the same thing had the roles been reversed.

    That is not the same thing as falsely accusing someone of rape and you know it. You not convincing anyone of anything Tony. You are just making yourself look as dumb and Kirkland. I went out on a limb and said above you were not as stupid as he was. Please stop proving me wrong and live up to your reputation as an ordinary idiot.

  • Tony||

    The point is Garland makes any whining on the part of Republicans about alleged dirty politics off the table. Stop acting like bullies who can dish it but can't take it.

    But that's not what's happening, because Democrats aren't that nefarious or clever.

  • John||

    So the Senate exercising its lawful authority to turn down an appointee makes it okay to slander an innocent person?

    The sad fact is you actually believe that. You are the most amoral disgusting human being. You really are.

    But hey, you are also dumb as a post and ignorant. So there is that.

  • TuIpa||

    "about alleged dirty politics off the table"

    Oh stop with this crap. No one thinks you're actually stupid enough to equate political gamesmanship with defamation.

  • dbs5347||

    Garland wasn't denied due process nor was he defamed as Kavanaugh clearly has been. Garland will also never sit on the SCOTUS. The GOP will never confirm him if it has a say, and Democrats will never nominate him if they have a more liberal choice, so, either way, Garland is not SCOTUS material. Deal with it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    this kind of McCarthyism and abrogation of any semblance of due process is dangerous. Many Dems truly have no sense of shame.

    That means so much coming from the right-wingers who gave us birtherism, Benghazi fever, and 'lock her up.' Then added Pizzagate, InfoWars, and white nationalism to the mix. In a pot stirred by Hannity, Limbaugh, and D'Souza.

    Carry on, clingers. See you at the installation of the eleventh justice of the United States Supreme Court in a few years.

  • Ken Shultz||

    'That means so much coming from the right-wingers who gave us birtherism, Benghazi fever, and 'lock her up.'

    In addition to everything that's wrong with what you''ve written in this thread, does the term tu quoque mean anything to you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

  • TuIpa||

    He actually thinks...RIGHT WINGERS GAVE US BIRTHERISM!!!

    Aahaahhaahahahhahahahaha

    And he talks about his intellect!

    Haahahahahahhaahhaahahahhaahha

  • Tony||

    So you suggest that rightwingers were merely powerless to stop themselves from advancing birtherism for like 9 years straight. Why should such feckless robots be in charge?

  • TuIpa||

    No, I'm saying you're a historically ignorant retard if you think R's gave us birtherism, you historically ignorant retard.

    "Why should such feckless robots be in charge?"

    So the malevolent minds who actually did create the ideas you decry the robots for believing should be in charge?

    Jesus Christ moron, could you shit your bed any worse?

  • damikesc||

    Progs like you were infinitely more obsessed. The Right didnt give two shits.

  • dbs5347||

    That time I checked, birtherism originated with Obama's own literary agent, who, apparently, Obama was too stupid and lazy to supervise and fact check properly. Either that or he actually is from Kenya. Take your pick.

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/ybdqhbhc

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    There need to be negative consequences for misbehavior, and for political parties, that should come in the form of election losses.

    Anyone who claims to believe this yet appeased the birthers, the 'lock her up' crowd, and other right-wing intolerance and ignorance is begging to be disregarded.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Your thought processes are bizarre.

    Am to understand you voted for Hillary Clinton because birthers and others chanted "lock her up" because they think Hillary Clinton is a crook?

    . . . and not only that, you think this somehow make it okay for the leaders of the Democratic party to turn a Supreme Court confirmation into the McCarthy hearings?

    That's fucking retarded!

  • Ken Shultz||

    You know, just because Tony is a bigger laughing stock, that doens't mean that you aren't also a laughing stock.

  • dbs5347||

    Obama's own literary agent is the source of birtherism. So really your complaint is that birthers gave Obama too much credit for his agent putting out accurate information, when really they should have just assumed Oabma was too lazy and or stupid to supervise his literary agent properly.

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/ybdqhbhc

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well. This certainly calls for more popcorn.

  • TuIpa||

    Oh god shut the fuck up before i turn this into another "kicking jeff around" day.

  • DesigNate||

    "...so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say 'No,'"

    Way to rob those girls of their agency, lady.

  • lap83||

    "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys" and that she has "a firm recollection of boys being lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room"

    I'm probably not the first to realize that she could have been one of the "others" she mentions who caused girls to become inebriated. She did go to a lot of those parties.

  • ||

    As damikesc points out below. She graduated ahead of him. It's entirely possible that she was the sole adult in a room full of drunken, rapey minors.

  • operagost||

    Before you know it, some woman will be signing an affidavit claiming Kavanaugh flew around on a broom, flushed her down the toilet to a secret room, and tortured animals with his buddy Chuck Norris.

  • perlchpr||

    "We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations," Avenatti tweeted this morning.

    Because apparently no one has yet successfully informed him that the FBI lacks jurisdiction here.

  • Tony||

    The call is for an additional background check to establish what facts can be established. The only question is why Kavanaugh's supporters don't want that. Nobody can answer it.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Because it's only about delaying. Six full background checks were done over a career and they never turned up any of this. Because it didn't exist.

