The Kavanaugh saga from afar

That is the theme of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one bit:

There is an asymmetry between male and female perceptions.

Most men are not abusers, yet very large numbers of women have been abused. So if a man is an abuser, there is a good chance he has abused a fair number of women.

That means many well-meaning men experience sexual abuse as a relatively rare phenomenon. They haven’t done it, and most of their male friends haven’t either. At the same time, most women have abuse, rape or #MeToo stories, and they experience these phenomena as relatively common and often life-altering. Probably they also have heard multiple such stories from their female friends. This structural asymmetry of perspectives is crucial to understanding the discourse and the often fundamental differences in opinion.

Our criminal justice system isn’t very good.

Whether you think Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty, we can all agree there are large numbers of intelligent people on both sides of the debate, and even after a week of intense national scrutiny there is no resolution. The reality is that ordinary accused people, who are basically presumed guilty by the criminal justice system, don’t receive very fair judgments. And if Kavanaugh is innocent, might we hope that this experience will make him more sympathetic to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned and accused?

But perhaps now we can move on to talking about the renegotiation of the trade agreement formerly known as NAFTA


"Our criminal justice system isn’t very good."

You can't use the Ford accusation to support this statement, because she only made her charges 35 years after the alleged incident, long after the statute of limitations expired.

The Democrats have become a party of character assassins.

There’s no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.

She could press charges today if inclined to do so.

But she won't, because she'll be laughed out of the room.

Anyone who supports the idea of shredding this man in this way is vile.

People have been convicted of crimes based only on the testimony of their victims. We don't know what the alleged witnesses would say as they were never questioned under oath.

'But she won't, because she'll be laughed out of the room.'

Or instead, Judge, PJ, and Squi would have to testify under oath, which seems to be the sort of thing they are all extremely eager to avoid doing. (Judge in particular, but then, he is an author whose works predate this Supreme Court nomination controversy.)

After all, they could voluntarily submit sworn affidavits to the Senate, the same way that Swetnick did, and help Kavanaugh clear his good name. Assuming, of course, that nothing turns up to show that they submitted false information to Congress, in which case they would face the same penalties Swetnick would if her sworn statement is false.

Though finally, after the obstructionist Democrats relented to Kavanaugh's impassioned pleas to have an investigation to clear his good name, they will have a chance to talk to the FBI. OK, that is just for fun, but one assumes they will be talking to the FBI, even if it was the Senate Republicans blocking the idea, with Kavanaugh never suggesting that clearing his name before becoming a Supreme Court justice was in the interest of the U.S.

Umm...They DID submit affidavits under PoP denying recollection of the described events.

Got a link? They have basically been extremely careful not to make any concrete statements, apart from not remembering of course, as noted here - 'Each of the three did make statements that did not corroborate Ford’s version of events, but none was fully exonerating for Kavanaugh.

Judge sent a letter, through an attorney, that read:

I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.

Smyth also submitted a statement through an attorney:

I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.

An attorney for Keyser similarly released a statement:

Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

None of the three said they were aware of an attack on Ford, but none said they weren’t at a party such as the one described. In a separate interview with The Post, Keyser said she believed Ford’s allegation. The closest thing to a denial that is offered is Judge’s assertion that he never saw Kavanaugh act in the manner described by Ford, but that’s after saying he didn’t remember the party at issue.'

One assumes that the FBI has a bit more experience in helping people remember things they might not remember currently, such as parties marked on a calendar.

"One assumes that the FBI has a bit more experience in helping people remember things they might not remember"

rubber hoses?

No, walls and walls of wiki with passive-aggressive annotations by Prior.

You said the gentlemen could submit affidavits. My point is they did submit affidavits. Now, you are saying they should submit to testimony. Those goal posts keep moving.

Actually, you are right. I think that everyone who submitted sworn statements should now be treated as witnesses, and thus be required to answer questions under oath. Especially as the submitted affidavits are lacking in the sort of detail that investigators are good at finding.

Of course, this should have been done several weeks ago, as Kavanaugh insisted. OK, he never insisted that an investigation of the witnesses be performed, but finally, an investigation is being conducted, one that Kavanaugh undoubtedly welcomes as it will go beyond carefully written statements which do not fully exonerate him.

"none was fully exonerating for Kavanaugh." How could it? Would you believe Judge if he said he was with Kavanaugh 24x7 for all three years the assault may have happened?

Judge is merely one witness, and what a former girlfriend has to say about Judge's actions does indicate a certain avenue of investigation. Not to mention his writing, of course.

Same argument for the rest - how can they prove a negative?

Which negative? There are at least two documented allegations, with witnesses, which provides plenty of opportunity for an investigation to go considerably beyond any possible he said/she said framing.

As Kavanaugh's continued and repeated calls for investigation of these allegations show, he is fully aware that a broad investigation will show that he never committed any of the acts he was accused of.

Or possibly, as Kavanaugh actually has not called for a broad investigation of allegations involving a large number of witnesses, either to the actual events or who heard about them immediately afterwards, Kavanaugh might be more concerned about a positive being proven.

We will see, of course.

The difference between being called as a witness and submitting a statement is that a witness has to answer the questions put to him and not simply answer what he choose to answer. Also a witness who wants to avoid getting a friend in trouble can get tripped up answering multiple pointed questions and then be pressured to stop trying to manage the truth and simply come clean.

This is not how background investigations work.

The witness can answer, refuse to answer, or give whatever level of detail they wish to give. They are being questioned on a completely voluntary basis.

This is not a criminal investigation, it’s a background check.

The end result is a 302 summary.

There’s quite a bit of disinformation and lack of understanding going on.

The best answer would be to press charges in Maryland for attempted rape and let the chips fall where they may.

We're no longer in a background check. Both sides have given testimony under oath. If the FBI uncovers evidence that Ford was lying for some reason such as wanting to sink a pro-life nominee, they will have a perjury case on their hand. Likewise if Judge tells the FBI yes it happened we will likewise have a perjury indictment against a sitting judge.

You are factually incorrect.

This is an expanded FBI background investigation, the result of which is a 302 summary form.

It will in no way give an indication of whether or not the allegations are true. That is not the point of a 302.

A perjury charge will not be leveled against Ford, there is no way to factually prove she is telling the truth or lying in her testimony as we do not have a place or time, and it’s also not the result of a 302.

There is basically zero chance of a perjury charge against Kavanaugh since there is no evidence that the allegations are true or false, and again that’s not the point or result of a 302.

Sworn statements will be gathered and presented in a summary.

It will still be up to the Senate to determine whether or not the allegations are true.

This link seems to suggest you might need to do a bit of reading concerning that form 302, though it admittedly refers to a criminal investigation -

'It will still be up to the Senate to determine whether or not the allegations are true.'

The Senate is unlikely to be able to determine the truth of the allegations, they will simply judge whatever facts are determined and the credibility of the interviewed individuals.

A perjury charge will not be leveled against Ford, there is no way to factually prove she is telling the truth or lying in her testimony as we do not have a place or time, and it’s also not the result of a 302.

Funny how you know something is true but you also know it can't be proven? Suppose the FBI turns up emails with Ford discussing ways to sink Kavanaugh with a friend? Or Democratic operative? Suppose Ford breaks down under pressure and admits to lying? If Ford made this up, it is possible it might never be proven but there is a very real possibility it can. Hence if you really believe that you should want a deep investigation.

You are so far out of your wheelhouse with this.

There will be no subpoena of emails because that is not how a background investigation works. They do not have the authority to force interviews or access emails.

They will interview a few people (if those people agree to interview), on the record, and add documentation to the background file.

There is no evidence of Ford “making it up” but okay...your hypothetical is that during her interview she just starts shouting that she is lying about the whole thing?

Again, the background investigation purpose is NOT to assess the truthfulness of the specific allegations. It is to document witness interviews and summarize them.

Technically speaking perjury would be it's own criminal charge and could be filed whenever an investigation turns up evidence, provided the statute of limitations doesn't run out. Lying to an FBI agent is a crime in itself and that alone could shake a conspiracy loose:

"Mr. Ford, did your wife really mention Kavanaugh's name in that 2012 therapy session?" "Were there any emails between you and anyone discussing Kavanaugh prior to your letter to Senator Feinstein?" "Did you hear Mrs Ford discussing Kavanaugh after the nomination was announced?" Or "Mr Judge, when you and Bret went drinking, what type of interactions with girls happened?" Even asking the questions might trigger the truth to come out.

There is no requirement a perjury charge be filed this Friday if perjury is uncovered.

It's amazing how many people still don't understand what an FBI background check means, even though Grassley harped on it. The whole "FBI investigation" was a red herring, FBI can't "fully investigate" local sexual assaults -- but Montgomery County can. So why hasn't Ford filed a complaint in MD?

It's particularly interesting because Ford will likely refuse to give FBI her therapy notes, as she refused the Senate, which MD would likely require of her. But if they contradict Ford and her already-shaky story completely falls apart, MD could charge Ford with filing a false complaint.

Ford is already on shaky legal ground, having given the Senate three plainly untrue statements about her fear of flying, her not being told the Senate committee was willing to visit her, and her story about the "two front doors."

Note too that whatever the statute of limitations in MD, the DA has said explicitly they will investigate any complaint they receive about Kavanaugh. As Mitchell pointed out, no reasonable prosecutor is going to file charges when a complaint has this many holes anyway.

If the assault happened, Kavanaugh is guilty of perjury on the Federal, not state level. If Ford purposefully made up the charges and/or if others worked with her, then she is guilty of perjury and others might be guilty of related crimes as well. That has nothing to do with MD.

Stephen Colbert demolished the 'fear of flying' canard. ' Perjury requires an intentional serious deceptions of a material nature.

The FBI has not been directed to investigate perjury.

Stephen Colbert is an entertainer. There is no reason Ford would need a delay due to her fear of something she not only did on a regular basis, but was not even being asked to do. It is not plausible her attorney never told her.

Something a lot of people seem not to understand about the "fear of flying" episode is that there are only two possibilities consistent with her story:

1) in what can only be called gross misconduct by her lawyers, she was really and truly never told the Senate would come to her so she didn't have to fly, and somehow never saw it on the news or from friends either, and then spent several days gathering her "gumption" to do something she does on a regular basis for work and hobbies

2) she was told the Senate would visit her, or learned it, and she lied about it to the Senate, and her whole purpose was to delay the hearing for political or tactical purposes

Ford will probably escape prosecution, just as she has escaped having to turn over potentially incriminating (to her) therapy notes. But's she on thin ice here.

This is an expanded FBI background investigation, the result of which is a 302 summary form.

You're telling me FBI policy is if they turn up present day criminal activity while doing a background check the standing policy is to ignore it and just put it in the report?

Suppose they interview Judge and he tells them that not only did he do it but they murdered another girl and buried her on the corner of Main and Alpine Street. That just gets written up in the summary and nothing else comes of it?

The actual purpose is to determine whether the person is a threat to the United States. Whether said person is prone to blackmail, has deep ties to another country, etc. This is a reopening concerned with specific allegations.

I’ve never seen or heard of a background investigation leading to a criminal charge, ever. I have seen instances where someone lost a lower level clearance due to a previously undisclosed issue.

Again I find it implausible that policy is to ignore an actual prosecutable crime uncovered in a background check. Since both sides have given testimony uncovering a conspiracy to stage a fake accusation or uncovering evidence it really did happen would be uncovering evidence that a serious crime happened less than a week ago.

'to ignore an actual prosecutable crime uncovered in a background check'

I believe that Hmmm is talking about security clearances, and yes, broadly speaking, whatever is uncovered is simply left alone. In major part because security clearances involve a different framework (one you need not agree with), where a perception of honesty is critical to uncovering security risks, and if people were to fear prosecution for speaking honestly, then the value of their information would plummet.

In other words, if you were questioned about a roommate being considered for a position in the CIA, and you said that both grew and sold marijuana two years ago, it is extremely unlikely that information would be passed along to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Strange - a link seems to have been swallowed -

It is possible you are confusing two things here - the sort of investigation you are detailing involves security clearances or things like a higher level position at the SEC.

What happens with federal nominees requiring the advice and consent of the Senate is not the same thing (not saying Boonton is correct in any particular).

Federal judges do not have security clearances.

It is not a literal security clearance.

The general process is the same, and for the same purpose.

Not really - the background investigation of a federal nominee to a position requiring the advice and consent of the Senate is basically to avoid political embarrassment - lots of people wanting a high position in the government lie, and it is necessary to screen them out before their lies (or denials of different types of behavior( harm the administration which has proposed their nomination.

I imagine like other Senate hearings. They can amend their remarks for a limited period of time. She misled the committee about her 'Fear of Flying'. He may not accurately recall all drinking events. One thing for certain is that Senate Democrats broke all the rules, precedents, and procedures for confirmation hearings. The Democrats, pink hatted activists, and Flakey hangers on likely voted to put enabling Hillary and her sexually harassing, predatory, alleged rapist husband Billy Jeff Clinton back in the White House. That demonstrates that they care little for sexual harassment, assault, or rape, just political victory.
I agree that Kavanaugh, unlike Billy Jeff Clinton, never exhibited a sexually abusive pattern of behavior. His calendar and corroborating witnesses ably bolster his testimony. Ms. Ford refused to provide pertinent corroborating evidence (therapy transcripts), a competent polygraph examination, corroborating witnesses, or accurate testimony regarfing her 'Fear of Flying'. My conclusion is mistaken identity, a drunken, partying, 15 year olds confusion of time, place, and persons, or projection, perhaps gor political expediency.

"One thing for certain is that Senate Democrats broke all the rules, precedents, and procedures for confirmation hearings": except for the precedent of actually allowing a confirmation hearing to happen. That's the one Republicans break.

This man's life isn't shredded, he is applying for a very powerful job that he cannot be fired for life. If he doesn't get it he still has a very powerful job that it is almost impossible to fire him.

The allegations could have been investigated properly in the background and he could have withdrawn without public explanation but the Republicans declared they were going to ram his nomination thru fast no matter what.

You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh . Whoever was nominated would get the same treatment. False accusers and attention whores are easy to find. This is why Kavanaugh will be confirmed. There is no one out there on either side that could survive this kind of slimming any better than Kavanaugh, so why bother changing horses?

Funny thing is time and investigation tends to unravel false accusations. Not to long ago a woman showed up at the Washington Post alleging she was a victim of Roy Moore and wanted her story out there so he would lose the election. The reporters started checking out her background and noticed things didn't add up. Instead of becoming a Moore accuser, the paper outed her as an operative of James O'Keefe, trying to set up the 'liberal media'.

Lying to the media, of course, is not a crime but if you try to do that here you're going to quickly rake up numerous criminal charges and when the people involved start getting questioned by the FBI and Congress additional charges may flow for lying to investigators and perjury unless everyone involved is real careful about invoking the 5th.

If you are still clinging to the idea that Ford is a plant to sink him with a fake allegation, then you should welcome a real investigation. I'm sure this administration would gleefully prosecute her and anyone connected to her for perjury if the evidence presented itself.

Neil Gorsuch didn't get this treatment.

Which is interesting, isn't it?

However, Kavanaugh has an explanation - revenge on behalf of the Clintons, as noted in the clip.

1) The weaponry didn't exist yet. If, just hypothetically, you wanted to torpedo a supreme court nominee in 2018, wouldn't you me too him? And wouldn't you want the details of the allegations to be as unspecific and unfalsifiable as possible?

