Reason Podcast

The Brett Kavanaugh Sex Assault Controversy Will Only Get Worse: Podcast

Reason's editors debate whether a single-source allegation from 35 years ago should be enough to derail a Supreme Court pick.


||| Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom
Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Should a late-breaking, single-sourced accusation about a drunken teenaged assault 35 years ago be enough to scuttle a Supreme Court nomination? That's the super-charged political debate the United States is having right now, and it definitely split the room on the Monday editor-roundtable version of the Reason Podcast.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and yours truly each have their own ideas about what could and should happen next with the Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, now that Christine Blasey Ford has forward publicly to accuse him of drunkenly pinning her down, covering her mouth, and trying to rip off her clothes when they were high school students in the '80s. We also lay blame for our current deficit-tastic political moment, and we give away way too many spoilers (well, Suderman does, anyway) to a new movie out in theaters.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

'Geometric Dreams' by Asthmatic Astronaut is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Relevant links from the show:

"Brett Kavanaugh's Sexual Assault Accuser Has Come Forward, and Her #MeToo Story Might Disqualify Him," by Robby Soave

"High-School Assault Accusation Could Kill Kavanaugh Confirmation. Should It?" by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"Politico Symposium on How to Handle the Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Accusation," by Ilya Somin

"The Senate Needs to Hear Out Kavanaugh's Accuser," by Nick Gillespie

"Groping Toward Sanity," by Cathy Young

"Who Killed the Deficit Hawks? You and Me, but Especially Paul Ryan," by Nick Gillespie

"Trump Has Always Been the 'King of Debt,' but Now He's Sticking Taxpayers With the Tab," by Eric Boehm

"Congress Just Passed a $150 Billion Spending Package Without Any Consideration for Looming Trillion-Dollar Deficit," by Eric Boehm

"#MAGA: Federal Deficit Jumps 32 Percent, Hits $895 Billion for Fiscal 2018!" by Nick Gillespie

"How GOP Fiscal Sanity Died, in 7 Easy Steps," by Matt Welch

"The 19 Percent Solution," by Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy

"Trumpocalypse Reality Check: Government Spending This Century Has Grown from $3.2 Trillion to $7 Trillion," by Matt Welch

"Are Teachers Really 'Not Paid for the Work [They] Do'? Time Says Yes, Reality Begs To Differ," by Nick Gillespie

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

What are we consuming this week?

Matt Welch

  • Hurricane coverage on news networks

Katherine Mangu-Ward

Peter Suderman

NEXT: America Should be More Like Sweden. But Not for the Reasons You Think: Podcast

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reason’s editors debate whether a single-source allegation from 35 years ago should be enough to derail a Supreme Court pick.

    It should be enough to derail any political appointment or elected official, and the allegations can be anonymous and totally unfounded. You wanna bring in the libertarian moment? This is how you bring it in.

    1. I like that, and it has given me the courage to admit that the turtle touched my no-no.

      1. I mean really, we’ve ALL been buggered by every member of congress in some way or another.

        1. I often find that, for most people I talk to at least, that it doesn’t involve as much tenderness as I usually receive.

          1. That’s why the turtle gets away with it. Slow and steady.

        2. Diane Feinstein is raping the American public daily.

          1. There just shouldn’t be progressives.

    2. Everyone who is allowed into the federal government must be a fully canonized saint at the time of their induction.

      1. Well, yeah, we can only trust good people to drone Americans overseas

        1. I think it’s a great idea. I think we can get people to vote on this, with most people not realizing that Saints, on average, are dead.

          1. You’re discussing canonization, which means Eddy will be arriving shortly

            Hilaire Belloc quote for Eddy:

            “The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine – but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”

            1. He probably stole that one from Boccaccio, about a Jew’s reflections after a visit to Rome:

              “…I say to you that if I know how to draw conclusions, there was no holiness, no devotion, no good work or good example of life in any other way, in anybody who was a priest; but luxury, avarice, and gluttony,?such things and worse, if there could be worse things in anybody; and I saw rather liberty in devilish operations than in divine: on which account I conclude that with all possible study, with all their talent and with all their art, your Shepherd, and consequently all the rest, are working to reduce to nothing and to drive out of the world the Christian religion, there where they ought to be its foundation and support. But from what I see, what they are driving at does not happen, but your religion continually increases; and therefore it becomes clearer and more evident that the Holy Spirit must be its foundation and support, as a religion more true and holy than any other. On which account, where I was obstinate and immovable to your reasoning and did not care to become a Christian, now I say to you distinctly that on no account would I fail to become a Christian. Therefore let us go to church, and there according to the custom of your holy religion let me be baptized.”

              1. Of course Boccaccio’s book was banned, maybe because of this story or maybe because of the story about the monk who persuades the gullible girl to “put the devil back into hell.”

                1. I was super scared that it took you almost 20 minutes to show up.

                  1. Is this the story about the kid who was kidnapped and baptized that integralists are all jazzed up about?

                    1. The Mortara case?

                    2. Yeah, maybe I’m confused. Sorry, but I didn’t want to read the whole link.

                    3. Do you consider yourself more of a Traditionalist or an Integralist?

  2. How much discussion will there be about Democrat tactics for employing last second accusations of “sexual misconduct” and how that undermines any possible honest accusations?

    1. Feinstein clearly didn’t buy it. She sat on it for months and didn’t even tell other Democrats.

      1. Which she obviously did because she knows it had no actual value beyond a smear, and so needed to be released at a specific time in order to derail the confirmation.

        And it will fail even after the hijinks play out.

        1. Not that obvious. It might just be Alzheimer’s.

      2. Feinstein and Boxer were masters of the last minute smears in their early Senate elections. I lived in CA when the Boxer campaign pulled a dirty trick a couple of days before the election and Bruce Herschensohn spent the last day trying to deny he was an aficionado of strip clubs.…..rnia,_1992

      3. She’s still sitting. The actual accuser is the one who came forward once her name was leaked.

        1. No, Feinstein released information about an allegations before that happened. Stop lying.

          1. It’s not even a good lie. We heard about the goddamn letter like 5 days ago and her name didn’t come out till this weekend.

      4. She was waiting for the WaPo to put a little meat on the bones. You know damn well they didn’t just sit on it, but instead try to run down any sort of confirmation.

        When the clock ran out she played it for what it was worth.

  3. “That’s the super-charged political debate the United States is having right now”

    Not really. Everyone knows the answer is no, but certain people have to give a show for appearances.

    1. The only people that give a shit Aleut this are the ones whose kinds are already made up.

  4. She didn’t go to the police because filing a false police report is a crime.

    1. FFS. If this actually did happen (it’s not at all clear if it did and anyone claiming to know one way or the other is being extraordinarily intellectually dishonest), it was when she was 15, at a time when sexual assault allegations were taken much less seriously, and would have been made against the son of a prominent member of society. Any or all of those are major reasons as to why one wouldn’t come forward at the time.

