MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed, and Liberals Should Blame Michael Avenatti

Sen. Susan Collins called the Swetnick story "outlandish." It might have given her cover to confirm the judge.

AvenattiANDREW CULLEN/REUTERS/NewscomSens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) announced on Friday they would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, which effectively means the judge will be joining the Supreme Court despite multiple allegations of sexual assault.

Democrats, the left, and various other anti-Kavanaugh persons can thank attorney Michael Avenatti for this outcome, at least in part.

The spotlight-stealing lawyer, who also represented Stormy Daniels, is responsible for drawing the media's attention to Julie Swetnick, an alleged victim of Kavanaugh who told an inconsistent and unpersuasive story. Swetnick's wild accusation provided cover for fence-sitting senators to overlook the more plausible allegation leveled by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, and to declare that Kavanaugh was being subjected to false smears.

Indeed, in her speech announcing her decision to vote for Kavanaugh, Collins explicitly made note of Swetnick's allegation, which she described as "outlandish."

"That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness," Collins said.

Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.) echoed Collins, telling MSNBC's Chuck Todd, "I think this process changed dramatically when Mr. Avenatti entered the picture. I think a lot of people, including many of my Democratic colleagues, felt like we had gotten into the foothills of preposterous."

Even on the Republican side, many people seemed to the think the testimony offered by Ford was credible. But it's much easier to take the position that the allegations against Kavanaugh are all lies if you have reason to believe at least one of the allegations is untrue. This is yet another problem with the automatically-believe-all-women philosophy embraced by fourth-wave feminism: When a woman is shown to have (probably) lied about her experience—something that does happen from time to time—the entire philosophy looks silly, because it rests on the idea that the consequences for coming forward are so awful that no one would ever lie. Swetnick undermined the believe-all-women position with her story, and Avenatti helped her by pushing it to the forefront of the news cycle.

Avenatti—and to a lesser extent, Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow, who ran with a story so thin The New York Times wouldn't print it—took the narrow question of whether Kavanaugh or Ford was more believable, and raised the stakes by asserting he was a serial sexual abuser, rather than an inconsiderate, sexually aggressive teenage drunk. It was always going to be easier to poke holes in the grander narrative. This very well may have been a gift to those who were looking for cover to vote for Kavanaugh.

It's unfortunate for the anti-Trump resistance, and for Ford, that Avenatti couldn't help but make the story about him.

Photo Credit: ANDREW CULLEN/REUTERS/Newscom

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

  • Don't look at me!||

    LOL. Funny take this one has.

  • rocks||

    Liberals use emotion to form opinions, not logic. You'll notice there has been a lot of that at Reason.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Conservatives believe fairy tales are true (ostensible adults falling for superstition), are convinced Pres. Obama was born in Kenya, and figure Donald Trump is going to rework economic fundamentals to enable unskilled, uneducated, can't-keep-up rural males to prosper (and to do so at the expense of better educated, marketably skilled, accomplished residents of modern, successful communities).

    Conservatives scoff at Ivy League schools, Berkeley, Reed, and Williams, and attend Liberty, Grove City, Bob Jones, Regent, and Wheaton.

    Nobody in the liberal-libertarian alliance is in the market for pointers from ignorant, intolerant, shambling rubes.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Your mother should have aborted you in utero. Next time you see her, punch her in the tit to remind her.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Where did Kavanaugh go so school?

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    It's a cliche on the right, that the left is now anti-worker, anti-labor.

    "Donald Trump is going to rework economic fundamentals to enable unskilled, uneducated, can't-keep-up rural males to prosper (and to do so at the expense of better educated, marketably skilled, accomplished residents of modern, successful communities)."

    Thank you for proving it.

    In a million years, Truman and Kennedy would never have spouted your nonsense. Indeed, they would have bitterly disagreed. Of course, the Democrats were the party of labor back then, not upscale, cosmopolitan elites.

  • Rorschach||

    An open letter:

    Dear Senator Feinstein, Senator Booker and sundry others:

    Congratulations! I have been a largely independent voter for decades now (occasionally registered with one party or the other so I could participate in a specific primary of interest); I have tried to keep to a practice of voting for the candidate, not the party, and trying to judge which candidate was the actual better person. As you can imagine, the 2016 Presidential contest was hard for me, as neither major candidate came close to my "good person" threshold; I eventually ended up casting my vote for Evan McMullin, as at least I didn't know of any bad thing about him at the time.

    Your performance over the past few months, and especially during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, has convinced me to change my voting philosophy. When I realized the depths to which you were all willing to sink to maintain and grab power — including using vile and unsubstantiated accusations against a jurist whom you hated BECAUSE he was a qualified and consistent judge who didn't let policy concerns or preferential outcomes influence his reasoned interpretation of law, lobbed at the eleventh hour as a desperate effort to run out the clock — I decided that, truly, determining my vote by party was the solution.
  • Rorschach||

    An open letter:

    Not only will I never vote for a Democrat again, I will choose my preferred candidate by gauging who has the best odds of blocking a Democrat from gaining elected office.

    In other words, though by my then-current standards I could not bring myself to vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, I will have no qualms about casting my vote in 2020 for whoever can best keep a Democrat from gaining the Presidency. The same goes for federal Senate and House seats, as well as state gubernatorial and legislative office. Anyone who chooses to publicly declare a commonality of interest with you by advertising a common party affiliation is an enabler of those who would destroy the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and just about every denominator of public decency and civilized behavior.
  • Rorschach||

    An open letter:

    So yes, congratulations on exceeding my expectations. Even Harry Reid, as vile a power-hungry operator as I ever hoped to witness during my life, could not drive me into the camp of your opponents the way you have.

    I understand that that may not have been your intention. However, along with your "control at any cost" ethic, you Democrats seem just as devoted to the law of unintended consequences. So here's your consequence.

    Sincerely,

    Nathan Shumate
  • Rorschach||

    Dear Robby Soave and all the other credibly accused toddler rapists at "Reason" Propaganda Rag Magazine:

    We're on to you.

    Sincerely,

    Rorschach.

  • Kazinski||

    To be fair, I think Feinstein was a victim in this too, it seems much more likely to me that Ford's lawyer Katz leaked her clients letter than Feinstein.

    After all it was Katz that kept Grassly's offer of sending someone to California secret from Ford, so she isn't above pushing the real goal ahead of her clients interest.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Jul 10. Ford contacted WaPo. Eventually Ford spoke with WaPo reporter Emma Brown.
    Jul 18. Ford met with Eshoo's staff.
    Jul 20. Ford spoke with Rep. Eshoo who suggested Ford should write Sen. Feinstein
    Jul 30. Ford's letter arrived at Sen, Feinstein's office.
    Jul 31. Sen Feinstein wrote to Ford.
    Jul 30 - Aug 7. Sen Feinstein spoke with Ford; Ford spoke with Feinstein's staff who suggested Ford engage attorney Debra Katz.
    Aug 31. Feinstein's letter to Ford promised not to share Ford's Jul 30 letter w/o consent.
    Sep 12. SJC Democrats requested to view a letter in possession of Feinstein about "an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo". The reveal involved Debra Katz.
    Sep 13. Feinstein sent Ford's letter to the FBI. FBI redacted Ford's name, forwarded the letter to the White House who sent the letter to the SJC.
    Sep 16. WaPo published Emma Brown's interview with Ford, "California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault" naming Ford publicly.

  • WillPaine||

    Inkblot; ..."vile and unsubstantiated accusations.." ???; I gotta ask; where do you get your information, and how much do you have? How much do you need? Yes, they are vile; the things many, many people are witness to his having done. Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath. Proven. He has many witnesses to his behavior. Ignored. His Bush era papers (owned by the American people). Hidden. His judicial temper. Unfit. And I don't hate anyone.

  • Rorschach||

    Dear WillPaine:

    Yes, "vile and unsubstantiated accusations," though those are Mr. Shumate's words, not mine. Unlike you, Mr. Shumate and I get all our information from actual credible sources, which is all we need. Yes, those vile accusations are all unsubstantiated: absolutely nobody, including the obviously lying whores who lodged those obviously false accusations, has witnessed Kavanaugh doing any of those things because he hasn't. Fact: Kavanaugh has not lied even a single time under oath. Fact: all witnesses who have actually known him state that he has been a perfect gentleman and they can't recall a time when he hasn't. Fact: you know full well nobody gives a damn about those unhidden "Bush era papers" including you witch hunters, because they have no relevance to your attempts to railroad Kavanaugh anyway.

    Kavanugh's judicial temperament reveals him to be a decent man rightly angered by you treasonous totalitarian thugs' thoroughly hateful misandrist smears and thoroughly evil attacks on his family, and reveal you to be psychopaths with no decency at all. Clearly, he is quite fit for his position on the Supreme Court, whereas you leftard psychopaths lack the moral and legal standing to be allowed outside of a padded cell in an asylum for the criminally insane. Like all far-left fascists, you obviously hate everyone to the right of Stalin.

    Sincerely,

    Rorschach.

  • WillPaine||

    These times are no longer of left or right, Republican or Democrat; these times call for Americans to stand, and we the people are beginning to. I suspect the best is yet to come, despite cynicism. Play nice, speak up, and vote.

  • Rorschach||

    Whatchumean "we the people," you leftard liar? No one here is fooled by your pretended rejection of the differences between the left and right: the gulf between you anti-American far-left totalitarian traitors and all the American patriots to your right and toward the libertarian end of the political spectrum from you is as vast and unbridgeable as the abyss fixed between Heaven and Hell. The only issue remaining to be resolved is what combination of ballot and bullet we will need to employ to evict you parasitic savages from our civilization.

  • Freelancelot||

    "Nobody in the liberal-libertarian alliance is in the market for pointers from ignorant, intolerant, shambling rubes."

    There is no such alliance among the intelligent and sensible.

    And liberals don't care for anyone BUT the ignorant, intolerant, and shameless...er, I mean, shambling rubes. Like yourself.

  • what gives?||

    That's some straw man you got there. It doesn't take reworking economic fundamentals to bring back manufacturing jobs to the citizens of the United States, as President Trump has clearly shown. But if that is required, why would enabling unskilled, uneducated, can't-keep-up rural males to prosper be less desirable than enabling unskilled, uneducated, can't-keep-up illegal immigrants to prosper, when the expense to better educated, marketably skilled, accomplished (clearly superior, in your mind) residents of modern, successful communities would be much lower?

  • James Solbakken||

    " the liberal-libertarian alliance"

    The problem with your alliance is that it is silly. Liberals are communists, and communism is incompatible with libertarianism.

    Most libertarians are not stupid enough to imagine there is a moral equivalency between, say for example, the anti-prostitution laws that conservatives support, and the totalitarian Marxist tyranny that liberals lust for.

    Any libertarian with a brain knows that at least he can negotiate with a conservative about the prostitution laws, but, there's no negotiation with a Marxist terrorist when he comes to expropriate all your shit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Libertarians know better than to try to negotiate with religious fanatics, authoritarian prudes, white nationalists, and other unreconstructed bigots.

    Faux libertarians, on the other hand, see no reason to quarrel with those folks . . .

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|10.6.18 @ 2:30PM|#
    "Faux libertarians, on the other hand, see no reason to quarrel with those folks . . ."

    Including those posting under the handle of Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, assholee,

  • Dizzle||

    That's why libertarians have no influence or sway. Thanks for being a high horse ideologue incapable of communicating libertarian ideas to others because you feel intellectually superior to them. That's really what we need jackass.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Arthur Kirkland is a known child rapist. He raped me as a child. Ignore the child rapist. #BelieveAllSurvivors

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, I am your better in every way. Never forget that. You need to abandon your pablum puking and learn to obey libertarians and conservatives. Much like a small dog with it's limited brain learns to obey it's master.

  • Sugarsail||

    And liberals believe using fossil fuels will create an apocalyptic flood, bring down Gaia's wrathful weather and raise global temperatures to uninhabitable hot levels unless they build an ark (electric cars) and save the animals in two by two formation. They view computer model conjectures as infallible prophecy and cite "science" like any fundamentalist cites their bible, instead of realizing science is merely a method of observation and falsification not a scriptural authority to appeal to. Then they should down skeptics as heretic (deniers). Superstitious indeed and fallacious and fundamentalist as well.

    And you failed to realize that Trump is an Ivy League grad not to mention Buckley and George W. And there is no liberal-libertarian alliance since modern liberals are socialists which is an anathema to libertarianism.

  • Carlos Inconvenience||

    All they care about is legal weed and getting invites to the right parties these days

  • Fancylad||

    Could you imagine how devastating it'd be for ENB or Jacob to be disinvited to monthly cocktails at Annie's, DC with the Journolist crew?
    One slightly-less-vitriolic column and you're a Trumpalist roader and drinking alone at Applebees.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    and yet you're here reading. Very logical of you.

  • JesseAz||

    Robby's streak if worst possible takes continues.

  • earthandweather||

    Robbie is definitely not a reporter. Broadly defined, he may be a journalist....a bad one. Reason seems intent on adding insult to injury by promoting him at every opportunity (pod casts, etc.) It comes off as a strategy....A losing one, I believe.

  • Sugarsail||

    Ever since Reason moved its office to LA, it's succumbed to liberal group think, socialist sympathies, half-truths and fake news reports (some of which I've addressed and called out) and gross pandering to identity politics.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    And why is Reason lamenting the unfortunate effect on the "Anti-Trump resistance"? Is the libertarian voice suddenly that of an honest broker? Good grief. Really makes one wonder why this magazine even exists any more.

  • Dan S.||

    Yes, libertarians should be honest brokers between the dogmatic left and the dogmatic right. Our goal should always be to apply the NAP impartially in order to decide who is right and who is wrong in a particular situation. Of course, in a case of he said/she said, that doesn't really give us much guidance, and other factors have to come into play to judge credibility. Hopefully, not ones derived from partisan affiliation.

  • ThomasD||

    "and other factors have to come into play to judge credibility"

    Nice euphemisms.

    To the writers at Reason Blasey Ford was "our kind," i.e.white, upper middle class, college educated, a tenured member of the modern clerisy, etc.

    Oh, and she just happened to be a vocal critic of Trump and his administration.

    Pure coincidence that last bit.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    And a card carrying member of the Deep State (CIA recruiter).

  • James Solbakken||

    " libertarians should be honest brokers between the dogmatic left and the dogmatic right. "

    Sorry, but libertarians are pathetic imbeciles if they can't recognize any difference between the totalitarian megalomaniacal Marxist liberal Left and the authoritarian traditional right.

    I'm not saying that you have to accept the lesser of 2 evils.

    What I'm saying is that there is no negotiation with the psychotic Left. All your shit is belong to them and they will never stop until they possess it and you are dead.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you prefer religious zealotry, white nationalism, belligerent ignorance, and diffuse bigotry to the liberal-libertarian alliance that has crafted a half-century of American progress, you're neither libertarian nor sensible. Most likely a disaffected right-winger and unconvincing faux libertarian.

    Other than that, though, great comment, James.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Shut up, progtard.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you're a loser. Amd you're going to keep on losing. Learn to obey now and you might be allowed to survive what is to come.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open wider, Last. Here comes more liberal-libertarian progress, to be shoved down your whiny, lame, whimpering throat. For entertainment, we stop occasionally to hear your mutter bitterly about all of this damned progress, reason, tolerance, science, education, and liberty.

  • PS||

    You can type "liberal-libertarian alliance" as many times as you like but it still won't make it exist anywhere other than inside your head.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jamie's is correct. That's why the left cannot be allowed to remain in the US. Progressives need to go. Far away.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Especially since while being nominated by Trump, Kavanaugh is an utterly conventional GOP jurist. He is not someone who is a fervent Trump supporter.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Right you are Mickey. Kavanaugh is a Deep State go along to get along flunky. He carried water for Bush 43, helped write the PATRIOT Act, covered up for the FBI when they intimidated witnesses, ruled for the Deep State and eviscerated the 4th Amendment as an appellate judge.

    Meh, he'd still probably be better than Merrick Garland or another RBG.

    The good thing is that the #MeToo folk have shown their true colors and will probably implode because of this shit show.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    They do a good job of calling out Trump on his bullshit and don't cup his balls gently like Fox and Breitbart. They also report when he does good things like slash regulations.

  • NoVaNick||

    You know whats even funnier? I read somewhere a couple of weeks ago that some dems want Avenatti to run against Trump in 2020.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It's like mystical conservatives believe in The Rapture, Antichrist, Armageddon, Mark of the Beast, loaves and fishes bootlegging, etc and perforce spit on conservation laws, logic and whatnot, but will tell any lie to bring back coathanger abortions. Their socialist opponents are also religiously immune to methods of inference, verifiable facts and objectivity, and will likewise tell any lie to make the mystical looters lose. So they surprise only each other when the gloves come off. I've seen thousands of these knife fights and in every case have rooted for both sides to crawl away and die in a puddle of their own entrails. Maybe next time. One does have the right to hope...

  • MSimon||

    LOL. Funny take this one has.

    "Unfortunate"

    ROTFLMNAO

  • 5th Grader Voxpo||

    "Liberals Should Blame Michael Avenatti"
    Huh?
    "at least in part"
    Oh.

  • BigT||

    Diane Feinstein is to blame for people not believing Ford. She sat on the story for weeks, during which it could have been thoroughly vetted, and the truth could come out. But the fact that she withheld the story until the last minute and presented a polished, coached, and unfalsifiable story, stinks to hell. Fords two proven lies - fear of flying and never having helped coach the polygraph test witness - completely undermine her credibility.

    Women should blame Feinstein.

  • Freelancelot||

    Women should look in their mirrors and realize what liars they can be and all too often are.

  • BigT||

    You saw "To Kill a Mockingbird" didn't you!

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Nope. I just read every post from therationalmale.com

  • ThomasD||

    Feinstein will never be called to answer for her role in all this.

