ChrisWeigant.com

Anita Hill 2.0 In The Age Of #MeToo

[ Posted Monday, September 17th, 2018 – 16:51 PDT ]

We are all about to see a hypothetical scenario many have wondered about actually become reality. The hypothetical situation can be stated as: "In the age of #MeToo, how would the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas have played out differently?" Because we've now got another Supreme Court judicial nominee who has been accused of sexual misconduct during his confirmation process. What happens next is (as of this writing) uncertain, but it appears that the Senate committee handling his confirmation hearings is going to be forced to address the controversy in one way or another.

If further hearings happen, many will see parallels to Anita Hill's testimony in front of the same Senate committee. And many will be watching for how the senators on the committee act, because they didn't exactly set a gold standard for sensitivity back in Anita Hill's time. In fact, the Clarence Thomas hearings remain a black mark on Joe Biden's record, since at the time he was the chairman of the committee. He reportedly cut a deal with the Republicans on the committee to limit the testimony to Hill herself, which meant that others who could have corroborated her stories were not heard at all. The questioning was pretty brutal, as well.

Will history repeat itself? That's the question I've been pondering. Supreme Court judicial nominations have been rank partisan affairs for years now, and Thomas was only confirmed on a 52-48 vote. If Brett Kavanaugh is ultimately confirmed, it will likely be by a similar razor-thin margin. But the real question is whether history will repeat itself in the committee hearings or not.

Clarence Thomas was only accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. By "only" I do not mean to diminish the importance of condemning such behavior, mind you, but in relation to the seriousness of the accusation of sexual assault or even attempted rape now being made against Kavanaugh. Yes, he was in high school when the alleged incident took place. But making crude jokes in the workplace isn't quite the same thing as drunkenly trying to force a girl to have sex against her will, no matter what your age at the time.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee know what a minefield hearings into these accusations will be, for them. They will have to discredit the accuser and attempt to tarnish in some way the accusation itself. But to do so they lay themselves open to appearing misogynistic at the very best, and victim-blaming at the very worst. These are not exactly popular positions to take, these days. The #MeToo movement has changed the way society views such situations and it has changed the level of acceptable behavior towards those making such accusations. So it will be a very thin (if not impossible) tightrope for the Republicans to walk, because they've got to discredit the accuser while not provoking a nationwide backlash against their entire party at the polling booth in November.

Their initial attacks have already crossed this line, although few have noticed. Republicans decry the "11th hour" nature of the revelation, and accuse Democrats in general (and Senator Dianne Feinstein in particular) for the timing of the bombshell story. But this ignores the fact that the accuser herself was the one who demanded anonymity. She only decided to go public after the story had somehow leaked out. By that time, Representative Anna Eshoo's office had given the letter to Feinstein, who passed it on to the F.B.I., who gave it to the White House with the name redacted, who passed it on to all the senators on the committee. Identifying who leaked it isn't an easy task, in other words, because there are a lot of possible culprits to choose from. But no matter who leaked it, the fact remains that the woman who wrote it did not want it to leak. She had already given up hope that her story would stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, and therefore preferred not to upend her entire life with no chance of it having any effect on the outcome.

In this day and age, the decision to go public is always reserved for the victim. If they want to go public, then we are all expected to respectfully hear their stories and not try to silence the victim. But if they don't want to go public, then that is a decision that the rest of us should accept. It's her life, and so upending it should be her decision alone, in other words.

I'm not generally a big fan of Dianne Feinstein, but in this case I don't really see how she could have handled things much differently. If the author of the letter was begging her not to make it public, then Feinstein was duty-bound not to do so. If it later turns out that Feinstein or her office was the one who leaked it, then we can have a conversation about the timing of the leak, but there are so many others who could have done so that such a conversation is really premature at this point. So I'm not among those who are criticizing Feinstein, currently.

Now that the story is out there and now that the alleged victim has come forward, it seems almost inevitable that we're going to all see how much things have changed since Anita Hill's time in the witness chair. With all the senators on the committee being given time to ask questions, the basic facts of the accusation will quickly become known. The first few questioners on both sides of the aisle will doubtlessly air the entire story and all the details. Which is going to leave a whole lot of question time for all the other senators on the committee. Rather than merely repeating what has already been asked, the Republicans are probably going to go further afield, which may lead to some cringe-worthy moments. Things have changed since Anita Hill's time, but some people haven't changed a bit. All it will take is one Republican crossing the line in the questioning to prove this.

Republicans are already in deep trouble with women voters. Women are the least forgiving of Donald Trump's various antics, and they've already shifted noticeably from red to blue. Watching Republican senators try to tear down a witness giving testimony about a sexual assault could lead to an all-out revolt against Republicans in the November midterms. That is the tightrope they've got to walk, and as I said before, it may prove to be an impossible task for them.

The Anita Hill hearings happened in late 1991. One year later, so many women were elected to Congress that it was called "The Year Of The Woman." California became the first state to send two women to represent them in the Senate (one of whom was Dianne Feinstein, of course). Bill Clinton was also elected president, but that's a whole different "in the age of #MeToo..." hypothetical discussion, really.