    Defending your beloved steaming pile of shit Democrats on this makes you as bad as they are.

  • Tony||

    Why the rush, again? There's no time limit in the constitution. Mitch McConnell made sure about that.

  • TuIpa||

    "Why the rush, again"

    That's your question to answer, not the R's. No part of the background check you claim to want needs to be done before conformation. If he's dirty, he gets impeached.

  • Tony||

    At least when I'm being a cynical lying bitch I'm being sarcastic about it.

  • TuIpa||

    No you aren' t.

    Nice dodge too.

  • damikesc||

    Why would you accept the results of a seventh check if you wont accept the first six?

  • ||

    Why the rush, again?

    Why the two-month delay on coming forward with this?

  • CDRSchafer||

    Because it's only about delaying. Six full background checks were done over a career and they never turned up any of this. Because it didn't exist.

    Defending your beloved steaming pile of shit Democrats on this makes you as bad as they are.

  • ||

    My understanding is that the objections have to do with what a background check is and is not. What it's not is an investigation into specific acts. And I think it's also reasonable to believe that the FBI is not a mechanism for dealing with such allegations.

    But frankly, I don't know much about the exact FBI processes. And I suspect you, and hardly anyone else does, either. It seems that saying "FBI" is mostly posturing.

  • Tony||

    Well I've been paying attention to more than the desperate mouth farts of Republican apparatchiks, have you?

    This kind of vetting is done countless times per year by the FBI for all manner of government jobs. It would take a few days. It was done for Anita Hill. There has been no good excuse whatsoever why it can't take place to deal with these allegations. Surely we agree they are serious enough to merit a check.

  • ||

    It's such a circus, and has been from the start, that I'm honestly only in it for the lulz.

    I really have no idea when post vetting vetting is appropriate. I don't think 99% of the population does. I suspect again that FBI/no-FBI is rigidly along red/blue lines with zero reasoning behind the choice.

  • ||

    This kind of vetting is done countless times per year by the FBI for all manner of government jobs. It would take a few days. It was done for Anita Hill. There has been no good excuse whatsoever why it can't take place to deal with these allegations. Surely we agree they are serious enough to merit a check.

    Anita Hill worked for Thomas at Department of Education and EEOC the time the allegations were made. The FBI interviewed her as part of the routine background checks on his employment.

    Ford et al. are making allegations about a time when neither themselves nor Kavanaugh was employed by the government or even necessarily at all.

  • ||

    You, of all people, shouldn't want the FBI wandering around randomly probing people's sex lives. Good God are you stupid.

  • lap83||

    don't be so hard on yourself

  • Tony||

    I don't want them probing anyone's sex lives. Are we talking about someone's sex life?

  • TuIpa||

    Tony's right here, we are talking about 3 women with mental illness lying, no actual sex was involved.

    Good catch Tony, surprised you'd admit that.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    And if it takes a few days and the FBI comes to the "wrong" conclusion--that there isn't enough evidence to back this story up? What will you say then?

    "It was rushed!! It should take at least six weeks! No, six months!"
    "Trump sabotaged the investigation!"
    "The Russians sabotaged it! THE RUSSIANS!!!"

  • Tony||

    Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

  • rexy||

    Nah.

  • NashTiger||

    I'd rather throw you off it

  • Chipper Jones||

    No, the other question is why none of these accusations from his time in Maryland have been brought before the police there. MD has no statute of limitations for sexual assault.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, given that she was an adult at the time it is safe to speculate that any perps could likewise have been over 18, so the any crimes are still prosecutable.

    She needs to file a police report.

  • dbs5347||

    It's not needed. Any alleged victim can simply go to the local police in the jurisdiction where they are alleging the incident occurred, assuming they can remember, and file a police report. Then they will have an investigation by the agency with proper criminal jurisdiction. Thus far no accuser has taken this simple step.

  • ||

    Because apparently no one has yet successfully informed him that the FBI lacks jurisdiction here.

    If you stand in front of a mirror in an unlit room at midnight and say 'Federal Bureau of Investigations', the disembodied soul of James Comey will appear.

  • ThomasD||

    I have it on good authority that Comey has no soul.

    He sold it to Milhouse for $0.25.

  • CDRSchafer||

    The Democratic Party has gone full Jacobin Marxist. They are braying, violent lunatics and every single on\e of their politicians are living, breathing, pieces of absolute shit.

  • juris imprudent||

    Just wait for the real truth to come out; that Kavanaugh actually attended Duke and played lacrosse before going to UVa law and joining a fraternity.

  • Tony||

    We should all thank God for Duke, what with proving the nonexistence of rape.

  • damikesc||

    Columbia U also did that.
    Ditto Tawana Brawley.
    Ditto UVA.

  • John I||

    What Duke and UVA both proved was that extremely incendiary rape accusations that play well in a sensationalist media should be treated with a grain of salt. The 1980s satanic rape panics also proved this. The more insane a rape accusation is the less likely it is to be true.