      1. Cool, that doesn’t change the fact that regarding the CURRENT ALLEGATIONS, she didn’t go to the police because filing a false police report is a crime.

      2. She’s been older than 15 for decades now.

  5. California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault
    She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

    In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally.

    1. “when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees”

      She openly admits it was a calculated political move.

      1. she expected her story to be kept confidential

        She also admits to not having enough faith in her own story. Or maybe she somehow thought an anonymous accusation was good enough.

        1. What is the point of saying anything if you want the story to be kept confidential? That makes no sense. Did she really expect the Senate to vote this guy down based on an accusation that was anonymous and the substance of which was never made public?

          1. Since he was nominated by Trump it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that was her expectation.

      2. It’s about politics, not justice

        1. It’s about politics, not justice

          It’s like a shibboleth. Anyone who promotes this as something other than politics is simply declaring their unyielding partisan affiliation.

    2. She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July

      Case dismissed. Full damages due to the defendant. Get the fuck out of my court. Let this be a lesson to all the other fucksticks who’s first inclination is to run to the press years after it happened. Three generations of Anita Hills is more than enough.

      1. Case? This will never be a legal case.

        This is Brett Kavanaugh being destroyed in the media. Some made up bullshit that if true would still be meaningless given his age, will be used to smear him for the rest of his life.

      2. Three generations of Anita Hills is more than enough.

        I see what you did there…

  6. Dems can either

    1. Announce their dirt on everyone on Trump’s short list, and get them removed from their current position on those grounds (rape should get you thrown off the bench entirely, not just keep you off the SC). You know if Amy Coney Barrett ever gets a nod, it will be “she personally covered up Catholic church rapist priests”. Announce it and remove her now if that’s the case.


    2. STFU. Holding back “we know X enabled rape” is clearly politics.

  7. Hey, Reason, any thoughts on Grassley trying to schedule a meeting with the professor thru Feinstein’s office and her office refusing?

  8. If this woman is granted a hearing, it will only serve to provide a pulpit for her to cast herself as believable as possible, vs. the believability of Kavanaugh’s denials, before a court of public opinion. Democrats have nothing to lose at this point, and they are thinking it is worth it as a final hail Mary to keep him off the court. If and when he is confirmed, it will serve to thwart their agenda for decades to come.

    1. There is no physical evidence or other witnesses. All there is is her saying it happened and the other two people she claims were there saying it didn’t. There is nothing to investigate. You either take her word over Kavenaugh’s or you don’t. Having them testify won’t change that.

      1. There is a witness, and he claims it didn’t happen.

        1. There’s an alleged co-conspirator who claims it didn’t happen. That’s very different than a neutral third party.

          1. “There’s an alleged co-conspirator”


          2. She’s not making any accusations against Judge. In fact she claims he’s the reason nothing happened. Does that make him an unindicted co-conspirator?! Inquiring minds want to know.

          3. No, it isn’t. You want to insist it is, but it isn’t.

          4. No. There is one other person that was there who says it didn’t happen. It is her word against theirs. There is no physical evidence or any corroborating witnesses to make her story believable. So why believe it?

            1. Because he’s a useful idiot John.

          5. You’re really giving Tony a run for his money on the stupid front.

          6. The third witness, pj, was not a coconspirator and stated the party didn’t happen.

      2. “There is no physical evidence or other witnesses.”

        Um…yeah, because the Russians already covered this up.

      3. Of course there is no evidence; it is an effort to garner public opinion to achieve a Bork outcome. And you can bet the farm that she is being coached by Hollywood’s finest in the hope that she will deliver an Oscar winning performance.

  9. We also lay blame for our current deficit-tastic political moment…

    And it’s squarely on you, the entitlement-hungry voter.

  10. I’d say these tactics didn’t turn out so well for obstructionist Republicans, but their tactics were more reputable and straightforward than this.

    1. I agree. Democrats are making the case that I should only ever vote Republican, because they are moderately less loathsome. That anyone could walk away with a different opinion is clear evidence that they believe in outcomes no matter the cost, and that isn’t the type of group I’ll ever join. It does, perhaps, explain Reason magazine though.

      1. Republicans are normally less awful than democrats. In part because of the lack of communism and all the PC bullshit that comes with the progtards.

  11. This isn’t so much about stopping the Kavenaugh nomination, though the Democrats would be happy if it did, as much as it is giving Democratic supporters a lie to believe in order to rationalize their continued support of the party. If you actually talk to Democrats, they are two kinds. About ten percent of them are the no kidding SJW mob who are thoroughly crazy and evil. The other 90% of Democrats are not crazy or evil. They are naive and mistaken but they are not crazy. In fact, if you talk to them they really have no rational reason to support a party that includes the 10% that are crazy and evil. And they are often quite honest about the failure of Democratic policies. They only continue to be Democrats because they convince themselves the Republicans are worse. The whole thing for most of them is about the Democratic brand is their way of showing how tolerant they are. They get their self esteem from their politics. To keep them in the fold, the Democrats have to feed them a series of lies that allows them to rationalize their support for the Democratic party.

    That is all this is. It is just creating a new talking point for the internet trolls and a new way for Democratic voters to rationalize their support. The truth doesn’t matter.

    1. It’s more than that. It’s Anita Hill 2.0. They’ll accept a delay but this is a Hail Mary to get him to withdraw. Kinda funny how they have no qualms about delaying a SCOTUS vote this time. Like Jeffy their principles are quite conditional.

      Here’s an Harsanyi piece I guarantee will never see the light of day at Reason.

      1. Yes it is a hail mary. they will be very happy if it works. But even if it doesn’t, it gives them a lie to believe about how Republicans don’t care about women and support rapists. It is both things.

        1. Funny enough, Kavanaugh appears to want to testify, but the Dems are stalling.

          1. And Grassley is saying Feinstien’s office is refusing to cooperate and set up any interviews with the accuser. The whole thing is absurd bullshit.

            1. Ford will remain ‘unavailable’ in perpetuity.

              Right up until they call a vote, and then she will miraculously appear on the Senate floor.

              1. Sounds right

            2. That Grassley hasn’t just sent this for a floor vote is telling. Can’t really tell if he’s trolling Democrats by letting them expose themselves as much as possible, or if it’s just because Grassley is confused and easily distracted.

              1. Little of column A, little of column B.

          2. If I were Kav I would come in breathing fire over this bullshit.

  12. Even if it’s 100% true it shouldn’t have any bearing at all on his confirmation. Drunken high school pawing? Ted Kennedy fucking killed a woman! How far back are we going to go? Oh Johnny showed his wee wee to a girl in kindergarten. He’s out! Fucking height of stupidity.

    1. Beta O’Rourk fled the scene of an accident he caused while drunk driving in his 20’s. That’s not someone’s recollection from 30 years ago, that was an adjudicated decision (in which he got off lightly thanks to daddy’s connections). Any pearl clutching over that? No? Huh.