2) If you had an election in a few weeks and you could make the other side look evil by forcing them to defend an accused rapist, that would be pretty useful.

Or maybe Kavanaugh was going to rape a lady in high school. I don't know and neither do you. There is no experimentum crucis to tell us which world we are living in. It comes down to your prior beliefs about how likely it is that democrats would conspire to sink a supreme court nomination, how likely a lady like Ford is to fabricate, imagine, or misremember details of an assault 30 years prior, and how likely a guy like Kavanaugh is to have been a high school rapist.

1) is correct.

The Dems are desperate to block the appointment of an originalist because they know they will never be able to push their agenda through an originalist Supreme Court. Otoh, with a non-originalist court they can overturn legitimate legislation on the whims and feelings of the 'justices'.

This is a fight to the death to preserve our democratic republic.

If you want to see the future the Dems envision, look no further than the situation at liberal arts colleges.

Very sad.

Kavanaugh is not an originalist. No one with his expansive notions of executive privilege can claim that label. You might as well call Justice Ginsberg an originalist.

It's pretty amazing to see the responses that the fact that Gorusch didn't have this indicates that no motivated smear campaign could possibly be happening.

Hey, no one smeared Obama the way happened with Clinton, therefore nothing possibly of that sort could have happened with Clinton, and it must have been driven only by pure hearted concerns about his family values and suitability for office (and he should have been impeached for lying about his personal life).

It's this amazing faith in the machine like reliability and predictability of politicians; they will either unerring behave in exactly the same dubious way over and over again, or else absolutely nothing untoward is ever happening.

One wonders if they map this to all other aspects of their judgement even outside politics; a man must have sexually harassed all women meets or he harassed none of them, a judge must make all discriminatory decisions forever, or he will none of them.

Occam would tell you to give it a rest. The Razor says Kavanaugh and Clinton got grief because there was something there. Gorsuch and Obama, not so much.

I think you have confused Occam's Razor for "There's no smoke without fire!"

Aren't those basically the same thing? If you see smoke, Occam would say there's a fire there.

The weaponry didn't exist yet? Have you not heard of Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill?

A lot of people rolled their eyes at Anita Hill. Things are different now.

'And wouldn't you want the details of the allegations to be as unspecific and unfalsifiable as possible?'

Ramirez's allegations seems to be quite specific and involve witnesses, actually, though one trusts that the FBI investigation Kavanaugh has been insisting on for weeks will clear his good name.

The interesting thing is how everyone seems to be only focussing on one set of allegations with witnesses, and not hers.

It's possible that she is not a plant but more like the result of a nationwide hunt for an accuser. "Won't somebody rid me of this meddlesome priest"? I don't see how she could get in any trouble since her story is unfalsifiable.

It's also possible that there was some kind of real incident where a guy tried to grope her at a party and Kavanaugh became the guy in her mind when that became a better story around 2012. "Hey that guy who kind of ran in the same circles as me is now an evil republican judge that might become a Supreme." He could have been the guy from that party. He is the guy!

Or Kavanaugh tried to makeout with her at a party and the story has grown in her mind to what she's totally sure he was going to do if she hadn't been so lucky.

Or Kavanaugh was going to rape her.

How could any investigation possibly get to the bottom of any of this?

Or Kavanaugh tried to makeout with her at a party and the story has grown in her mind to what she's totally sure he was going to do if she hadn't been so lucky.

Or Kavanaugh was going to rape her.

A likely story to me seems, a drunk Kavanaugh pulled down and groped her trying to makeout with her and she, a girl who is afraid of flying, was very frightened at the time that she would be raped or accidentally killed as she says.
Flying is very safe fear of flying implies some executive level fearfulness.

Perhaps you didn’t see the hearing, but it was shown she has no fear of flying.

You lie. She said that getting to vacation was sufficient motivation for her to fly. By implication that's an admission that she has some fear of flying. The contradiction between "too afraid to fly to D.C. to testify" and "not bothered by flying all over the world for fun" has been ignored - we don't want to put the "victim" on trial, right?

I have no problem with the 7th FBI check on him, but when it turns up nothing, you OK with his appointment? I bet the Dems are not.

If they do withdraw their complaints after a clean review, then I'll re-access my thinking about them, and their motives. I hope they will, but my guess is that they will just confirm my current thoughts about them.

I have a problem with it.

First, there's nothing to investigate. There's no date or location. There's no forensic evidence. There are a select few people who would be in a position to confirm the story and none of them have. End of investigation.

Second, caving on this establishes a precedent for these sorts of shenanigans in the future. They knew about it months ago and saved it for the last minute. Totally transparent and ridiculous. Feinstein and the others should not be indulged on this IN ANY WAY.

'There's no date or location.'

Well, there is a location with Ramirez, again with witnesses in attendance - 'Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women’s soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together.'

She couldn't remember whether it was him until she thought about it for 6 days with her attorney, and then she realized it was definitely 100% him

Luckily, there were direct witnesses to the event, along with people who apparently heard about in the following few days. I'm sure that the FBU will be talking to those people too, so we need not rely on the words of someone who admitted that she was among a group of people drinking heavily.

This is undoubtedly the reason that Kavanaugh has been so insistent that the FBI clear his good name.

Kavanaugh should rush and give Flake hugs and kisses, though gently. If he truly has nothing to hide and fear, then he gets his good name back, pure and simple.

This congress has almost 100 days left. If he is removed all that will happen is Trump will nominate someone else from the list the Federalist Society Assigned to him and they will almost certainly be confirmed.

The simplest explanation is simply that he did it, she called him out on it, he revealed that he is a dishonest hothead who shouldn't be on the court.

I think this is 100% correct.

Yup. This is the most likely explanation. Her version is very likely to more truthful than his. Next, please.

Exactly, the Reps are handling this all wrong. Get him out of there, nominate a conservative anti-abortion woman and end the problem immediately.

Which is exactly what the Dems don't want and (assuming she's competent) why Feinstein waited until she did to bring out the charges: The Republicans are in a time crunch and have already committed to Kavanaugh. They's got to push him forward or risk the process getting delayed until after the mid terms when they might not have a majority.

If Feinstein had brought out these accusations when she found out about them, the Republicans would probably have had a nice, quiet conversation with him in a back room and had trump pull out another candidate. (At least, a sane President would probably do that. Though Trump being Trump, he could have doubled down, who knows?) No hearings, no muss, no fuss, neither Kavanaugh's family nor Ford get mauled by the media feeding frenzy.

Instead, Feinstein waits until the Republicans are well and truly committed to bring out the charges. This way she wins regardless: If Kavanaugh's confirmed, Democrats get to ride a wave of hate over Republicans putting a rapist on the Supreme Court in November. If Kavanaugh is delayed, she's got a shot at blocking any appointee with a Democratic majority, aided by the wave of hatred over Republicans trying to put a rapist on the Supreme Court.

No doubt, Feinstein is no dummy and she is playing dirty. The Reps decided to go scorched earth denying Garland even a vote for over a year, now the Dems are playing just as dirty. This tit for tat is a total clusterfuck and I don't see how it stops.

+1 to Boonton though i would put it he simplest explanation is simply that he did it.

'that this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh'

Watch that clip, which is the only video I have seen of the entire hearing, and which i only watched to provide context to his statement concerning 'what goes around comes around,' to see Kavanaugh demonstrate his unfitness to be a Supreme Court justice.

'False accusers and attention whores are easy to find'

And easy to prove to be false accusers and attention whores when one spends a bit of time using a bureau dedicated to doing investigation relating to federal nominees.

"And easy to prove to be false accusers"

How can you prove something didn't occur is there is no specific place or date? You can't have an alibi for everyday for five years starting nearly 40 years ago.

The Washington Post did it with their false Roy Moore accuser. If you think this is a manufactured accusation then you're talking a conspiracy which a good investigator could break open. On the other hand if you think she solely made a false accusation for whatever reason, a good investigator could either crack her or crack inconsistencies in her story or evidence of manufacturing (i.e. like doing intense research on Kavanaugh the moment he was nominated ). Guaranteed? No but if you really thought this you should be demanding an investigation.

They would show that she changed her story, that she can't give any details, but what else could they do?

For all involved what they could do depends upon the evidence. A lot of prosecutions have happened because the suspect provided the evidence when he or she didn't really have too. Even very smart people screw up or crack under questioning.

That being said, there very well might be actual evidence. Emails, search records, phone conversations etc.

'How can you prove something didn't occur is there is no specific place or date? '

Luckily for Kavanaugh, there are calendars showing who he was meeting for social events. It should be no problem at all to go from such documentary evidence and ask each person on the calendar about their memories of such events - for example, where they were held.

If only he was friends with that lady from Taxi that can remember every day of her life.

I believe the local police said the crime Dr. Ford described was a misdemeanor at the time with a 1 year SOL, but there's been a lot of bad and wrong information throughout this process

Is there a reason she hasn't, then? Just askin'....

Because she does not care about criminal charges, yet still feels he is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court` I believe she used the term 'civic duty,' actually. Just sayin'....


I don't doubt she thinks she has a civic duty to stop his appointment - I just don't believe her claims about him.

I think prior's point is that she's fine with him continuing to be a federal judge, just not a Supreme Court judge. That's just too high a position in the judiciary for an attempted rapist. DC Court of Appeals is fine, though. Which makes sense!

'That's just too high a position in the judiciary for an attempted rapist.'

You know, the odd thing is, you can actually see when Kavanaugh was named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit - May 30, 2006.

And you can also see when the transcript from the therapist was made - 2012.

Clearly, as she has actually noted, she felt that being 'annihilated' for bringing up her allegations was worth it in terms of her civic duty. It is obvious that her allegations would never lead to Kavanaugh's impeachment, however. One assumes she is equally aware of that fact, but this is not about removing Kavanaugh from his current position.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe. If Kavanaugh had attacked me - a male - 35 years ago, you can bet your arse I wouldn't want him on the Supreme Court, and I'd let the world know about it. But I very likely wouldn't go through the pain of court, unless the damages were severe.

If is doing a lot of work there. I bet if he had attacked you you'd also remember the year, not have 3 stories on who was there, and your witnesses would have a clue what you were talking about.,

that isn’t what he said. Tyler is referring to how little scrutiny the average criminal defendant’s case gets.

the idea that "democrats" somehow suffer from a lack of integrity relative to members of another party is a joke.

Due diligence for a lifetime job is "character assassination" now? Sounds like the responsible thing to do even if we were hiring babysitters. The Republicans are turning into Drama Queens like Dear Leader.

While I agree on all the principal points, I think the section on the problem with Democrats rather misses the problem of lying.

Someone had a good line that Kavanaugh promises he will be a originalist reading the Constitution, but not apparently an originalist on the names of "drinking games."

If Democrats really gain nothing, that means we already don't care about the character of justices.

Well, the Dems sure as hell don't care about due process.

That is not relevant to my observation, that a potential Supreme Court Justice should be both more honest and more controlled in his responses to any allegation true or false.

Indeed you'd think that if there was one brain type who could sit there and with a steely stare lay out the facts as he sees them, it would be a judge.

Instead what, he's told to follow Trump's play book, deny everything, incite the base?

Do you feel incited?

Well, someone can generally be impartial and then not when he and his family is attacked in the most vicious way. I'd be surprised if most people, including current justices, wouldn't react this way.

Also, if he dispassionately set out the facts, many would claim that's evidence of wrong doing (i.e., psychopath).

Finally, I find it humorous that people are saying BK is not suitable to sitting on the Court because he reacting partisanly to the Democrats attempted character assassination. I bet those same people believe RBG is a fine justice...

Down at the bottom of the page I say that it is a red flag when people are sure of what happened in a closed room where they were not present.

I think it's a red flag too when people are sure a criminal complaint is really a political complaint.

Anyway I am making my judgement of Kavanagh based on his behavior, not the complaint. I don't like the guy, and I think that's my right based on what I've seen.

That is your right, of course, but I sure wouldn't trust a guy who could sit there and not react to the kind of smears he's been taking, and especially the effects on his family.

No. By the time a lawyer becomes a judge he should have learned the skill of dismantling bad logic or bad accusations with his own cold logic and intellect.

I mean sorry, but what you're really telling me is that you want Trumpian anger on the Supreme Court.

That is, you want cases decided with not even motivated logic, but just motivated emotion.

This is nothing like Trumpain anger. K's anger is completely justified and frankly he's come across as a cold asshole if he didn't react.

You have painted yourself into a dark corner.

Where anger is the only way for a lawyer or judge to win a decision.

Buddy, that is not the way the law or courts are supposed to work.

If there is anyone on Earth who is supposed to know how to win on evidence and law it is a lawyer and a judge.

No dark corner needed. This called non sociopathic behavior. He was allowed his rebuttal to 2 weeks worth of nasty smears. He deserves to be angry whether it helps him to win or not. And this is not a court, nor is there any evidence of any wrongdoing. Just a smear campaign.

Now, cool reason from a judge is sociopathy.

Stop digging, boys.

TMC is totally correct here, BK is reacting exactly as a normal falsely accused person would. Or at least as many would. And there's nothing wrong with his reaction. Now, if he did do it, he's a talented sociopath. But to have a problem with his reaction is asinine. So you don't like him. No one cares and that's not relevant to the issue. Likes aren't how you pick SC justices.

TMC and msgkings are wrong. I know lawyers, judges, the law. Privately, they were shocked at how emotional, unstable, and bellicose BK was. Mind you, this was in his prepared remarks. He wrote this, and he was very nearly unhinged.
Anonymous, you are as right as rain.

I have lawyer and judges in my family - none would have been slandered this long without speaking out. If you are concerned about his temperament, look at his judicial record. It's impeccable.

Just like Garland's.

Was Garland slandered at all? Were people calling him a gang rapist? No they weren't. His record was impeccable, true.

Then why didn't the Senate confirm him?

Politics, of course. They did not want to give Obama a 3rd SC Justice. They did not 'consent'. Nobody slandered him though.

Yup, he's been a good judge. Just perhaps not a good guy.

"I know lawyers, judges, the law"


He's getting death threats and his character is being destroyed, family embarrassed, guilt being assumed, the whole time he spoke wasn't in vitriol. Your statements are so far removed from rationality and from what happened that I think you're reading and regurgitating leftist summary's of the Q&A session.

In which demanding truth and rationality is "removed from rationality."

It is also sadly possible that this guy is using anger because he simply isn't smart enough to do it the other way.

I mean seriously, this is something Tyler touched on but maybe we should say it more forcefully. This guy is going to be a Supreme Court Justice, one of the most authoritative positions in the country. He has a chance to speak about teen drinking, teen sex, teen yearbook shenanigans.

Where was the teaching moment?

When did he stand outside himself and say to the kids "you know, don't drink. you know, be good. you know, you got your life ahead of you?"

Instead the whole thing was all about him the whole time. And the mean old women and Democrats.

Of course I don't have to like the guy.

The US Constitution is written in the simplest and clearest of English. One need only be literate to interpret it, no legal background is required. Of course, the parasites that make up the legal profession do as much as possible to obfuscate this fact and anoint themselves priests in the secular religion of "democracy", the only ones capable of detecting invisible rights like that of "privacy ". Kavanaugh's history of being a participant in "rape culture" isn't what this is all about.

I was under the impression that Kavanaugh was putting on a performance. I'm absolutely sure he was capable of making a dispassionate statement, but emotion was the safest play to make. Looking dispassionate would have allowed more insidious speculation.