    In this specific case, you're talking about an accusation that a cadre of gang raping prep school boys had well known parties at which passed out girls were routinely raped and that these parties went on for months, if not years, without anyone bringing it up until right now. Furthermore, this cadre of prep school gang rapists who were active for an extended period of time included a Supreme Court nominee who no one has ever accused of anything prior to two weeks ago.

    Kavanaugh getting drunk with one friend 35 years ago and committing a sexual assault is possible, though unproven. Kavanaugh being a rape gang ringleader without anyone bringing this up until yesterday is a far less likely occurrence.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    The message of the Duke Lacrosse team is that, if you see an outrageous story that seems to affirm too many assumptions and narratives, such as those about rape culture, racism, and white privilege, you need to regard it with a healthy dose of skepticism

  • IceTrey||

    Well it absolutely proves women lie about rape.

  • Tony||

    All of them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Around 1982, Swetnick states, she herself was a victim "of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present." (It is unclear whether she is saying that Kavanaugh or Judge personally assaulted her.)"

    It's also unclear whether she's saying that ENB raped her neighbor's dog.

  • ThomasD||

    To ask the question is to answer it.

    No?

  • Ken Shultz||

    She either accused him of sexual assault or she didn't.

    Saying it's unclear whether she accused him of participating is pure editorializing. She didn't say that.

    If she wanted to accuse him of sexually assaulting her, she would have accused him of sexually assaulting her.

    If we're going to say it's unclear whether she's also saying shit she didn't say, then why not go for broke?

    It's unclear whether she's saying that Dianne Feinstein was in a kinky bondage relationship with Jim Jones.

  • esteve7||

    See there was this guy, he was once at a party where a rapist was, and now we will ruin is life over it.

    What a fucking joke the left has become. 2016 made them all lose their minds. From RUSSIA to RESIST to the most despicable smear campaign I've ever seen. This is worse then when the left ripped John McCain for his computer skills... except he had trouble using them because of his injuries as a prisoner of war.

  • John I||

    ""As Georgetown Prep students, both Judge and Kavanaugh were known to "'spike' the 'punch' at house parties" with "drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say 'No,'" Swetnick says in the declaration, which was released on Twitter this morning by lawyer and recent TV news fixture Michael Avenatti.

    Swetnick says she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys" and that she has "a firm recollection of boys being lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.""

    I'm getting a very "Jackie at University of Virginia" vibe from these accusations

  • damikesc||

    Again, SHE WAS IN COLLEGE.

    She graduated in 1980.

    So she was, likely, 19 or 20 when these high school kids gang raped her.

    This really, really doesn't add up

  • damikesc||

    In fact, aren't adults not reporting kids being raped a violation of law?

  • TuIpa||

    No.

  • ||

    In fact, aren't adults not reporting kids being raped a violation of law?

    Only in certain professions, like public school teachers. "Mandatory Reporter" is the official term, IIRC.

  • John I||

    ""As Georgetown Prep students, both Judge and Kavanaugh were known to "'spike' the 'punch' at house parties" with "drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say 'No,'" Swetnick says in the declaration, which was released on Twitter this morning by lawyer and recent TV news fixture Michael Avenatti.

    Swetnick says she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys" and that she has "a firm recollection of boys being lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.""

    I'm getting a very "Jackie at University of Virginia" vibe from these accusations

  • John||

    What sane person claims they went to "ten house parties where there were gang rapes"? Either she was hoping to be raped herself or she is a nut making up stories. No woman in the world would keep going to parties where other women were being raped. You have to be a moron of Reverend Kirkland level not to see that.

  • lap83||

    Also, even if she was a "victim" at one point. How are Kavanaugh and Judge guilty by "being present" (assuming they even were), but she isn't guilty by being present at all the parties where she just partied while other girls were raped.

  • John I||

    "Spiking the punch" is also known as "mixing alcohol with juice." I've willingly drank "spiked punch" on a large number of occasions and I've personally put alcohol in punch with no desire of raping anyone who might happen to drink it.

    There's nothing abnormal about putting booze in punch. Did the girls not know there was alcohol in there? That seems unlikely given the accuser here was well aware. Because if they knew there was booze in the drink, I don't see what was untoward here, and if they didn't know there was booze in the drink, how were they still unaware of this by the sixth gang rape party?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Gang rape me once, shame on you, gang rape me twice, shame on me, gang rape me three times, shame on you, gang rape me four times, shame on me, gang rape me five times, shame on you, gang rape me six times, shame on me, gang rape me seven times, shame on you, gang rape me eight times, shame on me, gang rape me nine times, shame on you, gang rape me ten times and thirty years later I will make an accusation at your SCOTUS confirmation hearing.

    Or so the old saying goes.

  • John||

    That is a great point lap. If Kavanaugh is an accessory because he was there, so is she. Why didn't she tell the girls the punch was spiked and to not drink it?

  • lap83||

    She reminds me of the women who helped Weinstein. If she's not lying, she's an awful person.

  • damikesc||

    Except she was an adult and he was not.

  • ThomasD||

    " If she's not lying, she's an awful person."

    This.

    But, what does it say about her if she is lying?

    Other women will recognize this conundrum and rightly conclude that she is a few cards short of a full deck at minimum.