    But you know if she was put on the spot her temperament displayed would be less-than-judicial.

  • Johnny B||

    Feinstein might actually be called to answer for her role, since she will probably fail, and failure to promote progressive causes is as big of a crime to her constituency as is opposing them. She is running in an election this fall...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Good. Now we can get around to prosecuting Feinstein for spoilage related crimes and lock her up in SuoerMax for the rest of her life in solitary. Her crooked husband too.

  • ||

    Don't forget the reason for the two front doors and the reason for the therapy which were to facilitate the illegal rental portion of their home (and might indicate they needed money) and the therapy to offer as an excuse to nosy municipal agents looking to crack down on illegal rentals.
    Her entire character seemed contrived and staged. After she was excused I felt like applauding that amazing performance. Very believable.
    Oscar worthy.

  • Kazinski||

    She sat on it, but what makes you think she leaked it?

    My money is on Katz. Sure its unethical, but she withheld Grassley's offer from Ford too, and she was likely the one claiming Ford couldn't fly too.

    It was clear Katz had a single minded objective of delaying the vote in line with the Democratic strategy, she isn't going to stop at leaking something against her clients wishes.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Yeah I bring this up with dem friends and they go through the roof and scream GUILTY GUILTY SHAME. I gave up on it.

  • MoreFreedom||

    They're blaming Avanatti because, they want to divert the blame from themselves and their tactics. Democrats have a long history of making last minute sexual misconduct allegations against their political opponents. Allegations which can't be proven, or disproven, due to lack of evidence. They're always last minute because that minimizes the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves (note Feinstein sat on the accusations for a couple of months). They even make such charges against people effectively discrediting their charges (e.g. see the accusation against John Doggett after his testimony throwing doubt onto Anita Hill, or the accusations of homophobia recently against Graham).

    The Dems (Schumer, Feinstein, Hirono, Bluementhal) don't want to be blamed for what voters do in the midterms. Watching the hearings, you could see it in their stunned reactions to Kavanaugh's defense of himself, with supporting evidence. Ford had no supporting evidence. And I'd say their claims of passing a polygraph and supporting therapist notes, while not providing them to the Senate, is also problematic (what are they hiding?). As a result the Dems turned to allegations about what he did in school (ignoring that his grades were spectacular in spite of his drinking), then accused him of being partisan and too emotional (in his defense?). Lame, dirty and not American.

  • Seamus||

    The Swetnick allegations were the 13th chime of the clock, which not only could not be believed but called into doubt all those that came before it.

  • sparkstable||

    No... all those that came before it had their own credibility issues. Had the third accusation not been made, Dr. Ford would still be hard to believe given that there was zero evidence or corroboration of her story... and in fact the people she cited as sources said they didn't remember at best or denied it at worst (from her credibility's standpoint).

    Anyone who fails to see this is just pulling crap out of their ass to explain how they "got it wrong."

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The credibility problems with Dr. Ford's story were so numerous and so glaring that only the wild accusations of an obvious nut like Swetnick could put them in the position of 'more credible'.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Not to mention that her claim was conveniently non-falsifiable.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    The problem is none of them gave even concrete details. No witnesses from the time period. Nothing, just their word against his.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So because Swetnick wasn't the perfect victim we should toss her under the bus? For shame.

  • Just Say'n||

    Corroboration is so 90s

  • IceTrey||

    She never said Kav did anything to her.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Yea, but she says he made an "effort" to drug and rape hundreds of women.....just because she never saw anything nor has a shred of proof doesn't mean he didn't do it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And, yes, you can be a victim by proxy.

  • D-Pizzle||

    You beclown yourself on a daily basis.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hourly.

  • RoyMo||

    Reason should hire you.

  • Sevo||

    Check sarc meter calibration.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Swetnick not only wasn't the 'perfect victim', she was an obviously deranged nut who had a history of making false accusations. That the Leftwing press didn't do everything possible to kill that story before it garnered any attention prove that they are incompetent even ay being biased. Swetnick is just about the perfect example of the kind of 'witness' you desperately DON'T want on your side.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You figure she is as kooky as the birthers and white nationalists who dominate the Republican Party?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Only slightly less kookier than self-loathing shitlibs desperately trying to pretend they don't have 85 IQs.

  • DesigNate||

    At least as kooky as the birthers and white nationalist who still control the Democrat Party.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Democratic Party. Get an education, you bigoted rube.

  • Ecoli||

    It amuses me that the exclusion of "ic" on Democrat so outrages Democrats. Democrats always have the "ick" factor attached. They know it. The love it. It is the modern Democratick party. Embrace it.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Anything with "democratic" in front of it, isn't.

  • VOTE MILES||

    You figure she is as kooky as the birthers and white nationalists who dominate the Republican Party?

    That sounds a lot like what your people call "whataboutism". Do partisan crazies in the right make partisan crazies on the left any more legitimate?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You should be beaten to death with every object within reach.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open wider, Jack. Your betters have more progress to shove down your whiny, inconsequential throat, and your insolence might incline them to position that progress sideways for a while.

  • Johnny B||

    thanks for confirming that your side have no qualms about resorting to violence to achieve their ends.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not violence. It's just that since Selma, Little Rock, and the like, the liberal-libertarian mainstream has effected progress without waiting for the stale-thinking losers to keep up. We move America forward against the efforts and wishes of right-wingers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib confirms that he wants his children and grandchildren to get "the full Kent State".

  • Texasmotiv||

    I'm telling you guys, his posts are better if you read them with Loki's voice from the avengers.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Hey, are you related to Anthony Kirkland, the serial killer?
    In any case, if you believe that birthers and white nationalists dominate the Rs, then you've got a serious disconnect from reality.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Seventy percent of Republicans are birthers, you half-educated, bigoted rube.

    Get an education. Or ask someone with a degree -- from a legitimate school, not some backwater goober factory that teaches nonsense to the gullible -- to explain this to you.

  • CDRSchafer||

    99% of Republicans don't care about Obama. He's powerless and impotent, like Madame President. All he can do is whine and raise money for losing candidates/ideas.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Swetnick reminds me of the story of the Emperor that gathered all of his court together and showed them a moose (or whatever kind of hooved creature Emperors have running through their forests) while asking on their opinion of this animal, "Isn't he a magnificent stallion? I think that I shall win many horse races with this stallion. What do you think?" Many of the court agreed, and loudly proclaimed that horse racing would be the sole domain of His Majesty thanks to this fine piece of horseflesh. A few were shocked, and protested that the animal was a moose and not a horse, why it was obvious to anyone. The moose was ushered out, regular business resumed and nothing was ever said about the moose again, nor did it ever appear in any races whatsoever.

    Over the next couple of months, all of those few shocked courtiers that denied the moose was a horse, disappeared, presumably executed.

    The left doesn't get that they don't have that kind of power that the Emperor had.

    Yet.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>despite multiple allegations of sexual assault

    dude let it the fuck go

  • Psion||

    Yeah, Robby has completely sacrificed any remaining believability on this altar. I gave him the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but if you hit me over the head with a hammer enough times, I eventually figure out I can't trust you.

  • Kaatje||

    I concur Psion. Robby ought to go back to community college and take Philosophy Intro to Logic and Ethics classes. The community college is not a snarky comment by the way, they've got retired PhDs who teach excellent classes. Robbie seems to have zero understanding of Logic and keeps his fallacious thinking on display.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You mean you don't expect people to refer to Justice Bart O'Kavanaugh so long as he is on the Supreme Court?

  • BigT||

    Eat my shorts!!

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Be nice, Jack, or I shall instruct my children not to hire your family to clear the walkways, detail the vehicles, and mow the lawns.

    And then how would you and yours afford the handful of street pills needed to get through another desolate day in the deplorable backwaters?

    You need to think about things like this, Jack.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The short version: "I blame Michael Avenatti".

    Blame whoever you want if it makes you feel better, son. You will still be eating that ginormous back of dicks very soon.

  • DiegoF||

    I assume that was a typo but I am going with it. A whole giant tableau of dicks, pressed together side to side in a slab like so many spareribs.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Sauce or dry rub?

  • ThanksForTheFish||

    San Fran style - go with the cream sauce on this one.

  • Trigger Warning||

    You guys are such assholes! Never joke about ribs!

  • rocks||

    Mushroom dicks, and beer.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "more plausible allegation"

    No it wasn't.

  • AlmightyJB||

    A 17 year old football player who goes to training camps and lifts weights everyday can't get a stitch of clothing off a 15 year old girl and he's an aggressive rapist. Totally believable.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    And that's where Ford really screwed up with her smear. By adding violence into the mix. If she had just come up with some nebulous story about Kav getting a little too handsy, or something short of a violent rape attempt, there's likely enough squish senators to vote him down.

    It would have even been believable too since a teenage combo of hormones and beer could result in something untoward from a guy with otherwise sterling character.

    But pinning her down, laughing, trying to cover her mouth, turning up the music, with an accomplice? That means you're a violent sociopath. And you don't just demonstrate that trait once and somehow turn it off for the rest of your life.

  • NashTiger||

    That means you're a violent sociopath. And you don't just demonstrate that trait once and somehow turn it off for the rest of your life.

    Yeah, you can't switch that off like your terrible fear of flying or inescapable situations like being on a boat in the middle of the South Pacific

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    This always threw me. Every normal teen guy has tried to cop a feel and every teen girl has had a guy try to. cop a feel. If this resulted in trauma like Ford allegedly had in every female half the population would be walking around like zombies. So I guess spicing it up was needed for their purposes.

  • Sevo||

    And having 'recovered' the memory under therapy sets off all sorts of alarms; you are asked to tell the therapist a story, for pete's sake.
    She might be out-right lying, or more likely (IMO), she 'embellished' a memory of some unpleasantness. But that doens't absolve her of an attempt to ruin the life of some guy.

  • NoVaNick||

    It does not make it right, but probably 90% of women have experienced something similar to what happened to Ford. Guys are horny bastards, especially as teenagers, and girls want to be near them even if they don't want it to go that far. The only solution would be to have a culture like Saudi Arabia, where girls and women are forbidden to leave the home without a male relative (who is probably molesting them).

  • Arthur Rubin||

    IIRC, this was NOT a 'recovered' memory. However, the identity of the attacker is one of the 'fact's most likely to slip if she wasn't thinking about it continually.

  • DRM||

    It might have been intentionally spiced up, but it might have been normal memory detail drift. Thirty years of trying not to think about things later, it's perfectly reasonable that when she was in therapy her subconscious filled in especially traumatic details to justify the memory being the root of her problems.

    Similarly, when Kavanaugh made the news, it would be perfectly normal for a memory that was previously fuzzy about the perpetrator to fill in someone she knew back then and is now reminded of the existence of.

    The thing is, that's why her claims should have never been made public. None of the details, including the identity, were remotely reliable. The fact that the in-2012 therapist-documented account had a different number of boys observing than what she remembered in 2018 was itself a demonstration of this unreliability.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He was a prep school football player. They tend to be soft. Kavanaugh is particularly soft. Even pudgy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Not nearly as soft as your skull, hicklib.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I shall comfort myself with the knowledge that losing the culture war has made you a disaffected and inconsequential malcontent, and that my preferences will prevail against yours for another half-century in America.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I shall comfort myself in the knowledge that your lack of historical perspective is going to end up with you and your kind becoming human wnidchimes.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Historical perspective: History is America's right-wingers getting their stale, whiny, lame asses kicked on nearly every important issue -- from race to religion in schools, from treatment of gays to the environment, from abusive policing to contraception, from treatment of women to comedy, from rural-vs.city to abortion, from movies to religion in society, from consumer protection to Vietnam -- for more than a half-century.

    It's reached the point at which "mainstream" is a reviled concept among movement conservatives. Conservatives hate mainstream journalists, mainstream movies, mainstream schools, mainstream television, and essentially all comedy.

    America's electorate becomes less rural, less white, less backward, less religious, and less intolerant every day. The rural backwaters are becoming economic and educational deserts. Conservatives hate mainstream journalists, mainstream movies, mainstream television, and essentially all comedy. The liberal-libertarian alliance operates our strongest colleges and universities. Conservative-controlled campuses are hundreds of third-rate goober factories.

    Carry on, clingers. Try not to tire of all that winning.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib burps out another inbred manifesto.

    Carry on, cancers.

  • Steve-O||

    I don't know. Those one-piece bathing suits are a step short of a chastity belt.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I understand that an implausible allegation might mean it isn't true, but the idea that unsubstantiated allegations are more believable for being plausible beggars belief at, yes, a website named "Reason".

    Drink!

    Incidentally, internal consistency doesn't mean something is true either. Lies can be and often are internally consistent.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's pretty bad when the democrats make the perpetual 5 year old DT look like the adult. I'm pretty glad they were not rewarded for stomping their feet, shaking their fist, and throwing a tantrum like a bunch of 2 year olds with no shame, although I still would have preferred a different candidate.

  • sparkstable||

    Agreed. When it is all over, the worst thing about the Trump presidency will be all the times I'm forced to defend him (and by extension people like Kav) from illogical and emotional accusations rather than being able to pile on actual bad things. He very well may go down as my favorite president ever (it's a really low bar, btw... I had to dig a hole to throw it into it's so low) just because of how great a foil he has been to the unhinged left.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Bingo, I may even for an R for Senate for the first time ever even though he's a bigger douchebag than the incumbent D. Until Tester smeared Ronny Jackson I really didn't care. After that and this fiasco I don't want the D's getting the Senate though I hope they get the House for 2 years of endless entertainment.

    The D's are fucking retards. K is a milque toast statist like Roberts, unlikely to rock the boat on shit like Chevron. I want another Gorsuch and I bet Trump would have gone more hard core had they prevailed on K. They were stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime, idiots that they are.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Better than the activist he's replacing.

  • RoyMo||

    My grandfather always said the only guy he ever voted for that he liked was Tom Dewey, but the mustache. But then he was a rock ribbed Republican who told me that liking your candidate was a sign you weren't thinking it through.

  • Malvolio||

    Unsubstantiated allegations are more believable for being plausible. Consider three claims:

    I saw my friend Bob yesterday
    I saw Barack Obama yesterday
    I saw Peter Pan yesterday

    All of them are completely unsubstantiated (and in fact, none is true), but they seem progressively less believable because they are progressively less plausible.

    There was nothing inherently wrong with Ford's story, except that it was almost unfalsifiable, until she started naming witnesses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Inconceivable!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Unsubstantiated allegations are more believable for being plausible."

    Plausibility only makes allegations seem more believable relative to implausible allegations, but, no, being plausible does not make them more . . . credible. Maybe "credible" is the better word, here, rather than "believable".

    Almost any allegation of sexual assault can be plausible, but being plausible doesn't mean an allegation is credible.

    P.S. I guess "credible" and "believable" mean the same thing but have different associated connotations?

  • D-Pizzle||

    Her story is by design non-falsifiable, therefore plausible. Credible, not so much.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Non-falsifiability reduces credibility.

  • ThomasD||

    "Lies can be and often are internally consistent."

    People who lie for a living - spies, undercovercops, embezzlers, etc. know that the best (ie. most effective) are the ones you live like they are real. So much so that it is a recognized phenomenon of the lies becoming the perceived reality.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    "More plausible" does not mean "plausible."

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Well, it just depends on the starting point......

  • Rich||

    IIRC, some female politician found Ford's testimony "incredibly credible".

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed, and Liberals Should Blame Michael Avenatti"

    "It's unfortuante for the anti-Trump resistance, and for Ford, that Avenatti couldn't help but make the story about him."

    This is (horseshit)^2

    If you want blame something for Kavanaugh being confirmed, these are the top three reasons.

    1) The Constitution.

    President gets to nominate. He nominated Kavanaugh.

    The senate confirms Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans control the senate.

    Have a cry about that, Robby.

    Waaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    2) The Democrats abandoned opposing Kavanaugh on principled grounds and made it personal--like it was all about Trump.

    If they had succeeded in persuading the American people to turn their backs on civil society and common sense, they might have succeeded in getting another Republican to do likewise. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the American people weren't buying it.

    Waaaaaaaaah, Robby, Waaaaaaaaaaah!

    3) There was no corroborating testimony or corroborating evidence to back up Ford's accusation.

    I guess you can't disqualify people on the basis of uncorroborated accusations after all.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    In short, nobody that matters does anything differently because of anything Avenatti said or did, and you're a buffoon for thinking any of this has anything to do with that.

  • DiegoF||

    Glad to see no one is buying Robby's absurd damage control narrative.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Robby's been grasping at straws since this shit hit and now he's decided Avenatti was the last straw. I know I'm mixing metaphors here but...well I don't really have any excuse.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    And it's hilarious given that he was writing, "Hey, this isn't all that implausible, it's not like it's the Rolling Stone story all over again!"

  • ThomasD||

    Desperate times call for desperate measure,

    How many authors here decided this was a hill worth sacrificing their credibility on?

  • Benitacanova||

    Avenatti could be working FOR Trump...

  • Aloysious||

    Blame the lawyer? Are you out of your fucking mind?

  • Just Say'n||

    While Avanti's actions didn't help, I think the utter lack of evidence to back-up Ford's claims (and the mounting evidence today from the WSJ showing her attorneys trying to coach witnesses into corroborating her story) was probably the nail in the coffin.

    You'd acknowledge this if you weren't a hack

  • AlmightyJB||

    If he doesn't #blindlybelieveher, his DC buddies will give him wedgies.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I just wish Suderman would comment on this so I could get more irritated. No one rubs me like he does.

  • Aloysious||

    No one rubs me like he does.

    Go on...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Not even your wife?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Man, I wish I was married or even had a SO. Nothing going on since my last breakup. It's hard in this world for a man who wants kids.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    If you rub it with your hand it will get soft again. :)

  • Yellow Tony||

    Just fuck some girl (boy) and adopt some kids, faggot. Or, better yet, enjoy the 2D life like a good honest man should.