Right now twitter is making fun of the guy for crying about his dead dad, which frankly is rather unbecoming.

As I say, I am definitely judging the performance relative to the job.

The anger may well have been a performance, the crying no. Yeah it's pretty pathetic, people attacking him for crying

What about the lying, was that a performance too?

Interviewing some people and receiving sworn statements from others certainly qualifies as an investigation. It might not be the investigation you want, but to say that it is a lie to even call that inquiry an investigation is to use the word "lie" much too freely. Similarly for the other "lies" Slate purports to have uncovered.

It's Slate. They are a partisan yellow sheet.

Yeah, people are really climbing all over each other trying to catch him in a lie but the only lies that I could tell were his definition of "Devil's Triangle" and "Boofing" which also seemed unnecessary to lie about. That does trouble me that he would lie about something so trivial under oath because it was embarrassing.

Lol his dad was sitting behind him.

What the heck is this about due process? If you don't believe Ford even though she was telling her therapist about this years ago, fine - I can understand the argument that one person in this country could have dreamed up a sexual assault by a sitting federal judge (even if I don't agree). But what due process do you really believe BK is entitled to? How have Democrats been responsible for denying it? There are no Democrats holding any instruments of power here. There are just a bunch of people who have heard the arguments and don't believe BK's denials. Is that the denial of due process? I can't decide for myself whether I believe the man or not?

"If you don't believe Ford even though she was telling her therapist about this years ago, fine"

That's wrong. She didn't name Kavanaugh as the attacker until recently. If she had named him at the time 6 years ago, you'd have a point. But going from an un-named attacker to a specific one is a large and politically convenient jump.

Hmm, I'll have to look into this. I didn't realize she hadn't named her attacker earlier.

"As corroboration of her account, Ford provided The Post with the polygraph as well as session notes from her couples therapist written in 2012.[10]

The therapist's notes do not name Kavanaugh but record Ford's claim of being attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington". "

Her husband has stated that she told him it was Kavanaugh in 2012 during an interview with The Washington Post after the story broke.

Please do not use the term 'we' on matters decided by a handful of senators, thank you.

Oh it's lying that bothers you, eh? Somehow this woman who's purportedly a professor and a research psychologist (at Stanford no less) has scant evidence of any of it. Let's think about what's really going on here.

I'm worried Kavanaugh will ralph all over the Constitution and boof the American people like he did Ford.

Good use of "speaking as," by the way.

This should be fun. For example, the prosecutor the Republicans decided to sit behind instead of asking questions themselves has now apparently written this - '“For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”'

Which is fine, but the real question is not whether a prosecutor would bring this case, but whether the case needs to be investigated before making such a decision about elevating someone to the Supreme Court.

Odd how the obstructionist Democrats denied Kavanaugh's impassioned pleas for an investigation to clear his name. Though to reference the Last Jedi, every word in that previous sentence was wrong.

There seems to be, at times seemingly intentional, an effort to confuse a job interview in front of a Senate committee with a criminal investigation. And to reference this clip again, Kavanaugh publicly displayed a lack of the qualities one expects in a Supreme Court justice -

'But can you imagine comparable rapt public attention for a debate over whether subsidies to science should be increased, what to do about climate change, or how to promote greater freedom to build in major U.S. cities?'

Considering that the Supreme Court has made recent decisions of particular note to libertarians in such areas as the freedom to build (Kelo v. City of New London) or climate change (Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency), one could wonder if someone is missing the forest for the trees that he would prefer other people to pay attention to.

'The reality is that ordinary accused people, who are basically presumed guilty by the criminal justice system, don’t receive very fair judgments.'

This is fantasy. Any time anyone is accused of any crime, they are presumed to have committed that crime in the eyes of those whose job is to investigate crimes. The presumption of innocence relates to the verdict delivered in a court of law, not to whether a police officer will come by at 2am in the morning to investigate a noise complaint made by your neighbor.

'And if Kavanaugh is innocent, might we hope that this experience will make him more sympathetic to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned and accused?'

Watch the clip to see how he observes how what goes around comes around to get a feeling for how Kavanaugh will act in the future.

'but still it seems the Republicans understand something about how to stage political theater'

Sadly, selecting a Supreme Court justice was never intended to be political theater.

'For better or worse.'

And in conclusion, America is a land of contrasts, and I can cut my jib to whatever way the winds are blowing.

That was a hearing -- anyone with half a brain can see that was an hearing, not a job interview. It reminds me of the Star Trek episode Drum Head. You may not label something a hearing, but when you are attempting to determine someone's guilt or innocence, Orwellianly labeling it something else doesn't change the underlying nature of the event.

'anyone with half a brain can see that was an hearing, not a job interview'

I'm guessing that you would also say that 'advise and consent' does not mean being approved for a federal job by the Senate.

'but when you are attempting to determine someone's guilt or innocence'

Kavanaugh was not on trial, and there was no judge (nor jury) to declare him innocent or guilty of a crime.

'doesn't change the underlying nature of the event'

Which was a hearing to determine his suitability to become a Supreme Court justice.

The fun thing is that woman are abusers as well. Something like 1/25 men have been abused by women depending on the definition on which definition of abuse you like.

Just as with men, women are utterly oblivious to this. Yet pretty much everyday I see a case where a man needs medical attention after being attacked by his wife/girlfriend for reasons that are sufficient for him to press charges.

The rates of transgression and victimization are within an order of magnitude for men and women. Shockingly, the simple answer is correct: people dislike talking about about abuse, they have complicated relationships with their abusers, and nobody is good at picking out the actual abusers from the general population.

Within an order of magnitude is interesting - that is, 4 out of 100, compared to somewhere below 40 out of 100.

'and nobody is good at picking out the actual abusers from the general population'

Including many police, as noted by the Canadian source detailing rape, which is a more concretely more serious crime than abuse, obviously - 'True unfounded cases, which arise from malicious or mistaken reports, are rare. Between 2 per cent and 8 per cent of complaints are false reports, according to research from North America, the United Kingdom and Australia. The Globe’s findings suggest that police in Canada are closing a disproportionate number of rape cases as unfounded, a phenomenon that distorts the country’s crime statistics.

Inflated unfounded rates create the impression that police receive fewer complaints of sexual assault than they actually do. In turn, that gives the appearance that more complaints lead to an arrest.

According to The Globe’s data, 42 per cent of sex-assault complaints lead to a charge (Statistics Canada, which has data from all jurisdictions, reports 44 per cent). When unfounded cases are factored in as complaints, however, the charge rate drops to 34 per cent.

In addition, The Globe’s data show vast discrepancies in unfounded rates between jurisdictions across Canada – inexplicable swings from city to city, province to province, regardless of size and demographics – which suggest that complainants of sex assault in some parts of the country are far less likely to be believed than in other parts.

While some cities, such as Toronto, Winnipeg, Surrey and Windsor, have single-digit unfounded rates, The Globe found that police in 115 communities dismiss at least one-third of sex-assault complaints as unfounded.

But the significance of inaccurate unfounded rates is more than statistical, according to advocates, complainants and scholars who reviewed The Globe’s data, which is the most comprehensive review of sexual-assault unfounded rates ever conducted in Canada.'

"Between 2 per cent and 8 per cent of complaints are false reports, according to research from North America, the United Kingdom and Australia. "

Link? I've never seen actual research showing as low as 2%. I have seen significantly higher than 8%

The burden of “false complaint” is that it has to be demonstrably untrue.

Think : accusee was in a different state during the alleged assault.

"There is an asymmetry between male and female perceptions."
Yes, probably to a much greater degree than you realize, given what you wrote.

"That means many well-meaning men experience sexual abuse as a relatively rare phenomenon. "

What a weird phrasing for that sentence. Why not write from the point of view of the victim? I am male and was sexually assaulted multiple times (definitely twice, possibly four times, since some interactions are close calls). It didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. Multiple of my male friends have been sexually assaulted (i.e. "she was kinda drunk, and she just walked up to me and reached into my pants... ha ha ha"). It didn't bother them then, and my impression is that it doesn't bother them now, though I haven't specifically asked.

And my memories are reliable, because they are only ~25 years old.

"Our criminal justice system isn't very good"
Yes, but as regards sexual assault, not in the way you mean. The problem is that under the legal definition, people sexually assault other people all the time (mostly married people, I would guess), and neither person thinks it is a sexual assault. Any legal system will have a hard time handling allegations when the proscribed activity is something that most people both do and are victims of frequently and think nothing of.

Grey area

You're not wrong, that people have been getting drunk and enjoying sex with each other since the dawn of time.


There are people that are absolutely predatory and vicious, that use force, fear, or '''the implication''' to overcome a woman's sense of agency and autonomy

Just because I can be mostly ok with a woman grabbing my junk at a bar (and maybe pleasantly surprised, let's be honest) doesn't mean all junk grabbing everywhere can't bother someone.

Yeah, making a bright line rule that can't be contradicted is impossible. The left's idea of pushing for affirmative consent is laughably stupid and unsexy. It will probably always be a risky grey area for those of us that aren't abusers and that grey area will be exploitable by the few men that are.

Any sexual assault is unexceptionable. Now, you didn't feel that bothered by it, but how many of those instances were a man after you behind closed doors? Ford is not say Brett grabbed her ass at a party, he and a friend locked her in a room.


Indeed, unacceptable. However, if Ford said that "all" Kavanaugh had done was grab her ass at a party, that would be sexual assault.

To respond to your other point: one of the instances was a woman after me behind closed doors. I had to use force to stop it. It didn't take a lot of force, because I was much stronger than her. That doesn't affect the legal analysis. What is your thought about how it affects the moral analysis?

Well, because I don't hold ridiculous views about the differences between the two genders, I think it is very relevant to the moral analysis. The vast majority of men face no physical threat from the vast majority of women. Given this and other social factors (both innate and learned), men will process undesired sexual advances very differently from women. That makes it morally more problematic for a man to do the same thing. And even if the law treats the acts as equivalent, bayesian priors related to the threat and likelihood of one vs the other does mean they should be treated differently by the legal system (not to say it's done correctly now). That's my opinion anyhow.

Mpowell captured my point. That is why I asked about how you would feel trapped in a room with a man. Maybe one stronger than yourself. Unwanted touching is never appropriate, but the threat of further damage and power dynamics (let alone implications that rape has for women from getting pregnant) strengthen the impact.

I am sorry you were assaulted and am glad it hasn't had lasting damage on you. I would caution projecting how you feel about what happened to you on to how others should feel happen to them.

If the room was locked, how did they get interrupted by another partier entering and jumping on top of them?

It's as true as her story of being a Stanford research psychologist. See link in my other comment.

So, you did not read her testimony?

Tyler is on to something. But the usual suspects are up to their usual tricks of massaging the statistics about sexual assault in order to inflate the number of cases in order to inflate their own importance.

One of the suspects is Peggy Orenstein. In yesterday's NYT she tries to spread the smear of sexual assault as widely as possible across the male population to sell her forthcoming book advocating her program for sex education for teenage boys. See "We can't Just Let Boys be Boys."

Scanning my memory, I am realizing that I have been the victim of both sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace. I considered both minorly irritating and didn't give them much thought afterwords.

While you are undoubtedly correct about the softening of the meaning of sexual assault to ridiculous levels, none of this is relevant to Ford's accusations. What she is accusing was sexual assault by almost any definition

There's always room for a little malicious glee at seeing a pompous lawyer being subjected to an approximation to legal scrutiny.

But after that unworthy thought is pushed aside I'm left feeling that the USA is deep in the mire if this absurd allegation is being taken seriously.

You call it in absurd allegation..

"Four in 10 Americans believe sexual misconduct allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, while three in 10 do not and the rest do not know, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that split largely along party lines."

You could argue that the "don't knows" are the most rational and the least polarized. No one can ever really know what happened in a closed room and a he said, she said, situation.

So it becomes kind of a flag, anyone sure, can be disregarded.

Its baffling how anyone could choose anything other than "don't know" if that's a clearly labeled choice on the poll.

But "believe" and "don't know" aren't mutually exclusives. You can believe something is likely true or false without being certain of your judgement.

Personally, I am on the 'likely to be completely false or greatly exaggerated' end of the spectrum, based on the sketchiness of CBFs memory, her shifting accounts and other evasions and the lack of corroboration by anyone else who might have been there. But I don't know. Nobody other than Blassey Ford and Kavanaugh knows for sure (and possibly not even them).

You miss the point. The allegation is absurd because she can describe neither the time nor place at which the alleged attack took place, and can offer nothing worthy of the description "evidence". The fact that 7 out of 10 Americans claim to have formed an opinion on the accuracy of the charge is irrelevant.

You're right the USA is deep in mire, but you're very wrong that this allegation shouldn't be taken seriously. You either show your ignorance of our culture, such that it is, or of our Supreme Court.

"The reality is that ordinary accused people, who are basically presumed guilty by the criminal justice system, don’t receive very fair judgments. "

Well they also don't get much fair treatment in the press or social media either so it's a bitter issue than just our legal system. One could try to do something with slander torts for the later two settings (very difficult but...) but for the legal system until there is a focus on getting facts and the truth over "wins" not much will change. Perhaps a standard should be that any DA that get a conviction of an innocent person and then we learn who the real criminal was that DA team (and perhaps the police putting the evidence in place) and all serve the same amount of time the innocent person did.

Agree we need to have DAs with skin in the game. Perhaps a large civil fine (e.g., they are required to pay 50% of their salary earned during the time the innocent man was in jail to said innocent person). This seemingly provides a financial incentive to avoid wrongful convictions, doesn't put additional people behind bars, and provides some restitution to the victim (i.e., the innocent imprisoned man).

Why do you think Kavanaugh was, before now, insufficiently sympathetic to the plight of the unjustly accused and imprisoned?

Because the tenured academic is too timid in front of other faculty to offer an assessment of the nominee without throwing in contrived slams.

"This is fantasy. Any time anyone is accused of any crime, they are presumed to have committed that crime in the eyes of those whose job is to investigate crimes. The presumption of innocence relates to the verdict delivered in a court of law, not to whether a police officer will come by at 2am in the morning to investigate a noise complaint made by your neighbor."

You are correct that the presumption of innocent is something the DA and policing departments may have little concern with. But at some level they should.

You might be saying that once all the evidence has been collected and carefully reviewed if a strong, or at least reasonable, case can be made, the case will be presented to the courts.

It's not clear that is what is happening - at least with sufficient frequency to be concerned if you are not a fan of the arbitrary application of government power. Do a search on Kozinski Preface.
Here are a few links:

Here's a quote from the first:
Although we pretend otherwise, much of what we do in the law is guesswork. For example, we like to boast that our criminal justice system is heavily tilted in favor of criminal defendants because we’d rather that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted.2 There is reason to doubt it, because very few criminal defendants
actually go free after trial.3 Does this mean that many guilty men are never charged because the prosecution is daunted by its heavy burden of proof? Or is it because jurors almost always start with a strong presumption that someone wouldn’t be charged with a crime unless the police and the prosecutor were firmly convinced of his guilt? We tell ourselves and the public that it’s the former and not the latter, but we have no way of knowing. They say that any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It may be that a decent prosecutor could get a petit jury to convict a eunuch of rape."