      1. O’Rourke is the no shit picture of white privilege. He was a shitbag rich kid whose dad was a judge. He goes out and drives blind drunk, gets in a serious accident and tries to flee the scene. If some black person or really anyone whose dad wasn’t a judge had done that, they would have done hard time. He walked away with no jail time or really any damage to his future prospects because his dad was a judge.

        And Democrats think that is just fine. Like everything else they say, their claim to care about privilege and the disadvantaged is a complete lie.

        1. But, John, Democrats are allowed to kill people with cars. It’s in the constitution. Just ask Teddy.

        2. They do care about privilege, they want it.

        3. It’s just regular ol’ privilege. He just happens to be white, but it’s incidental to the real reason.

          1. I think him being white has a bit to do with it. A black person would not get away with that much even if their dad was a judge. The media would be all over it if they ever did.

        4. It’s just regular ol’ privilege. He just happens to be white, but it’s incidental to the real reason.

        5. I think it’s finally time to bring up my plan to euthanize all the progressives. Maybe most of you are ready.

          If not, it’s just going to get worse until they’re largely gone.

    2. While the credibility of the allegation can definitely be called into question, calling it “pawing” is bullshit. She does not allege “pawing.” She alleges being held down, having her mouth covered, and having someone try to take her clothes off.

      1. She alleges a lot of things, and admits her memory fails for others, so her allegations are about as useful as a claim of pawing is.

        1. WTF is “pawing”?

          1. Groping, presumably, as teenagers are won’t to do.

            1. Wont spellchcker.

            2. Yes that is what I think they mean by “pawing.”

        2. “If the allegations aren’t 100% credible, we should lie about what the allegations are.” Yeah, that makes sense.

          1. You’re right. there were 2-4 other people in the room (unnamed in previous documents, but fully named now) with an unknown number of others at some place at some time when this happened. With such a stellar start how can anything be disputed.

  13. The Brett Kavanaugh Sex Assault Controversy Will Only Get Worse

    But this controversy will ultimately produce the result we serious libertarians wanted all along ? it will keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. It’s such a relief to derail the career of one of the key players in Drumpf’s plot to transform this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. As CNN’s legal expert Jeffrey Toobin has explained, Kavanaugh would have outlawed abortion throughout much of the country. Libertarians should be thanking Senator Feinstein for her classy, professional handling of this matter.


    1. That is a bit contrived and obvious. But still not your worst work.

      1. True, seen better, seen worse.

    2. Here’s still hoping for Justice Don Willett. Bring Bow Ties back to the Supreme Court.

    3. I like that you keep weaving The Handmaid’s Tale into your posts. B+

      1. Most terrifyingly relevant show EVAH

    4. ‘we serious libertarians’? Who are you kidding?

    5. Just think OBL, BK is going to come after women’s tampons! There will be no stopping him!


    Jeff Flake continues to prove what an unbelievable dirtbag he is.

    1. Jeff Flake only stands for one thing: Thwarting anything Trump does.*

      *Good for him, I just wish they would consistently thwart EVERY president with the gusto they’ve done to this one.

      1. Sure wish Flake would thwart all the bad stuff Trump and Congress do, like the re-authorization of data collection (which he voted for) or high spending (which he always votes for).

        Flake is just thwarting any vote that may prevent him from getting a job at MSNBC after his term is up

        1. Flake is just thwarting any vote that may prevent him from getting a job at MSNBC after his term is up

          I mean, realistically speaking that’s his only option at this point. That or become a lobbyist, except that he burned basically all his bridges. Maybe he’s hoping that becoming a Democrat will fix that problem for him.

          1. How does Arizona manage to elect such awful senators?

            1. Immigration, perhaps.

    2. Flake is laying the groundwork to flake.

      This is more a play of the right wing of the Globalist Uniparty than a Democratic ploy.

      Flake betrays the Right, as Never Trumpers do, and it just takes one more right wing globalist to have “serious misgivings”, and not be able to confirm Kavanaugh “in good conscience.”

      It’s about keeping a constitutionalist off the Supreme Court while Trump fights the Deep State. Both McConnell and Grassley caved immediately to the freak show.

  15. So to those anti-justice, anti-fairness, indecent people who believe this crap —- what could Kav possibly say or do in your minds that would prove his innocence?

    Yeah you don’t give a flying fuck about that. He’s already guilty in your mind and nothing will change that. That’s the world you want to live in? 30+ years as a distinguished professional, but some random person accuses you of something when you were a teenager with little details (date, time, place), and there’s really nothing you could do to defend yourself. That’s the world you want to live in? Go fuck yourself.

    1. Well just ask the stupid fucking Reason editorial board because they are “split” on that.

    2. The poor liitle thing only got to be a federal judge for 12 years.

      1. So slandering and ruining the careers of innocent people is okay as long as the person is successful. Yeah, that makes sense.

        1. He said *federal* judge so that makes it ‘libertarian OK’ to falsely report an assault to smear someone’s name.

        2. Don’t you want to hear from her directly under cross examination before you decide what to believe?

          1. A real cross examination, or the pretext that you’re setting up?

            1. Whatever process they used to interrogate Kavanaugh.

          2. No I don’t. There is no reason to. What is there to hear? She says it happened but never reported it and has no corroborating evidence. There is no way that her word alone could ever be convincing enough to find Kavanaugh disqualified. If this can disqualify someone, then any accusation can.

            You just don’t like Kavenaugh and don’t want him on the court. So you choose to pretend this is credible. You are convincing no one.

            1. She did report it to her husband and doctor. You know from personal experience and I from TV that it was near impossible and certainly futile to report this in the 1980s. It was a darker world where men raped at will pretty much kinda.

              1. where men raped at will pretty much kinda.

                I’m convinced.

              2. She did report it to her husband and doctor.

                No she didn’t. Not until 2012. She never told anybody for literally three decades after it supposedly happened.

                There is no way that her word alone could ever be convincing enough to find Kavanaugh disqualified.

                Sure it could. If she had filed a police report at the time or if she had told multiple people about it at the time and had said something during the six previous investigations of his background, I might find her word convincing. But she did none of that.

              3. 30 years after the fact you mean. And your other assertions are BS.

          3. Don’t you want to hear from her directly under cross examination before you decide what to believe?

            Nope. 30 yrs. ago maybe. Now, nope.

          4. No. An accusation by a known partisan with no corroborating evidence deserves to be ignored and nothing more.

            1. But if it was a liberal nominee, literally just existing is reason enough not to confirm.

              1. You bigotry against liberals is your own concern.

              2. What were Kagan’s credentials for the Supreme Court again? Vagina?

                1. If you want to argue that only judges belong on the supreme court, knock yourself out. I don’t subscribe to that, and we have a long tradition of fine justices not coming from the bench. Her qualifications are all on her wikipedia page, and they are extensive.

              3. Are you capable of being anything other than a giant steaming pile of utter stupidity?

          5. Sure, I’d like to hear from her directly under cross-examination, at her trial for defamation of character.

          6. No, I want all progressives to be hung from a highway overpass.

          7. Other than he said she said, hat evidence will be offered? None, right?

            Yeah, their stories contradict each other and it was over 35 years ago. Hearing from her is just designed to pull at what passes for heartstrings of simple minded progtards and act as a visual spectacle for a compliant media.