  • dbs5347||

    Her account doesn't even get you close to needing to ask this question. Until she can provide a date or a reasonable date range and a location where these things happened there can't even be any proof found that there was such a gathering so the question of what happened there isn't even relevant yet.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Swetnick says she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys"

    Just for the record, the first time I saw somebody spike the punch was when I was in the 7th grade. It wasn't done so that anybody could be gang raped. They did it so we could look like we weren't drinking alcohol--because we were underage.

    Can the bit about why they might have spiked the punch with pure grain alcohol be anything but pure speculation? Did they tell her they were spiking the punch so they could gang rape? Is she psychic?

  • John||

    And you spike punch with alcohol. You don't spike a punch bowl with qualudes. You would need an entire bottle to make it strong enough and people would taste it.

    And gee, punch at a high school drinking party in the 1980s was expected to have alcohol in it.

  • damikesc||

    John...she was in COLLEGE, to boot. That just seems hella creepy.

  • John||

    No college girl goes to high school parties much less ten of them.

  • Tony||

    Why is it necessary that as progressives advance sexual politics, you guys retreat to the 1950s?

  • lap83||

    Treating all women as silly helpless victims who can't be expected to remember anything or make any fucking sense is sooo progressive

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Yeah, college girls think high school guys are so cool. Damn, you've lived a sheltered life.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    (That last was to Tony. I'm not the first one to say it but this threading sucks.)

  • John I||

    Not just high school guys. High school PREP SCHOOL guys.

    The idea that Brett Kavanaugh was cool in high school is an idea that I am simply unwilling to accept

  • damikesc||

    Tony, girls dont party with younger guys. They just dont do so.

  • Tony||

    Case closed!

  • damikesc||

    Shocker that the gay guy doesnt know what straight girls do.

  • damikesc||

    Also, it is criminal and morally reprehensible for an adult to be aware of underage girls being gang raped and doing nothing to stop it.

  • dbs5347||

    Progressive = The belief that women are too stupid and helpless to report ongoing gang rapes of which they have knowledge during before and after the fact to protect the women being victimized.

  • IceTrey||

    You would waste their Ludes on the guys who drank the punch?

  • John I||

    The most credible accusation against Kavanaugh is still the first one. Whether it happened or not, I don't know, but it's at least possible.

    The second accusation was from someone who couldn't say if it was Kavanaugh or not and then randomly decided "oh yeah, it definitely was!" after a few days of being badgered by reporters and this one is so completely insane that there's approximately a zero percent chance it happened.

    Why are there no accusations from his adult life? Did this vicious sexual predator who routinely committed gang rapes magically reform himself at the age of 22?

    The fact Michael Avenatti is the attorney she went to with this further increases my skepticism. I am also questioning why she went to so many of these parties when she already knew them to be havens of gang rape.

  • John||

    This woman appears to be just crazy. This isn't even a good lie. Only a lunatic would make up this story and think anyone is going to believe it. It is too crazy to even be considered a good slander.

  • dbs5347||

    The saddest part is it took them days and days to come up with that lie.

  • John I||

    The fact the accusations are getting progressively less credible also makes me think this is basically the kind of mass hysteria that led otherwise intelligent people to conclude that gang raping satanists were running American preschools in the 80s.

    Anyone who thinks a bunch of people can't make crazy accusations based on nothing really needs to read up on the international satanic ritual abuse panics that began in the early 80s in the US and wound up spreading around the planet by the late 90s. In those situations, not only did dozens of children claim sexual abuse occurred which never happened, but there were large numbers of adults corroborating their stories. There was a satanic sex panic in Scotland as late as 2003 where a bunch of adults suddenly claimed they'd been raped as children by satanists. It wasn't true.

    Point being, Kavanaugh may have committed the first crime (who knows), but accusations like this one are insanely outlandish and are therefore probably false.

  • IceTrey||

    I heard Kav worked at a preschool in the 80s.

  • dbs5347||

    Not a shred of evidence he committed the first one either and every witness who was alleged to have been there has asserted they witnessed nothing.

  • DiegoF||

    I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing works at this point. The stage is set for Ms. Ford's morally righteous withdrawal from tomorrow's hearings--the fact that the Republicans are unwilling to put everything aside for an "FBI investigation" into this latest lunatic shows that they are dead set on confirming Kavanaugh anyway so why should Ford put herself through that? (The current allegations, although far more bizarre and ridiculous, do technically count as actual, serious allegations, unlike that drunk Puerto Rican mamacita. If I state under oath that Brett Kavanaugh Satanically murdered a man while I watched in the '80s, that at the very least would have to show up on the Senate's plate for official consideration, which a New Yorker article would not.)

    I think they have lost Collins and maybe another Republican. They will probably pick up Joe Manchin, and maybe Tester, since they know if they are actually responsible for tanking this nomination they can pack their bags immediately. But the plan will have been set in motion. The GOP was already looking at a HUGE gender gap this election. Kavanaugh is doing abysmally in public opinion polls, and the fuse of indignation has been lit. Suburban women voters are going to turn out in droves to punish the Republicans.