You could also look as some the stories related to the militarization of the police. Like when one Chief decided to send the swat team to serve a warrant because they need practice. They got the wrong address, killed a decorated veteran, and got meddles of good conduct. Sure, errors happen but that case shows both a complete disregard for actually getting things right or caring about harming the innocent citizen these institutions are tasked with protecting -- at least under the ideals of our free society.

'But at some level they should.'

Why? That is why they investigate after receiving an accusation. If some calls with a noise complaint at 2am, it is completely reasonable to have a police officer consider the people at the address noted in the complaint to be engaging in an activity that breaks the law. After arriving, an informed decision can be made.

"Most men are not abusers,"

Asserted without evidence.

Preliminary evidence does seem to indicate this. There's been very few 'one off ' abuse charges (Woody Allen comes to mind). Many of the MeToo allegations seem to cluster on men who are serial predators. The 80-20 rule of thumb would also seem to imply it is unlikely abuse is spread evenly among men but instead there will likely be inequality with many men never doing anything and some men doing a lot.

Looking at what the news focuses on is not a reliable way to analyze data. 80-20 is a good heuristic, but think about the distribution of speeding tickets. I bet they follow an 80-20 rule as well. That doesn't mean that most people don't speed.

Perhaps but I would suspect most speeding is done by a minority of speeders.

#MeToo isn't exactly news focus since it was started by women self reporting the abuse they experienced. I could see a bias towards naming a well known person but I suspect if abuse was very evenly distributed we'd see a huge array of names named but very few cases like Weinstein where a lot of women literally said "me too".

Something to keep in mind. I recall reading in daily life maybe 1% of the people you randomly encounter will be psychopaths but in prison AND upper levels of corporate management that figure is like 15%. In other words hanging around powerful people is as dangerous as hanging around prisons in terms of encountering psychopaths. Just like there's a lot of sexual predation in prisons why wouldn't one see a lot from that minority in positions of great power?

The thing is that the #metoo cases you hear about are the most egregious ones, just like the murders you hear about on the news are the most egregious ones. If you were judging from national television news you would think that most murders in this country are mass murders, which is far from true. So the fact that the cases that come to mind involve men with lots of victims is not necessarily relevant to the true distribution of assailants.

I would want to see some academic study before I would accept Tyler's claim and the argument that follows from it.

My impression was that #MeToo had all types of stories posted to it, we can examine those. There was also a 'shitty man list' being circulated by women in media. While they might have been a lot of notable people on that list my impression was that there also were rather unimportant managers and other types (unimportant at least to those who aren't in the media industry). How often do single people show up with a single accusation versus people with multiple?

We do know there are some men who have a lot of accusations against them. This does alter the math a bit. If the distribution is assumed to be very even, then the chance one man will have a lot of charges against him will be very unlikely, otherwise such repeat offenders will push the distribution into something like a power rule with 80-20 holding sway. If the distribution is very flat, then there's only so many chronic offenders the distribution can tolerate before inequality starts showing up.

You clearly don't drive in my neck of the woods. Driving the speed limit is very much the exception. 10 - 15 MPH over is the norm.

Suppose we attached gps to every car and treated speeding as a cumulative metric. For example, if you drive 5 mph over for 5 minutes that 25 'units' of speeding. i suspect you'd find inequality in speeding despite the fact that 'everyone' typically goes 10-15 mph over.

Speeding, though, has some mechanical caps on it. You can only speed so much before your car gives out or you kill yourself. Assuming a man isn't challenged, he can amass hundreds even thousands of victims over decades. This distorts the distribution a lot. If Bill Cosby molested 1000 women then mixing him in with a group of 999 men who never did anything gets you an 'average' of one incident per man.

If "most men" possess the property of being what you call an "abuser," then possession of this property should be assumed to be compatible with moral decency.
If "most men are 'abusers'," then parents who don't want their daughters to be "abused" shouldn't be allowing them to attend inadequately supervised parties. If "abuse" occurs, the fault is the parent's, not the "abuser's."

I agree that women do see the worse side of men so men might see rape, assault, harassment as a rare event (like getting car jacked) that happens to a few out of 100 women while on the other side among women many have a story of some sort of dealing with some type of perv.

Which makes Trump's stance pretty much yet another big FU to women. Let's pretend we know with 100% certainty that Ford's allegation is false. Every woman and most men also know the idea that 'of course' there would have been a police report had the incident happened back in 1984 is absurd. Even today many incidents like that and worse happen and will never get reported.

On the criminal justice side I'd say there's a OJ/Shooting Cop paradox. Most people charged in the criminal justice system are going to be forced into a plea and unlikely to be vindicated. However if unlimited legal resources are applied, a different legal system is entered where 'beyond reasonable doubt' makes it almost impossible to prove a case. Hence the juries with OJ are made to consider pretty unlikely alternative murder scenarios or in questionable police shootings it is almost impossible to get a conviction because how can you be sure the cop didn't honestly think he saw a gun?

"This is how social change happens."

Sadly, i think the real change that will come of this is the death of the #metoo movement. Even if you believe Ford, there is little doubt that her charges have been weaponized to the extreme. Every complaint about #metoo is being realized here. Her complaints are unverifiable and somewhat vague. They happened a long time ago and are only just now coming to light, right at a time when its political effect is maximized. No amount of corroborating evidence is going to help Kavanaugh and no lack of corroborating evidence is going to harm Ford.

The contrast between this and, say Bill Cosby couldnt be starker.

Man are you naive, #MeToo is a real shift in the culture, it's not going back. That's like saying premarital sex will stop being a thing, because it went too far.

"most women have abuse, rape or #MeToo stories, and they experience these phenomena as relatively common and often life-altering."
Yes, most women experience the telling of such stories as relatively common and often life-altering.
And these are for the most part stories about incidents less traumatic than those men experience several times as a year as adults and experienced several times a month a kids.
But what men experience doesn't matter. Only the experiences of women matter. Which fits well with the universally recognized legal principle: Women Can Do Whatever The Fuck They Want At All Times.

This guy gets it I mean if their is one thing we can all agree on it's that tye current Judeo-Christian legal system has been set up to favor women. It is only through centuries of battles that men have somewhat even footing.

Also, as everyone knows that experiencing trauma is a zero sum game. If women go through something that means that no one cares about abuse that men have suffered.

Great insight.

The #metoo phenomenon is a direct descendant of the McMartin pre-school panic of the 1980s and the similar cases it engendered. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings are just the most telegenic of this particular brand of mass hysteria.

Bingo. American as apple pie. Hillary loses the election just like Abigail Williams lost John Proctor and now everyone "SAW GOODY KAVANAUGH WITH THE DEVIL!!!"

When I saw that slimeball Avenatti siddle forth with the 3rd "accuser", it was quite clear to me that this was complete twaddle.

They are mad that the "spirit" of right-leaning justice present that possibility of "going out in the night and attacking them."

"incidents less traumatic than those men experience several times as a year as adults and experienced several times a month a kids."

What kind of incidents? I have no idea what you are talking about, and I ask in good faith. (Someone else who understands what was meant may answer as well).

Just for the record, I have never actually experienced any sort of sexual assault, and I'm pretty surprised that so many other women seem to have. The worst thing that ever happened to me was that someone grabbed my ass in the lunch line in 7th grade. So I'm more or less in the bewildered position of most men on this issue.

And I too, would rather be talking about NAFTA.

In the best possible world, Hayabusa2 would be at the top of the news.

t(o me)Your comment makes it seem you'd be bewildered by most women's position. Can you explain that better?

Having not experienced sexual assault (at least not anything serious enough I would consider it one), I'm IN the bewildered position of most men, which consists of being bewildered BY the surprising news that most women seem to have stories of being sexually assaulted in some way.

I also kind of wonder if the perception that people have that it's most women isn't just driven by the self selection of only those women who have been assaulted being very public about it right now. The internet is a big place. Even if it's only like 10% of women, that still a LOT of Tweets.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

Sexual assault is a serious problem. But if you look at what some people define as sexual assault you discover a pretty big variance in what it means. Unwanted touching is unwanted touching and men should always be respectful. But what people define as a sexual assault is sometimes vague.

"someone grabbed my ass in the lunch line in 7th grade."

Rest assured, a very large subset of #metoo is classifying this type of thing as sexual assault. Kudos for not perpetuating the stupidity.

I was traumatized for about 30 minutes, and then I got over it.

I think it actually raised my self-esteem. I realized I was at least attractive enough to be worthy of copping a feel.

My wife, who was very hot, and still hot for her age, said pretty much the same thing that you said.

most women have abuse, rape or #MeToo stories

Like I keep on saying - Tyler Cowen (and Alex Tabarrok, for that matter) is a psychopathic asshole

This is going to sound awful, but I wonder how many people had witchcraft stories. I've noticed a lot of women on twitter offering their status as a sexual assault victim to increase the credibility of whatever opinion they happen to hold on this topic. Me too takes on a different kind of meaning.

In my mind, this is like Ferguson and Michael Brown in an important sense. The evidence for 'Hands up, don't shoot!' was very weak, just as the evidence that Kavanaugh committed attempted rape 36 years ago is very weak. That makes both perfect test cases for signalling group allegiance (to #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo respectively). Nobody won any BLM plaudits for condemning the shooting of Walter Scott. Even conservatives condemned that, so there was no signalling value. And with cases like Walter Scott, nobody will take the other side, so there's no prospect for an all-out, are-you-with-us-or-against-us battle. But people who are willing to go all in and display no doubts about 'Hands up, don't shoot!' (despite the contrary evidence and because there is strong push-back from the other side) demonstrate their absolute loyalty to BLM, just as those who are all in for Christine Blassey Ford demonstrate their unquestioned loyalty to MeToo and the blue tribe (despite the hazy and inconsistent memories of CBF and lack of any corroborating evidence). And, again, because the weak case generates strong push-back, there's a perceived strong need for group-loyalty when the group is under threat. The fight is joined, the stakes go up, and the names of any who fail to show full loyalty and commitment are noted and remembered.

I also don't agree with Tyler's analysis. Like men, most women know vastly more men who are not abusers than who are. They know as well as men that the base rates are very low. And they are often more dubious about other women's tears and manipulations. So this episode seems to me to cut much more across red/blue tribe than male/female.

I'm not sure what your interpretation of my thought process would be, but I find Ford's allegations much more likely to be true than the 'Hands up, don't shoot!' story. A lot of it is about priors. Based on what I believe from other evidence about BK's high school and college life, he's got to be at least 5x as likely to do this kind of thing as an average high schooler today. There is also the data point of Ford discussing this with her therapist years ago. I'm not sure why conservatives don't put more weight on that - even if you still don't believe her - that's got to move the probability a lot, right?

The details, based on the limited info we have, seemingly are exculpatory for BK. In addition, we don't know how CF offered these memories (e.g., recovered memory?).

"Based on what I believe from other evidence about BK's high school and college life, he's got to be at least 5x as likely to do this kind of thing as an average high schooler today."

Why? This sounds to me like the rush to judgement of the Duke Lacrosse team and Phi Kappa Psi at Virginia based on the idea that these are Lax bros and frat boys who are, supposedly, known to do those kinds of things.

Kavanaugh was a good-looking, smart prep-school athlete from a wealthy family. My memory was that guys like that really didn't struggle finding girls who would have sex with them. But he testified under oath that he was a virgin in high-school and for several years afterward. That's easily refutable by any woman he slept with, so I think we have to assume it's true (otherwise, why would he unnecessarily expose himself to perjury?) But he does have lifelong friendships with my of his female high-school classmates. Does the high-status high-school virgin with many long-standing female friends still fit the entitled, sexually aggressive, horn-dog prep-school, frat-boy stereotype? To me, to be honest, that sounds more like somebody from high-school that you later are only mildly surprised to hear is gay. Or are you sure you're not trying to jam a peg into a hole that really doesn't fit? Test yourself -- what was your initial reaction to the Duke Lacrosse and Rolling Stone rape accusations? Did you assume they were true or were you skeptical?

On the other side, Ford doesn't ring true to me. Traumatic memories tend to be persistent and detailed. That is why they are often so troublesome to people. Yes, she discussed this with her therapist. But only 30 years after the event, and reportedly didn't name Kavanaugh then. There's the discrepancy over the number of boys involved and her age. And, to my knowledge, investigators still haven't seen those notes. There's the (weird) discrepancy about the two doors and when the home remodeling happened. There's the obvious lie about fear of flying that she laughed off and the probable lie that she never knew the committee wanted to interview her in California. There is the fact, that not even her lifelong friend has any memory of the event and that CBF threw her under the bus by suggesting she didn't remember because she had mental problems. She seems flaky and not trustworthy to me. None of this proves she wasn't assaulted, but I have to lower the probability.

Very well said. I also found the way this 52 year old professor spoke like a 12 year old Valley Girl quite unbelievable. Also suspicious how all social media was scraped, including the year book where her friend said she thought Christie had sex with 54 boys in high school.

Kavanaugh's testimony included a lot more impeachable claims than Ford's. I guess we are not willing to assume that a hard drinking/partying frat boy athlete in the early 80s was not more willing to commit sexual assault? To be fair, I don't think any has produced a scientific study to demonstrate this would be the case. It just seems much more likely than not to me. That's not to say he's guilty based on that alone. But we can adjust our priors based on circumstances like that, even if the Duke lacrosse team turned out to be innocent.

The reality is that ordinary accused people, who are basically presumed guilty by the criminal justice system, don’t receive very fair judgments.

That's not the reality. The reality is that nearly all people indicted are guilty. The problem is the fact-finding process doesn't sort guilty or innocent well among those indicted, and certainly doesn't sort them efficiently. The other problem is that so much discretionary power is lodged in prosecutors that a bad prosecutor can wreak a great deal of damage. This is more of a problem on the federal level than the state level. The third problem is that the recruitment process for the judiciary Hoovers up a great many quondam prosecutors and state's attorneys. The lawyers in private practice who land in judicial positions are drawn disproportionately from the pool of attorneys who weren't making much of a living at practicing law. The oversight function of the judiciary can be compromised by this.

It's pretty amusing how Cowen uses his column to advocate, stupidly, for two Democratic Party mascot groups.

perhaps now we can move on to talking about the renegotiation of the trade agreement formerly known as NAFTA

Maybe we can change it's name to an unpronouceable symbol for the duration of Trump's presidency and then change it back afterwards.

+1 First thing I thought of.

I’m not seeing any level of detailed reporting yet.

Aside from the pointless rebranding, which is like the ultimate Trump move.

Let's not let our egos get in the way. if all Trump wants is a pointless rebranding, he can have it.

I believe the Marine Corps are preparing to sue.

What the Kavanaugh hearings have told is, in graphic detail, is that the intramural culture of the Democratic Party is thoroughly degenerate. That's true in the suites and the streets.

Have you found that child sex ring hidden deep in a DC pizza parlor? If not keep looking.

I think a lot of it boils down to the stakes being too high. The stakes are too high for men to label their actions as rape or sexual assault to society and themselves. But in my experience they tend to know the truth.

Rape and sexual assault happens most frequently at the high school and college level. It's when kids are learning about and experimenting with sex for the first time. As a society, we're very uncomfortable with essentially 'ruining' a white male's life based on he-said/she-said situations. To be more comfortable with that idea, we try and force relationships to be black and white and poke holes in the stories based on logic that doesn't apply. Relationships are complicated, especially when you add abuse into it at such young ages. Rape can be just as complicated.