      2. Now do Keith Ellison.

        1. Never gets old. Also, never gets answered…

      3. You’re not as fun as Chandler…

      4. You are despicable and care nothing about justice or fairness. To you, it’s ok if things unfairly happen to you because you were successful at some point.

        “That’s ok, those Kulak’s did have it pretty good for a while”

    3. He’s obviously guilty

  16. Don’t take last minute accusations seriously. She had 30 years and the confirmation hearings to bring it up. She didn’t do it.

    God Reason’s editorial board is a bunch of idiots!

  17. We’re about two days away from an article titled “How Russian Agent Judge Kavanaugh Raped American Women”

    1. Well Russians are known to be heavy drinkers, and Judge is an admitted alcoholic. The evidence is beyond circumstantial.

    2. “How Russian Agent Judge Kavanaugh Raped American Women with Facebook.”

      1. With Facebook? So it was oral copulation?

  18. When the left say the person is political, they are completely right when talking about themselves. Every fucking thing is political. There’s no such thing as principals. Justice, fairness, etc, all thrown out the window.

    Ted Kennedy killed a woman, Bill Clinton took advantage of the help, and Beto fled the scene after drunk driving and got off easy, but these people all believe the correct politics, so who fucking cares.

    Brett Kav, 30 year professional career…. but RESIST, so no matter what we must destroy him. You leftists are madmen and can never be trusted with power, because you will do anything to keep good people out (who have different opinions than you), and do anything to keep the scummiest of people in

    1. The Left are totalitarian puritan theocrats

  19. Glad to see Team Red is out in full force. When did this place become Breibart?

    1. Got news for you, it’s not a team. The politicians are out for themselves. You matter not.

    2. Yeah because only Team Red could think a 35 year old totally unsupported accusation could be bullshit.

      Good to know that you are a moron who has nothing to add to the conversation.

      1. He’s not the only person qualified to sit on the supreme court. Why not be safe, just in case he’s a rapist?

        1. You are not the only person qualified for you job, whatever that is. Maybe they should fire you on the off chance you like young boys?

          Keith Ellison isn’t the only person qualified to be Minnesota AG. The Democrats seem to be fine with him getting the job despite very credible evidence he is a wife beater. I think the Republicans will be just fine if they decide that a complete bullshit allegation doesn’t disqualify Kavanaugh.

          1. Why don’t you hold your breath waiting for me to defend Keith Ellison.

            What’s even the point of your posting? You’re never going to have an actual insightful point to make. You’re just going to defend whatever Republicans do no matter how rapey they are.

            1. And you’re going to defend Democrats no matter how rapey they are, so why are you posting, with the extra benefit of attacking Republicans no matter what they do, so what the fuck are you doing HERE ON A LIBERTARIAN WEBSITE you fucking mongoloid?

              1. Being more libertarian than most of the other regulars, that’s what.

                1. Your posts prove otherwise.

            2. you are project again you fucking lunatic

            3. Why don’t you hold your breath until you pass out and die so the collective IQ of humanity can go up 5 points you useless retard.

          2. I have actually heard that Tony likes young sheep, the younger the better…

            1. Young sheep are called lambs, and yes I do enjoy them with mint jelly.

              1. Note that Tony didn’t mention that the mint jelly is a lubricant. Prove it isn’t.

        2. “Why not cave and cave and cave endlessly?”

          Roy Moore
          Jim Jordan
          Brett Kavanaugh

          The people who go down are the ones who might aid Trump against the Globalist Uniparty and the Deep State. This is not a mere coincidence.

    3. Does Breitbart also just blatantly accept the narrative of the NYT?

      Seems to me, Mr. One True Libertarian, that if you want to show any iota of principle you’d criticize Kavanaugh for his views on the 4th Amendment rather than buying into an obviously partisan conspiracy theory.

      1. Do you ever think that maybe libertarians should not be doing more Trump humping than Kellyanne goddamn Conway, who has asked for the accuser to be given a fair hearing?

        1. “Requiring actual evidence is Trump humping”

          1. Witness testimony is evidence. It doesn’t become less credible as evidence the closer the witness is to the crime.

            1. Are you serious right now, because you’ve never sounded dumber

              1. Witness testimony is, in fact, direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial in this case.

                She could be lying. That’s what you’d have to assert if you want to brush all this under the rug. So prove it.

                It’s not just that she’s lying, but that she orchestrated this anonymity fake-out and waited until after the hearing to come forward for no discernible tactical reason.

                1. Witness testimony is, in fact, direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial in this case.

                  Then she loses on the evidence.

                2. That witness testimony, which was only made in 2012 (more than thirty years after the fact), was contradicted by another witness.

              2. That’s a bold statement there. Tony is incredibly ducking stupid.

            2. Witness testimony is evidence. It doesn’t become less credible as evidence the closer the witness is to the crime.

              Then the evidence is strongly against her.

              1. Why? Because he’s a Republican and you like Republicans? That’s kind of the sense I’m getting here.

                1. Yup, “no evidence” and “this seems really politically timed” translates as “I like Republicans”

                2. Tony|9.17.18 @ 3:56PM|#



                  /Math lesson.

                3. You are such an insufferable fucking retard.

                  1. Troll klompus

                4. That really is all that a fucking hive minded partisan dullard like you can get out of all this, isn’t it?

        2. “should not be doing more Trump humping than Kellyanne goddamn Conway”

          The “feminism” of the Left

    4. Right after it became Vox.

    5. Since the rebellion and great exodus.

      1. Weird how people like you weren’t here for that but know all about it, guy who only recently showed up to act like an idiot fucking leftist.

        How long have you been running all these idiot leftist sockpuppets Cathy?

        1. We learned the story of the story the Catastrophe when we were children. It all started when a libertarian known as ?Epis…h? disappeared from the comment boards. His ridicule was so powerful that no Republican nay John dare show his face. Without the great one the lesser libertarians were too weak to withstand John and his creatures. It is said the great one will return one day when the need is greatest. We all pray for that time and do what we can to survive as we await his arrival.

          1. Typos too strong life force dying….

          2. Weird, I remember epi as an anti-social idiot who got run off but pretended he had better things to do.

            Weird, childish attachment to stupid cartoons and an unfailing insistence on shitting up any thread by bitching about percieved collectivization.

            And… Completely unrelated to the exodus.

            1. You need to relax.

              1. You seem like you’re the one foaming at the mouth, calm down socko.

            2. Epi was a misanthrope but he was funny and smart in some ways. I think the board was better for having him. Honestly, why he and Warty ran off is beyond me. The whole thing was idiotic. So what if Reason wouldn’t cover the story about the one guy’s mother in law? They can’t cover every story.