  • DiegoF||

    Claire McCaskill, of course, better be praying to whatever Goddess of Abortion she worships that Kavanaugh is confirmed. Her state is one of the few in existence (the others being the other Midwestern states, besides Illinois) that is actually reddening.

    The Republicans will hold and gain in that body this year even as they experience one of the worst defeats in House history, and will probably have an easy time holding that body as they retreat to becoming a regional party of depopulating states. (Don't look now, but in Florida a washed-up old Senator who nobody particularly likes is widening his lead over the extremely popular governor; and a black socialist is cruising to ever widening leads in the Governor's race. Our newest blue state--that is, if Georgia, where another black socialist is widening her lead for Governor, doesn't beat them to it.)

  • BYODB||

    Of course it will work, it has every other time (minus democrats). Why wouldn't it work might be the better question. It's sad but true that our society is post-rationalist.

  • John||

    I used to think this stuff was sure to work. But the Republicans sticking it to the Dems on the filibuster of judges has caused me to think that it won't. I think the Republicans will confirm him. I really do.

  • BYODB||

    If their majority wasn't so slim and hinged on Democrats that ran under the Republican banner I might agree, but it is what it is. The same point still stands from their failure to get rid of the ACA.

    They simply didn't win big enough.

    Only now, the odd's are in favor of them losing that majority and we can look forward to a four year impeachment hearing with no real chance of convicting.

  • John I||

    I don't think either Stacey Abrams or Gillum are socialists under any reasonable definition of that term. Neither one is going to be pushing state ownership of the means of production. And one governor race doesn't mean it's a blue state, the GOP routinely wins gubernatorial races in New England

  • geo1113||

    Stormy didn't build her pussy!

  • DiegoF||

    Well, one would expect a Democrat to win in Florida if they nominated, say, me. (I'm a Democrat.) But do the Republicans win in NE outside NH and Maine with anything close to the mainstream of their party, or with the quirky remnants of what was once by far the most Republican region of the country? (Vermont has sent a grand total of one Democrat to the Senate--Pat Leahy--since the Era of Good Feelings ended.)

  • John I||

    No, I agree. Point I'm making is the GOP can win elections, it's just the mainstream of their party as it currently exists cannot win elections in blue states.

    You could easily have a more moderate Republican party (especially on social issues) that wouldn't need to be a regional party though. And moderate Republicans are already capable of winning elections in blue states. The current governor of Illinois is a Republican. Admittedly, Rauner is going to get crushed in the next election, but that doesn't change the fact that he at least won a term. And if Trump weren't president, the GOP's brand might not be so damaged in Illinois and Rauner probably wouldn't be getting killed this badly.

  • ThomasD||

    " Suburban women voters are going to turn out in droves to punish the Republicans."

    Holy shit that was funny.

    OBL needs to up his game with competition like this.

  • DiegoF||

    I guess the polls must be utterly hilarious to you then.

  • DiegoF||

    And various special election results.

  • John||

    I don't think the GOP will be looking at a big gender gap or if it does it won't be because of this. I know a lot of women who are absurdly liberal and not a single one that I know at least is buying this bullshit. This isn't Anita Hill. This is just beyond the pale. I don't think any person, man or woman, outside of the lunatic fringe believes this nonsense much less is going to change their vote based on it. This is not going to motivate or change the votes of the typical left of center single career woman or suburban mom the Democrats are shooting for. The charges are just too absurd, too old, and too grossly unfair for that.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Kavanaugh also caused cancer, burned the Reichstag, tortured for Stalin during the show trials, introduced anthrax to the world, shot Lincoln, caused the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, invented telemarketing, had sex with Satan, put wisdom teeth crooked into everyone's mouth, uses kittens for toilet paper, sabotaged Chernobyl, and enjoys farting in crowded elevators.
    Did I leave anything out?

  • John||

    He was the Unibomber and also stabbed that guy at Altemont.

  • DiegoF||

    Look, even if Kavanaugh was a Hells Angel in pre-K, is that really reason to tank his nomination forty-nine years of maturation later? Didn't we all do some wild stuff we regret at that age?

  • John||

    And he was just trying to protect Mick Jagger. That guy had a gun and was going to shoot Mick Jagger.

  • ThomasD||

    Look, everyone has their flaws. Can't we just forget about this one?

  • DiegoF||

    caused the San Francisco earthquake of 1906

    At least this allegation may not stick, since Sevo can provide counter eye witness testimony.

  • SIV||

  • Trigger Warning||

    I can't wait to hear about what he did at band camp!

  • geo1113||

    Here's what I don't get. She worked in these security-related job for the federal government and she let this guy climb the judicial ladder and never said a word. WTF.

  • IceTrey||

    She let him work in the Bush White House.

  • Eddy||

    From RedState: "The Kavanaugh Nomination Shows Why You Don't Want Any Libertarians On Your Side"

    https://bit.ly/2Dzvz0z

  • Eddy||

    "...as with most libertarians, you find they are much more interested in being reasonable and finding consensus and reaching across the aisle than they are in actually doing anything."

  • Eddy||

    "Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus, was right about a lot of things. What he was wrong about was libertarians having any place at the table in a conservative movement. When he said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," one has to conclude that he didn't know what he was talking about."