I know this from personal experience. My high school sweetheart raped me right after we broke up. It's something that neither of us deny, we both know it happened. It's taken a while, but we can both label it for what it was. We actually have talked a lot over the past year about it since it's an event that still affects us both on a deep level. That being said, if it were in a public forum it would be torn apart and plenty of people would say it couldn't have happened because we kept hanging out and we slept together once after that. What people don't realize is these events don't come out of nowhere. They're part of a progression. They're part of a relationship. It took me a couple of months to realize just how bad everything had gotten and that I needed to let go of an abusive relationship. That's really hard to do and to make sense of when you're 17 and it's your first love.

I don't know what justice looks like in our situation. Right now we're working it out between us. Should he still have his job? Should he still have his life? Should he still have his family? Should his family know what happened under their roof? What should justice be? In theory, we know rape is bad. We place it right underneath murder. But in practice we struggle with it. This is one of those situations where to address the problem we need to take theory out of it and figure out what's a practical solution.

Personally, I think we could use a Truth and Reconciliation process so that we can all start understanding how big of an issue this is. Provide a safe place to discuss events openly and honestly and start a conversation about what we can do moving forward to heal the wounds of the past and make it a safer place for future generations.

Great post. #MeToo and the Kavanaugh hearings are a kind of Truth and Reconciliation process. It would be better if it was formal and official but that's not really possible. What is possible, and happening, is #MeToo is bringing all of these ideas into the open just like a T&R process would.

It is messy, there will be some collateral damage, but in the end this is how culture changes. Boys all over the country are thinking twice about stuff they used to do without thinking. Girls are ready to speak out when before they weren't. Even your own situation with that ex is probably being positively affected by the shift in culture, giving you both new ways of thinking about what happened and what the consequences should be.

"Our criminal justice system isn’t very good." That's your takeaway? Compared to, say, Italy's or Lebanon's?

The better take-away is that our judiciary decides political questions, hence the battle for the majority on SCOTUS is a political fight with all the attendant nastiness, instead of an arcane debate on jurisprudential aptitude.

"As a society, we're very uncomfortable with essentially 'ruining' a white male's life based on he-said/she-said situations. "

Haha, good one.

She didn't say it doesn't happen; she said we'r uncomfortable with it, and that still seems pretty damn accurate.

We should be uncomfortable about ruining anyone's life based on a he-said/she-said situation. But I know white mens' lives don't matter so an exception should be made for them or something.

When I see someone insistently use the term “obstructionist democrat” with respect to a supreme court nominee, I can only hope they were literally born yesterday

If someone was literally born yesterday and they could use any terms at all, especially one with that many syllables, then you need to contact Guiness, Ripley, and the NSA because you have a real prodigy there.

At this point is people are not convinced that Kavanaugh is a serial liar and unfit to clean the bathrooms at the Supreme Court then this country is even more screwed than I think it is.

He lied when he first got on the Federal Court, and his lies now are just constant, and that is without even considering Ford's statements.

Seriously, a 50 something man lies about drinking beer underage? That is a compulsive liar.

He's admitted he drank a lot during college and HS, right from the beginning. What are you talking about?

He lied about his age when drinking.

"Dogged by an accusation of a sexual assault in high school and pressed to defend his character, Brett Kavanaugh went on Fox News with a curious strategy. Instead of owning up to his high school drinking habits, he told what appear to be lies.

Kavanaugh insinuated that he never drank when he was underage, saying on Fox that when he was a senior, the “drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there.”

Not only is this not true with regard to the legal drinking age in Maryland at the time, it’s also extremely hard to square with the portrait he otherwise paints of himself as a hard-partying kid. Thirty-five years ago he seemed to have joked in his yearbook about being the treasurer of the Keg City Club, and in 2015 he quipped that “what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.”

Obviously if we disqualified people from high office for having engaged in underage drinking or some youthful drunken antics, we’d have a very hard time staffing the government. The mere fact that Kavanaugh drank to excess in high school is not relevant to whether he is fit to serve on the Supreme Court. And it certainly doesn’t prove that he sexually assaulted anyone.

But it does factor into the question at the heart of this saga: Should we take Kavanaugh’s word or that of his accusers? Kavanaugh has consistently had trouble being honest with both Congress and the public. That he would choose to say things that aren’t true, yet again, just makes it harder to trust any of his claims."

People that lie for no reason have serious issues.

He didn’t lie about his age. It’s in your own Vox article.

He lied (or misspoke) about the legal status in Maryland of drinking under 21. Apparently one could legally procure beer at 18 across the state border.

My takeaway is that it’s irrelevant, I doubt he waited until 18 to drink beer.

The fact that we’re even discussing whether or not he drank underage is the quintessential stupidity that is 2018 America.

Neither side cares at all, except insofar as to whether or not they can slam or promote his nomination.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. When I was a teen, New Jersey lowered the drinking age to 18 for awhile and then changed it with certain dates(like Maryland) still allowing under 21 drinking to some people.

There was no a teen living in or near New Jersey who did not know the law. Kavanaugh certainly knew it.

You: “He lied about his age when drinking.”

Me: He lied (or misspoke) about the legal status, not whether he was 18.

So your claim is that he insisted he was 21 years old in high school?


"when he was a senior" it was illegal for him to drink in maryland.


This is really dumb. The legal drinking age was 18 in D.C. and it's dumb to say he's "lying" because he mentions 18 was the legal age and also he drank a lot. Lying (such as he appears to have done with various terms in his yearbook- unnecessarily in my mind) especially under oath is a problem. Presenting yourself in the best light in a "job interview" (or elsewhere) is not a problem.

What's really dumb is that you think this is about drinking in DC.

It comes across as pretty dumb to be calling someone a serial liar based upon the exact drinking age in 3 different jurisdictions from 35 years ago. I don't have a clue what the drinking ages were within a 25 mile radius of where I lived 35 years. I doubt many people do

+1. The list of lies keeps growing longer and longer. He also shows lack of emotional constraint and displays partisan bias. This is no way to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. I'll be happy if he doesn't get confirmed because I don't want another corporate stooge ruling for corporations that continue to fleece the American people. But I know I don't get to make these decisions. The packrats in DC do.

I'm very puzzled about this sudden idea that judges should be emotionless robots. I'm sure if his testimony were different we would be hearing about how we can't have an uncaring robot as a judge.

And if you don't want someone to accuse one political party of bad acts and trying to personally destroy him, I have an idea. Maybe that political party shouldn't do that. Frankly if he didn't call out the people responsible for the debacle I would question his intellect.

“we can all agree there are large numbers of intelligent people on both sides of the debate, and even after a week of intense national scrutiny there is no resolution. “

I don't agree - the Democrats are lying snakes. They sat on these accusations hoping to drop them at the end and drive Kavanaugh out. Take the vote and identify the liars.

Unbelievable this meme is out there.

Yeah, Feinstein did not out an assault victim who asked her not to out her. Course, you also have to "forget" that Ford came forth before Kavanaugh was nominated.

Your information sources are deficient, that you use them is an indictment of you.

From the first line of Ford's letter to Feinstein:

"I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court. As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." Note that she wanted to speak before Feinstein released the letter; she did not forbid the release.

Second to last paragraph from the letter:
"I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6, I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything."

July 6 was after Kennedy announced his retirement - she was all set to go. Notice also the reference to medical treatment - makes you think she was injured, but she went to a therapist 30 years later.

Not credible, but incredible.

Yeah, when she went to a therapist is important. Geez

Meanwhile, How long do you think Kavanaugh was on the Federalist Society list? He was a Society member for years and actually vetted judges for Bush (lot of lies in his involvement have been ignored). He is a hack. Spent very little time practicing law, unless you count his time with Kenneth Starr as legal work. Worked for the BA, and then was named a judge without almost any experience. Throughout all of this time, he has lied about his actions.

You think she did not know about this from long before Kennedy retired? That's silly.

I'm sure that's why the ABA (notoriously left-wing) gave him their unanimous rating of fully qualified for the supreme court.

Anyway the only people who had Ford's letter were Feinstein's people, so they controlled when it came out. It makes no sense to say they honored her request for confidentiality... until the end of the proceeding when they decided not to.

Until she agreed to come forward. That was not Feinstien's decision.

You people are just insane with your fact finding.

She agreed to come forward because Feinstein had already leaked the letter

Well Feinstein denies it was her personally, but since her office was in possession of the letter, it seems unlikely to be from anywhere else. Granted, it could have been a subordinate.

I think the Democrats played politics with this allegation and sat on it to try to run out the clock before the midterms. But I also think these are serious allegations that should be investigated. Why do people seem to think that the Democrats' games dismiss the seriousness of these allegations? Also, I don't think Republicans have some moral high ground on this issue. They're all politicians of the highest order in my book. I doubt many of them really care about process. They just care about wins.

+1, that's a good point.

Yep, +2. Reps created this toxic polarized SC process.

I wouldn't personally say the Republicans started it, but it's clearly working out for them. Worst case is Trump just nominates someone like Amy Coney Barrett and the nomination gets pushed through before the end of the year.

If you are going to play hard ball, then the side with the bat is going to come out on top.

No doubt, which is why when the Reps had the bat 3 years ago they refused to let the Dems even get a vote on someone. The Dems didn't even realize the batter was allowed to do that. So now they are rightfully pissed off. Won't matter, as you say another conservative judge will get in. But no surprise the Dems are now playing dirty too.

Freaking sad.

We need a giant heaping dose of federalism immediately.

Making the stakes this high just leads to stupidity and insanity.

"The Dems didn't even realize the batter was allowed to do that"

LOL, come on msgkings, you know that's wrong.

It's referred to as the Biden rule, because the precedent cited is from a speech by Joe Biden. And it was frequently discussed as a potential tactic by the Democrat majority in the last 2 years of the Bush administration.

It was certainly a sleazy political tactic, but it clearly wasn't something a Democratic Senate would never do. Granted, it was something a Republican Senate did do.

To break the cycle, one party will have to behave better when they're in power. I'm more than happy to see the Democrats become that party. However I'm extremely doubtful they'll turn the other cheek once they have control of Congress.

"Granted, it was something a Republican Senate did do." - kind of the whole thing right there.

OK, fine, they knew it was legally possible to do it because someone talked about it. But let's be clear, the Reps drew first blood here.

Agreed someone has to be the better party here, and like you I doubt the Dems are in the mood to be. They at least have the possibility, which it seems the Reps lack. This is exactly why polarization sucks so very much.

Of relevance is this recent quote (last night) by Senator Jeff Flake :

"But Flake said in today's politics, there's no value to this kind of reaching across the aisle.

"There's no currency for that anymore. There's no incentive," he said."

SSC has a great post on the narcissism of small differences. Too lazy to link.

To paraphrase South Park: do you remember the long long ago, the before time?

Way back In 2006 when Democrat Rep Charlie Rangel told Hugo Chavez “you don’t come into my country, my district, and condemn my president.”

The actual stakes have never been lower.

Gay marriage is settled law. No one is arguing about racial minorities using fountains or voting. ACA is even settled law now.

We’re tearing the country apart, “dividing the house” to use Lincoln’s parlance, over whether Harvard can set an Asian quota (Dems for some insane reason in favor, something that affects my family personally), whether Medicaid should include a work requirement for able bodied adults, and whether Alabama should be allowed to limit abortion to the first trimester.

The lower the stakes, the more bitter and stupid the battle.

Yes, I remember the Republicans trashing Buzzy Ginsburg and the Wise Latina. Oh and poor Merrick Garland, the second coming of Antonin Scalia, was denied his rightful place. Oh the humanity!

Yes, that's all you partisan dummies have. Minimize what you know you did wrong. I mean, "oh and poor Brett Kavanaugh, the second coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes, was denied his rightful place", it's stupid even for you.

Meanwhile, SC picks used to be fairly non-partisan up until Alito. Now the Court is just another political football. Sad.

It is a remarkable charlie-brown-football level of pathology that so much of this nation is willing to imbue into the principle players here any motive or values besides getting their nominee in/opposing that nominee

That this happens to crack open the abuse/entitlement question is purely coincidental.

In particular the Republican’s sudden discovery of due process, smear, and obstruction is quite precious. But don’t think for a moment that the Democrats are playing this as a planned strategy to expand womens’ rights either.

+1 Why are people so intent on defending their party's moral high ground on this process? Republicans and Democrats are all about scoring political points however they think they can get away with it. But this doesn't diminish the seriousness of the allegations from Ford nor the problems with both of their testimonies.

Yup, a very important conversation. Happening almost entirely by accident.

First, my position is that most likely Brett does not belong on the Supreme court as he is too political and lied many times and is bad drunk. But..
A little noted fact in this case is the Ford admits to a neurosis, that is she admits to fear of flying. She seems to me to be at least a bit neurotic/ high-strung.
So you have high performing drunk (Steve Sailer would point out Irish) (I was raised by one of them, a very good man sober not so much drunk) who grab, pulls down and gropes a girl at a party, and where most girks would shrug it off as bad drunk behavior but not something to hold on to, the high-string Ford fears rape and accidental death and builds it up in her mind.
Nevertheless if he were not so ignorant and belligerent Trump would withdraw the nomination and go the next person on his list who differs only slightly policy wise.

Yeah, a more mellow chick would shrug off a attempted gang rape

But a high strung girl would let it fester until she had a full-on fear of airplanes

Coach John Madden refused to fly, an onerous choice for someone with a travel-based career. Personally, I never trusted the guy's word on anything.

"...he is too political"

Was this the case before last week's extraordinary events? Wasn't the sense of Kavanaugh before then that he was kind of a milk-toast centrist 'squish' of the kind that pleased the GOP establishment more than Trump supporters (who were worried he might turn out to be another Souter)?

" bad drunk"

Is there any evidence (or even accusations) of this during the recent decades?

Actually, it is refreshing to see the mask of pretense come off. The guy has been a right wing bagman for much of his career. On Thursday's hearing, he dropped the pretense and showed his talk-radio instincts

He's correct that this is motivated by (at least partially) payback for Clinton, Bill not Hilary. Where he is wrong is to act so hurt and surprised. He made his career on this sort of high stake tiddlywinks.

And if Kavanaugh is innocent, might we hope that this experience will make him more sympathetic to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned and accused?

Yes, I could see it being good to have someone like Kavanaugh on the court. For instance, being binge drinker himself he might work to end the war on drugs.

Joking? The most committed opposition to legalizing other drugs comes from big drinkers.

"Most ordinary accused people are assumed guilty by the justice system"

Are you high?

Have you seen conviction rates for rape amongst even only those cases that even get to court?

Ridiculous statement

I think he means indicted. That would make a little more sense.

This is America's Dreyfus affair.

That's gone right over the head of most commenters here.

Well, that is because they are too concerned about who was frenching who after drinking copious quantities of all-American beer (well, one hopes it was all-American beer, and not something like Kronenbourg 1664).

Until FBI investigators report their findings and those findings are announced to the public in the coming week: Republicans are hoping or assuming that Kavanaugh is as innocent as he protested vehemently last Thursday, Democrats are hoping that Ford identified her assailant (at least) as accurately as she reported the circumstances of the presumed assault.

If evidence clearly implicating Kavanaugh in a drunken adolescent episode is disclosed, I'd agree with Sen. Flake that the nomination is dead and the process will have to begin again with a new nominee, since I doubt the Senate would approve any SCOTUS nominee deemed guilty of perjury.