              Creating your own board always seemed to be a stupid waste of time. They just end up commenting on the same reason stories. I don’t understand why they bothered?

              1. “Honestly, why he and Warty ran off is beyond me. ”

                Their mean girls club schtick stopped working, and they had nothing to fall back on, so they got kicked around a lot after trying to make intelligent points and failing, and then they fled. And no, not by me, but it was quite fun to watch.

                1. I think that better describes Sugar Free than those two. Sugar Free was always a bit of a misanthrope but the whole Trump thing pushed him over the age and turned him into a complete bitchy asshole. He just got sad after a while.

                  1. I stand by my statement, but appreciate your right to disagree on the interpretation.

                    And you are correct about Sugar Free, and the criticism extends to his idiot band of sycophants who insisted on feeding his ego and requesting his vomit inducing fiction.

                  2. So… sugar free became sarcasmic?

    6. You’re a little late to the party. We spent the first week after he got the nom, bashing his shitty stances on the 4th.

      God forbid we don’t buy Anita Hill 2.0 and the extreme convenience of the release of this information.

      1. Dude, seriously, can we stop bashing socialists. So not cool

        1. We’ve all heard it before. It’s like they can’t even think up something that happened more recently than right now.

          1. Seriously. What is with all the animus toward socialists?

            1. All these people who think that past is prologue just come off as morons.

              1. Like price controls can’t work now? I mean, come on, it’s like the 21st Century or something.

    7. Who the fuck are you? By that I mean, the screen name you used before you started running the Cathy, DJK, and horny lizard sockpuppets?

      And why do you think that you can just fire off the same old “,herp derp you’re all Republicans!!!!” shit that Tony has been ignorantly trying and failing with for years?

    8. ” Team Red is out in full force.”

      As opposed to the Puritans of the Left, who want decades old accusations of sexual misconduct to become the New Scarlet Letter.

      At least insofar as the alleged misconduct is not from anyone of the left.

  20. Let me guess, this thread is roughly 90% butthurt over Republicans not getting their way immediately, because that’s what Libertarians do.

    1. Hey look, I called it.

    2. Libertarians criticize Kavanaugh for his views on the 4th Amendment, conservatives, like yourself, cling to institutions like the NYT to feed you what to believe.

      1. Thank you for recognizing me as a conservative. I think you think you’re using it as a pejorative, but I happen to be fond of institutions and traditions and don’t favor changing them willy-nilly. Obviously that makes Republicans, theocratic and patriarchal as they may be, the actual radicals in our country, because they want to overhaul everything and impose a radical new regime of laissez-faire economics and Sean Hannity as god-king of truth..

        1. “but I happen to be fond of institutions and traditions and don’t favor changing them willy-nilly”

          I mean, yeah, that is literally exactly what makes you a conservatives. Your retrograde need to cling to institutions as if they are otherworldly. I bet you consider yourself an “atheist” too

          1. Just because Tony worships the state, believes in special pleading to it, and wants to force you to sacrifice to it, doesn’t mean he’s not an atheist. Or something.

            1. I believe the state should exist, therefore I worship it.

              Why can’t libertarians get more play in intellectual circles, I ask you.

              1. “get more play in intellectual circles”

                Because they know lying shitheads like you will make up rape allegations against them 30 years later if they try.

              2. No, you worship it because you think all the answers to lifes problems lie in it’s ample bosom. You’ve never met a government program you didn’t like, even the military, as long as it’s someone with a (D) at the helm.

                1. Wasn’t a fan of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

                  1. You much preferred Harkin’s crystal power, er, alternative medicine.

    3. Let me guess, you’re a drooling moron.

  21. Remember, any question whatsoever about any aspect of Obama’s background (or the background of any liberal democrat really) was and is beyond the pale, but last second unsubstantiated rape allegations against any non-leftist are always “debatable”.

    1. When were Republicans prevented from relentlessly propagandizing about Obama’s alleged background?

      Jesus the whining. It’s a Monday, tone it down.

      1. What is alleged about Obama’s background? It is very well known what his background was. You just don’t like people mentioning it. Well too bad.

        1. We were told associating with terrorists and nutjobs was fine, because at least they were ostensibly leftist terrorists and nutjobs.

          And, as expected, Obama went back on basically every good thing he promised before being elected the first time and liberals ignore it. I mean it, he sold them up the river and they continue to thank him for it.

          Note that George W. Bush did not get that kind of blatant historical revisionism to this day. The reason? It really comes down to just the party affiliation letter.

        2. This ought to be the beginning of a mind-numbingly idiotic conversation. But I’ll bite: was it the weed he smoked? That scandalous background?

          1. He got his start in politics thanks to a convicted terrorist bomber and went to a church run by and a paster who was an unbelievable racist. And he considered that racist to be his spiritual mentor.

            1. Thank god we no longer have people associated with racists in presidential power. Oh wait.

              You’re beyond help, I’m afraid.

              1. So you have no problem with racists in office as long as they aren’t white.

                That is the point you just conceded. Sure you don’t want a mulligan?

                1. Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers–both victims of relentless, reputation-ending smear campaigns, something you’ve spent this entire thread supposedly being disgusted by.

                  1. Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers–both victims of relentless, reputation-ending smear campaigns,

                    Bill Ayers a victim of a smear campaign? There’s nothing fake about the bombings he and his cohorts in Weatherman conducted, nor the fact that they were planning to move up to actual murder if Ayers’ idiot girlfriend hadn’t blown herself up. If the FBI had actually had any balls back then, they would have stormed one of the meetings on a tip from their moles and assassinated everyone in the room.

                    1. Thank you for the libertarian perspective.

          2. He wrote a book (application for presidency really) titled Dreams of My Father
            The father that was a deadbeat who abandoned his family after knocking up BO’s mom. Oh, and the mother also abandoned him to his “racist” grandparents.
            Pretty severe psych issues there

            1. Seemed to turn out OK.

              1. Well, sure, he had middle class white people raising him.

    2. ‘ but last second unsubstantiated rape allegations against any non-leftist are always “debatable” ‘

      Always “credible”

  22. Just so we’re clear, if you don’t buy into a story that the accuser never mentioned until 2012 and Senator Feinstein sat on until after the conclusion of hearings than you’re obviously on Team Red

    But, if you accept these accusations at face value then you are totally not just on Team Blue, because that’s different for reasons that I don’t understand.

    1. How does Feinstein sitting on the accusation until now help block the nomination? The hearing went perfectly fine. No rape mentioned. Wouldn’t they have preferred to be talking about rape the whole time? Do you even think through what you’re saying? Do you even have the capacity for a tiny bit of an open mind, or is it just Team Red all the way for you freethinking nonpartisans?

      1. How does Feinstein sitting on the accusation until now help block the nomination?

        Because the allegation had no legal value, but could be used as a pretext to delay.

        I don’t understand how you continue to present yourself as political, and yet appear to be a complete naif.