  • JesseAz||

    I know a girl in oh who has 4 kids by 3 men, last kid was a good friends, and she is moving on for guy 4. Want her number?

  • JesseAz||

    Phx not oh

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You are so fucked.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Avenatti overplayed his incredible hand of credible cards with a palmed deuce?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Yes, all he was ever holding was shit.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Naming my band "Palm Deuce."

  • VOTE MILES||

    Like they say, "A deuce in the palm is worth two in bush."

  • Benitacanova||

    Two in bush? Sounds like you been lost in the devil's triangle son...

  • Don't look at me!||

    Two in a bush is the title of a double pen movie from the 60's.

  • Sevo||

    "Avenatti overplayed his incredible hand of credible cards with a palmed deuce?"

    I'd sure like to see the contract for representation here, and particularly the compensation clauses.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    It's unfortuante for the anti-Trump resistance, and for Ford, that Avenatti couldn't help but make the story about him.

    As a member of #TheResistance, I'm not ready to give up yet. There's still a chance the progressive / libertarian alliance can pull off a miracle in the next 24 hours. Maybe Senator Feinstein has another ace up her sleeve.

    And even if we fail to #CancelKavanaugh, there are a few things to keep in mind:

    1. Avenatti is awesome. If the next president has to be another white male, I'd proudly vote for him.

    2. Kavanaugh's confirmation will make the #BlueTsunami even bigger because it will energize Democratic voters.

    3. Democrats have developed an excellent playbook for opposing dangerous right-wing extremist judges. Assuming Drumpf succeeds in getting Kavanaugh on the Court, I guarantee he won't get any more after that.

  • Syntax Error||

    Give it up, you lost.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Should have started with pedophilia instead of high school date rape. Next time. I'm sure there are plenty of lefty college professors ready to make up up some greasy molestation tales for RBG's replacement.

  • sk8rjason||

    There is no progressive/Libertarian alliance and there won't even be a blue ripple let alone a wave or tsunami. This whole fiasco will mobilize Trump's base again and assure that at least the Senate stays red. Good job!

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Democrats have developed an excellent playbook for opposing dangerous right-wing extremist judges. Assuming Drumpf succeeds in getting Kavanaugh on the Court, I guarantee he won't get any more after that."

    Bull Shit!

    If the Democrats don't manage to gain majority control of the Senate in November, they won't be able to stop a single nomination after this.

    Trump could nominate David Duke to the next opening, and without control of the Senate, the Democrats would be powerless to stop it.

  • ||

    Trump could nominate David Duke to the next opening, and without control of the Senate, the Democrats would be powerless to stop it.

    ^ This.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    10Q

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's not THAT great of a brag to say he could nominate literally anyone and the Republicans would follow along.

    I know that's not what you mean by this, but I fear it's probably more true than not.

  • ThomasD||

    "it's probably more true than not."

    Yes, if the Senate stays in GOP control then Trump's next appointment can be someone he might not have previously gotten through. But to say it could be 'anybody' is not realistic - the Murkowski wing is still real.

    If Trump gets his pick for the replacement of RGB he'll end up being the most consequential president of the last 60 years.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    No way. The Senate might have remained under Republican control if Drumpf had nominated a consensus conservative pick, maybe someone like David Souter. But by rushing through a divisive extremist like Kavanaugh, the GOP assured they'd lose both houses of Congress.

    Trust me, all my progressive friends are furious right now, and more motivated to vote than ever. We haven't been this outraged since we learned Orange Hitler was literally putting children in cages.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "putting children in cages."

    I didn't know Trump was a libertarian?

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Good thing Obama never put children in cages.....oh wait.....

  • AlmightyJB||

    Only when he wasn't blowing them up.

  • Bubba Jones||

    A

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe Senator Feinstein has another ace up her sleeve."

    Pretty sure what she pulled out of her sleeve was more a steaming pile of shit rather than an ace.

  • 68W58||

    A deuce.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    What's Ma Browning got to do with it?

  • ThomasD||

    Ma Deuce, aka the M2, is not a deuce.

  • Nardz||

    A-
    Solid work

  • Nardz||

    A-
    Solid work

  • BigT||

    Solid A. Look at all those who didn't get it!

  • Bubba Jones||

    Bingo.

  • Nardz||

    True. I graded before reading through the string. Definitely warrants a bump

  • Alcibiades||

    The savior here was the man himself.

    His honor, his reputation, his life's work was on the line and he was viciously attacked.

    He stood up to the bullies, the lies, the slander, confronted them and beat them.

    He's also saved the GOP's miserable hide.

    As for the Democrats, there are not words for their behavior, the mask slipped and their true face revealed, it's ugly and vile.

    God I hope they take a beating in November.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Kavanaugh followed James Carville's advice and not the advice of modern nutless liberals like Al Franken. Bill O'Reilly is on tape saying one day out of the blue he would destroy Franken's life but Franken tolerated the attack by the woman from Fox News and invited others to accuse him of improprieties...and then Democrats started making allegations and he resigned. Franken will be remembered as a pathetic pervert but had he gone on the attack he would have been the guy that withstood an attack from Bill O'Reilly.

  • Nardz||

    The picture of him groping a passed out woman was rather damning

  • GeoffB1972||

    If it had been Teddy Kennedy there'd be stories about how his work in the Senate gave meaning and purpose to the gropee's life.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Except he was pretending to grope her and that is not why he resigned. He resigned because he didn't attack her credibility using O'Reilly's words and eventually more women came out.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Oh, come on! That was posed juvenile humor.

    None of the public allegations were enough to explain his resignation. The only way I can make sense of it is if he really did have some undisclosed skeleton in his closet, and somebody we never heard of threatened to go public if he didn't.

    Because what we did here about was a joke.

  • ThomasD||

    "Oh, come on! That was posed juvenile humor":

    I agree. You cannot feel anything through a flak jacket, so indeed it was posed humor. A clown mucking it up for the camera.

    But it was also done without her consent, it was sexual in nature, and It was historically quite recent.

    It made everything else being said about him plausible and more credible. (See Reason authors - this is the sort of factual information that can affect credibility on other related matters. It's what Blasey Ford's story lacked.)

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > You cannot feel anything through a flak jacket, so indeed it was posed humor. A clown mucking it up for the camera.

    Plus, if you look closely, his hands weren't even touching the flak jacket.

    What sealed it was the former Playmate/radio personality that complained about his hands (and tongue?). Guy thought he was bullet proof. He wasn't

  • Johnny B||

    You might be right about that. I had assumed that it was a ploy by the Dems to say something like `what Trump did is worse than Al Franken did, and Franken resigned, so Trump has to as well."

  • newshutz||

    It was an attempt at a joke. A real joke should be funny. Franken was rarely funny.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    No Robby Avenatti and Swetnick just made the outlandishness of the accusations impossible to ignore.

    If they must blame somebody, they should blame Feinstein for sitting on this for over a month when a real investigation could have taken place (assuming that was ever actually wanted).
    They should blame Spartacus and the rest of the Dem senators for focusing on high school house parties and yearbook entries instead of judicial philosophy and policy preferences (shouldn't be relevant but are at least related).

    Blame journalists that find all pro democrat/progressive allegations credible regardless of the strength of evidence. The only reason many people state they find Ford credible is because of the feminist/progressive lynch mob that will attempt to destroy them if they do otherwise. Her story is full of holes, her justifications for her actions are outright lies and the only way justify acting on it is if you remove all burden of proof from her to make her case which she's completely failed to do beyond the accusation itself.

  • BigT||

    THIS!^

  • Just Say'n||

    I think the most credible accusation during this whole affair has been the claim that you guys really wanted it to be true, despite the utter lack of evidence because your sole principle is the virtue signal

  • ThomasD||

    Wanted it to be true? Maybe.

    Wanted it to succeed? Oh Hell yes.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    Leave it to Reason to twist itself into a pretzle to find a 3rd way. The accusations against kavanaugh were always weak and never should have been presented in such a setting. The accusers and the left can always depend on people's desperate need to prove that they are virtuous to elevate such charges. Congrats reason for marching on to being yet another publication unable to just speak the truth.

  • Syntax Error||

    Why are we still continuing on with the fiction that Ford's story is even remotely credible? Memory gaps, hearsay, no corroborating evidence (in fact you have refutations from the named witnesses), ridiculous excuses and lies such as "I'm afraid to fly" and "I needed a second front door because of Kavanaugh", friends testifying under oath that Ford coached her friend on how to bypass a polygraph, etc, etc, etc.

    Ford is not credible at all, but Robby the Cuck always has to try to dampen victories for the right because that's what he does with his ridiculously tepid takes.

  • Alcibiades||

    Ford is either a pathological liar or delusional or some hybrid of the two.
    There's nothing, nothing, that connects her ravings to Kavanaugh.
    That the media still takes this individual seriously is damning.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    That Robby and Reason take this individual seriously is damning.

  • ThomasD||

    The authors here have doen something singular. They have created a new standard for judging veracity.

    It's called Reason Credible.

    Yes, it's a bit of an oxymoron, and no serious person should ever aspire to it, but it is what it is.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Nonsense, there are plenty of other reasons she made the claims, such as like Robby, she is a true believer in the progressive cause and made the whole thing up to attack Trump, who is literally worse than Hitler, literally !

  • D-Pizzle||

    Or she's a Democrat activist with a PhD in psychology who knows how to manipulate people.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Or she's a Democrat activist with a PhD in psychology who knows how to manipulate people.

  • arcaneknowledge||

    Thats what it looks like to me too.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    dampen victories for the right

    Huh, it's almost as if Robby's not a part of the right

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you suggesting that due process, logic, and standards of evidence are now reserved for the right?

    Robby isn't part of rational society.

    People on the left wouldn't even give this piece any credibility. In 20 years, if Robby ends up as a car salesman--he won't be very good at it.

    Would you buy a car from someone who wrote this article?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am suggesting that it's not Robby's job to be a cheerleader for the right, it's not Reason's job to be a cheerleader for the right, and that all of the conservative/Republican/Trumpist/anti-progressive numbskulls around here who only seem to give a damn about libertarianism or libertarians only insofar as it can be used as a tool to "defeat the Left" or promote Team Red, should take a hike.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You know what I think their job is?

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

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05.....ander.html

    The staff here were really good at that--until just a few year ago. The Reasonoid faithful remain committed to those principles--even if we disagree on everything else.

    Does this article rely on proof or belligerent assertion?

    Legends or logic?

    Coherence or contradictions?

    Doesn't this article fails that standard in every way?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read the article.

    Considering that Senator Collins herself, you know, the swing vote, cited the unbelievability of Swetnick's story to justify her decision to vote yes, then Avenatti, and Swetnick, are at least partly to blame for the outcome.

    I know it's not the article you wanted him to write. Probably something like "OKAY I WAS WRONG, FORD WAS A LYING SLUT, GO TEAM RED", but the article as written I think is decent.

    And by the way, it's not Robby's job to be a cheerleader for Team Red.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you believe everything politicians say?

    Susan Collins feared the repercussions of voting against Kavanaugh more than she feared the repercussions of voting for him. The reasons for that had nothing to do with Avanetti.

    They had to do with whether Collins thought the voters of Maine would tolerate her after she threw Kavanaugh under the #MeToo bus without so much as a shred of substantiating evidence.

  • mtrueman||

    "Do you believe everything politicians say?"
    ...
    "They had to do with whether Collins thought the voters of Maine would tolerate her"

    What crap. No need to believe anything anyone says when one has the mind reading powers of our Ken.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Gee if Senator Collins said that the Swetnick allegations had a role in her decision making, shouldn't we give her the benefit of the doubt before calling her a liar?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What crap. No need to believe anything anyone says when one has the mind reading powers of our Ken."

    Does the term "gullible" mean anything to you?

    Is it wrong to think a politician might be full of shit and concerned about how voters might perceive her?

    I don't think so.

  • mtrueman||

    "Is it wrong to think a politician might be full of shit and concerned about how voters might perceive her?"

    It is never wrong to parrot what you hear on FOX. It's a lot easier than mind reading, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What I wrote would be true or not regardless of what news I watch.

    It may seem like an appeal to authority you're committing here, but it's really just an ad hominem attack on me personally. Your arguments wouldn't be any truer or falser because you watch a better news source, and mine aren't better or worse because of the news I watch either.

    In addition, I don't watch Fox News.

    To top it all off, if you can't answer what I've written with better than an ad hominem fallacy, your position might totally suck.

  • mtrueman||

    "What I wrote would be true or not regardless of what news I watch."

    I don't know if it's true and neither do you. Collins could have voted the way she did because she thought that Ford was lying. Or any number of other reasons.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Chemjeff tried to grab me by the anus at a high school party in 1974

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    But did you enjoy it ?

  • GeoffB1972||

    That doesn't matter if he didn't give explicit verbal consent.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Credible!

  • Don't look at me!||

    The allegation is in alignment with others that have been heard.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I still don't see what this has to do with team red or team blue. Kavanaugh will probably be a crappy supreme court judge. I don't remember any commenters here singing his praises when he was nominated. I know I wasn't impressed. But Robby has spent the last few weeks endorsing obviously partisan character assassination. He doesn't have to be a cheerleader for anyone but he has steadfastly resisted reporting obvious evidence that this woman lied, perjured herself, and is either a partisan hack or mentally unstable. Meanwhile he continues to tell us that her uncorroborated fantasies are credible. He picked a side and now he's making excuses for his team. He can write anything he wants but he can't pretend to be libertarian.

  • Nardz||

    Neither can collectivistjeff

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Maybe instead of "partisan hack" or "mentally unstable" there is a third option: Ford suffered some trauma and abuse, but does not have a clear recollection of what happened. It may have involved some episode of which Kavanaugh was a minor participant but perhaps not the aggressor. She however sincerely believes her version of events. And it's tacky and wrong to call her a liar based on this alone.

  • sparkstable||

    What if she is called a liar because other people who were said to be witnesses denounced her story? Or made claims that were antithetical to claims she made? Or that her actions undermined her claims?

    Can we call her a liar then?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one "denounced her story".

  • Johnny B||

    How about the "I can't fly" or the "I needed a second door, bla bla bla"

  • Rich Dobbs||

    The problem with writing this off as just trauma and abuse combined with a failure to have a clear recollection is that her education should have informed her self-doubt. She can't both claim expertise in how memories are formed based on neuro-chemistry and anatomy and claim that traumatic memories have particular characteristics, yet also pretend ignorance of the research that shows the fallibility of memory. I'll accept that she might be ignorant ahead of time that research counters the view that traumatic memory has the characteristics that she stakes out. But, it strikes me as willful ignorance or dishonesty for a PhD psychologist to claim that she is 100% certain in this situation.

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe instead of "partisan hack" or "mentally unstable" there is a third option: Ford suffered some trauma and abuse, but does not have a clear recollection of what happened. It may have involved some episode of which Kavanaugh was a minor participant but perhaps not the aggressor. She however sincerely believes her version of events."
    I tend to think this is what happened.

    "And it's tacky and wrong to call her a liar based on this alone."
    It's far worse to attempt to ruin some guy over a memory you cannot support.

  • D-Pizzle||

    She has a PhD in psychology. She knows how to manipulate people, especially with the months she had to prepare her performance. Isn't that at the very least "credible?"

  • BigT||

    toxicjeff: "And it's tacky and wrong to call her a liar based on this alone."

    True, but how about the fear of flying and lie detector test coaching blatant, proven lies?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Yes, it would be tacky and wrong to call her a liar based on that ALONE. But we're not basing our allegations on that alone. We're basing it on her numerous lies surrounding this entire shit show, to wit, she lied about fear of flying, why she got another door on her house, claustrophobia, coaching someone about polygraphs, and probably lied about a whole bunch of other stuff I'm too lazy to type. Look at any right wing media site, they'll be happy to list them for you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And how could I not buy a car from Robby. Just look at his great hair.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    We're going to find out two things in the coming months. One, that this whole thing was deliberately invented by Ford and Monica McLean with the sole intent of scuttling a nomination. Two, that she first floated the same smear about Gorsuch (Gorsuch went to G Prep too, at the same time).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We're probably never going to hear from Ford again after a few weeks.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    HBO doc in 2028.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    There will be an airbag recall for that Ford.

  • Rich Dobbs||

    Nah, she'll be St Christine the Doubted.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Nah, she'll be Christine with a fairly lucrative book deal.

  • Syntax Error||

    I wish I shared your optimism but oftentimes these fake accusers never face any justice. They just fade away and get their $250,000 retainer through some book deal later on.

  • D-Pizzle||

    There can't be any justice because, due to the lack of time and place in her story, her accusation can't be proven false, just as planned. She has good lawyers, I'll give her that.

  • Macaulay McToken||

    Let it go, let it go
    Can't hold it back anymore
    Let it go, let it go
    Turn away and slam the door
    I don't care what they're going to say
    Let the storm rage on
    The cold never bothered me anyway

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see a lot of people here going after Robby already, and I think I understand that--especially in this context.

    Going after Robby for writing something stupid makes more sense than Robby blaming Avenatti for the Kavanaugh confirmation.

  • Cyto||

    I laughed.

    Then I wept, just a little.

    I miss my libertarian magazine. Remember when there was a place where people discussed libertarian ideas and issues of the day from a libertarian perspective?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    I saw one back in my college days (late '70s) Can't exactly remember the title. Logos? Logic? Something along those lines.

  • Eddy||

    Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed, and Liberals Should Blame...

    ...the Patriarchy
    ...Republicans
    ...Republican Patriarchs
    ...the Kochs
    ...climate change
    ...Jews

    Am I leaving anyone out?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Lizard people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ...and the Lizard King. That fucking reptile runs everything.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Crab people

  • AlmightyJB||

    I wish I could take some credit as well but I really didn't do anything.

  • Aloysious||

    Moon Nazi's.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The tide. That's what this is at this point. A bunch of morons in denial standing at the low tide mark holding up their hands and commanding the tide to stop rising.