If no evidence linking Kavanaugh with Ford's accusation is forthcoming in any FBI report, or if evidence emerges that clears Kavanaugh of any and all legitimate suspicion, Ford's supporters and Congressional Democrats properly should face a storm of public resentment and rebuke (and formal Federal investigation, arguably) they will have had a hand in creating, since last week's testimony leaves the charge to be investigated that some Democratic Party operative leaked Ford's confidential letter in order to turn the Kavanaugh hearings into sheer political theatre regardless of how the public disclosure affected either Ford or Kavanaugh. (Such fallout from this episode could well ensue whether Kavanaugh is the creep or not that the Ford/Dem camp believes him to be.)

Patience is now required of us all.

"If evidence clearly implicating Kavanaugh in a drunken adolescent episode is disclosed, I'd agree [...] that the nomination is dead [...] since I doubt the Senate would approve any SCOTUS nominee deemed guilty of perjury."

Why? Kavanaugh didn't say he had never been drunk. He said he never passed out. That's not at all the same thing. I must have been drunk hundreds of times in my life, and I passed out only once (this was fun, by the way).

Apologies for my lack of requisite specificity: "If evidence clearly implicating Kavanaugh in a drunken adolescent episode of groping, fondling, or grinding is disclosed . . ." (I neglected to link the alleged contributing factors to the allegations of assault)

I agree that Kavanaugh's alcohol consumption as a teen or as a young adult itself seems immaterial to his nomination: a tempest in a beer mug is most of what I saw last week courtesy of the Senate Judiciary Cmte.

Okay, and I agree with you.

"If evidence clearly implicating Kavanaugh in a drunken adolescent episode of groping, fondling, or grinding is disclosed..."

I might agree, except that in this hyper-polarized political climate, there's an opportunity for a woman who knew Kavanaugh back then and didn't like him (and/or is a committed progressive, and/or would like to be famous and a heroine of the MeToo movement) to claim something like "One time in the Fall of our freshman year, Brett was really drunk and came to my dorm room and tried to assault me. I managed to fight him off and he left. I never told anyone about it until now, but I feel I must speak up." There's really no perjury risk there at all -- who could ever prove that she made it all up?

"There's really no perjury risk there at all -- who could ever prove that she made it all up"

This is an important point, and why all the people claiming that "one of them is lying and must be prosecuted for perjury" as though that proves something, whether about Kavanaugh or about Ford, are so off-base. If a criminal defendant is found not guilty, or a civil defendant is found not liable (where the standard of proof is much lower), it is extremely rare for the complainant to be prosecuted for perjury, because most of the time there is no proof, which is what you need for perjury, that the person was lying -- they can claim they remember it differently, that they messed up the details, that a long time had passed, etc. And as a matter of policy, we shy away from prosecuting people simply for being wrong, even very wrong, both as a matter of free speech and to prevent potential crime or civil tort victims from staying away from the court: most people would stay away from the legal system if interacting with it put them at major risk of perjury prosecutions. Plus, at a political level, it is really bad optics to prosecute people for accusing others of serious crimes, especially right now in regards to sexual offenses and especially when the accusers are women, unless you have solid independent evidence (video, secretly recorded audio, emails, etc) that will convince 80-90% of people that the accuser blatantly lied or conspired to lie.

Ford is really only at a perjury risk if emails, texts, or audio are found of her, within the past 6 months, talk about potentially accusing Kavanaugh in the hopes of scuttling his Supreme Court nomination and in a way that makes mostly clear (asking people what she should say, changing her story to make it more believable, etc) that the allegations are intended to be a lie; this is especially true if these are between Ford, her attorney, and Rep. Eshoo/Sen. Feinstein's offices. Likewise, Kavanaugh is only at perjury risk for statements of fact (so his self-perception of his drinking level doesn't qualify) which are blatantly wrong and could be construed no other way, even to someone who favors him, than as a lie: so his statement that "seniors could drink legally in 1982" wouldn't qualify, because a) it was partially true, b) it could easily be an error of memory, we don't prosecute people for getting old details wrong, and c) it isn't material to the matter of whether he assaulted Ford or not.

It's also why Kavanaugh having groped someone in the past wouldn't expose him to perjury, it's easily cleared up as a lapse of memory (Justin Trudeau's response to the person who accused him) or losing his memory due to alcohol. For the latter, ironically Kavanaugh's statement that "I never blacked out" wouldn't open him up to perjury charges even if he did black out, because he may legitimately have no memory of ever blacking out due to alcohol consumption (different story if, for instance, they find his diary or something and he repeatedly talks about blacking out). Politically, though, it would look bad and would probably scuttle his nomination.

I was almost limiting my comments to Ford (I entertained doubts concerning Ramirez's charges even before the FBI investigation was launched).

I doubt the Senate will be obliged to consider anything beyond the scope of the FBI's appointed task(s).

If in any regard that is under investigation Kavanaugh lied, though, including his vehement denial from last Thursday and probable prior assurances to Trump and Senate Republicans, he would have perjured himself before the Senate as a sitting Federal judge: I don't know what could follow from that, but I suspect he might have a hard time recovering . . . which is why I can only understand his defiance last week as a sign that there is no there there in any of the charges brought by Ford or Ramirez (nothing else, including his teen and young adult drinking, will matter to speak of, I don't much think).

If Ford's allegations can be shown by FBI investigation to connect exactly and explicitly with Kavanaugh, however, I think he'll find few friends left in the DC area.

"If evidence clearly implicating Kavanaugh in a drunken adolescent episode is disclosed, I'd agree with Sen. Flake that the nomination is dead and the process will have to begin again with a new nominee, since I doubt the Senate would approve any SCOTUS nominee deemed guilty of perjury."

ANY drunken adolescent episode? Did Kavanaugh really testify under oath that he never once drank too many beers and did anything stupid as a young man?

See my reply to Joel above, grazie.

If you had a strong prior that was pro-Kavanaugh, it is trivial to interpret the evidence through that lens. if you had a strong prior that was anti-Kavanaugh, it is trivial to interpret the evidence through that lens. We statisticians have a name for that: weak evidence. The fact that few people are changing their minds in this case is simply evidence that (a) people were highly divided before; and (b) the evidence is weak.

Nonsense, Kavanaugh's willingness to tell lies and lack of judicial temperament is on full display.

That's plenty of evidence for impartial nonpartisan analysis based on broader principles. As if such a thing exists.

What is the statistician's term for people who refuse to "change their minds" regardless of the evidence?

Their minds are made up: Party before person. Party before principle. The rest is kabuki.

"lack of Judicial temperament" What a pathetic grasping at straws. My advice to you is to avoid talking points from your tribe in the future and embrace rationality. If you fail to do this, you will always be in a box.

Nonsense. As recently as four days ago - coinciding with Judge Kavanaugh's channeling of Rush Limbaugh - many people on both sides of the aisle at least pretended to agree with the ABA: “compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.”

“Well ok, he probably wasn’t a gang rapist. But I don’t wanna talk evidence or the timing of leaks. Let’s focus on him being rude. Or something.”

That’s not the case the democrats are making. That ship sailed.

The case is that he’s a gang rapist and attempted to rape Ford.

"And yes, some see America as the world’s laughingstock." Oh that's so true. In the civilized world, people make fun of the current US situation.
I spent four months in France this summer, and I can confirm that most people laugh at all the issues they hear, about gender pronouns,
safe space, the excesses of Me Too. But in their laughing there is some perceptible fear -- fear of the cultural hegemony of the US, backed by
a formidable military power. I wish you were only laughingstock.

A French guy figured that out fifty years ago

Lol, Tyler, you obviously don't have your finger on the pulse. The reason "no one" (i.e., the media) ever brings up alcohol is because that undermines the standard narrative. The narrative is that 1) we have a rape epidemic, 2) this is solely the consequence of male predation. It has nothing at all to do with the collapse of sexual mores or discarding all of "patriarchal" social customs designed to prevent these kinds of things. Nor can it have anything to do with female behavior as that would be "blaming the victim."

The attitude toward perpetrators is highly contextual. If the perps are white frat bros (guilty or innocent, real or fictional), that is highly relevant and demands maximum publicity. If the perps are black guys, then it's best to elide that information and condemn the "rape culture" more broadly. If the perp is a pervy Hollywood mogul, that is a pretext for actresses to lecture white males in the heartland about how rapey they are.

Fun to think about: How would a modern white liberal re-write To Kill a Mockingbird?

They wouldn't. They will just drop the existing one from its current place in American literature.

Not likely. An Aaron Sorkin-penned Broadway adaptation is about to launch and will likely be a big hit.

As opposed to today where if you point out that blacks rape >20k white women per year you are exiled from polite society. About 5X white per capita rape rate. All from that infamous FBI table. Without blacks rape rates would be much lower. Thats the important conversation.

Except this happened in 1984. Maybe after the sexual revolution but before gay marriage, Bill Clinton, Internet Porn and all the other 'collapse' stuff.

You are seeing a reset of sexual ethics. Before the issue was marriage (pre and extra marital sex was frowned upon), now the issue is consent.

Yep. And we might even see a swing of the pendulum back to more conservative sexual ethics, as gregor would prefer. Obviously not all the way back to 1850, or even 1950, but the culture seems to be backing away slightly from celebrating total sexual freedom and hookups and drunken stupidity. Stuff that would be celebrated in the 1970s is becoming frowned upon, and that's generally a good thing.

Except the 'conservative sexual ethics' isn't really compatible, at least how it was implemented in the past. The 'conservative game plan' in the past consisted of men pursuing sex from women and 'good women' using that to extract marriage, commitment, family etc.

'Bad girls' in that system not only 'get what they deserve' but also serve as an outlet for boys not yet ready to settle down (or who want something on the side). Consent culture, on the other hand, does not care about these morals but about recognizing the dignity of those to consent or deny consent.

Old culture, for example, probably would care very much if Ford was a hooker. Evidence of that would go a long way towards discrediting her assertion that Kavanaugh victimized her. New culture, if anything that would weigh in her favor since hookers are often victimized by men who assume 'it's always available'. A married consensual swinger running for office is no issue in the new culture. It's problematic in the old culture unless covered up by a facade paying homage to the 'official norm' of faithful family.

In other words a swing back to 'conservative sexual mores' died when evangelicals decided to embrace Trump. The new mores do have some superficial similarities to conservative sexual values that has lead some commentators to try to equate MeToo with a 'sex panic', but that indicates IMO just not understanding what the kids are talking about these days.

Go watch some of the "teen" movies from the 1980s like Porky's, etc.

Functional societies have elaborate customs regarding sex and courtship for a reason. Consent alone isn't an adequate foundation for a sexual system.

You can have consent as a foundation yet still have elaborate customs and rituals on top of that. I'm not seeing how this society is going to make non-consent a foundation of it's sexual system. Nor do I see us 500 years from now opining on how Porky's demonstrated the foundations of a working sexual system. Take all your Jordan Peterson videos and mainline them directly into a central artery if you wish, it isn't happening.

Such was life in Reagan's America.

I guess this means that Kavanaugh didn't lie, he just forgot his grandfather.

" At one point in the testimony, when Kavanaugh was making the point that he had worked hard and earned his success, Kavanaugh told the committee that he had no connections to Yale before attending. “I have no connections there,” he said. “I got there by busting my tail.”

In reality, Kavanaugh was a legacy student. His grandfather, Everett Edward Kavanaugh, attended Yale as an undergraduate. The Intercept published a photo of a 1928 yearbook as evidence:

The legacy status does not necessarily mean that Kavanaugh would not have been accepted otherwise or that he was allowed in unfairly. But it does mean that in explicitly saying he had “no connections,” he was not telling the truth. "

His grandfather went to Yale college for undergrad. Not the Law School. And no bonus admission points for the law school for that.

Congratulations on repeating your asinine left-wing talking point


Where did he go for his undergrad degree?

like talking to a wall.

Perhaps you should try reading what Kavanaugh said. He was talking about the law school.

"I got into Yale Law School. That’s the number one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college."

You should read the entire testimony in this area instead of pciking out the parts you like:

"“Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off,” .

He was talking about both.

The most logical interpretation of his comment is that he was referring to Yale Law school.

Frankly your post is a pedantic Left wing talking point. You're not going to change anybody's mind by referencing cherry picked partisan nitpicks.

Thanks JWatts.

Here's EMichael in the op:

"I guess this means that Kavanaugh didn't lie, he just forgot his grandfather.

" At one point in the testimony, when Kavanaugh was making the point that he had worked hard and earned his success, Kavanaugh told the committee that he had no connections to Yale before attending. “I have no connections there,” he said. “I got there by busting my tail.”"

The crucial quote that is being used to claim a lie is "I have no connections there". (This is probably a misquote in the article, the WaPo transcript of Kavanaugh's testimony doesn't have this exact phrase - it records it as "I had no connections there" which makes more grammatical sense). The phrase "no connections" appears precisely once in Kavanaugh's testimony. It's in the quote I posted above, where he is clearly talking explicitly and only about the law school.

Yeah, his efforts on the high school basketball team was insturemental into getting into Harvard Law school. Not to mention he came nowhere near being at the top of his undergrad class at Yale.


I have a feeling that if you had something stronger to grind your molars into, other that parsing a few words about Yale undergrad vs Yale Law, you’d be doing that.

We are becoming a society of babies. People mix up feeling uncomfortable with being abused. This creates more conflict, not less. This is really an unfortunate moment of collective insanity, which might take a long, long time to be corrected.

I agree, if two stronger men closed me in a room, turned up the music and climbed on top of me while covering my mouth, I would be really uncomfortable.

But only if it actually happened, presumably. Or would you be just as uncomfortable if you'd made it all up?

This is the worst thing I have ever seen Professor Cowen write.

I watched the hearings. What I saw.

Recovered repressed memories without collaboration are worthless.

Dr. Ford by her words and actions seemed to be under the influence of Benzos. For someone who suffers from anxiety, this is not unusual but it makes a lie detector exam, especially one that consisted of a written statement and two questions, useless.

My impression of Dr. Ford is of a very fragile person, who strives to please others, and is easily manipulated. Given her education and professional training, the memory recovery story is suspect. Consistent in false recovered repressed memory cases is for an individual to latch onto someone and incorporate them into the memory. Sometimes it is a person in the news, or by looking through old yearbooks, an individual can create a false memory. The fact that her recollection of others at the party is denied by those people, points in that direction.

I found Judge Kavanaugh credible. Everything else in his life supports his statements. He was much less angry than I would have been. Democrats during these hearings have implied that he is a racist, a compulsive gambler, committed perjury, drunk, rapist, serial rapist, etc.

Democratic demands for more investigations demonstrated that they had nothing but un-collaborated allegations. They needed more time to go on a fishing expedition in the hopes of finding evidence.

The allegations that he is a drunk are insane. If you remove every person who drank to excess at some point in their late teens, early twenties Washington will be a ghost town. How did he pass 5 FBI investigations without these charges ever being made? Why were these allegations never made before the Ford allegations?

Blackouts during drinking are largely genetic. Some people will never experience them unless they reach an advanced state of alcoholism. If anything the stories other classmates tell is of a person with a low tolerance for alcohol who drank on Saturdays as part of the culture in which he lived. Well within the norms of the times.

The truth is, in my opinion, they are falsely accusing a person because they dislike his political views. They are willing to destroy an innocent man and his family to advance a political goal.