      2. Oh my God, you don’t even understand the game that your side is playing. She sat on it, because it wasn’t credible and that’s why she dropped it when the hearings were over that way the vote would have to be delayed hopefully until after the midterms, which is exactly why her office won’t cooperate with Grassley right now who wants the accuser to testify.

        Are you really this dumb?

        1. No. He’s just an evil, sad little man.

        2. She sat on it at the accuser’s request, and once the accuser was identified in the media she decided to go public. That’s what happened. I wish it were a nefarious plot by Democrats, but even if it were it would be bumper bowling compared to Republican tactics when it comes to stalling judicial appointments.

          Am I supposed to be upset if Democrats are trying to stop the appointment? Is that what I’m supposed to feel?

          1. “once the accuser was identified in the media she decided to go public”

            No. She went public before the accuser was identified. This has been extensivley documented.

            1. Tulpa’s right on this point. You got to keep your story straight, Tony. You’re not making much sense

              1. Tony doesn’t care whether he’s right or wrong.

              2. Extensively documented were Democrats saying “what the fuck?” when it turned out Feinstein had been sitting on this thing she referred to in a curt response to questioning about it.

                What are we even talking about? Do you know? What is the thesis of your bitching? That Democrats aren’t playing fair? Is that it?

                1. We’re talking about how you were demonstrably factually wrong when you claimed “once the accuser was identified in the media she decided to go public.”

                  It is exceedingly clear with just a small amount of reading, so either you are lying or your mental faculties are so faulty that your cannot understand it.

                  Please, try to keep up.

                  1. What are you considering going public? It was a nameless, substanceless referral in Feinstein’s hands, then the details leaked out. She didn’t say it was even about rape.

                    1. Also, while we focus on these cleverly distracting minutia, why not get to my actual relevant and interesting question?

                      What’s your point? Are you sad that Democrats might be playing dirty politics? Are you crying into your teddy bear, is that it?

                    2. You were wrong, get over it.

                    3. BUT GARLAND!!!! NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!

                    4. The Garland thing was some bullshit. I’m glad that Gorsuch managed to get in instead, but avoiding even considering a SC nominee for a year is dirty politics. This is worse because they are trying to slander their way into spiking a nominee. It’s a bit of Bork and Thomas rolled into one.
                      Also worth noting is that I don’t really like Kavanaugh on a few issues so I wouldn’t be opposed to the possibility of someone better getting the seat. The way Democrats are trying to block him is beyond immoral (assuming the allegations are pure bullshit).
                      This whole thing reeks of sleazy partisan maneuvers and the sad part is I don’t think there will be any justice

    2. The Right’s greatest ally is the shitbaggery of the Left.

      How many times have you heard “the bastards keep making me defend Trump!”?

  23. To sum up:

    The accusations are bullshit because he’s a Republican and we want a Republican appointment, what with being libertarians and all.

    Rape accusations are not to be taken seriously, especially against a Republican.

    Democrats might possibly be engaging some tactics in delaying the nomination, oh the absolute horror, where did they ever get that idea. Get the fainting couch oh my god not politics.

    1. you’re a lunatic Tony, and a fucking sleazeball. Go fuck yourself

    2. Fuck if he gets appointed or not. His stance on the 4th amendment alone leaves a lot to be desired.

      But you don’t get to pull one fucking unsubstantiated accusation out 30+ years after the fact and months after receiving the letter and expect to torpedo anybody. It would be just as despicable if the Republicans had tried something similar to Kagan or Sotomayor.

      And lets not forget that this isn’t the first time the Senate has had to investigate him for a promotion, maybe this little bit of information should have been brought up before.

      1. Republicans tried their usual smear campaigns on them and then they held up Obama appointments to a historically unprecedented degree out of sheer partisan power grabbing, then denied him his supreme court justice. Cry some more. Mitch McConnell made this bed.

        1. They held up Obama’s appointments because they controlled the Senate and could. If the Democrats controlled the Senate and just refused to confirm Trump’s judges, they would be within their right. That does not mean they get to slander people or expect the Republicans to play along with the slander.

          1. You’d still cry about it.

            You’re accusing someone of a crime now. You may be slandering someone. And you have no reason to do so except you want the pony you were promised by a Giant Fat Moldy Grapefruit (R)

            1. No I wouldn’t. If the Democrats control the Senate, they can do what they like. But they don’t, so go fuck yourself Kavenaugh is going on the Supreme Court and someone just like him is going on when RBG finally keels over.

              1. Now you’re wishing death on an old woman. Classy. And typical.

                1. Those voices in your head aren’t John. They’re the same ones that were celebrating when Scalia died. You really are a vile thing.

        2. What smear campaign was that again? Genuninely curious what you think of as a smear campaign.

          Was it that he didn’t view the 2nd amendment as an individual right? Or was there more?

          1. I’m not sure. Maybe I need a wise Latina to consult.

            1. That’s cool. Maybe she can provide you with some links to actual smear campaigns that amount to more than childish name calling.

              1. Andrew Napolitano called her lazy. Others called her dumb and obnoxious. Granted I don’t think anyone called her a rapist.

                You trying to make the claim that Republicans do not engage in smear campaigns?

                Anyone gonna explain why you’re spending all day doing nothing but defending Republicans?

                1. No Tony, cause I’m not defending Republicans. I’m saying that name calling isn’t a smear campaign. Rape and sexual harassment allegations, especially after years of serving on some kind of bench, ARE smear campaigns.

                  Now, if you had gone with racist or gay you wouldn’t look like such a fucking hack.*

                  *Just to clarify, it was fucking retarded for them to go after those two with those smear campaigns.

                  1. But what if the attempted rape actually happened?

                    1. Then that would be horrible. Without being able to prove one way or the other though, I’m not sure what you would like me to say. Maybe Feinstein should stop stalling Grassley and let them all tell their sides in front of the committee?

                    2. Ask Juanita Broadderick. Or Karen Monahan. Or Amy Alexander.

                      Of course in the latter two cases you didn’t have to wait 30 years to hear about it, and there’s actually a 911 call.

                      And what if it didn’t happen? Given the complete lack of any evidence, which do you think is more likely?

                    3. Perhaps she should have told him to hold on a minute between gagging her and holding her down so she could get a Polaroid of the situation.

                    4. That would be actual evidence. But you’re not interested in the truth. You’re interested in power at all costs like the good little fascist you are.

                    5. So where is this house where this alleged assault took place?

          2. Tony considers the Senate not wanting a nominee on the bench a smear campaign.

            See…there is not difference in passively not wanting a political opponent and lying about an event that involves false sexual crimes, 35+ years ago, to keep an okay judge off the SCOTUS.

      2. Republicans confirmed Kagan, a woman with absolutely zero judicial experience whatsoever.

        So yeah, actually having a record is a clear disadvantage to being confirmed. Just put forward political operatives with zero experience, have them confirmed, and watch as they rule however they want without any regard for the constitution whatsoever.

        That’s the magic of being a Nazgul.

        1. Didn’t she also provide legal counsel in regards to Obamacare and then decline to recuse herself when that case was brought to the bench?