  • DiegoF||

    The thing is, they are not alone in this sentiment! Those left of center do not respect "libertarians" either, no matter what they might have delusionally convinced themselves is the case.

  • John I||

    No one likes libertarians. Libertarians don't like other libertarians

  • IceTrey||

    Misanthroptarians?

  • Echospinner||

    Trump and trumpism are not conservative.

  • John I||

    The idea most libertarians are primarily interested in being reasonable or finding consensus is hilarious. In my experience, most libertarians are ardent ideologues who refuse to bend their principles for anything.

  • IceTrey||

    Since our only principle is the NAP that makes sense.

  • DiegoF||

    That's not the point. I doubt Eddie is bringing this up to ridicule Red State. He's bringing it up to ridicule the reputation the "pragmatic" woketarians have earned for the brand with their embarrassing foolishness.

  • Eddy||

    I think that's my main point. That and trolling the *&^% out of you guys.

  • TuIpa||

    It might have worked if we gave a shit what he thought.

    But...libertarians man. We don't.

  • Eddy||

    Many of the comments (at Red State) are good, though.

  • DiegoF||

    Wait are you not a libertarian? I think there was a poll at Glibs at one point, but I forget what everyone answered.

  • Eddy||

    Fellow traveller I suppose.

  • Myshkin78||

    RedState has devolved into an alt-right, Trump humping joke. I wouldn't take anything written there very seriously.

  • chipper me timbers||

    To be sure, the primary example is Robby Soave, and we all know he's no libertarian.

  • Trigger Warning||

    To be sure.

  • jdd6y||

    Soave didn't do himself any favors with his dumb ass comments. The next person will get this treatment plus something else new. If they nominate a woman they'll claim she had 50 abortions in back alleys and did her dad with a strap on at Burning Man.

  • Myshkin78||

    For Burning Man, pics or it didn't happen. I'll take their word on the rest.

  • swood1000||

    One obvious question is this: it's one thing to say that victims of sexual abuse will be confused and ashamed and fail to report it for that reason. It's another thing to say that a girl would observe other girls being raped and not only not report it but keep going back to such parties ten or more times. How is this explained?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Now with two white girls making allegations, the Kavanaugh lynching is looking less like US v Shipp and more the Scottsboro Boys case. This is generating enough schadenfreude to hopefully get LP candidates up in the 7% range in another election or two. It'd sure be fun to watch kleptocracy newscreeders try to ignore or explain away spoiler votes on that scale.

  • geo1113||

    7%...that's funny.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    626 comments and counting...

    I don't even want to know.

  • DiegoF||

    Check again. You'll find your count is off by a bit.

  • DiegoF||

    Ooo! I just checked myself! It's off by even more!

  • DiegoF||

    OMG this is just getting worse and worse!

  • damikesc||

    Oh shit --- Ford's polygraph was released.

    It was taken on 8/7/18. In Maryland. Funny nobody wanted to talk to her. It does seem odd that she was in MD for 8/7 - 8/10 when she was back in CA. Seems like it'd be a difficult drive to do round-trip like that, and given that she hates flying, it is how it would have been done.

    She also named MORE witnesses (4 boys and a couple of girls) than she has claimed to date., even contradicting her letter to Feinstein. Her polygraph letter matches the therapist notes --- not her later claims of number of people.

    Her polygraph never mentioned Kavanaugh.

    Note: It was a hand written statement that she was asked if what she was writing was false. THAT was her fucking polygraph.

  • damikesc||

    Like, literally, she was asked if what she had written was true.

    Polygraphs are junk science hokum as is --- and this is weak by polygraph standards.

    Her polygraph letter also had a LOT of "corrections" on it --- and nobody knows WHEN the corrections were made.

  • Ron||

    she was asked if what she had written was true.

    Its true she wrote it, what more can be said

  • DiegoF||

    It would be funny if the new witnesses placed in the room include a perpetually shitfaced Puerto Rican chick from Connecticut and a creepy adult lady who likes to hang out at high school parties to watch girls getting their clothes ripped off.

  • damikesc||

    You'd think the adult who likes to fuck underage boys would have noticed the crazy chick at the parties. she attended at least 10 in between classes, apparently.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Another totally credible allegation!

  • blondrealist||

    I attended college in the late 70's to early 80's and have knowledge of a "train" event happened in a fraternity house. I didn't participate, but know a few of the guys who did - I was a member of that fraternity. If one of my fraternity brothers from back then was nominated for the Supreme Court and some investigator from the FBI tried to determine if the "train" event occurred, I suspect it wouldn't be that difficult to find somebody who would at least say "yes - I heard about that crazy night - but I wasn't there", if not "yes, I was one of the guys who stood in line and took my turn". (From what I heard, the female involved in the event at my frat house was a willing and sober participant. I'm not proud of what happened at my frat house, but I'm relieved that the woman wasn't drugged and unaware of the activity.) I share this only to say that if the gang-rape parties really happened - and they certainly could have - then it shouldn't be too long before a credible witness turns up.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Phoebe Cates was the hottest 80s chick.