I think this is the most shameful event in American politics in over 50 years

If you fail to stand up for an innocent person who is falsely accused because other disagree with his politics, who will stand up for you.

His lies do not bother you? His work for Kenneth Starr does not bother you? His release of documents to the press from Starr's investigation does not bother you? His lies to Congress when he first became a judge do not bother you? His work with the BA (what we know of it) does not bother you?

Here's a hint. I don't think there are many people in the least bit interested in his drinking in college and high school. I know I sure don't.

Nuts who make crazy comments bother me a little.

What you say may bother me, but even if he was proven to have killed and eaten one million babies, I would still defend him he was wrongly accused of a sexual assault. That's may be hard to understand for you, EMichael, but that's just because you don't have the beginning of an understanding of what "justice" means.

Dr. Ford by her words and actions seemed to be under the influence of Benzos. For someone who suffers from anxiety,...

Ford never said she had a 'recovered memory' but a memory. It's interesting to note how Kavanaugh supporters have no problem subjecting regular people to what they say is abuse. An unsubstantiated, uncorroborated assertion of mental illness against Ford is perfectly fine, even though she is not going for any position of power, but not against saintly Bret. Sad.

Where did I say she was mentally ill. She said she suffers from PTSD and anxiety. She did not remember the attack until therapy about 30 years later, her story not mine.

Don't just make shit up to attack others, Unless you are a Democratic Senator

"She did not remember the attack until therapy about 30 years later, her story not mine."

Is this true? If so, my estimate on the likelihood of some version of this having happened would drop from about 60% to about 0%

The first time she told anyone about the alleged attack was in 2012 when she and her husband were undergoing couples therapy. According to her therapist, she claimed 4 boys assaulted her in a room, no names mentioned. Her husband claims she said it was Brett Kavanaugh. (You can decide which is more accurate 6 years later.) In a later therapy session, she discussed a "rape attempt" when she was a teenager.

Dr. Ford has a degree in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University. It is unusual that while undergoing such training, if she was suffering from the trauma of a rape, that she never sought counseling for her trauma. While learning how to treat others for sexual abuse it would be very odd that she never tried to resolve her own issues.

So, no, you have no evidence to back up your claim that "She did not remember the attack until therapy about 30 years later."

Never telling someone a thing for 30 years and not remembering a thing for 30 years is completely different.

From a leading expert on the topic

There's also an important distinction between thinking you've believed something for 36 years and actually having believed something for 36 years. That's one reason why Ford's refusal to release the therapy notes is so telling -- any earlier documentary evidence of Kavanaugh's name would at least establish she hasn't manufactured the memory of Kavanaugh (something she authored a paper about) only very recently as his name came up in the news, as opposed to 2012 or (as she claims) 1982.

Doesn't appear to be true:
It is also important to note that what Dr. Blasey is describing in her report of sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh is not a so-called recovered memory — one that a person believes he has recalled after having suppressed it for many years. Quite the opposite: It is a traumatic memory that she’s been unable to forget.

In the interview with The Post she said the assault “derailed me substantially for four or five years,” and had caused anxiety for years after that. Indeed, her therapist’s notes reflect that, in a 2012 session, she described an attack by students at an “elitist boys’ school” (Judge Kavanaugh attended a Maryland prep school) who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society.”

This seems backed up by the Post story (

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

This seems in sharp contrast to 'recovered memory' (which I recall Rosanne Barr once claimed regarding her father when she first became famous years ago).

Unless DanC has an actual statement he can show us from Ford where she says she was not aware of the attack (say because she blacked it out) until 2012 when somehow therapy made it come out versus simply only talking about it with others in 2012, I think we can say it isn't recovered memory at all.

She never told anyone until 2012. It is common in recovered repressed memories that the person will backfill information. Add details that they will use to explain other things. For example that is why I struggled in school, I was dealing with this "thing". That is not uncommon. And all becomes part of the false memory.

Can I say with certainty that this is a recovered repressed memory? Not without taking with her or see the therapists notes. The first I can't do, the latter she has refused to release. But the signs are all there.

To check if it is a real memory see if there is any collaboration. In this case none.

Plus see above where I refer you to her time at Pepperdine, which also casts doubt on her story.

One other thing that is a bit odd. Her parents and brothers have made no public statements of support. Doesn't prove anything, but odd.

"She never told anyone until 2012. It is common in recovered repressed memories that the person will backfill information. "

Not a recovered memory. I notice you're pretty slimy here. You don't say she claimed a recovered memory, you note a fact (she talked about the incident in 2012 during a therapy session) and then talk about 'recovered memory' in general hoping the reader makes a link you lack the evidence for. Slimy and pathetic.

The case I present is consistent with evidence on the record.

She did not mention this alleged event to anyone for 30 years. why not? Many victims of sexual assault do not come forward, for a variety of reasons. A fifteen-year-old in the early 80's who had a boy try to feel her up, was unlikely to be so traumatized by that act that she was afraid to tell anyone. But maybe Dr. Ford was. That is possible.

Or perhaps she did not recover this memory until the first time she told the story during a therapy session. As far as anyone can tell, that could be true. You claim that should wouldn't have the backstory detail. But people with recovered memories can give detailed stories of assaults that occurred at many times and places, even over years. It is not uncommon to organize the memory into a story that links to other events in their life. We all adjust our memories to some degree to fit a narrative and it makes our memories less than accurate.

To an outsider, it is difficult to determine which is true. So what other evidence do you have? Do you have collaboration? In this case no. That would be true with repressed memory cases. Not very often in an untold secret.

You have the strange fact that she was trained as a clinical psychologist yet through that training she never told anyone. It is highly questionable that a woman receiving such training would be so traumatized by the events she described and that she never mentioned it to anyone. It could be that she, at that point in her life thought it was trivial and not worth mentioning. However, in 2012 she told the therapist that it had caused her continuing trauma through her life. So something is wrong with that story. Part of her training would have been about helping others open up to deal with trauma. But she couldn't talk to anybody about hers? If the events were intensely violent, familial, etc I could understand some reluctance but her case, not really.

So given the totality of the facts, I present my case. If she released her therapist's notes you could have a clearer view but her lawyers said no. If Senator Feinstein had told about the allegations sooner a fuller investigation of her claims could have been done. If Dr. Ford's lawyers had allowed their client to be examined in private and in depth we would have better answers.

Given that the Democrats have taken steps to prevent a full presentation of the facts, and the facts presented do not collaborate with the information they have provided, I can't hold Judge Kavanaugh responsible.

She did not mention this alleged event to anyone for 30 years. why not?

What does this have to do with your BS argument that she had a 'recovered memory' based on no actual facts? I have lots of memories I never bothered to tell anyone (some dramatic, most mundane) yet none of that would qualify as a 'recovered memory'.

As for why a trained psychologist wouldn't go to therapy herself until 2012. Look go hang out at a hospital, notice doctors and nurses are often outside on smoke breaks. Go to the cafeteria, look at the types of lunches and dinners they buy. Professionals are often pretty bad at taking the advice they dole out to patients.

Then why do her witnesses fail to corroborate the story?

And those health care professionals are suffering pain and trauma yet fail to seek help for years and years.

1. So the witnesses have perfect memories of events from 37 years ago but she does not?

2. Show me a single witness besides Kavanaugh who was questioned in the hearing?

3. Whether or not witness collaborate her memory, you have failed to justify your slimy assertion that she had a 'recovered' memory. At no point did she ever claim she had 'recovered' the memory or that it had been previously hidden from her somehow until therapy.

4. So the set of mental health care professionals with untreated mental issues of their own at any given time is expected to be near zero or some trivially small number?

I suggest you read Rachel Mitchell's report.

Three things stand out for me. Dr. Ford's lawyers refuse to allow her to be interviewed aside from at the Senate hearing. She has refused to release her therapists' notes. She will not give a clear answer to whether she showed her therapist notes to the Washington Post or if she summarized them. That matters because if she showed them to reporters she has a harder time arguing that they are confidential. By remaining vague she can prevent others from looking at them.

Absent collaboration combined with the inconsistency in her claims means she can not prove her claims.

Witness statements under oath were given. How can you cross-examine a witness who says it just never happened. What else can I say. You can try to demonize and dirty up the witness but it won't change the facts.

She never told anyone for over 30 years. The totality of her story plus the lack of collaboration points in that direction. The fact that she didn't name Kavanaugh in her initial therapist's notes is a marker in repressed memory cases. Her refusal to release therapist notes could clear up some issues, she refuses (beyond what she has told the Washington Post.)

She said she suffers from PTSD, anxiety, claustrophobia, etc. she has sought treatment for these issues. She just never mentioned this alleged sexual attack to anyone. For someone getting a Masters in Clinical Psychology that would be remote in the extreme.

Another odd fact is that she did very well in her last two years of high school, following this alleged attack, but the alleged attack caused her problems in her first two years in college. Odd.

Take all the facts together, you have a story that doesn't fit.

But believe what you want

According to Loftus: “The one take home message that I have tried to convey in my writings, and classes, and in my TED talk is this: Just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence and detail and emotion, it doesn't mean it actually happened. You need independent corroboration to know whether you're dealing with an authentic memory, or something that is a product of some other process.”

So this would apply to his denial as well, no?

How does someone prove a negative

She doesn't have any recovered memories. An evaluation of the circumstances (the known associations of each of the parties and their known residences in 1982) along with the statements of the individuals named as present, along with the counselor's notes from 2012 is consistent with one conclusion: she wasn't acquainted with Brett Kavanaugh in 1982 or 1985 or at any other time. This is a confabulation, spiced up with some data from Mark Judge's memoir.

If you'd told me 10 years ago that partisan Democrats would chow down on rubbish like this (betwixt and between form criticism of his high school yearbook and his 1982 appointment calendar), I'd have chuckled at the thought.

This is the Democratic Party in our time. It's not worth anything anymore.

So she didn't know him....but knew who his buddies are but by saying they were there provided the opportunity for them to refute her story?

She 'confabulated' her true attacker with an innocent guy who was, what well known in the neighborhood and went to his friend's memoir to add details she wouldn't have been aware of....yet the evidence she ever read Judge's book is? Her husband says she mentioned Kavanaugh's name in the 2012 session? This was then a really long term revenge ploy that begin with mistaken identity hatched nearly a decade or more ago?

OK possible but not really likely. More likely, he did it and either doesn't remember it because he and friends were blackout drunks and assholes at the time or does remember it but is ok lying to advance his career. We don't have to go with beyond reasonable doubt as the standard here, just with more or less likely.

Boonton, what you have to establish is that these two were acquainted. You can't. She didn't live in Kavanaugh's neighborhood or Judge's. She wasn't enrolled at school with Judge's sister, nor was her brother enrolled at Kavanaugh's school. No one has yet produced a Polaroid with the two of them in the frame. You have his 1982 calendar, but her name isn't on it. She lived 8 miles from the Kavanaughs and 6 miles from the Judges in a county which had 500,000 people living in suburban tract development. The four people she named as being present at this gathering with her recall no such gathering. Her chum Leland Keyser avers she's never met any Brett Kavanaugh. The next person who comes forward and says the two ever socialized will be the 1st.

However, Mark Judge has written a memoir. Kavanaugh makes a cameo appearance. So does one of the loci of his employment.

While we're at, the counselor's notes which she provided mention no names, a different number of 'attackers', and put it in a different time frame (approx three years later).

And we haven't even gotten to an evaluation of her concocted event even were it true.

You're bound and determined to see him as guilty. I don't think you give serious though to much (other than serious quantities of verbiage), but today you've outdone yourself with pompous stupidity.

I don't have to establish anything. They both grew up in Bethesda, Maryland. That they both may end up at a impromptu house party as teenagers in the early 80's is pretty plausible.

You have his 1982 calendar, but her name isn't on it. She lived 8 miles from the Kavanaughs and 6 miles from the Judges in a county which had 500,000 people living in suburban tract development.

So what?

You have his 1982 calendar, but her name isn't on it.

So what? There's only a few notes on that calendar. You act as if he was a compulsive diarest who had filled dozens of pages of prose mapping out his days like some frat-boy Boswell. He wasn't. I'm as impressed with that as I would be with OJ Simpson's dayplanner from the early 90's leaving absent any appointment to 'kill ex wife'.

The four people she named as being present at this gathering with her recall no such gathering

So your opinion is that she never meet him. Yet she names 4 people at the event that didn't happen but out of 500,000 people in the town they just happen to be 4 people who hung with Bret?

She said she new Kavanaugh and his friends. They had briefly run in the same circles. She told the Senate examiner that she had been at other parties where Kavanaugh was present. They had no interaction at those parties.

BTW Kavanaugh said he had no memory of her

This is a copy of the transcript from the interaction between Mitchell and Ford
MITCHELL: Was this person the only common link between you and Mr. — Judge Kavanaugh?
FORD: He’s the only one that I would be able to name right now — that I would like to not name, but you know who I mean. And — but there are certainly other members of Columbia Country Club that were common friends or they were more acquaintances of mine and friends of Mr. Kavanaugh.
MITCHELL: OK. Can you describe all of the other social interactions that you had with Mr. Kavanaugh?
FORD: Briefly, yes I can. There were during freshman and sophomore year, particularly my sophomore year which would have been his junior year of high school, four to five parties that my friends and I attended that were attended also by him.
MITCHELL: Did anything happen at these events like we’re talking about, besides the time we’re talking about?
FORD: There was no sexual assault at any of those events. Is that what you’re asking?

When in doubt, make stuff up.

""However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."

"However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," the letter continued."

So in making up a story about person X and I imagine 4 other people are around person X. I just happen to name 4 names that were all in a town of nearly half a million people at the time and 3 out of those 4 knew person X?

She didn't live in Kavanaugh's neighborhood or Judge's. She wasn't enrolled at school with Judge's sister, nor was her brother enrolled at Kavanaugh's school. No one has yet produced a Polaroid with the two of them in the frame. You have his 1982 calendar, but her name isn't on it. She lived 8 miles from the Kavanaughs and 6 miles from the Judges in a county which had 500,000 people living in suburban tract development.

I mean just get a hold of yourself and think rationally. Let's say today is 1982 and a asshole teen who gets drunk a lot with his buddies is going to do it yet again but this time he is going to assault a girl in a bathroom. Let's say this is going to happen today. If it is going to happen today, why would her sister have to be going to school with his buddy or her brother going to school with him? Why would he have to pose for a picture before, during or after? I don't see any reason why an attack might happen but all of those other things that just wouldn't.

Yeah, what a shock.

A boy from an all boy prep school in Rockville, MD runs in the same social circle as a girl from an all girl prep school in Bethesda.

What a shock from schools located ten minutes apart, and more than likely both schools containing the parents of children who belonged to the same country clubs.

What are the odds?

In case you missed the above
This is a copy of the transcript from the interaction between Mitchell and Ford
MITCHELL: Was this person the only common link between you and Mr. — Judge Kavanaugh?
FORD: He’s the only one that I would be able to name right now — that I would like to not name, but you know who I mean. And — but there are certainly other members of Columbia Country Club that were common friends or they were more acquaintances of mine and friends of Mr. Kavanaugh.
MITCHELL: OK. Can you describe all of the other social interactions that you had with Mr. Kavanaugh?
FORD: Briefly, yes I can. There were during freshman and sophomore year, particularly my sophomore year which would have been his junior year of high school, four to five parties that my friends and I attended that were attended also by him.
MITCHELL: Did anything happen at these events like we’re talking about, besides the time we’re talking about?
FORD: There was no sexual assault at any of those events. Is that what you’re asking?