          1. Yes. And she lied about the nature of that counsel under oath during her confirmation hearing. But that doesn’t matter. Kavanaugh maybe feeling up a drunken girl when he was 17 really matters.

            1. All of the above. I just like reminding people that Kagan was confirmed by Democrats when she is the literal definition of a candidate that should have been rejected by any political party at all.

              Amazing, but Kavanaugh has a record and a record only hurts you. Thus, you can expect that in the future only people with zero judicial record will be put forward.

              Thus, the Republic is felled from within.

        2. And now she’s considered possibly the most intelligent of the justices.

          1. No, she isn’t. Not by anyone, in fact.

          2. Haha. You mean Kagan? Intelligent? Hahaha

            She cannot even read. The Constitution is very concise and justices like her think the clauses mean something that the words do not spell out.

  24. You can’t make this shit up.

    Debra Katz, the attorney for Kavenaugh’s accusor says “it is not her job to corroborate her claims”…..8482239488

    Fuck these idiots.

    1. It’s amazing how many conspiracy theories pushed by the Left Reason is willing to accept at face value, absent all evidence. That’s why I think the Russians were behind Kavanaugh’s nomination or something

  25. If we bring the world to a stop every time an SJW remembers something bad that happened 35 years ago, we’re just begging to be subject to SJW stupidity as the norm. I’mI’m not willing to sit by silently and watch society to devolve into such childish shut.

    This woman didn’t tell anyone about this for more than 25 years and only told someone when she was in therapy for her marriage. Her testimony cannot be corroborated, and even if it were, disqualifying someone for something he or she did 35 years ago as a minor is ludicrous. There is nothing to gain by delaying the vote.

    Showing the SJWs that they can’t shut civil society down with mere allegations, on the other hand, could be a good thing.

    1. Roy Moore
      Jim Jordan
      Brett Kavanaugh

      It’s never going to stop until the Republicans grow a pair

  26. How many of you really fucking care about if Kav actually did it, but instead are just grasping at straws to RESIST and STOP TRUMP!!

    You are contemptible. Let’s ruin a guy’s career and railroad him for something he can’t possibly defend himself against, or prove his innocence, because we don’t like Trump. You people have no morals to speak of

    1. I don’t care what you think of Kavanaugh. No one deserves to be slandered like this.

      1. I just can’t stand to see something shut down over SJW allegations. We shouldn’t give them this much power.

      2. This is like the McCarthy hearings only I don’t think McCarthy went after people for what they did as children.

        1. This is much worse than McCarthy. No they didn’t go after people for what they did as children.

          1. Agree on that point. At least McCarthy limited his mostly baseless accusations to things people had done as adults. That is faint praise, but telling.

            PoundMeToo is a political weapon these days, and is unlinked from justice at it’s core.

          2. This is much worse than McCarthy.

            This is just so classic John.

            1. Why attack John? Do you not know what an ad hominem fallacy is? Do you not care?

              Actually, we both know you don’t care if you’re wrong or right.

              For the rest of us, though, ruining people’s lives with unsubstantiated accusations is like the McCarthy era, and, far as I know, McCarthy didn’t go after people for what they did as children.

              And John being “classic”, whatever that means, doesn’t have anything to do with it.

              If this isn’t like the McCarthy hearings, you should say why. Not make it about John. It isn’t about John.

              Here, maybe you’ll learn something.


              . . . not that you care whether you’re wrong or right.

              1. I’m not engaging in a formally logical debate so I don’t know why you’re linking me to vocab words. I’m saying John being hysterical is classic John. It’s just my opinion. I almost find it cute.

                What sort of rape accusation would not be McCarthyist, out of curiosity?

                1. “What sort of rape accusation would not be McCarthyist, out of curiosity?”

                  How ’bout one that could be substantiated?

                  If the charge can’t be substantiated, then the only reason to entertain it is to smear the accused.

                  Meanwhile, smearing people for what they did 35 years ago when they were children is absurd.

                  And those things are true regardless of whether you’re in a debate. Or whether John is being “classic” John. Again, you’re making a fool of yourself–and you don’t care.

                  You don’t care if you’re wrong or right, and you don’t care if you make a fool of yourself either.

                  1. Meanwhile, smearing people for what they did 35 years ago when they were children is absurd.

                    Well, one of them was a child.

                    1. Both.

        2. I think it’s more like the witch hunts as depicted in The Crucible

        3. Just for giggles, how many of the people that McCarthy accused *were* communists?

      3. Unless it isn’t slander. How would you know? Because some random woman nobody ever heard of has more of an incentive to lie than the guy whose future powerful appointment depends on the question?

        1. Well, yes, she does, if she makes this happen she, a nobody preifessor of Psychology, is set for life.

          He is already a well respected, thoroughly vetted Judge.
          He has much less reason to lie than her.

          Glad you agree.

          1. Except for the fact that he can’t very well admit to attempting to rape someone.

            No incentive whatsoever!

            1. Tony, why did you rape all those children and kittens so many years ago?

              Now, go ahead and prove you didn’t.

              1. I don’t have to because no victim or witness has come forward to accuse me.

                Do you think I don’t understand the principle you’re whoring out in favor of Republican politics? That I don’t understand innocent until proven guilty?

                I’ll be the first Democrat to admit that all I care about is whether this can be used to torpedo the nomination. I don’t care if he raped anyone. I can’t care about everyone who’s raped.

                1. I just came out as a witness against you. I saw you fuck those children and kittens. Prove you didn’t.

                  1. I want to make a dark joke, but I’ll let judgment be the better part of kid fucking conversations. Instead I must engage in this tediousness.

                    Kavanaugh is not being hauled to court, and I’m not up for a supreme court nomination. Should I attempt to rape someone to move my name up the list?

                    1. I’m just asking you to prove that you didn’t fuck children and kittens, and you keep deflecting.

                      It’s a simple question. Just prove that you didn’t do those things. Easy, right?

                    2. That’s because I don’t want to say “you can’t prove a negative” or “innocent until proven guilty” or some other such trite silliness that will make you think you won this kindergarten conversation.

                    3. It’s not kindergarten when you say literally the exact same thing I guess, but that’s you in a nutshell: inconsistent and hypocritical.

                      But no, I’m sure the fact that you pretend to understand this while actively acting as if you don’t is somehow a point in your favor. If it wasn’t for your double standards, you’d have none at all and your sense of righteous superiority would be somewhat diminished.

                      Fool that you are, you’re still somehow better than the truly far gone fringe left.

                    4. Thank you. If you want me to say all I care about is whether this allegation derails Kavanaugh’s nomination, I will. That’s all I care about. We don’t do gentleman’s agreements or fair play in judicial nominations anymore. So stop bitching at me, bitch at Mitch.

                    5. You mean bitch at Kennedy and then bitch at Reid. You torched fair play decades ago.

                      At least you’re finally honest and admitting that the ends always justify the means.