  • kevrob||

    You are getting the fable wrong. Canute was supposed to have done that to show that his power had limits.

  • Paulpemb||

    I see you made a point of not mentioning the Russians.

  • SIV||

    "That right wing rag theThe New York Times"

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "That failing right wing rag the New York Times"

  • Don't look at me!||

    Clowns! OMG how could you forget the clowns?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I feel like I'm the only one who actually read the article.

    Senator Collins herself cited Swetnick's over-the-top claims in her decision to vote yes. Given that she and Manchin were the swing votes, then I think it's safe to say that Avenatti, Swetnick's lawyer, was indeed part of the blame for why Kavanaugh is getting confirmed. This isn't really hard.

  • Alcibiades||

    If Kavanaugh hadn't gone on the attack, he'd have been toast.
    No one expected that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's why you never apologize for being who you are.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, no. Kavanaugh made his situation worse by acting in public like the partisan Republican he really is.

  • Alcibiades||

    He spoke the truth.
    Christ, he did what any man would that was attacked like that.
    Prof. Volokh nailed it.

  • The_Hoser||

    Alciblades, you're asking Chemjeff to know how a man would react.

    Good luck with that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He lied. At best he will be tarnished so long as he is in public life. He will be at risk of impeachment any time Democrats control the House. The investigations likely are far from over. I expect his installation to motivate the Democrats to employ every lawful means to put Republicans in the minority on the Supreme Court so long as he is a justice.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Nah, the hicklib dreams are going up in smoke just like your buddies Diana Oughton, Teddy Gold, and Terry Robbins.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Wait, you think the right-wing bigots and rubes still have a chance to win the culture war?

    Where are you from . . . rural Alabama or Wyoming? Were you homeschooled by a woman who sent all her money to Benny Hinn?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Wait, you think left-wing hicklibs are divinely ordained to always win?

    Ask Cato the Younger how that turned out, you self-loathing inbred.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not always. No one is perfect.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    Apparently on Planet Chemjeff, showing anger at bullshit accusations that you're a serial sexual predator, and at the partisans that are treating those bullshit accusations as credible, is "acting in public like [a] partisan Republican." Obviously the proper thing to do under such circumstances is to tuck your balls back behind your legs and beg for mercy.

  • DesigNate||

    Especially when the fucking hack Democrats are too busy reviewing your fucking high school yearbook and what slang terms mean.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    "No one expected that."

    Don't tell me what I didn't expect! I'm on record expecting & predicting exactly that.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    I can see why you say that, but I don't think Collins was ever in doubt. I watched her on TV as she gave that little speech, and she was one happy gal. Satisfied with herself, and happy to have the spotlight on her while she delivered the news that the FBI investigation was really thorough, and put all the questions to bed.

  • DiegoF||

    It's obvious that Collins and her staff had actually been writing her masterpiece speech this whole time, not agonizing and sitting on the fence. She has been "undecided" only in order to put the spotlight on it. It's even possible McConnell knew this the whole time, telling few others (e.g. certainly not Lindsay Graham), and figuring he'd gladly stage this moment for her if he was going to get her vote. How far back she knew she was a Yes who knows. Seems quite plausible to me that she knew damn well there was plenty enough reason to confirm him a week ago, and that this would turn up nothing, but just wanted to stage this exercise in "thoughtful caution."

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Well then, she played it perfectly.

  • D-Pizzle||

    It's obvious that Feinstein and her staff had actually been sitting on this uncorroborated and non-falsifiable claim so they could release it at the most advantageous time, not agonizing and sitting on the fence. She's been "reluctant to bring this accusation public" in order to put the spotlight on herself, given her close reelection battle. It's even possible that Schumer knew this the whole time, telling few others (e.g. certainly not Kamala Harris) and gladly stage this moment to secure Harris' support in her reelection battle. How far back has she been on the record as a definite "no" we actually all know. Seems quite plausible to me that she knew damn well that she had plenty of reasons to vote "no" a week ago, that she was protected by plausible deniability, but wanted to stage this heroic stand for the "#metoo movement."

    Thanks for the template, Diego.

  • DiegoF||

    LOL

  • sparkstable||

    Did you watch Collins? It's a 40+ minute speech, right? I made it about half before I had to go do other things. In that half she mentioned the third accuser, sure. She points out that it was ridiculous. But she did that IN CONTEXT. The context was the rest of the 20 minutes I heard which was a line item refutation of ALL the claims about Kav like how he would get rid of Roe, or how he didn't support precedent, or how he would rubber stamp/protect the executive. She went through a laundry list of crap and refuted them all. The Avenati stuff was but one part of that much larger argument she was making.

  • kevrob||

    If Susie (R-Me) didn't have that speech disorder, she could have made all those points in a half hour. Between her spasmodic dysphonia and Blasey Ford's vocal fry and upspeaking, I found listening to either one unpleasant.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Murkowski was also a swing vote. Let's thank the "good" people of Alaska for that.

  • Johnny B||

    Her dad was just as stupid. Ted Stevens was smart, but the FBI used the agent's girlfriend to take him down, and then he died in a plane accident before he could be redeemed. Alaska is a small state with boat-loads of bureaucrats and a large full pipeline that used to pay for everything, but is starting to run dry.

  • MasterThief||

    Here's the thing. Most people immediately waved off the gang rape accusation as not remotely believable and have paid little attention to it after the 48 hours following its release. The dick waving thing was also essentially waved off as less than likely and not a huge deal even if true. This narrative that Swetnick ruined the people trying to torpedo his comfirmation is weak. Swetnick and Ramirez's accounts both came across as blatantly partisan smear jobs. For the most part the people suppprting Kavanaugh have focused on the holes in Ford's testimony and found her to be less than credible and/or that the actions described may not be enough to render him ineligible.
    All the accusations have been very slim on evidence and therefore lacking in credibility. If you want to pin the blame on someone for hardening his supporters then pin it on yourself and the media for escalating the narrative to be that K is a rapist. That claim has sharpened how political it has been from the start and made both journalists and the accusers not look credible.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Let's not leave out how disingenuous they all are as well. For all of their holier than thou sanctimony and had wringing neither the democrats nor the media give a flying fuck about Ford and what little Brett did or didn't do. They only care about fucking Trump and controlling the SCOTUS.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This Salem Witch Trial should have never been allowed to even get started.

  • mtrueman||

    "If you want to pin the blame on someone for hardening his supporters then pin it on yourself and the media for escalating the narrative to be that K is a rapist. "

    Why bother with any of that? Blame those responsible for voting him in. They should be expected to stand behind the decisions they make.

  • MasterThief||

    Touche. For better or worse that is the most sober take. Too boring, though

  • Naaman Brown||

    They might be able to float a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy between Avenatti and Trump to make the accusations look absurd by trotting out Swetnick. Real people in real life blame the way Sen Feinstein and Booker and others handled this, but the Hate Kavanaugh Block Him Any Which Way We Can crowd want to fault Avenatti and Swetnick.

  • Don't look at me!||

    So, this is when they turn on each other?

  • Nardz||

    It looks like Avenatti has been chosen as the one who will be thrown under a bus.
    See: Robby pushing that very narrative, on behalf of...

  • Fooseven||

    He's essentially saying that avenatti ruined the hustle because he's a crass outsider, lacking the polish and panache of Feinstein and her lamb

  • BigT||

    Nice take!

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    I'm fine with this becoming the narrative and the higher-up lefties use the CPL as a shield to protect themselves.

    At worst it will work for them and it will destroy him. At best it will not work for them but still destroy him and hopefully many of the others.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    The Left continues to find scapegoats for its repeated failures (Fox News, Republican obstruction, James Comey, Russia, Avenatti), rather than engaging in any degree of self-reflection or considering that they are offering a shitty product and trying to sell it by insulting or condescending to people.

    As a result, they continue to lose elections at an unprecedented level.

    But please, keep doubling down on retarded.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Democrats lose elections where people are uneducated, gullible, ignorant, superstitious, intolerant, unskilled, disaffected, and backward. Our system structurally amplifies the yahoo voices from the depleted backwaters that have been on the wrong end of bright flight for generations. Democrats win elections where Americans are bright, educated, ambitious, skilled, tolerant, and accomplished. Democrats are more popular than Republicans in national elections and demographic trends are making it increasingly difficult to maintain an electoral coalition for backwardness and bigotry.

    Unless Republicans ditch the rubes and bigots, they will be doomed. But those yahoos and losers, and the diffusely bigoted southerners, are the backbone of the Republican Party.

    All is not lost for conservatives, though. If they perfect a machine that mass-produces uneducated, religious, disaffected, unskilled, addicted, easily frightened, selfish, stale-thinking, resentful, rural, elderly, southern, white males, they could give Democrats some real problems.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib is manically marinating in his self-loathing tonight!

  • D-Pizzle||

    I'm loathe to feed the troll, but:

    "Democrats lose elections where people are uneducated, gullible, ignorant, superstitious, intolerant, unskilled, disaffected, and backward."

    Which party benefits from high turnout elections? Democrats. Who is more likely to turn out for elections, high-information voters or low information voters? The question answers itself.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Which party benefits from high turnout elections? Democrats. Who is more likely to turn out for elections, high-information voters or low information voters? The question answers itself.

    Nah, see, a majority of Americans are brilliant, tolerant, accomplished, sexy people who simply don't vote for some reason. If all of the country were like Baltimore, Detroit, and New Jersey, those shining bastions on the right side of bright flight, America would be awesome!

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    So it's your position, then, that the poor and the economically disadvantaged are not people or simply not deserving of basic civil rights? You seem to hold a sizable portion of your fellow man in contempt. It must be a miserable existence.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I believe successful Americans should try to help the uneducated, unskilled citizens still left in rural and southern backwaters or rough sections of cities. But not by appeasing their lesser attributes and choices.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is brilliant.

  • BigT||

    A condescending bigot you are.

  • arcaneknowledge||

    I find you very entertaining Art and look forward to your posts. However, I have noticed that you like to continuously insult others based on educational accomplishments, socioeconomic conditions or geographical location. It is a well known psychological phenomenon. It can usually be attributed to a sense of self-loathing (or simply an inability to effectively express oneself). The root cause being some suppressed emotion such as a lack of self-esteem, guilt or anger.

    Hope this helps.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I have lost my taste for political correctness.

    I now call a bigot a bigot, a half-educated yahoo a half-educated yahoo, and a superstitious rube a superstitious rube.

  • Johnny B||

    Hey, Rev, maybe you can explain why DC ranks dead last in the SAT scores!

    In case you were wondering, here are some non-random samples:

    Missouri 1271
    Wyoming 1230
    Massachusetts 1107
    New York 1052
    California 1055

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Arthur, you ignorant slut, you simply MUST read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt (pronounced Hite, not hate), he's an accomplished social psychologist at NYU, formerly of UVA, founder of Heterodox Academy. He's got several Ted talks out there, check them out as well. After you do these things, then you won't feel bad about deleting this monstrous and bullshit filled comment, as you will then know it for the embarrassment it is.

  • IceTrey||

    Has anyone heard that Leland Keyser is Bob Beckel's ex wife? How has this not been made known?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know who those people are. Does Beckel play for the Diamondbacks?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Leland Keyser is the other girl/woman Ford named as being at the party where Kavanaugh attempted to rape her.

    Keyser not only denied any memory of that specific party, she denied ever having met Kavanaugh under any circumstance.

    Then after the executive summary of the supplementary FBI report was released, Keyser claimed that an ex FBI agent (a friend of Ford's) pressured her to change her story.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The exact same friend that Ford's ex-bf claimed Ford helped to prepare for the polygraph. And that letter to the committee came before I saw any public mention of McLean.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Kudos to her for having enough spine to not buckle to the pressure from McLean.

  • laimheloc||

    Quite a coincidence Ford wrote her initial accusation letter while visiting Rehoboth Beach, DE and McLean lives in Rehoboth Beach. McLean then pressures Keyser and McLean's lawyer worked on the Clinton email probe and Russian collusion prior to leaving the FBI. It's all making sense now.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    McLean started / worked for Counterintelligence in the FBI and of course, knew Peter Strzok.

    The Deep State is real. Lindsey Graham says so.

  • Alcibiades||

    Read that the other day...

  • JesseAz||

    Which is proof that if kavanaugh was a raging drunk she would have known him.

  • Rich Dobbs||

    Yes, it shows up when I Googled her. Why do you think that this is not known? Pure speculation, but perhaps Ford thought Leland would back her up based on anger towards Bob Beckel?

    Now the gossip that I want to hear is what did she do to get all those screws in her neck that apparently has left a very athletic woman (apparently) crippled?

    Even us Boomers should be able to use Google.

  • ThomasD||

    Could be nothing more than a freak accident. Friend of mine ended up with a titanium cage stabilizing his cervical spine because he tripped taking a step back though a door threshold and landed wrong.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Wow, that's really true. I've always considered Beckel to be one of the few decent Democrats. Good to know he married someone similarly decent. But yes, how has that not been made? The question answers itself.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I wouldn't credit Trump mocking Ford at his Mississippi rally for the Kavanaugh confirmation, but there's a better case to make for normalizing the questioning of her testimony as a more proximate cause than Avenatti.

    For fuck's sake, how blind deep in the bubble do you have to be to blame this on Avenatti?! It's effing ridiculous.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Soave cannot blame this on Lefty media goofballs like himself.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Anything to avoid blaming themselves. See also: 2016 presidential election

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kavanaugh! KAVANAUGH! Kavanaugh!

    Congrats lefties. You turned a possible NO because of his 4a bad record, to a YES.

    One thing is for sure, Kavanaugh will never give Lefties the benefit of the doubt again.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    I'm stocking up on abortions now. They'll be in short supply by the end of the week. I'm bullish on guns, too, since SCROTUS will likely mandate that everyone have at least three assault rifles. You know, the kind with the shoulder thing that goes up.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Fuck, this was meant to be in response to your comment below.

  • RoyMo||

    Well Merrick Garland is terrible on the 4th Amendment too, so it is bipartisan.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Get all your abortions in folks.

    Come 2019, abortion will be punishable by death.

    Hahaha.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I am beginning to sense that right-wingers genuinely are gullible enough to believe that serious restrictions on abortion would last longer than a few years in America. There just aren't enough superstitious, stupid, misogynistic rubes in America to pull that off.

    I can understand why someone who lives in Mississippi or Idaho, or hangs out mostly with Republicans or at revival meetings, would see it differently.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I am beginning to sense

    That's your problem, hicklib, you're too dense to see past the end of your own nose.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Rev, do you mean restrictions like they have in Europe? Where the laws were decided by the political process rather than by a dictate from a de facto unelected super-legislature.

    I can understand why a post-democratic leftist would see it differently.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I believe Europeans tend to make abortion easy to arrange early in pregnancy. You figure the religious zealots in America would accept a reasonable compromise along that line?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I believe Europeans tend to make abortion easy to arrange early in pregnancy

    It's the same way here, too, hicklib. Just because you failed to crack open your own kids' skulls as they were exiting the birth canal doesn't mean it isn't easy to arrange early in the pregnancy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Read the Republican Party platform, or talk to some superstitious goobers doing a walk-and-talk for conservative candidates, you half-educated dullard.

  • Alcibiades||

    The Democrats would destroy anyone in their lust for power, they would tear this nation apart for political revenge, they're unrestrained by even the slightest conception of fundamental principles of American jurisprudence and constitutional principles.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Now do Republicans

  • Don't look at me!||

    Unemployment at record low levels?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Thanks, Obama! Overcoming the Republicans' recession with an economy strong enough to withstand Trump for two years. It is unfortunate that Obama wasn't able to run again.

  • Alcibiades||

    The GOP are far from blameless in many respects but they don't approach the depths I've witnessed these past weeks.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Huh so John Podesta really wasn't running a pedophile ring at a pizza parlor? I wonder how he feels about that false accusation.

  • Alcibiades||

    Dude, you really think there's an equivalence there?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not really. I think falsely accusing someone of pedophilia is worse than falsely accusing someone of sexual assault.

    And for what ends? Because the story was true? No, for the purpose of achieving power at any cost.

    That is the real equivalence here.

  • Alcibiades||

    Both those accusations are career enders.

    The difference being the pizza gate BS wasn't taken seriously by anyone outside the Alex Jones crazies.

    The Ford accusations were taken up and used by the highest level of Dem apparatichks in an attempt to destroy an individual with impeccable credentials for one of the most important positions in American government.

    I've issues with Kavanaugh re American jurisprudence but this attempt to destroy a man for nothing more than political revenge disgusts me as it should for any decent American.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, the difference is that in Pdesta's case it impugned a fellow travel, and in Kavanuagh's case it attacked someone we don't like. Of course the pigeon can point to the multiple Reason pieces claiming that the Pizzagate accusations were 'credible.'

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh and by the way Skippy I cannot stand Podesta. He has been a complete sleazeball for decades. But i doubt he is a pedophile. I can always count on you to throw shit grenades on the conversation though.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    All I hear is "SQUAWK" and "whataboutism." But again, you can point out where anyone claimed here claimed that Podesta was a pedophile or that the accusations were credible.

    Wonder why you refuse to address the point?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't care. You can try to shift the goalposts but i don't have to accept it.

    Was it wrong to falsely accuse HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER of pedophilia? Yes or no?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    HAHAHAHA, you're the one engaging in whataboutism here. What goalpost shifting? Who the hell has said that the Pizzagate accusations were credible or justified? (Hint: the voices in your head aren't real) You're the dumbass who said that ridiculous accusations unbelieved by everyone and unsupported by everyone are completely equivalent to a partisan smear job conducted by a major party along with virtually the entire media apparatus in this country.

    Rook to shit-7, SQWAKMATE!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Was it wrong to falsely accuse HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER of pedophilia? Yes or no?

    Read the response below, dumbfuck:

    Seriously? Yes, it was.