  • blondrealist||

    Not sure if she was "the" hottest - but certainly in the top ten - maybe in the top five.

  • DiegoF||

    I guess this new accuser is basically the D.W. Brown of Fast Times at Georgetown Prep.

  • Tony||

    In strange turn of events, Trump fucks Kavanaugh.

  • DiegoF||

    He is backing away from the nomination? That would be idiotic. Where did you hear this? I can't find it.

  • Tony||

    He's beclowning himself at the news conference.

  • tgrondo||

    Gang raped by a line of teenage boys at a party ?....I'm pretty sure that was the plot of Porky's 5....!!!!???!!!

  • Barry soetaro||

    Hmmm. Let's see. A woman of 18-19 goes to a high school boy's party and gets drugged and gang raped. She's horrified! But she continues to go to around 10 more of these parties and participates in being gang raped at least once. Then, after all these parties, tells no one!
    So, lefty ladies, is that how you roll?

  • Aaron2||

    While most of the sources for quotes around The Big Lie are probably apocryphal, we're definitely in that conceptual territory now.


    The psychology that make people believe crazy stories if enough people come forward (like the "friend of a friend told me..." urban myths) are happening before our eyes.


    I think we're so far away from any reasonable claim that my guess is 1) this will work, and 2) given Democrats' history with these confirmation proceedings, this was the intent all along. None of the minor stories off boorish high school behavior were effective (even with 30 years of elaborating and distorting any memories that may have happened), so now we're in the realm where since everyone knows this is probably a lie, they might as well make it as bad as possible to let people's imagination run wild in the grey areas in the middle.

  • alehrbar||

    Let me get this straight. To quote Ms. Swetnick, she has "a firm recollection of boys being lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room."
    So she went to "many" parties where girls were gang raped and reported nothing to the authorities?
    Instead, she kept going back until she was gang raped?
    This sounds like a Stormy Daniels plot line, which is fitting for an Avenati client.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Especially when you lie about it like that.

  • damikesc||

    The lies are...?

  • vek||

    In all honesty, I could ALMOST believe some skank allowed a train to be run on her at a party in the early 80s... I mean sluts have always existed. I know a chick or two that this DID happen to IRL myself, because that's how they roll. But I doubt it was rape, otherwise there's no way she'd keep hanging out with these people.

    If there is a single shred of truth in any of this, it is far removed from how she is portraying it.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The "mean drunk" depiction of Kavanaugh is popping up all over. Most impressive, perhaps, are hundreds of Yale alumni who are totally pissed off by the Fox News "choir boy" interview. Several "sources" are saying that Kavanaugh will walk back his purity under oath, Thursday.

    And how CRAZY is the notion of a 17-year-old recording all his activity on a calendar ... keeping it for all these decades! ... and "remembering" it over a week after he needed it.

    It is fun though, watching both tribes make total asses of themselves to the majority of Americans. But is it crazy politicians perverting their voters, or crazy rank-and-file perverting the politicians. For that answer, watch Trump, how low can he sink to hold on to his tny base?

  • damikesc||

    Your back hurt moving those goalposts?

  • MasterThief||

    The "mean drunk" depiction has been something that came out of the original claim and then subsequent claims of less credibility have chimed in the same note. You could either look at that as collaborative evidence or making up stories and using a prior account to make it sound similar. The fact that these stories line up and each is made with the prior ones being widely publicized means that people could be piecing together a false narrative by piling on false evidence.
    That said, I'll go so far as to believe he was a mean drunk but that doesn't do much to forward the allegations

  • MasterThief||

    The "mean drunk" depiction has been something that came out of the original claim and then subsequent claims of less credibility have chimed in the same note. You could either look at that as collaborative evidence or making up stories and using a prior account to make it sound similar. The fact that these stories line up and each is made with the prior ones being widely publicized means that people could be piecing together a false narrative by piling on false evidence.
    That said, I'll go so far as to believe he was a mean drunk but that doesn't do much to forward the allegations

  • vek||

    My dad has his day planners from the 80s still in a box in his closet... He was a teenager in the early 80s... Crazier things could happen than an obvious super achiever, from a rich and successful family holding on to calendars from his high school years...

  • yawbus||

    So this woman talking of a horrific scene of gang-rape and lines of guys waiting to take their turns...and all she remembers are Kavanaugh and Judge hanging around. How about naming the long line of so-called rapists by name?

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Has any man here ever taken a drunk girl home before?

    Let her sleep all alone
    Leave her keys on the counter your number by the phone
    Pick up her life she threw on the floor
    Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
    That's how she knows the difference between a boy and man
    Take a drunk girl home.

    Just saying!

  • vek||

    I think you left out the part about sticking it in her butt.

    That's kind of the most important part... Just sayin'.

  • Wildbill2u||

    It really becomes difficult to judge this woman's accusations since she apparently went back for more on multiple occasions where this behavior was going on.

    Does anyone ever use the words "redemption" or "rehabilitation" any more. If this was going on during regular parties with both boys and girls, I'd like to think their common acceptance of this behavior by both sexes has been redeemed by Christian repentance and rehabilitated by mature behavior during the rest of their lives.