                    6. Tony doesnt really have a choice but to admit it since we call him out on everything.

                      It is refreshing that he is admitting to be at war against America. Americans need to realize Lefties are at war and treat Lefties accordingly.

        2. I know because the accusation completely lacks credibility. What reason is there to believe this? None.

          1. Gut feeling? Funny because I felt Kavanaugh was probably a sociopath from the word “coach.”

            1. The guy coached his daughter’s sports teams. And that causes you to think he is a sociopath? It is sometimes easy to forget that you are not just stupid but a genuinely awful human being Tony.

              1. It’s actually kind of sad. Tony must have had one fucked up childhood to think so little of his fellow humans.

              2. He doth coach too much, methinks.

            2. All you need to know about Tony in order to predict him is that he hates anything and everything that is considered ‘normal’ by the majority of people that live in Oklahoma. He defines himself and his self worth by how against those things he is, not by how much he genuinely prefers other options.

              It’s the politics of revenge, and it’s why none of his thoughts have ever made any sense. It’s only logical from this point of view, and we’ve all gathered more than enough snippets of his posts to acknowledge that it’s the truth.

              1. I’m not much of a sports fan, no. Sorry?

                1. That’s not all you’re not much of.

              2. C’mon… He’s not collectivistjeff

        3. It might be true, we better nominate a socialist judge just to be safe

        4. “Because some random woman nobody ever heard of has more of an incentive to lie than the guy whose future powerful appointment depends on the question?”

          People need to understand the statistics here.

          It’s not whether some random woman will lie. Most random women would not.

          It’s whether there will be *no* woman who might be able to argue that she once came in contact with Kavanaugh who will lie. That’s much much much less likely. Particularly given the postmodern ethos of lie and lie and lie again, nothing matters but Leftist power.

          Beyond those who act in bad faith, much of the Left is certifiably insane. They really believe that they live in The Handmaid’s Tale. Believing that some bad experience you had was that Kavanaugh boy is trivial in comparison.

          Quite a coincidence, don’t you think, that the friend of the aspiring Supreme Court Judge just happens to be named Judge. What are the odds as a genuine fact? What are the odds that someone filling in a fantasy would have those kinds of pattern matches?

  27. Maybe the next discussion could be about just who can and who cannot have their career ruined by such vague and ancient accusations.

    Yep, I’m sure the brain trust will get right on that.

  28. Many years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg threw me down on the bed and would have raped me if I hadn’t woken up.

    1. (Because the alarm clock went off)

      1. A truly horrific story.

  29. Hey, how’s that investigation into Feinstein’s Chinese driver / spy going? Did she help get 20+ American Agents executed in China?

    I guess first we should deal with the really important questions – did Kavanaugh feel a tit in high school?

    1. What if it was grab ass? For all we know, it could have been grab ass!

      We need to put the brakes on this confirmation right away until a congressional committe gets to the bottom of this.

      Lenore S. must be disgusted by this. Holding people rrsponsible for what they did as children.

      1. Was it firm and taut? The world needs to know!

  30. Better to dump Kavanaugh now than have to worry that a more credible accusation will come to light after he is appointed.

    1. Yeah sure. That’s genius.

      Don’t quit your day job.

      Or is copypasta your day job?

    2. Kvanaugh is being confirmed.

  31. If they allow this to adversely impact his confirmation, they will never confirm another justice to the court.

  32. Reasonoids have been on the warpath about Title IX insanity for several years now, but when a 35 year charge that probably hinges on the recollection of one person (possibly two) is rolled out by the Democrats at the 11th hour, the panelist’s spines turn to linguini. If what “she says” is the only evidence that’s needed to derail a nomination, then there is no point in nominating anyone who is male for anything unless there’s absolutely no political opposition to him. Duh, of course this is a cynical ploy by the Democrats. If it isn’t, then the accuser should confront this Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde nominee in a court of law. But somehow I doubt that’s the point of this exercise.

    1. Their positions on this subject make perfect sense so long as you remember that principals>principles.

      1. If this succeeds in taking down Kavanaugh, and your hearing is good, then you can practically hear their explanations of why this standard is not really a standard and should never be applied to anyone ever again right now.

        1. Franken couldn’t be a senator anymore because of unproven allegations of mere ass grabbing. That’s not even a job with a lifetime appointment.

          1. Aside from the pictures and statement of multiple people that is.

            Now do keith ellison.

            1. Franken was also – chronologically, if nothing else – an adult at the time he did the things he was found to have done.

              Nothing hazy, vague, or non-committal about any of that.

              1. And he never should have resigned.

                Not at all a fan of Al Franken, neither in is comedy nor as a politician, but there’s no way he should have quit over that nonsense.

                The picture was a nothing-burger. It was an entirely ordinary joke. And her allegations were perfectly plausible as two people seeing the same events entirely differently.

                The only reason he goes down for that is the timing (the #metoo fire was white-hot at the moment) and being hoist by his own pitard.

                The fact that they earned it doesn’t make it right though.

        2. Roy Moore
          Jim Jordan
          Brett Kavanaugh

          Three strikes and you’re out

      1. #endsjustifythemeans

  33. Just finished listening to the podcast.

    Yikes! Now I know why the LP gets less than 2%.

    It’s called ‘Reason’ Really Elitist Assholes Stuck on Nonsense.

    1. Really Elitist Assholes Stuck on Nonsense

      Two thumbs up!

  34. Listened to the podcast. You guys walked right up to the salient point and then totally chickened out.

    Let me frame it better for you…

    If you stipulate that her allegations are 100% accurate, does it tell you anything that you need to know in order to decide whether someone should get this job?

    That basic question was put forward, but everyone chickened out and joked their way away from it. That was the only question that needed answering.

    And the answer is simple. No. It is not at all probative. It doesn’t tell us anything about what kind of jurist he would be.

    Would it have been useful to know that when he was applying to college? Maybe. Maybe he doesn’t get in to those prestigious schools. But after a few decades of distinguished service, citizenship and family life, it doesn’t tell you a damn thing. We know what kind of person he’s going to grow up to be, because he already did it.

    You blew it. You had the correct angle, but chickened out.

  35. Just ignore Democrats and Lefties. They are lying cheating pieces of sht.

    Vote immediately and let Pence break any tie in the Senate.

  36. There is no desire for resolution of this or any other sexual misconduct allegation. The goal is to foment as much distaste and controversy as possible, and to ruin the reputation, and therefore the life, of the accused.

    This will never leave Kavanaugh.

    In other matters, it appears that on yet another occasion Sen. Feinstein has acted as a law unto herself, withholding from her peers the evidence that has now caused this week’s outbreak of national foment. She did this not too long ago in releasing to the public information which she arguably ought not have released. Term limits do seem like a good idea from time to time.

  37. Did the bitch reveal the address of the house where this assault allegedly took place?

  38. Did the bitch reveal the address of the house where this assault allegedly took place?

  39. Generally speaking, things have gone about as far as they can possibly go, when things have gotten about as bad as they can reasonably get.

Please to post comments