    Are you truly that stupid? (rhetorical question)

    But since we're asking the question:

    Was it wrong to falsely accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault? Yes or no?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh spare me the crocodile tears.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Check the percentage of Republicans who were birthers. Then check the percentage who still are birthers.

    Benghazi Fever. 'Lock her up.' 'Muslim Kenyan communist.' The Republican hit parade is built on gullibility and ignorance.

    Republicans let the yahoos into the car in a desperate attempt to maintain an electoral coalition for backwardness in a country that prefers progress . . . and now the goobers have both hands on the wheel.

  • JesseAz||

    One accusation was made by random nobodies in Twitter, the other pushed by leading democratic senate members and the media. Exactly the same Jeff. You're a fucking idiot.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no I get it, false accusations are totes ok as long as the Senate stays out of it
    Amirite?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You can point to where anyone has said they're OK. Go on.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let's see you declare it , that making false accusations against HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER was wrong

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Holy fuck, now you're tripling down:

    otAnotherSkippy|10.5.18 @ 8:08PM|#

    Was it wrong to falsely accuse Podesta of pedophilia? Yes or no?

    Seriously? Yes, it was.

    Are you truly that stupid? (rhetorical question)

    Just fly back to your perch now, little shit-pigeon.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well i am honestly surprised that you are willing to admit that any accusation made against anyone on Team Blue, let alone someone associated with Evil Hillary, was made falsely and maliciously. Of course i doubt you expended nearly as much effort (if any) complaining about false accusations against Podesta would be just so ruinous and unfair to him, as you did against Kavanaugh. But i suppose i should accept any small progress that i can get from a Republican like yourself.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And no, false accusations made against anyone are not right.

  • Alcibiades||

    I'm glad you admit this, it's important, very important.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    HAHAHAHAHAHA. Now look at those goalposts go relativistic!

    complaining about false accusations against Podesta would be just so ruinous and unfair to him, as you did against Kavanaugh.

    You mean the accusations which, for the FIFTH FFFFUCKING TIME no one was taking seriously? Those accusations? Tell me why I need to be concerned about something that isn't an actual, um, concern?

    Of course I don't expect a progressive like yourself to to apply any standards or principles to an argument. It's all about feelz. But I am enjoying what a ripe ass you made of yourself in this exchange. That one's gonna smart for a long time, isn't it?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh gee forgive me if I don't hit refresh as often as you.
    Now as typical you seek to minimize why you don't really give a damn if someone on Team Blue is accused of something vile. Only accusations against Team Red desreve the pearls clutching outrage.
    Just admit once and for all you are just a garden variety Republican

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Oh gee forgive me if I don't hit refresh as often as you.

    You were replying to messages LATER than my 8:08 post. That has nothing to do with refresh and everything to do with your stupidity.

    Now as typical you seek to minimize why you don't really give a damn if someone on Team Blue is accused of something vile.

    Something that no one believed and offered no threat to his reputation or employment -- note not a minor threat, NO threat. Something that the major party you're accusing did NOT accuse him of. And you want to call that a lack of suitable outrage? "I demand that everyone continue not believing what they already don't believe! And they must, MUST continue to not hold this against him the way they are already not holding it against him! To do otherwise would be to, um, wait."

    This from the guy willing to throw Kavanaugh under the bus because it's a job interview or something and therefore a complete lack of evidence justifies feelz.

    Seems to me that you're the one with the denial issues here.

    Dance, pigeon, dance.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This entire conversation is an exercise in why the whole "benefit of the doubt" cry coming from you, and people like you, is complete hypocrisy.

    Turns out, I was reading this conversation from a phone. With a much more limited scope of view. So I literally did not see your 8:08 message until you pointed it out to me in this discussion in this thread. I do not care if you don't believe me; that is the absolute truth. But that did not cross your mind. You instead impugned bad faith and bad motives upon me. You did not bother to give me the benefit of the doubt. So imagine if we were senators, with real power. Would you give me the benefit of the doubt then? Oh hell no. You would be even worse than you are now. If you act like a shithead when you don't have power, why do I think you would behave any better if you did have power? You don't believe people should be given the benefit of the doubt *as a matter of principle*. It's only Team Red that deserves the benefit of the doubt from the unfair attacks from Team Blue (which by definition are unfair, because they come from Team Blue!) You'll begrudgingly accept that a guy like Podesta was treated poorly, but only if it didn't really mean anything (in your estimation). But heaven forfend if it meant that he suffered any harm as a result of it! It's also you shifting the goalposts yet again. This was never about whether the accused suffered harm, but whether the accused was treated wrongly in the first place.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You did not bother to give me the benefit of the doubt.

    That's rich.

    Well i am honestly surprised that you are willing to admit that any accusation made against anyone on Team Blue,

    And followed on with this:

    So imagine if we were senators, with real power. Would you give me the benefit of the doubt then? Oh hell no.
    You don't believe people should be given the benefit of the doubt *as a matter of principle*.

    This is literally what I've been arguing since day one. You were the one frisking the goalposts to and fro from day one. You were the one who literally claimed, multiple times, that innocent until proven guilty did NOT apply here. And now you suddenly want to claim you've been arguing principles? Can you be any more dishonest? No you can't.

    You'll begrudgingly accept that a guy like Podesta was treated poorly, but only if it didn't really mean anything (in your estimation).

    You can cite a single instance to prove this, right? Anything? You can prove that it was all a vast, right-wing conspiracy, right? You can show where ANYONE was taking this seriously (and no, I'm not talking about the nutjob who shot the place up and was defended by literally no one). You were the one making the blatantly false equivalence here. You don't have a single honest argument in your your twisted mind.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I do not care if you don't believe me; that is the absolute truth. But that did not cross your mind.

    Oh, and for the record, I do believe you, but that doesn't refute the fact that you're stupid.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    When you start off with "whataboutism," you're already convinced that the other side is doing things so much worse than you. After that, it doesn't matter if you point out that the other side didn't actually do it, in fact condemned it, they've already based their entire line of reasoning on the idea that the other side was doing bad things so you can't undermine that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    For once i would like to see you admit that someone was treated unfairly by Team Red
    I know you can do it

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And he QUINTUPLES down!!!!

    English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!

    And can you explain how "Team Red" was behind Pizzagate? You can point out how 4chan and Twitter and well-known and funded operations of the NRCC, the NRA, Chik-Fil-A, and Hobby Lobby, right?

  • Alcibiades||

    Can you cite an equivalent for team red compared to the Kavanaugh issue?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    All of these crocodile tears about false accusations are just bullshit
    The Reason Republicans like Skippy and Jesse are fine with false accusations as long as they aren't in the Senate, i suppose

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    LOL. Good look, jeffy, good look.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    All of these crocodile tears about false accusations are just bullshit

    So is your false equivalence.

    I don't recall Republican Senators and celebrity figures claiming on national TV that Podesta was running a child rape ring out of his buddy's restaurant, but you're certainly nothing without your sad hand-wringing.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff. Are you really too fucking stupid to understand random nobodies pursuing a witch Hunt as compared to the media and Senate? By god man. Just admit you're fucking retarded at this point. I'm not scared of a random nobody with Jo power accusing me of something. I am scared of the power of the state accusing me of something. Grow the fuck up you dumbass.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Did Republicans bring up Pizzagate in a senate hearing? I must have missed that.

  • Nardz||

    Did they get an FBI investigation out of it?

    Hmm, that might be interesting...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans are birthers and bigots. They are yahoos who believe fairy tales are true. They live in dying communities and attend nonsense-teaching goober factories. They hate American progress, which has been created by their betters and against their efforts and wishes. They lost the culture war and deserved it. Other than that, great comment.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Like Detroit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or any of America's left-behind inner-city backwaters where Arthur L. Hicklib is too good to live.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Was he accused of that by members of the senate and dragged through an investigation and hearings or just random people on the internet saying shit?

    Seems one is a little weightier than the other, but thanks for the false equivalence.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So false accusations are okay as long as the Senate doesn't get involved? Got it

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You can point to anyone here who claimed they were credible, right, Pigeon? But, hey, it was just a party eviction for a job interview or something.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Now you are shifting the goalposts.
    Was it wrong to falsely accuse Podesta of pedophilia? Yes or no?
    Keep in mind Podesta was HILLARY'S campaign manager.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Was it wrong to falsely accuse Podesta of pedophilia? Yes or no?

    Seriously? Yes, it was.

    Are you truly that stupid? (rhetorical question)

    Keep in mind Podesta was HILLARY'S campaign manager.

    And that has precisely what relevance to the facts/evidence (or obvious lack thereof)?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Chemjeff standing up for his SJW besties.

  • Alcibiades||

    Yes it was, but he wasn't a Supreme Court nominee.

    Gotta go, beers and family call.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Um no. But idiots posting shit on the internet don't speak for the Republican party. Dianne Feinstein speaks for the Democratic party in the U.S. Senate. It's in her job description. See the difference?

  • Alcibiades||

    False accusations are never ok.
    Can we agree to that?

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff, do you understand the difference between accusations without power of enforcement compared to accusations with the power of enforcement? I swear you couldnt make a logical argument if your life depended on it.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    That's a lot of e-mails discussing cheese pizza.

  • Yellow Tony||

    And sinks. Lots of sinks.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    Which GOP senators treated as credible, and amplified, those accusations?

    Jesus fucking Christ you're a tool.

  • Naaman Brown||

    So the rape accusations against Kavanaugh thru the Democrat Senators on the Senate Judiciary committee equate to the Pizzagate accusations thru Wikileaks, 4chan, twitter, Infowars, and other debunked fake news and conspiracy sources?

    I agree. The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have the credibility of the Pizzagate conspiracy mongers.

  • NashTiger||

    Whoever dumped all the testostrone into the water coolers in the Republican caucus room deserves the blame. Milquetoast career centrist approval seekers all had their balls drop simultaneously - Grassley, Graham, etc, even Collins.

    I'm legit afraid of Graham now, I think he's roid raging. He's so Alpha I'll bet Trump would get off the sidewalk if they were walking toward each other.

  • Nardz||

    McCain is dead.
    Lindsay is freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Wow. Too soon. But fucking hilarious

  • sparkstable||

    Just imagine... had the GOP had balls to ANY degree that we see now over the last 20 years we would have all been spared Trump. The forgotten wouldn't have been, well... forgotten. Thus, they wouldn't have finally exploded with the giant FU to the system that is Trump.

    And Obama probs would have been beaten in 08. So no O-Care. That would have been nice. That also means the previous 2 SCOTUS noms (Kaegan and Soto) would have likely been made by someone less horrible as Obama. That would be 7-2 conservative SCOTUS (hypothetically). Would have been good in a lot of ways.

    Sure... the GOP isn't full of angels but at least they aren't demons.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you are backward and bigoted, your comment makes sense. If you are libertarian to any degree, it's gibberish.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Rev, name a libertarian you admire, and your reasons for such admiration.

  • D-Pizzle||

    P.S. Bernie doesn't count.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You mean, other than Eugene Volokh?

    I encounter exceedingly few libertarians in our world, none especially admirable. So far as I am aware, there may be no libertarian in elected office in today's America. The closest may be some who are loudly libertarian in a few respects, easily offset by authoritarian views in other respects. Most of those who claim to be libertarians are authoritarians masquerading in flimsy drag.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You don't count Amash, Massie, or people with the last name of Paul? Please point out any authoritarian views AND votes they have made.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Pauls and Massie are mostly standard issue right-wingers. Plenty of bigoted and authoritarian positions on immigration. Plenty of authoritarian preferences on abortion and Planned Parenthood. Ample evidence of authoritarian actions on intellectual property. Amash is better on liberty, but toes the authoritarian right-wing line on abortion.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    and Liberals Should Blame Michael Avenatti

    There is someone else they could blame. Someone a little... closer to home.

  • lap83||

    Hitler?

  • Trigger Warning||

    TOO SOON, EXECUTUS.

  • ||

    Swetnick's wild accusation provided cover for fence-sitting senators to overlook the more plausible allegation levelled by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, and to declare that Kavanaugh was being subjected to false smears.


    Yeah, yeah, real plausible, Robby. Is your next gig going to be at Niskanen, Vox, or WaPo?
  • MasterThief||

    Vox, obviously. It is his most cited source and he repeats narratives from there with no personal consideration of their veracity.
    That sounds a bit more anti-Robbie than necessary... but yeah, he has a notable affinity for Vox and it wouldn't surprise me to see him end up there as a token libertarian

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Thankfully once the vote is held and he is confirmed the nation's lawmakers and ideological pressure groups will return to the comity and bi-partisan sweetness that they were known for, before this aberration of the process happened.

  • mtrueman||

    Glory be, the days when common folks chase senators out of restaurants are finally over.

  • Ordinary Person||

    I don't see what Democrats could have expected to get out of this. They bloodied that motherfucker. Probably took a few years off his life from the stress of it. Made his mask slip. Probably caught him in some lying. Kavanaugh will be under pressure to cool off the partisanship. If Kennedy handpicked Kavanaugh then gay marriage and abortion are safe. That's Collins' view. We have assurances that abortion is safe and a basis to pack the court at the next opportunity if Kavanaugh's assurances were all a lie. The battle continues.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Why would a guy with lifetime tenure and the backing of this president "cool" the partisanship?

    He owes the left nothing. He owes the squishy-right nothing.

    If he wants to go on a partisan tear, there is nobody to stop him. It will cost him nothing to do so.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    It might cost him Roberts' vote in a lot of cases.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Stephen, I used to argue with you on NRO all the time. I respect you. You know better than this.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think the point is that Roberts is nonpartisanish and he decides who writes the opinions. So he isn't going to assignKavanaugh the opportunity to nail the Dems. At least not overtly.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Maybe you've got the wrong guy, D-Pizzle. I don't think I have ever commented on NRO. And I don't know better than this.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I'm sure they wanted to try to work the clock to hold the seat open through the election. That part is self-evident. I doubt most of them really sincerely cared that much about Ford's story or her traumatic experiences.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Abortion is safe? Really? Maybe not so much for the fetuses, eh? My main thought when I see those people wearing pro-abortion t-shirts: maybe abortion is OK, maybe your parents should have taken that option.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another superstitious rube calls to order a meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

    Carry on, clingers. More gullibility and inability to shake off children indoctrination, maybe.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Really what they expected when Ford's accusation was first raised was an open ended FBI investigation that would delay any action on Kavanaugh's nomination until next year, when, after winning control of the Senate in the Nov elections, they would have the votes to reject his nomination and the control to prevent it from coming to a vote at all.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Ding

  • Nuwanda||

    And Reason keeps doubling down on the stupidity.

    If it wasn't for those pesky kids (and Avenatti) we'd have gotten away with it! Dang!

    Swetnick was only "inconsistent and unpersuasive." Well, I guess you have to believe that malarkey if you also believe Ford's was the "more plausible allegation."

    C'mon, 'fess up. The ACLU ghost-wrote this piece, right?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Julie Swetnick, an alleged victim of Kavanaugh who told an inconsistent and unpersuasive story. Swetnick's wild accusation

    LMFAO You wrote an article defending Swetnick's dumbass story.

    At this point, I'm not sure conspiracy is the most plausible explanation. We shouldn't accept these accusations on blind faith, but it's starting to seem like blind faith is what Kavanaugh's defenders are requiring of us.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's funny how, at this point, they're so ludicious that they discredited every other allegation. When they broke, however, it was, "Listen guys, this is serious and completely plausible."

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, that was the strategy, and it was a terrible analysis.

    "I don't think any of these allegations by themselves are credible, but there are so many of the that you just have to believe it!"

    You have to be a special level of weak-minded to fall for that type of logic. That is the thinking that brings you lynch mobs and moral panics.

    In fact, that exact logic was used to give the owner of a day care (Little Rascals) a life sentence for child molestation, despite the fact that the jury didn't believe one single claim against him. As documented in a fantastic series by Frontline, he was accused of things like raping a 3 year old with a butcher knife and having sex with a newly married 19 year old employee in the storefront window of the day care right on main street downtown. The reporters asked the jurors one by one "do you believe he did this?" for each of the accusations. They not only said "No" to each and every one, they even laughed at a few as being ridiculous.

    "So why did you vote to convict?", they were asked. "Well, there were just so many accusations... we felt like we had to err on the side of protecting the children."

    And there you have your lynch mob.

    Using the exact logic parroted by Robby "the libertarian writer" Soave.

  • D-Pizzle||

    I missed that one Sidd. Damn. Thanks for the link. Oh yeah...Fuck off Robbie.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Remember that the original is wholly unsubstantiated and, based on her own testimony, not even close to being believable. It's highly likely that the others just piled on for effect. Again, nothing substantiated, no evidence whatsoever. Soave really should move over to the NYT or WaPo, where he'd fit in much better. Reason deserves better than someone who could, with a straight face, use the word "plausible" anywhere in relation to Ford.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    The person to be blamed is who ever decided on the strategy that thought the Rs would just roll over, tremble and piss themselves at the idea that the Ds mounted an attack. And that this allegation would be enough.

    Have they not met this president?

  • sparkstable||

    To be fair (oh God... I used a Robbieism)... Tru.p wouldn't have rolled but the GOP senators in this whole charade have a long history of rolling over and taking it from the Dems.

    Dark Helmet is the greatest political philosopher commenting on the modern times when he says "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

  • D-Pizzle||

    To be fair (oh God... I used a Robbieism)... Tru.p wouldn't have rolled but the GOP senators in this whole charade have a long history of rolling over and taking it from the Dems."

    Then McCain died.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, Lindsey Graham has made a career of caving in to the other side when faced with any pressure whatsoever.