Amazing that there is no mention of another specific action by Kavanaugh that is clearly indicative of his thoughts and actions about women, the “Renate Alumni.”

One thing for a group of gene pool winning preppies (more than a dozen) relaying stories about sexual conquests in the locker room or while sitting around drinking beer. Happens all the time, even in non prep schools.

However, to enshrine that deplorable story into their yearbook is beyond the pale. To me, it is almost unbelievable. But even ah preppies grow up and move on. Kavanaugh, with his inability to tell the truth about the meaning of “Renate Alumni”, surely has not moved on.

And the he backs that up with the fictitious meaning of "Devil's Triangle.. This guy makes Clarence Thomas look like a piker.

Tell you a little story. I went to 8 High School Proms over three years. I was the date for a lot of girls. I took the sisters of friends, the daughter of a friend of my mother, a cousin of a female friend etc. Girls who struggled to get a date went with me.

About ten years later I walked into a restaurant and three of the girls were there. They invited me and my friend to join them. They all laughed about they belonged to the same club, girls who had gone to a prom with me. I didn't sleep with any of them.

Sometimes the simple answer is not the crude answer.

They laughed because when they suggested a devils triangle, you went looking for a quarter

EMichael, you sound quite fired up with righteous indignation on this topic (I’ve lost count of the number of your comments), so let me ask you a serious question. Have you seen the yearbooks from Dr. Ford’s school? (They were deleted by your friends but fortunately saved in time by your enemies). I find both sets of year books remarkably depraved and had no idea this is what upper class prep schools were like. Any appeal to the moral high ground for Ford or prep school girls or women in general is surely misplaced.

No, I haven't seen their yearbooks. Let me know when you can show them, and or supply relevance.

They're a Google search away.

Lot of proms. Meanwhile, I see no relevance whatsoever unless you somehow believe this was some harmless little thing(like Kavanaugh asserts).

You telling me that over the course of more than 30 years none of these buys mentioned this "cute, little compliment" to her in the year books of more than a dozen boys?


I will type slowly so you might understand. I would have never known about the joke behind my back if not for an accidental encounter.

And I don't know about you, but two years after High School I didn't talk about things that were in my High School yearbook. It would have seemed pathetic.

You can have no idea what they meant. Your interpretation says more about you than them.

Can't say I ever remember looking at my yearbook after the summer of graduation. Don't even know where it is, and haven't for awhile. Course, that's not the point you were trying to make. You were trying to attack me as if I had kept a diary from my high school years.

Sorry, but I cannot imagine my interpretation being wrong.

So much for moving on to international trade matters.

The US and Mexico got Canada in a Devil's Triangle

The Devil made Feinstein or Kavanaugh do it, depending on your perspective.

The Devil called Canada and suggested they go octagon with Ford, kavanaugh, Mexico, Feinstein, Judge and your uncle. And Canada responded by asking for more taxes.

The bottom line here is that Kavanaugh is being required to prove a negative. Which is impossible. I can allege that you tried to steal my car 30 years ago. i don't remember which day it was. Even which year. But you have to prove me wrong.

Not really. Suppose Kavanaugh had simply said yes he did it. He was stupid, arrogant and a drunk 17 yr old back then and did horrible things and he was very sorry and didn't realize he caused so much harm. That would have ended this thing right there.

So either prove a negative, with no date or location of the allegation.

Or confess.

I would be terrified to live under your system of justice.

Well since we are actually outside the criminal system here yes. See "I stole your car, I'm sorry but I was really drunk" doesn't get me off but if it happened 40 years ago you can say I grew beyond it by taking responsibility. If 40 years later my response is "I didn't steak your freaking car and you probably never had a car"....well I'd look like a jerk.

I'm just pointing out your original charge that he *must* prove a negative is totally false. What if he said:

"I did a lot of stupid things when I was a drunk teen, but I honestly don't remember. If I did this I'm ashamed and sorry but that's the best I can do after so long". Again he'd probably be fine. It's the doubling and tripling down on it that's brought us here, including his superhuman claim to achieve states of blackout drunkenness yet still have perfect recollection.

"I would be terrified to live under your system of justice." He has absolutely nothing to fear at all. The question is who gets to preside justice over people like you and me. He isn't on trial here, he is going for a job interview. People have lost job interviews simply because they had a picture of themselves getting drunk on Facebook you know.

Ok let’s review.

You want every human being in America to be subject to allegations of misconduct without a reference to time or place, and for the consequences to be the following:

Either confess, or prove the negative.

And there’s no time limit.

Every single person in the United States should be subject to anonymous? allegations of misconduct without a time or place and be forced to prove her innocence.

Yeah that’s a dystopian nightmare.

Status quo my friend. Your boss could fire you tomorrow if someone tells him you're a drunk and you happen to have a pic on your Facebook of you doing shots with your buds.

You think Kavanaugh, though, for some reason, is entitled to the level of the criminal justice standard of proof...the benefit of which no one else gets for a job interview.....even though he already has a lifetime job he cannot be fired for ever. Something no one else on this list has.

You evaded the question and referred to social media posting and freedom of association rights in private transactions.

Your ideal world is such that anyone can make allegations 4 decades after the supposed incident and the only responses can be confess or prove a negative.

That’s a dystopian nightmare. You’re conflating freedom of association with societal norms.

It has nothing to do with freedom of association and while this is a public rather than private transaction it is still a transaction. Kavanaugh is subject to no criminal penalty here except maybe perjury should extraordinary evidence get uncovered that he lied. This is a job interview for a very powerful, very cushy job the likes of which you will never see for yourself in your lifetime. The standard of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt here.

The example with your boss firing you is meant to illustrate the different types of proof at bay in life. Your boss can fire you for a single rumor backed up by a single picture of you. If this was the police looking for a drunk hit and run driver, that would not be sufficient to convict you. But your boss can fire you despite the risk he is wrong. We are no less justified in concluding between her demeanor, his demeanor, the consistency of the type of person he was back then as given by the 'social media' of the era (his yearbook) he probably did it and is lying about it now therefore shouldn't get the job.

"Republicans understand something about how to stage political theater [and Democrats don't.]"

Interesting, I would say the complete opposite. Feinstein played Grassley completely, claiming Republicans can't be trusted to investigate, and Grassley responds by...refusing to investigate! Except he fails, because the Senate is vulnerable and a few need cover and are in a position to demand it. This is what his 100 day plus investigation bought.

Unfair? Deal with it. Feinstein is such a gift to the Trumpists. Bonus, she also undermines young insurgents against the old guard of the Left.

She's a lock for statue in the civilized Tenderloin district now.

Seems very likely to me he did it, but not impossible she's making it up - the political stakes are high and I guess a well meaning person could dee it as for the greater good.

His testimony was clearly not honest. He does not think this might be mistaken identity, he took that line because he thinks or has been told it's bad optics to call her a liar. But he either he thinks she's a liar or he did it. If the former I guess it's reasonable to do that.

Seems 100% clear the Dems and Ford are playing to delay things until November. If he did do it, I don't have a problem with thid approach. If he tried to rape her they're quite entitled to do what they can to prevent him getting on the supreme court.

Judge Kavanaugh's view is better described as Dr. Ford is suffering from some serious trauma. She seems to be in pain. What that is about he doesn't know. But he never attacked her. He knows he is innocent.

He did not speculate on Dr. Ford's motives or put forth an alternative theory for her actions. He doesn't know. He just knows he is innocent.

He clearly stated what he thought are the motives of the Democrats.

How is that not honest?

It continually amazes me that the real stakes in the debate over Kav are ignored.

Kav, if confirmed, will rule for the rich, corporate, and powerful.

Ordinary citizens on both sides of the aisle will pay.

It's not really a red/blue issue. It's a rich/powerful/corporate versus the rest of us issue.

And, I am afraid, that the rest of us will lose again. And again. And again. Just like Senators Graham and Grassley and Hatch and Cornyn want.

So destroying a person with false allegations is OK. So long as you disagree with his politics. Why don't we all just go to armed camps and declare democracy dead?

It is Ford who has had to leave her home due to death threats.....Last I checked Kavanaugh still has a lifetime protected job.

You miss my point.

Whether the allegations are true or not is not my argument. My argument is that appointing Kav to the Supreme Court will result in multiple decisions that will damage ordinary Americans.

If you are not part of the top 1%, you will be punished, too.

Our president is part of the top 1%, he and others like him will be rewarded.

It is not Democrat/Republican. It is rich, powerful, corporate versus the rest of us.

I suspect that even if Kav is disqualified for one reason or another, the Republicans will probably nominate and confirm another justice who is also in favor of the rich/powerful/corporate at the expense of the rest of us.

So much discussion about Ford. When will we finally move on to Ramirez's allegations? The FBI likely has, after all.

Though this is all a sideshow, really. It isn't as if the Federalist Society doesn't have other nominees waiting to be named to the Supreme Court.

I'm sure they do, but there's a reason the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

Reading these comments

Is like,

After a night of drinking brewskis,

Waking up to


Dick in your face.

But, if you want to read something with content, and see how to place your sources of information on a map, and how falsehoods originate and are propagated across the internet, I would recommend this FREE study of disinformation and propaganda in the 2016 election by the Berkman Institute at Harvard:

So, this woman

Comes up to me and my buddy at a bar,



"Do you want to play a game of Devil's Triangle?"

I told her that I didn't have any quarters, and, as she left, and said to my buddy:

"You don't know how to play the game, do you, Bret."

It's her husband who doesn't come out of this a very sympathetic figure. She tells him, plain as day, she wants a second front door, because she's still frightened after all these years - a second front door right next to the first one so she has a second avenue of escape. Then he said, that will look ridiculous, so he must have been the one who said if we're gonna do that the only way to justify it is to add a kitchenette to the master suite, so it can be a separate apartment, and build ourselves another master suite in back. So now she's sleeping even farther from the door(s) when the night terrors come upon her. THEN, to make matters even worse, her husband won't even permit her to rent out the front apartment - no, he's gonna lord it over her what a stupid idea her 2nd front door was, till the end of time, by making her host google interns in her secret escape route. Hosting google interns - you could practically hear the weariness from playing house mother, with no remuneration, in her voice when she said that. They could have made a grand or two a month - but no, he's so stubborn he won't even let her do that, because then she would win.

What a tool.

Trade policy? Anybody? Crickets? Trade in crickets?

LOL....Hazel and others did touch on it a bit above. Basically Trump is rebranding NAFTA with a few changes, so he can put his name on it. Pretty typical for him. Harmless, sure let him.

The real deal is China, if he can come out of that fight with a win, even a small one, he will deserve some kudos.

What warrant do you have for thinking BK is not already just as"sympathetic to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned and accused?" as any other academic pretends to be?

Well, enough of Ford. Now time to start getting into the details concerning Remirez and Kavanaugh - 'In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.'

Can't swing a dead cat in Kavanaugh's testimony without hitting a lie.

This is such bullshit.

The texts "suggest" that he was talking about the Ramirez story. Or they could have been contacting people in his freshman dorm without any knowledge of the coming Ramirez story. The article is ambiguous. Hints but no smoking gun. The person turning over the texts does not claim that they prove anything. "I have not drawn any conclusions as to what the texts may mean or may not mean but I do believe they merit investigation by the FBI and the Senate."

The Kavanaugh and his people were asking people to come forward as character witnesses. Rameriz was asking people if they remembered what happened, her memory was fuzzy. BIG difference.

"Berchem’s memo outlining her correspondence with Yarasavage shows there’s a circle of Kavanaugh friends who may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry who may not be interviewed." In other words, she hasn't found anything but if you keep looking you "may" find something.

Grassley said, “the texts from Ms. Berchem do not appear relevant or contradictory to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony." Which is what Ms. Berchman said, except she said that if you keep digging you might find something.

Kavanaugh and Rameriz were in the same dorm freshman year. This is news?

Who is claiming that Kavanaugh sought the wedding picture "in order to show himself smiling alongside Ramirez 10 years after they graduated". They don't quote anyone making this claim, why not? Speculation by the reporter?

Saying that you don't have a memory of a specific person at a wedding 21 years ago is now perjury? I have a hard time remembering the interactions I had with people at my wedding.

Yarasavage says that "Brett" and his team contacted her before the New Yorker article was published. She has no texts that support this. Why did she have to send Brett a picture from her wedding? Why did she need to explain this to Ms. Berchem? Why should Ms. Berchem care if she sent Kavanaugh a picture from her wedding?

On September 22, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo from her wedding with "Brett's Team" The New Yorker story broke September 23. Judge Kavanaugh was confronted with the photo during a September 25 hearing,

It appears that Ms. Yarasavage and Ms. Berchman knew about the New Yorker story before it was published and were working with Democrats on the Committee. This would look more like coordination between the New Yorker, Rameriz, and Democrats to attack Kavanaugh. So there was a Democratic conspiracy.

Bercham then says that the Kavanaugh team “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” in July. But again she has no evidence just a suspicion.

Then to put a cherry on top of the BS, Tries to claim that Ramirez tried to avoid Kavanaugh. Wait, she avoided Kavanaugh and his friends. So all of them did something to her. How many times have you been at a wedding where a woman attending alone clings to a female friend? Oh, that never happens. Did she need to consult with her lawyer for a week before she could decide if Kavanaugh had done something to her? Must have been a long wedding

"Berchem’s memo outlining her correspondence with Yarasavage shows there’s a circle of Kavanaugh friends who may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry who may not be interviewed." In other words, she hasn't found anything but if you keep looking you "may" find something.

That's enough.

""Berchem’s memo outlining her correspondence with Yarasavage shows there’s a circle of Kavanaugh friends who may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry who may not be interviewed." In other words, she hasn't found anything but if you keep looking you "may" find something."

No. It means what it says, not what you say. Interview those people and find out whether or not they have pertinent information.

The rest of your stuff is just silly.

Or why not take a census of the entire United States because someone "may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry." Just keep searching till you find something.

You people are so crazy, and so want to ignore normal legal procedures.

Just go fishen, just go fishen, we need to just keep fishen

I suggest you read Moby Dick. Hit it doesn't turn out well for Ahab

Umm, am I wrong but did not Kavanaugh reach out to many these same people? Are they not described as "Kavanaugh's friends"?

They went to school with him when the allegation occurred, how does that bring in the entire United States?

I suspect nearly all men have, in fact, been the recipients of what would be called "sexual assault" if it happened to a woman today. But since the cultural context is so different for men, they tend to laugh these incidents off or ignore them (even today men being raped in prison is commonly the subject of humor), and we're left with some profound disagreements about these experiences mean.

Where in the story does it present evidence or name anyone that says Kavanaugh contacted them about the Rameriz story? Nope, none.

NY Times reported that Rameriz contacted people to see if anyone could help her remember events, her memory was fuzzy.

By following the timeline, the story implicates the people making these charges of working with the New Yorker and Senate Democrats on smearing Kavanaugh. If they had a smoking gun it would have been in the New Yorker story.

Have you seen the people coming forward to complain about his being aggressive and belligerent when he drank? They look like the kind of people most of the country would like to get belligerent with. They should start reporting that Kavanaugh had a hard time suffering fools when he drank, and then bring out these idiots as examples. Might explain his attitude toward Democratic Senators, hard to suffer those fools when you're sober

Comments for this post are closed