  • Anthony555||

    I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abusive and physical aggressive behavior toward girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, "grinding" against girls, and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts. I likewise observed him be verbally abusive toward girls by making crude sexual comments to them that were designed to demean, humiliate, and embarrass them.

    Yet she claims to have attended ten of these parties over two years? Sounds like he wasn't the one with the issue.

  • wearingit||

    It amazes me that a lot of people feel it necessary to either defend him or lynch him. Who really knows so why don't we just let this all play out, especially since this guy isn't Jesus in his second coming- why feel the need to leap to his defense?

  • Mark22||

    Who really knows so why don't we just let this all play out,

    What is there to "play out"? There is nothing legally actionable, there is no evidence, and the accusers can't give any details. The whole thing is a smear campaign and a delay tactic.

    People aren't jumping to Kavanaugh's defense, people are objecting to the process, what you call "this playing out" itself. It shouldn't be allowed to play out because it is wrong.

  • TxJack 112||

    I dont think people are leaping to his defense, they are defending the system. The confirmation system has become so corrupted by politics that we have scores of Federal judgeships being left open for years. Democrats decided long ago, the only way for them to impose their progressive vision on the US is via the courts. Therefore, the only "acceptable" judges are those who will side step Congress and the people and legislate from the bench. This is why the consider originalists like Gorsuch and Kavanagh to be "outside the mainstream". I also think they are terrified that RBG or Beyer will die or be forced to retire within the next couple of years since both are in their 80s. That would mean the President gets to nominate another justice. Lastly, Democrats know the progressive left is still angry about Merrick Garland and they think these antics play well.

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    My 2 Cents, with the knowledge that I don't particularly have any love or hate for Kavanaugh:

    Dems and allies tried every stupid trick they could think of before and during the hearings to stop Kavenaugh - it didn't work.

    On the eve of his confirmation, sexual assault allegations suddenly surface - the first being "known about" by at least one Dem well before the confirmation hearings, then conveniently announced right before confirmation.

    That looked to not be working, so more surface. Literally, 24 hours after many commented on TV that it was just one allegation.

    Even if a sliver of this is true (that he might have been a handsy drunk), it's from his teenage/very young adult years what 36+ years ago, when we were all at an age of being stupid.

    Even if completely true, the statute of limitations have long since passed, with no incidences in his adult life.

    Confirm him - If Bill Clinton was allowed to stay President with all the shit he did in his life like this, then Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

  • Duelles||

    How about an immediate FBI investigation into Avenatti?

  • Naaman Brown||

    Michael 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.

  • Naaman Brown||

    /2/ the unrelated lawsuit at CNN:
    "His law firm was abruptly forced into bankruptcy by a Florida man who claimed he was owed the relatively meager sum of $28,700. The Florida bankruptcy judge who handled the case expressed surprise that such a minor debt could threaten to financially topple a multi-million-dollar law firm. She also questioned the timing of the filing -- two days before the deadline set for Avenatti and two other firm employees to be deposed in a long-running arbitration with a former partner, who said he was owed as much as $18 million by Eagan Avenatti. The involuntary bankruptcy filing by the Florida man, Gerald Tobin, was a rare and obscure legal maneuver that had the effect of freezing the arbitration proceedings with the former partner. The result was that Avenatti avoided being questioned under oath in the proceeding. The whole thing, the judge said, "had the stench of impropriety." "

    There are some who admire such skill at legal maneuvering. I am sure Julie Swetnick, like Gerald Tobin, will benefit from her association with the legal skill of Michael Avenatti, who is considering a run for President as a Democrat in 2020.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Aren't democrats just the most upstanding oeople ever?

  • TxJack 112||

    I am amazed how many people are willing to accept these accusations as fact without giving them any serious thought. First, Swetnick claims the parties occurred in 1981 and 1982. She graduated in 1980. Therefore, she was a legal adult (19-20 yrs. old) attending parties with underage kids. If she was having sex with them, she is the sexual predator if you want to use today's standards as is being done to "convict" Kavanagh by the left. Second, after the cases of Weinstein and Cosby, why does no one point out that rapists do not quit until they get caught. How does a person with the psychological pathology to commit rape as a teenager stop and never do it again? Where are the allegations of rape when he was in college, law school or beyond? If he is a rapist as Democrats and the left claim, there would be more recent victims coming forward. In addition, the fact that each new allegation is more outrageous than the one prior makes all of this look like some coordinated effort to stop the confirmation vote. Also, Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI six times previously and none of these events have ever surfaced. Is the FBI so incompetent they totally missed information about these events every time?

  • HANSENWT||

    She couldn't come forward sooner, she was busy taping for Showtime "Circus"...watch next episode.

  • swampwiz||

    At least Kavanaugh sexually assaulted an attractive woman this time.

  • Otus||

    If FBI finds out Kananugh and his friends lined up outside the restroom to pee or remembers now that he did pee and laugh, while someone waited to remove their one piece bathing suit to be able to also pee, is he out?

  • Otus||

    Comedians are ignoring a lot of funny stuff here to not upset the audience they have left on the left.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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