    When he not only defended the nominee, but did so with righteous anger, I figured it was over. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that Team D stuck together so strongly. Their leadership was so far beyond the pale with this one, I'd have figured that party discipline would break down just to get the stink of it off of them.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    They didn't really expect Ford's accusation to be enough by itself. What the expected to get out of it was an open ended FBI investigation that would put off a vote on Kavanaugh until the next session starts next year, and that they would win majority control of the Senate in November.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's unfortuante for the anti-Trump resistance, and for Ford, that Avenatti couldn't help but make the story about him."

    What crap. It's Bobby who seems intent on making the story about Avenatti. Liberals and conservatives know who to blame, the senators who voted Kavanaugh into office. If you now expect them to direct their ire against someone else, you may be in for a surprise.

  • mchughjj||

    I agree. Avenatti jumped the shark. I actually enjoyed his articulate, anti-Trump presence on TV, but his latest client brought the only credible Kavanaugh accuser into the sewer of partisan politics.

  • Sevo||

    "...the only credible Kavanaugh accuser..."
    You must have seen someone the rest of us missed, or you're gullible in the extreme.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    You know, we could all post somewhere else.

  • Nuwanda||

    What fun would that be? Berating Reason's lurch to the low center is as morally uplifting as castigating the once-smart college girl who's fallen into whoring.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What are all the Republicans doing here?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Pining for illusory good old days and losing the culture war, mostly. Crowding the libertarians out of the comments, too.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|10.5.18 @ 10:55PM|#
    "Pining for illusory good old days and losing the culture war, mostly. Crowding the libertarians out of the comments, too."

    Keep whining for lefty bullshit, asshole. It suits you so well.
    And that green outfit looks so good on you! Exactly what you deserve.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I do not consider my outfit green.

    And it was good enough for an Oscar nomination, so I am content.

  • kevrob||

    That's Arthur Kirkland, Esq, though, not "the Reverend Mr K." Hanging a "Rev" on your name doesn't impress me much.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Congregation of Exalted Reason.

  • SIV||

    Newsflash, Fruit Sushi

    No one on "the Republican side", nor any rational person at all, thought Christine Blasey-Ford had a shred of credibility. They were just making a political calculation or politely humoring what they (incorrectly ) perceived as a crazy woman. Unless "lying sociopathic ho-bag" counts as crazy.

  • ifthenwhy||

    "...the more plausible allegation leveled by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford"

    Can someone please tell me what that "plausible allegation" is, exactly?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Verboten boobentouching.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Maybe you should blame Obama, Hillary, Nancy, and Debbie who's disdain for the American people got you Trump who nominated the man. The question is have you learned anything? Your childish, spiteful, entitled behavior seems to indicate that you have not. Keep it up. Please.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This was not meant to be a reply.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    You'll have to explain this in about 35-36 years.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I was distracted by all of the cries for help coming from my sex slaves locked in the basement. Did I mention that I like beer?

  • John B. Egan||

    What a load of nonsense. The ACLU, ABA, Council of Churches, 1700 Law Professors, Yale University and Harvard University.. not to mention ex-SCOTUS judge Stevens al came out against him. 48% of the US public doesn't want him, and only 32% approve... and Reason thinks it's all Avenatti's fault that he'll be approved? What a load of garbage. Who writes this nonsense? What editor lets it slide through?

    Very simply the GOP want him seated and McConnell is doing exactly what the 1% want.... In essence, he has sold out to the Koch Brothers and does their bidding, just as he did when the Koch Brothers told him that they would be closing their $400 million purse unless he passed Tax cuts and worked on dismantling Obamacare.. Surprise, surprise! Guess what got passed, and guess what the GOP and Trump have been hacking away at.

    Brett has been cultivated for decades, beginning with his initiation into the Federalist Society, which is funded by the Koch Brothers and other like-minded 1%ers.

    ** June 26, 2017 : The Koch network 'piggy banks' closed until Republicans pass health and tax reform | US news | The Guardian https://bit.ly/2rXPbl3

    ** The process to create a conservative Supreme Court majority started a generation ago, and can't be derailed now. https://bloom.bg/2y2iKXC

    ** White House asks billionaire Koch network and others to join activist coalition to lobby for SCOTUS nominee https://cnb.cx/2Qwwe4u

  • AlmightyJB||

    "The ACLU, ABA, Council of Churches, 1700 Law Professors, Yale University and Harvard University.. not to mention ex-SCOTUS judge Stevens al came out against him."

    Damn, if that's not a resounding endorsement to nominate someone, I don't know what is.

  • Nuwanda||

    This, too: "48% of the US public doesn't want him, and only 32% approve..."

    Since when the hell was the appointment of a Justice meant to be up to a popular vote? Oh hell, let's just use the 17th Amendment as a template:

    "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices, elected by the people, for six years; and each Justice shall have one vote, one opinion, and one swanky robe."

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "And what they choose to wear under that robe shall not be questioned during their tenure."

  • Sevo||

    In the case of RGB, you don't care.

  • Sevo||

    Check that: RBG.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Both are white.

  • ThomasD||

    But only one needs ironing.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I'm as disappointed as you are at the idea of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but you shouldn't be so critical of the Koch Brothers. They're on the right side of history on the defining issue for progressives and libertarians — unlimited immigration into the US.

  • DiegoF||

    I knew that anti-Koch bit would set you off OBL! Just counting the minutes until you'd notice!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    People often ask me what's the difference between a progressive and a left-libertarian. Well, this exchange illustrates it quite well. Left-libertarians like me are totally comfortable with billionaires using their money to influence the political process.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Billionaires, you mean like Trump?

  • DiegoF||

    When did the ABA "come out against him," not that anyone on either side has shown them much mind for decades? Also since when do universities make endorsements? And who the fuck pays any attention to the Council of Churches, except to say, "What the fuck? Do they still exist? And why, for the love of God?" Nobody cares about the far-left law professors either. The only people on your list who actually did both "come out against" Kavanaugh and command some attention with it are Stevens and the ACLU, since both have traditionally commanded some respect in the past.

    If Kavanaugh is a Koch puppet the old man had better show up at the Reason office and start knocking some heads together.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The ACLU, ABA, Council of Churches, 1700 Law Professors, Yale University and Harvard University.. not to mention ex-SCOTUS judge Stevens al came out against him.

    >>> masturbates furiously

  • Sevo||

    John B. Egan|10.5.18 @ 7:01PM|#
    "What a load of nonsense.
    [...]
    Brett has been cultivated for decades, beginning with his initiation into the Federalist Society, which is funded by the Koch Brothers and other like-minded 1%ers."

    Oh NOOO! Not the KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!
    You left out the Russkis, John.
    Oh, and you lost, loser.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Please self-immolate to own Trump, you sad-sack Boomer waste of life.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Stevens. Pfffft.

    Brett Kavanaugh supports the Heller 2008 decision that says the Second Amendment (2A) supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for all traditional lawful purposes, that the arms protected are those that are in common use, and the D.C. bans on handguns and on having a working firearm in the home for self defense were unconstitutional.

    Former justice John Paul Stevens believes Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided and that the 2A should be amended to read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed." [His addition in bold] He believes the government should be empowered to suppress individual possession and use of arms and would reinstate the D.C. bans on handguns and re-criminalize having a working firearm in the home for self-defense.

    Stevens does not oppose Kavanaugh because something he allegedly did in 1982 reflects on his character. He opposes Kavanaugh for his answer to Sen. Diane "Mr and Mrs America, turn'em all in" Feinstein on gun bans in the hearing.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    This is what it is

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Robbie, you make it tough to defend you when your first fucking sentence has me rolling my eyes. Don't you feel, at this point, "sexual assault allegations" might need some degree of a qualifier? "Uncorroborated, unproven, vague sexual assault allegations" might be a better description.

  • Malvolio||

    Uh, "completely rebutted".

    I mean, when I first heard the charges, I thought, "Poor Kavanaugh. He'll never be able to dispute suggest vague claims."

    Then they found three witnesses, including Ford's ex (I'm guessing) best friend. I thought, "Well, it's over now."

    Instead, his opponents doubled down and raked in every crazy they could find.

  • WillPaine||

    I prefer reason over blame; just saying

  • Yellow Tony||

    BLAME is a great magazine. Fuck you.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I thought it was a musical. :)

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    I think they call it the Huffington Post now.

  • Freelancelot||

    "I think they call it the Huffington Post now."

    APPLAUSE

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Avenatti—and to a lesser extent, Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow, who ran with a story so thin The New York Times wouldn't print it—took the narrow question of whether Kavanaugh or Ford were more believable, and raised the stakes by asserting he was a serial sexual abuser, rather than an inconsiderate, sexually aggressive teenage drunk. It was always going to be easier to poke holes in the grander narrative.

    OMG, this is precious. And what did you think just a week ago:

    In the meantime, it would be wrong to dismiss the allegation as beyond the realm of possibility. Given the number of people who have accused Kavanaugh and Judge of teen sexual misbehavior and serial alcoholism—misbehavior that Kavanaugh has denied completely, rather than claimed to not remember or at least acknowledged was not unheard of in his private school set—one would have to think that this is essentially a conspiracy to derail his nomination...

    The number of accusations practically PROVED his guilt!!!!

    No, you don't get to weasel your way back after this one, bobby.

  • Freelancelot||

    "In the meantime, it would be wrong to dismiss the allegation as beyond the realm of possibility."

    In the same way, I guess, that it would be wrong to dismiss the possibility of five shattered ceramic bowls that just got knocked to a stone-tiled floor suddenly, spontaneously coming back together and flying back up onto the counter top.

  • Yellow Tony||

    No, they should blame the Jews.

  • Echospinner||

    Soros paid elevator trolls?

  • Rockabilly||

    Not only is Michael Avenatti always angry, but he has the white privilege so he can't be trusted

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is all so silly. Maybe we shouldn't let politics rot our minds so much that we lose our ability to reason. I wasn't a Kavanaugh fan because I was concerned about his 4th Amendment positions, but this circus was and is an obvious fraud. Period. Even the Democrats know it. I'm so tired of the lies and the preening.

    Time for some new bullshit.

  • Yellow Tony||

    The "shame on you!" protesters were fucking lame. I wish some guy surreptitiously peed on those tards. (Both for satisfaction and sexual reasons.)

  • Rockabilly||

    The Woke Face

    Per the New Yorker, the fancy pants magazine that you pretend to read while wearing your Top Hat.

    A stone face—stoic and impassive—may very well be the woke facial expression for a white man in the twenty-first century. It means he understands his history. If the benefits of the world are, justly, no longer exclusively his inheritance, its ills are nevertheless still his patrimony. It would almost be enough to bring you to tears, should you be the crying type.

    https://tinyurl.com/ydagwy5e

  • Eddy||

    I love the continual use of "white" as a pejorative. It really brings the country together.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Good. White is too generic. For example, I'm a nice seashell white, and my amputees are generally a mix between alabaster and seashell.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Ugh, nuggetfags coming in here and stinking up the place.

  • D-Pizzle||

    You forgot "privilege." Or are you a "non-Hispanic white?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You want six more years of Trump? Because this is how you get six more years of Trump.

  • Harvard||

    We can all hope Di.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not enough religious, rural, bigoted malcontents to pull it off again. That was the can't-keep-up losers' last gasp at the end of the culture war.

  • Sevo||

    Loser asshole posts as if s/he isn't loser! Stupidity?
    Yeah.

  • Freelancelot||

    Reviled Arthur L. Kirkland, it's obvious that you are functionally illiterate. This means that you must have been very well educated in Democrass-run schools.

  • Freelancelot||

    The stoic and impassive face on a white male would, indeed, be proper...as the proper response to being surrounded by hoards of sub-human critters just like you, Rockasilly, who nonetheless get to vote.

  • IndependentTexan||

    Robby's analysis of the Ford situation has been flawed all along, having gone all-in on the Ford allegation. So obviously he needs to find a scapegoat.

    The reality is, it is anybody's guess how much truth is at the core of Ford's uncorroborated allegation. But it is beyond dispute that the Democrats used underhanded, unethical and unnecessarily divisive tactics in how they played Ford and her allegation.

    I worry that the GOP paybacks on certain Dem senators will border on medieval, taking all of us down yet more concentric circles of Dante's hell. Meanwhile, the public confidence in all three branches of federal government suffers.

    Parenthetically, it's hard to understand why a nation that has such a low regard for its government seems hell-bent on giving it endless power over our lives.

  • sparkstable||

    Because while the on the whole the gov is evil... MY guy is one of the few good ones.

  • Freelancelot||

    Spoken like a true religious fanat...er, I mean, left-winger, Sparkstable.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Whoever decided to make this a character assassination instead of focusing on relevant positions of Kav... Blame that person.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    That. John made some good points about that on another article.

  • Dave Burton||

    "The idea that the consequences for coming forward are so awful that no one would ever lie" was never credible.


    Ford & Swetnick surely know that Anita Hill's career benefited tremendously from her discredited smear of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill's perjury gained her a lifetime of fame and prosperity, courtesy of leftists in academia who are happy to reward lying for what they consider to be a good cause. Do you think Anita Hill would be giving commencement addresses for fat fees at liberal universities all over the country if she hadn't made her accusations against Clarence Thomas?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh good heavens. This is probably the most deranged take of them all. Does anyone know what the market salary is for the position of "martyr"? Lol

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The pay is great, but the retirement plan sucks.

  • JeremyR||

    I think Anita Hill got a 1.4 million book deal. Ford can probably triple that.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Not sure about the salary, but the signing bonus is half a million and climbing.

  • Freelancelot||

    If the martyr is a left-winger, the pay is extraordinarily high. If the martyr is right-winger, the pay is zero.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Tenure?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    So after the vote tomorrow does the media stay on Kavanaugh, bring back an old anti-trump story, or start a new anti-Trump narrative?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    #RUZZIA!

  • geo1113||

    Yes.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    OBSTRUCKSHUN!!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What ARE all the Republicans doing here?
    I expected some right-leaning people here but it seems more and more that most commenters here, if they aren't actual Republicans, are more interested in defeating Team Blue than with advancing any libertarian options.
    What's up with that?

  • Sevo||

    "...if they aren't actual Republicans, are more interested in defeating Team Blue than with advancing any libertarian options."

    Perhaps you might look at what the D's have been doing to civil rights (which, yes, include economic rights) over the last 20 years.
    I live in CA; let's talk about, oh, the 'housing crisis', how it was caused nearly 100% by government regulations and how it is now to be 'solved' by extending rent control across the state.
    The now permanent (government caused) 'water shortage'. The government-mandated forest mis-management and tax structures making fires more likely and shoving people into their paths, with a consequent blame on 'climate change' and the demand for higher taxes to support bone-head energy schemes.
    How moonbeam has shoved his choo-choo on the rest of us, and how gas taxes are being used for mass-transit and 'bike lane' foolishness, the later making a drive across SF a nightmare.
    There's 'way more, and if you don't see it, you're either willfully blind or stupid.
    I've voted R exactly once in my life; 20 years or so ago, there was a R business man running for mayor. I have never read a D platform which didn't threaten my rights one way or the other.
    You lost, loser. Grow up.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Perhaps you might look at what the D's have been doing to civil rights (which, yes, include economic rights) over the last 20 years"

    Yes the Dems and/or other assorted leftists are indeed far worse on economic rights which have far more real world impact on people's lives than anything else.

    Trying to pretend that the left and right are equally as bad is nonsense on stilts.

  • Sevo||

    "Yes the Dems and/or other assorted leftists are indeed far worse on economic rights which have far more real world impact on people's lives than anything else."

    I'm an atheist and this is one reason why Michael Shermer gets a pittance from me as opposed to IJ.
    Yes, kids should learn the earth is far older than 5,000 years; we really prefer knowledgeable voters. But to have those other folks brain-washed into thinking the government is the solution to all problems, as the Ds and their comrades-in-arms, the gov't school teachers attempt to do is far, far worse. FAR worse.
    In one case, you run into the random idiot. In the other the non-random idiots vote to stick their hands in your pocket for their bullshit 'solutions'.
    Hey, chemjeff! I see no response!
    Sorta like JFree when called on his lefty bullshit

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You stick with the diffuse bigotry, the belligerent backwardness, and the authoritarian prudishness, Sevo. It suits you. Being on the losing end of the culture war seems to be your natural condition, because you seem to enjoy muttering bitterly and inconsequentially about progress.

  • Sevo||

    "You stick with the diffuse bigotry, the belligerent backwardness, and the authoritarian prudishness, Sevo. It suits you. Being on the losing end of the culture war seems to be your natural condition, because you seem to enjoy muttering bitterly and inconsequentially about progress."

    Other than a pile of bullshit, was there a point in there, annoying (and losing) asshole?

  • Sevo||

    And BTW, here's a textbook example of the non-random idiot.
    Fuck off, twit

  • Sevo||

    And one more time:
    When that walking corpse RBG can no longer be held upright some time soon, I'm going to get to laugh and laugh at your stupidity all over again, annoying asshole.
    Ha, ha, and ha, you pathetic piece of shit.

  • Freelancelot||

    Sevo, please, go masturbate while talking to your own mirror somewhere else. Or did you just get back from having electroshock therapy for the third time?

  • Freelancelot||

    My apologies, Sevo, I thought you were supporting the position you attacked. Please consider my comment to be for the one who attacked you.

  • Sevo||

    Freelancelot|10.6.18 @ 8:20AM|#
    "My apologies, Sevo, I thought you were supporting the position you attacked. Please consider my comment to be for the one who attacked you."

    I've done it too...

  • block30||

    Rev Kirkland, I am sick of reading your bull shit. In short, I was once falsely accused of entering a female living area during a deployment. I asked for a military lawyer, and was told no. I was told that the sooner I fessed up the better. The allegations grew wilder and wilder with time, escalating to me supposedly committing sexual assault. I know on some small level what happened here to Brett Kavanaugh, and how evil the dems are. I've seen the left shift in the military and of course in society. Attacking republicans to defend the dems? You are no libertarian and have no business measuring up others here. You care not for civil liberty. Dems care nothing for due process or limited government. You and the dems can go to hell.

  • Freelancelot||

    Amen, Block30. "Rev" here is short for "Reviled".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Funny how you take your personal experience and extrapolate it to an indictment of "the dems".

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|10.6.18 @ 9:17AM|#
    "Funny how you take your personal experience and extrapolate it to an indictment of "the dems"."

    Funny how "the dems" try to politicize personal experiences.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Funny how you take your personal experience and extrapolate it to an indictment of "the dems".

    chemjeff's jumping to the defense of his proglydyte fellow travelers again.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining, you bigoted, authoritarian, right-wing pussy.

    And thank you for doing your part to ensure that the United States of America would not win a war for 70-some years . . . and counting. Thanks to guys like you, we have a series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars across the globe despite nearly unimaginable resource advantages provided by American taxpayers.

    Carry on, clinger.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|10.6.18 @ 11:03AM|#
    "Quit whining, you bigoted, authoritarian, right-wing pussy."

    Except for being a proggy ignoramus, most of us here say exactly the same thing about you, loser.
    BTW, you lost. Again.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    At least you have the courage to try to fight that block30's battles for him.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|10.6.18 @ 3:24PM|#
    "At least you have the courage to try to fight that block30's battles for him."

    BTW, you lost. Again. Loser.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Trying to pretend that the left and right are equally as bad is nonsense on stilts.

    They're not equally bad, but they're both bad enough. Why put up with either one of them?

  • Don't look at me!||

    A reflection of the populace?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Defeating Team Blue is a libertarian option.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Only fake socialism can set us free.

  • Freelancelot||

    'Bout time some libertarians realized that. It's Democrasses who are the Enemy Within. Republicans, on the whole, are merely cowards.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Defeating *collectivism* is the libertarian option.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Just because you'll be glad to be hung from the gallows in the name of MUH PRINCIPLES doesn't mean that's a libertarian option.

  • Freelancelot||

    Rand Paul is a Republican. There are not Rand Pauls in the J-Hole party. Get the idea?

    Next idiotic, buffoonish question, please, Chemaddict Radical Subhuman.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Classy! Did you make that all up yourself?

  • Rich||

    the foothills of preposterous

    Nice album name.

  • dwshelf||

    Liberals should blame Diane Feinstein.

    She's the one who implemented a strategy of destroying a human being with a story which was emotionally compelling but factually unverifiable, to advance a political agenda.

  • BigT||

    Bingo!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Julie Swetnick, an alleged victim of Kavanaugh who told an inconsistent and unpersuasive story."

    Gotta break it to you: That describes Blasey Ford and Ramirez, too.

  • wreckinball||

    None of the accusers were credible because of zero evidence,

    Yes the gang rape one was more incredible than the others.

    Fords story wasn't credible at all

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Fords story wasn't credible at all"

    Just like her phony claim that she was afraid of flying as a deliberate tactic to delay and drag the process out longer - exactly what the Democrats wanted.

  • wreckinball||

    And the whole temperament BS

    So after being accused of being a serial rapist with no one standing up for him he's supposed to just take this crap from team Spartacus

    I would have just beat the crap out of Spartacus and just walked out

    So actually his temperament was pretty restrained

    He called out the partisan attacks on him. He was not the partisan

  • CDRSchafer||

    There's still time to beat the crap out of Spartacus. Cause that needs doing.

  • Echospinner||

    One thing the government excels at is making an issue of something and then pounding it into an unrecognizable ugly blob that you wish would just go away.

  • ddavel||

    " ....multiple allegations of sexual assault." ??! Where are the 'Multiple'? Only two are named, and both lack any Credibility!! I really hope C. Ford goes to jail for Lying! Trump 2020!!

  • Variant||

    Multiple false allegations of sexual assault. None corroborated.

    That all of this has so clearly been shown to be a sham is what the left can hang their hats on.

  • shane_c||

    Nah, she thinks Fords story is probably not true, and she thinks Kavanaugh will be a moderate - thats with or without Avenatti.

  • posmoo||

    Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed, and I Blame Michael Avenatti
    Robby Soave | Oct. 5, 2018 5:31 pm

  • n00bdragon||

    The desperation of Reason offices would be funny if it weren't so sad. You fair weather libertarians can suck on it. I'm actually glad you're so openly exposing yourself as the very two-party partisan hacks you make a living complaining about.

  • M.L.||

    Does this author subscribe to the MSM's prestigious journolist newsletter? It's neat to see how Reason is so plugged in to the narrative.

    The Democrats have boofed the bed. The left establishment is already starting to panic about the midterms and especially 2020. They are already having to go to war against the nut jobs to their left.

  • Sevo||

    It's been since Mary, the claimant of stone-age menus, wasted time here that we got to 500 comments.
    But we do have a chance here if that asshole Rev would even attempt some sort of defense of his bullshit, and similarly the chemjeff asshole.
    There are many here willing to 'correct' their posts and chemjeff asshole has yet to respond to the answers to his question (above).
    But I see both of them have decided to avoid engagement here. Yes, both lefty assholes, you seem to have nothing to add.
    Perhaps both of you pathetic excuses for humans have been handed your hats?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hilarious.
    What exactly make me a "lefty"? Do I advocate for the welfare state, high taxes, vast regulations? No, no and no.
    Hint: Disagreeing with righties doesn't automatically make one a lefty.
    Calling me, or others who object to right-wing bullshit, a "lefty", is a good way to mark yourself as falling into the tribalist dualism trap of Team Red vs. Team Blue.

    Calling people "lefties", "progressives", "socialists", nowadays, seems to be just another insult, devoid of meaning. "Oh I don't like you. You must be a lefty."

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|10.6.18 @ 9:49AM|#
    "Hilarious.
    What exactly make me a "lefty"?"

    So you're also too stupid to realize you are?

  • Nardz||

    It's called denial

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...

  • No Yards Penalty||

    There was NOTHING plausible about ''Dr'' Fraud's fantasy fiction you bouffant haired faggot. Go write for Slate.

  • kevrob||

    Nothing like a little casual homophobia to confirm your libertarian cred? Troll.

  • JeremyR||

    I think as time went on though, Ford because less and less credible.

    I mean, besides the obvious credibility problem where none of the witnesses she named verified her account.

    Her lying about her fear of flying, her lying about when the door that supposedly triggered her memories of this, her apparently lying about polygraphs, her refusal to turn over the notes from her therapy session.

  • Rigelsen||

    Robby really has trouble with the presumption of innocence, doesn't he? No corroboration isn't enough. All corroboration going the other way is not enough. Inconsistent and shifting testimony isn't enough. That someone "sounds credible" is apparently all that's necessary to sink their victim's life and livelihood.

  • jcbinok||

    Makes sense. If the average false rape allegation rate is 5%, and of the four last-minute allegations made against BK, two were proved obviously false (NH boat and Swetnick), then it's reasonable to surmise that a smear campaign was afoot.

  • TimMcD||

    You seem to find Ford credible. I don't. She cannot remember how she got to the supposed party, what year or month it was, where it was, or how she got home after the supposed assault. The other people she remembers at the party DO NOT REMEMBER THE PARTY. Her story is totally devoid of any fact which can be checked, yet she remembers with 100% certainty that it was Brett Kavanaugh who attacked her. I find her story to be a very well thought out hit piece, put together by a sociopath, and it should never have been given any credence by anyone.

  • Freelancelot||

    No, Robby Soave, left-wingers should be ashamed of themselves for "believing the women", not a single one of them being believable at all. IDIOT. Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the SCOTUS because he's innocent of the alleged crimes. IDIOT.

  • teeduke||

    I take exception to Robby's account.

    Both Dr. Ford's accusation and Judge Kavanaugh's defense were believable on the face. But without any corroboration whatsoever, the accuser's charge fell apart. And the only witnesses named can't substantiate Dr. Ford's testimony, but provide support for the Judge's testimony.

    In addition, it appears Dr. Ford's lifelong friend who could not substantiate Dr. Ford's account was later pressured into possibly changing her story by others. And since the hearings exploded with the Ford accusation, I find it interesting that no one has come forward to claim they recall anything about that evening. No one.

    Avenatti's involvement administered a coup de grace on the whole sad episode.

  • Cyto||

    Jeez Robby, you just can't help yourself, can you?

    Go back and listen to her speech again.

    She gives a very detailed deconstruction of all of the "positions" taken by the opposition. She runs through all of the legal arguments in layman's detail, explaining exactly why she thinks their objections to him based on his judicial philosophy are wrong, including Roe v Wade and birth control.

    She then takes apart the accusations of a personal nature, drawing specifically on a sense of justice, fairness and a presumption of innocence. She takes pains to avoid insulting Ford, but goes on to list the weight of evidence that opposes her allegation, and draws the only reasonable conclusion.

    But yeah... if only Avanetti didn't make those claims! Then she would have done the right thing.

    Sheesh.

  • Cyto||

    Here's a deeper question to ask about Avanetti.

    Who is he working for?

    Sure, you could argue that he's just fame-whoring... running to the nearest camera. And he certainly has found a willing audience in the left-talking-head TV arena.

    But who's he been working for? His "representation" of Stormy Daniels seems much more focused on causing problems for Trump than with helping Stormy Daniels. And how did she come to light in the first place?

    There's something very familiar about Ford's attorneys. They are working pro-bono... but who are they really representing? They repeatedly acted against their client's stated wishes to insist on a public televised hearing. They repeatedly insisted that she be questioned directly by republican Senators. (She even mentioned that in her written prepared statement.) Why would that be a requirement? Or in her best interests?

    It wouldn't. That's the answer. But it would provide nice TV footage for the Democrats to use.

    So when Avanetti suddenly has a bunch of "accusers" to represent, don't just look at Avanetti. Look to the machine behind him. He's there for a reason. Someone paid the freight to get him his seat at the talking-head table. Someone helped organize and coordinate the search for accusers. First for Trump, then for Kavanaugh. That's the "who to blame" you are looking for.

  • Tony||

    I blame Republicans. They're the only ones with power in this deal. Avenatti does serve as a convenient scapegoat for them, assuming their voters are as dumb as they hope they are.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Well of course you do. Such a good team player.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.6.18 @ 9:21AM|#
    "I blame Republicans."

    You lost. Again. Loser.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Robby Soave, "Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed, and Liberals Should Blame Michael Avenatti", Reason, 5 Oct 2018.
    "Sen. Susan Collins called the Swetnick story "outlandish." It might have given her cover to confirm the judge."

    "Liberals should blame Michael Avenatti."

    No.

    Feinstein, Booker, et al. Nifonged themselves.

    They could not derail Kavanaugh by raising objections to his consitutional positions and judicial history. At the last hour they decided to appeal to public prejudice against privileged prep school jocks and frat types with uncorroborated allegations of his behavior in late high school and early university years. Couldn't block 'im on the issues, resort to character assassination. It might have worked pre-Duke Lacrosse Case but even among those who despise the rich and privileged and want to think the worst of them, there is that precedent as a caution.

    Liberals may wanna blame Michael Avenatti.

    They tried to nifong Kavanaugh and failed.

    They need to point their fingers at their mirrors.

  • BigT||

    " At the last hour they decided to appeal to public prejudice against privileged prep school jocks and frat types with uncorroborated allegations..."

    No. This plan was hatched the day Kennedy retired. It took a while to develop and train the accuser. It was a well conceived plan, with a PhD psychologist who knows exactly what to say with only a little legal help to avoid perjury charges. You gotta hand it to the Donkeys, this malicious plan also played into the me2 zeitgeist. If a woman had been nominated, racism would be the strategy. Watch for it next time.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Spoken like a real rapist there, Tony.

  • majil||

    Liberals? Hey shit for brains, Liberals know that the Leftists in the Media and the Senate used character assassination and thuggery trying to destroy Kavanaugh . Leftists did this to themselves.
    There are maybe three Liberals remaining in the Democratic Party.The rest are Leftists and crazy.

  • Truthteller1||

    That's sweet but you missed the thing about ford's claims being completely unsubstantiated.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Fallacy of the Day: "Historian's fallacy"

    "[It] occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy

    I was open to opposing Kavanaugh on Fourth Amendment grounds, but that was before it became clear that the left wanted to create a world where people are disqualified from positions of authority (supervisors, managers, even) based on unsubstantiated accusations about what they did as minors 35 years ago. Because I opposed creating such an environment and precedent (a la Anita Hill), I enthusiastically supported Kavanaugh's confirmation.

    However, that was when I didn't know that he would be confirmed.

    It's illogical to judge people's support for something predicated on information they didn't have at the time. I find myself in real life arguing with Kavanaugh supporters about the Fourth Amendment now--and this is as it should be. It's perfectly alright to be against witch hunts, when the witch hunt is in full swing, and then reengage the same question on rational grounds, once the witch hunt is over.

    Until I knew that the witch hunt would be over, opposing witch hunts was a perfectly rational conclusion. If fellow libertarians look back at this moment as the time when we should have stood up for the Fourth Amendment, far as I'm concerned, they'll be committing the Historican's Fallacy.

  • Eddy||

    Also relevant: Who would Trump nominate, and the Senate confirm, if the Senate belatedly decides to reject K? Would the replacement Justice be a superior 4th Amendment champion? Better on other issues? The probabilities are against it - in fact, the probabilities go the other way.

    Sotomayor was alone in rejecting the ridiculous "cops can't be expected to know the Fourth Amendment" decision. She was opposed not only by the "conservative" justices but by most of the "liberal" ones.

    If Trump and the Senate had a candidate in the wings who was Sotomayor-like on the 4th Amendment without being Sotomayor-like on the issues where she's wrong, then bring that candidate forward, otherwise I'm sticking with K - plus for the anti-witch-hunt reasons you mentioned.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Who would Trump nominate, and the Senate confirm, if the Senate belatedly decides to reject K?"

    That was my argument for supporting Kavanaugh, despite the Fourth Amendment fail, before these allegations surfaced. It's even truer now--we wouldn't see another nominee confirmed ahead of the midterms.

    At this point, the question becomes whether the Democrats are likely to take control of the senate. 538 (FWIW) gives the Democrats a one in four to one in five chance of taking the senate. If they do, it won't be the Fourth Amendment getting shafted, it'll be First Amendment religious rights and the Second Amendment.

    I could be persuaded either way on principle and the probabilities. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, there are excellent reasons to think the Second Amendment will be better protected. My understanding is that he shot down an assault weapons ban, shot down a registration requirement for all firearms, and shot down D.C.'s carry law.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The question of whether there's a better nominee we might get after the midterm, anyway, needs to account for the fact that there may be a 20% chance of getting someone far worse--although that's based on my assumption that Trump would rather put his stamp on the Court with a nominee than only nominate justices the Democrats would never confirm.

    A 20% chance of losing everything and more is too risky for normal investments. You'd need five investments to return 25% with a 20% of total loss to expect to come out even. We're talking about one investment here. One bite at the apple. I'd support Kavanaugh on that basis. I wish Trump were a libertarian, the senate were libertarian, then we might expect a libertarian nominee for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Kavanaugh is the best we're likely to get without risk of losing a lot more than Kavanaugh would cost us by way of the Fourth amendment.

  • zazoo||

    Clearly the Kavanaugh controversy won't go away.

    I think it will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I had similar thoughts. I don't think Ford's accusation comes anywhere close to being "more likely true than not", but reasonable people can disagree about that. But once Democrats started piling obviously bullshit accusations on TOP of that one, the one accusation worth discussing got lost in the chaff. If most of the allegations against someone are bullshit, people are naturally inclined to assume they all are.

  • TBlakely||

    "the more plausible allegation leveled by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford"

    Can someone explain to me how Ford's allegation was even remotely 'plausible'?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anything that could happen is plausible.

    I argue above that while implausibility may make something less credible, plausibility doesn't otherwise speak to credibility.

    Lies can be perfectly plausible.

    It is plausible that the dog ate your homework. To be credible, you need to show corroborating testimony or evidence.

  • Ordinary Person||

    She could name Kavanaugh's drinking buddies that were named in Kavanaugh's calendar. She could tell you where Mark Judge was working that summer. She described what happened and swore under penalty of law that she was 100% sure Kavanaugh and Judge were the perpetrators. She named Kavanaugh years ago to other people. This story was not made up to defeat Kavanaugh's nomination as Kavanaugh falsely claimed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "She described what happened and swore under penalty of law that she was 100% sure Kavanaugh and Judge were the perpetrators."

    This feminist wrote an interesting article about why she falsely accused her father of molesting her:

    http://www.salon.com/2010/09/2.....interview/

    Memory is a tricky thing. It's constantly being revised and reinterpreted to account for things that are happening in the present, and sometimes we remember things that didn't happen--or that happened differently.

    That being said, I'm sure this lady could tell you all kinds of things about what she and her father did together that were accurate, too. She didn't get everything wrong. Just the part about how her father molested her.

  • Cyto||

    According to her testimony, this started at the peak of the "recovered memory" movement. This theory of mind has since been widely discredited. In fact, it has been said to be responsible for many false accusations. The problem is that the way the mind works, there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between a false memory and a true memory. So when you monkey around with someone's recollection by helping them "recover" memories that are "suppressed" you can actually be cementing imagined details as memories that are just as real and immediate as if they had really happened.

    A few people have tossed around the theory that this is what happened here. It would be consistent with some of the language she used about it coming up in therapy and fleshing out the details and these details becoming more clear over time.

    Of course if that was true, she would have no way of telling the difference at this point. Her memories would feel exactly the same as they would if they were formed when those events actually occurred. The only way to figure that out would be to go back over each time those memories were revisited and see how they evolved over time. And the only way to really do that would be to have a video of each time, which is highly implausible in any setting.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I don't know that Ford is guilty of perjury either. She may very well remember what she remembers.

    The objective question is whether her memory can be trusted without corroboration or evidence.

    If there's a real libertarian take on this, it's probably about Adam Smith and "Theory of Moral Sentiments". He argued that custom, tradition, culture, etc. creates systems over time that are more complicated and useful than anything some elites in the government could inflict on us from above, and I think this is an example of that.

    Some of the things we're talking about here go back to the Magna Carta and ever further back to Roman Law. These ideas about testimony, evidence, due process, etc. have survived because they were so useful. Justice without them may not even be possible--and they account for things like what to do when the question is whom to be believe.

    For some reason, we understand this stuff when we see a white jury in "To Kill a Mockingbird" convict an innocent man of rape after his attorney punches all kinds of holes in the rape victim's story. It's the same principles at work in the Kavanaugh hearings. When we get rid of those standards, we get the Salem witch trials, the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution, and the McCarthy hearings. That some people only see the standards of justice as valuable when they benefit certain groups is telling--those are the people from which the standards of justice are meant to protect us.

  • BigT||

    "She could name Kavanaugh's drinking buddies ..."

    You mean that she read Judge's book? Or, more likely, someone else did and searched relentlessly until they found a 'plausible' story they could push. I think this woman did not come forward on her own , but turned up in a search for likely 'victims'.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Dailymail and NBC among others are reporting that Kavanaugh may have committed perjury when he falsely claimed to have first heard of the Ramirez allegation from reading about it in the newspaper
    You can understand why that assertion would make Kavanaugh look innocent but the truth it turns out is that Kavanaugh was calling his friends and imploring them to back up his sworn denial before the Ramirez allegation appeared in the press. There are text messages proving this. Lying to the Senate to discredit the victim of a sexual assault is evil shit. No way the Democrats should let this slide. They should gather the evidence and present it all to the FBI the second the FBI is liberated from the corrupt influences of this unindicted conspirator president. Hell yes!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Lying to the Senate to discredit the victim of a sexual assault is evil shit."

    By your own description, the lying you're accusing him of wasn't intended to discredit the victim of a sexual assault. It was to look for corroborating testimony of his own version of the story. Can you think of a way Kavanaugh could do that without discrediting the "victim"?

    Meanwhile, are you sure Ramirez was the victim of a sexual assault? Do you have evidence of this? Corroborating testimony? Can you link to it? By asking these questions, am I being evil? For goodness' sake, our system of justice is predicated on questioning the testimony of crime victims--and it's always been that way.

    Have you never seen the "To Kill a Mockingbird"?

    Did you first learn about our justice system when Kavanaugh was nominated?

  • mtrueman||

    "the lying you're accusing him of wasn't intended "

    His intentions don't matter. It seems he committed perjury. Unfit to serve.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Actually, there's more to perjury than that, and if the Democrats campaign on impeaching him for it, it may put their chances of taking the House in jeopardy.

  • mtrueman||

    Lying under oath to deceive the senators might stick. Republicans were sensitized to this during the Clinton years.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You have an amazing ability to make pronouncements as if they were true because you stated them.

    It's not as bad as Tony's, but still . . .

    Perjury is more complicated than you're making it out to be, regardless of whether you state that lying to congress is a crime over and over again.

    The statements being pointed to aren't necessarily false, for instance. Can you establish mens rea? Because someone gives incorrect testimony doesn't necessarily mean it's perjury, etc., etc.

    I think you're just trolling. Maybe you're bored.

    And before you respond that lying to congress is perjury and perjury is a crime, you might want to take a deep breath and realize that saying it's perjury doesn't make what Kavanaugh said perjury, and you saying it for a third time doesn't make it any truer than when you said it the first time.

  • mtrueman||

    "And before you respond that lying to congress is perjury and perjury is a crime,"

    I'm not sure what you're trying to claim. Kavanaugh's lies don't amount to perjury? Called damning with faint praise in my neck of the wood.

  • Cyto||

    So sensitized that they held all of the Obama administration officials who lied under oath in contempt...

    Oh wait. No they didn't. They just whined about it.

  • mtrueman||

    "They just whined about it."

    Obama had them all intimidated with his sexy demeanor and black skin.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Stop lying.

  • Cyto||

    He didn't say that.

    When asked when he first heard about it he said ... recently... in the ... uh... since the... uh... the story... the New Yorker...

    And she says that she didn't know what the story was about at that time... reporters were just looking for names of classmates and frat brothers, which she happily provided. So somehow one frat brother speaking with Kavanaugh is proof that he not only lied when he said "uh, since the .. uh the story... the New Yorker", it is proof that he was colluding to cover up the story before it broke.

    The left is unhinged. They are claiming 2017 urban dictionary entries as proof of perjury for 1982 slang terms in one high school. They are claiming "I never blacked out" is perjury when confronted with "I saw Brett drink to excess many times... he was way more intoxicated than I was." They are claiming "I think he pulled his penis out behind me but I didn't see it" is "exposed his penis to " and is a sexual assault.

  • mtrueman||

    "So somehow one frat brother speaking with Kavanaugh is proof that he not only lied when he said "uh, since the .. uh the story... the New Yorker", it is proof that he was colluding to cover up the story before it broke."

    One of the frat brothers are lying.

  • Cyto||

    That doesn't even make sense. There are not two frat brothers accounts in conflict.

    One frat brother is said to have spoken with him. Nobody has claimed otherwise, and there isn't much of a credible argument that they shouldn't have spoken.

    The other frat brother says "he was way more drunk than I was on several occasions", which is not at all at odds with Kavanaugh's testimony. (he says he never blacked out. You can be a stumbling drunk and not blacked out. You can be blacked out and not a stumbling drunk. Different brains react differently.)

    You can also oppose a politician or a nominee without resorting to ad-hominem attacks or personal smears.

    Everyone who defeats your guy in an election isn't some criminal who stole the election. Everyone who is nominated by your political opponent isn't a criminal who should be run out of society and never employed again.

    Politics makes people stupid.

  • mtrueman||

    'There are not two frat brothers accounts in conflict.'

    Kavanaugh claimed to have no knowledge of the matter until he's read it in the New Yorker. Text messages which predate the testimony call this into question.

  • Sevo||

    How much does straw-grasping pay these days?

  • mtrueman||

    Less than perjury.

  • Sevo||

    "Less than perjury."

    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

  • mtrueman||

    That's what I wrote.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When you learned what you already know is a notoriously tricky thing.

    Last week I learned that the new head of Defense Distributed (Cody Wilson's outfit) is an English born poet.

    I don't remember where I heard it first. Ask me to tell you, and I'll give you my best guess. It was last week though.

  • mtrueman||

    "When you learned what you already know is a notoriously tricky thing."

    The text messages should clear up any doubts. Looks as though Kavanaugh was contacting his frat friends to get their stories straight re Ramirez, then testifying under oath that he was unaware of the story until he read it in the New Yorker. Check the dates on the text messages. If they fall before the senate testimony, unfit for service.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Looks as though Kavanaugh was contacting his frat friends to get their stories straight re Ramirez, then testifying under oath that he was unaware of the story until he read it in the New Yorker."

    Did The New Yorker contact Kavanaugh or his friends for comment on the story before it went to print?

    Why do you assume that asking friends for their stories is in any way untoward? Getting corroborating testimony for your story is not a bad thing. It simply isn't.

    It certainly isn't indicative of some nefarious motive. How far gone are you, anyway, when you think that seeking corroborating testimony for your defense is considered evidence of guilt?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How far gone are you, anyway, when you think that seeking corroborating testimony for your defense is considered evidence of guilt?"

    Are you now or have you ever been a communist [sexist]?

  • Cyto||

    Funny.... Dershowitz was on TV making exactly this comparison as you were typing that.

  • mtrueman||

    "Are you now or have you ever been a communist [sexist]?"

    Seven FBI background checks. If there's one thing in the world we can be sure of, Kavanaugh is not a communist.

  • Ordinary Person||

    It's not about asking your friends to say they don't remember something happening which is a joke because that doesn't prove much and it's definitely not "corroborating evodence".

    Imagine if someone called you and said "Ken you don't remember anything about me putting my dick in the face of a chick named Ramirez? You don't right? Thanks buddy! "

    The question is: How did Kavanaugh learn about the Ramirez claim? If Kavanaugh is innocent then he had to have learned about the claim from a third party. Kavanaugh is claiming that third party is a newspaper but the truth of that is in doubt because there are text messages showing discussions of tbe claim before the paper published the story.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The charges you're making are all happening in your head. You have no handle on any facts. You don't what the facts are, and you don't seem to care whether what you're saying has any factual basis.

    You're on a witch hunt, buddy ro! That's what a witch hunt feels like.

  • Sevo||

    "How far gone are you, anyway, when you think that seeking corroborating testimony for your defense is considered evidence of guilt?"

    You're engaging trueman who is here in the hopes someone clicks on his name and doubles this week's visitor count for his pathetic web site:

    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

  • mtrueman||

    "You're engaging trueman"

    Enough about Kavanaugh's lies. It's time once again to discuss my pathetic we site.

  • mtrueman||

    "Did The New Yorker contact Kavanaugh or his friends for comment on the story before it went to print?"

    Maybe yes, maybe no. New Yorker or Kavanaugh should be able to answer your question.

    "Why do you assume that asking friends for their stories is in any way untoward? "

    Lying about it to the senate under oath is the problem. There is nothing wrong with contacting friends to get their stories straight. Perjury is another matter.

    "It certainly isn't indicative of some nefarious motive."

    Nobody asked Kavanaugh what motivated him to lie to the senate. I assume he wanted the job and figured that sweeping his past under a rug was the best way to get it. Reminds me of the Faulkner quote:

    You may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with you.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|10.6.18 @ 4:01PM|#
    "You may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with you."

    Oh! Oh! Look! A PRONOUNCEMENT from trueman.
    Fuck off.

  • mtrueman||

    William Faulkner actually.

  • Sevo||

    "William Faulkner actually."

    Co-opted by trueman, actually.
    Fuck off.

  • mtrueman||

    Don't parrot my actuallys. You haven't earned the right.

  • Cyto||

    Alan Dershowitz on TV comparing Harvard students to students when he was there. He said they were getting faculty fired because they said they were communists when they were in their 20's. And if they reacted with outrage and said it was a lie they said they had to be fired because they lost their temper. He called it an outrage.

  • Cyto||

    Chuck Shumer: Judge Kavanaugh does not belong on the bench because he obscured his true views on jurisprudence.

    Judge Kavanaugh does not belong on the bench because he was appointed by a President and a party who is opposed to Roe V Wade.

    ..... because republican's ignored the senate's tradition of bipartisan cooperation on judicial nominees....

  • snowhawk||

    What do you brainwashed Religious Fanatics not understand about the Fact that Roe v Wade has already been decided? If you were at all capable of keeping up with what's really going on you'd have heard that Kavanaugh has already said as much. If you believe that you have the Right to force others to believe only as you do your squatting in the wrong Country. We the American People have the Guarantied RIGHT to what we each, ourselfs, decide to believe in and as to what is right for ourselfs. Don't like it MOVE or just keep beating your brainwash against the wall!!!!!!

  • kevrob||

    I don't want to overturn Roe v Wade, but if a decision was wrongly decided, I would prefer it be reversed. Should Plessy v Ferguson have stood forever?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wopnder why the Swetnick bitch chose someone like Avenatti, instead of someone more reputable like Alan M. Dwershiwitz.

  • geo1113||

    Someone reputable wouldn't have taken the job.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The problem with letting Soave and Deboner conservatives writhe for the magazine is that young Canadian politicians might be persuaded that liberal is some sort of synonym for communist, when in fact the dictionary defines it as more like a gelded libertarian.

  • Presskh||

    There was no valid reason to not confirm him, unless you think drinking a lot of beer in high school is disqualifyng. Instead, maybe he should have been driving drunk, run off of a bridge, and left the scene while a still-alive girl trapped in the car died a slow death due to asphyxiation. Then the Dems would have anointed him their hero, their "Lion".

  • mtrueman||

    "There was no valid reason to not confirm him"

    There are no valid reasons. Those senators could confirm him or reject him for any reason or no reason at all.

  • ||

    Few Dems in the Senate could be considered " liberal ". Most are far left, if not full blown fascist.

  • snowhawk||

    Anyone who didn't see this whole effort, especially with the San Francisco RATs Feinstein and Ford involved, as a last minute attempt to stall the selection until after the November elections should have there level of intelligence checked. The San Francisco RATs came up with the Slut Brigade attack in the late 70s when they used it quite effectively. Of course the truth would eventually come out but always to late to change the outcome of the vote the lies effected. As a whole the RATs have used it with great results over the years. In resent history on both Herman Cain and Judge Roy Moore.

  • TxJack 112||

    Swetnick is complaining about how the public "treated" her when she should actually be glad no one actually dug into or pushed her story. The most glaring problem with her story that is not related to her charges is her AGE when all of these events supposedly happened. She was a COLLEGE AGE woman, in other words, over the age of 18. The others at these parties were in high school (minors). If anyone would have actually run with this story, she would have been destroyed as a child molester. However, the publicity seeking ambition of her "lawyer" is the much larger issue, but that is not what sunk Democrats. Democrats were sunk before this all began. Does no one remember that before Kavanagh was announced as Trump's nominee, there were protesters on the steps of the Capitol and outside the SCOTUS with signs that said "We oppose ____________"!!! When Kavanagh was announced as the nominee, the protesters used markers and wrote in his name. It is hilarious when Democrats say they would have considered another nominee when they were already voicing opposition before they even knew who would be nominated. The only truth is they are still angry about Garland. It made no difference who Trump nominated because they were going to oppose the person because they were nominated by Trump.

  • TxJack 112||

    Avenatti is a symptom, not the disease. The "resistance" is the disease. The thought that you can protest and intimidate elected officials and the public to overturn an election you think your side should have won. The calls to abolish the electoral college or change the nomination process in the Senate are more examples of this disease. In short, whenever we lose, we want to change the rules. The disease is immaturity and arrogance. Avenatti is the epitome of both.

  • tlapp||

    If this had been successful essentially any nominee could be vetoed with unsubstantiated charges even if witnesses backed up the accused as they did in this case.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Liberals should blame themselves for acting like rabid animals and running a smear campaign.

  • tlapp||

    Avenatti and his client should be sued for defamation.

    The reason Kavanaugh got through is he defended himself from bogus charges. This was not he said she said as the media suggested. This was he said plus all 3 witnesses from Ford backing him up, including her friend, against her spotty memory at best.

  • WillDD||

    Effectively acting as its corporate counsel, Avenatti ably represented the Democatic party, I thought. I heard not a single Democrat criticize his words or actions. He allowed the party to consistently represent that there were three women who had accused Kavanaugh. Next stop, the 2020 nomination.

  • Naaman Brown||

    26 Sep 2018 Letter by US Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats on the affidavit of Julie Swetnick

    source: www.feinstein.senate.gov

    United States Senate
    Committee on the Judiciary
    Washington, D.C. 2051-6275

    September 26, 2018

    Honorable Charles Grassley
    Chairman
    Committee on the Judiciary
    United States Senate
    Washington, D.C. 20510-6275

    Dear Chairman Grassley:

    In light of shocking new allegations detailed by Julie Swetnick in a sworn affidavit, we write to request that the Committee vote on Brett Kavanaugh be immediately canceled and that you support the reopening of the FBI investigation to examine all of the allegations against Kavanaugh or withdrawal of his nomination.

    Under penalty of perjury, which would cause Ms. Swetnick to be subject to criminal prosecution, she states that she witnessed Brett Kavanaugh "engage in abusive and physically 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" as well as "make crude sexual comments that were designed to demean, humiliate and embarrass them."

    The Senate Judiciary Committee is not a court of law. Our job is not to determine whether Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime. Our job is to determine whether Brett Kavanaugh has the character and qualifications to be promoted to the most prestigious and powerful court in the country.

  • Naaman Brown||

    cont'd
    It would be an unprecedented abuse of power and abdication of our constitutional responsibilities to move forward with this nomination given the concerns about Brett Kavanaugh's character and actions. We ask that you immediately request an FBI investigation or support the withdrawal of this nominee, but at a minimum the vote that has been scheduled for Friday must be canceled.

    Sincerely,

    Dianne Feinstein
    Ranking Member

    Patrick J. Leahy
    United States Senator

    Richard J. Durbin
    United States Senator

    Sheldon Whitehouse
    United States Senator

    Amy Klobuchar
    United States Senator

    Christopher A. Coons
    United States Senator

    Richard Blumenthal
    United States Senator

    Mazie K. Hirono
    United States Senator

    Cory A. Booker
    United States Senator

    Kamala D. Harris
    United States Senator

    --------------------------------------------

    The Committee Democrats are not to blame for signing that letter.
    It is all Michael Avenatti's fault.

  • Naaman Brown||

    cont'd
    I am sure the Committee Democrats will redeem themselves by pursuing Julie Swetnick with all the fervor they spent going after Brett Kavanaugh. After all under penalty of perjury, which would cause Ms. Swetnick to be subject to criminal prosecution, she gave a sworn affidavit which detailed new allegations which shocked the SJC Democrats into demanding of Chairman Grassley (a) stop the vote, either (b) request an FBI investigation or (c) withdraw the candidate. The candidate was not withdrawn, the vote was held, and the least that could be done now is an FBI investigation of the Avenatti/Swetnick allegations responsible for the Democrat's failure..

    And I demand that the guilty party be fined an equivalent of the taxpayer dollars wasted on this nonsense. Especially in view of the fact that in the 1 Oct Kate Snow NBC interview, "model and actress" Julie Swetnick could not stay on the script of her Declaration of 25 Sep 2018.

  • Lance L||

    Come on, surely you don't believe this. I mean, it sounds good and all, but really?
    A R president nominated an R SC justice, and there is an R Senate. They had more votes than D's had in the Senate, and so they confirmed him.
    Perhaps you are right that Avenatti was the reason Collins said she voted to confirm, that may be true, but she is an R, and she was going to vote to confirm.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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