We are now not a full year from an election, we are less than two months from one. Women are already energized, and they're eager to vote Democratic to send Trump a message. That's how things stood before the Kavanaugh controversy broke. Pretty much anything Republicans in the Judiciary Committee do at this point is bound to make that situation worse, for them. Unless, of course, they treat Christine Blasey Ford with deference and respect, and resist the urge to viciously tear into her in the same fashion they attacked Anita Hill. But what are the odds of that happening, really?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

93 Comments on “Anita Hill 2.0 In The Age Of #MeToo”

  1. [1] 
    Patrick wrote:

    The discrediting of Christine Ford hit a snag when the Drudge Report admitted they had the wrong Christine.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drudge-report-christine-ford_us_5b9ff404e4b04d32ebfb2c91

  2. [2] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I'm not sure you've got the inside word on how this may play out. My own instinct is that the committee and the Senate will bulldoze the entire thing, give Ms. Ford about five minutes with no questions asked, let Kavanaugh deny the whole thing with that winsome family-man charm of his, and get to the voting part that puts a guaranteed fifth solid conservative on the Court for the next three decades.

    You've also managed to limn out an entire political controversy in Washington over the next few weeks without once suggesting that the president may insert himself into the story and the news stream. Yeah, I get that's because you feel the Senators themselves may not be able to come across as sufficiently ... ah, "sensitive" to a woman's point of view while resisting rape ... but the Senators, I suggest, are mere amateurs in this regard compared to the leader of the Free World.

    If Kavanaugh's nomination ends up torpedoed in the next few weeks due to Ms. Ford's appearance, I would guess it will be the president's statements, attitude, and high-temperature spleen that will torpedo it.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    I agree DiFi is not to blame for the timing. The blame rests squarely on Republicans who have been refusing to actually vet this nominee and who have been trying to force the nomination through in an arbitrarily short time-frame.

    The fact that they had available a (utterly unpersuasive) letter signed by 65 women to counter the accusation makes clear they knew something like this might surface.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But the real question is whether history will repeat itself in the committee hearings or not.

    I would wager it isn't much different than decades past, complete with some of the same Senators. They're already ginning up the character assassinations of her on right-wing conspiracy and "conservative" media, which Patrick is absolutely correct, they're libeling another Christine Ford... but does anybody imagine they're at all concerned that they're disparaging two Professor Ford's across the Internet?

    Things have changed since Anita Hill's time, but some people haven't changed a bit.

    But have things really changed all that much? Speaking from personal experience, for daring to open her mouth and say anything, she will be referred to as a liar and every gender-specific foul name they can hurl in her general direction. She will receive both death threats and requests for her suicide, while her attacker will assume the role of victim. The only real difference in 2018 is likely to be an uptick in the number of male politicians feigning concern.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    … Unless, of course, they treat Christine Blasey Ford with deference and respect, and resist the urge to viciously tear into her in the same fashion they attacked Anita Hill. But what are the odds of that happening, really?

    I'm out on a limb to suggest this but, I would wager that Republicans on the judiciary committee with treat Dr. Ford with far more deference and respect than many who comment here treat their fellow Weigantians.

    We may be pleasantly surprised, in other words. Stranger things have already happened.

  6. [6] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Here we go … This Brett Kavanaugh fellow reminds me of my last cat. He beams at his 'can-openers' while scowling at the guests.

    I get the sense that very tightly marked game of public opinion is being played out... However, Kavanaugh has already scored on his own goal. He's said, (under oath or not, public opinion sides with the truth of its ears) that he never attended this high school 'Satyricon'... Very few people from the halcyon days of school are going to disavow someone was at a party to suffer congressional perjury for some tick-tack-toothed snob...

    "So oder so"

    Bukkake Kavanaugh...I mean Brett Kavanaugh, is but a plaything for the gods, he's damned either way. All that remains is him proving his 'honour' was worthy of salvage.

    The Trumpian reaction to all this is typical of things he worries about the most... either be subdued and political, like he has been with his guaranteed SDNY charges-to-come, or be verbose and bellicose, as he has been with the Mueller mess (note* Trump rarely treads into the scandals of others, where groping, grabbing and general debauchery is the issue...Al Franken!) ... It's his 'Twitter tell'.

    Behold....

    LL&P

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    In this day and age, the decision to go public is always reserved for the victim. If they want to go public, then we are all expected to respectfully hear their stories and not try to silence the victim. But if they don't want to go public, then that is a decision that the rest of us should accept. It's her life, and so upending it should be her decision alone, in other words.

    Except that Democrats DID NOT ACCEPT that this so-called "victim" did not want to go public and supposedly MADE HER go public...

    That is, of course, if you believe that this WASN'T all planned out from the start..

    We are now not a full year from an election, we are less than two months from one. Women are already energized, and they're eager to vote Democratic to send Trump a message. That's how things stood before the Kavanaugh controversy broke.

    And isn't that REALLY convenient for Dumbocrats :^/

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S LAWYER: IT’S NOT HER JOB TO CORROBORATE HER STORY
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-accuser-laywer-corroborate/

    Get that??

    This so-called "victim", who apparently is nothing but a Democrat stooge, a hysterical Never Trump activist and now a blatant liar is able to simply throw out the accusation and does not have to substantiate it in any way, shape or form..

    She can't even say when and where the party was!!??

    This is Duke Lacrosse Team all over again...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh and NOW we hear that there actually was another girl at the party...

    The story, it keeps a changin'... :^/

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM CT,

    I'm not sure you've got the inside word on how this may play out. My own instinct is that the committee and the Senate will bulldoze the entire thing, give Ms. Ford about five minutes with no questions asked, let Kavanaugh deny the whole thing with that winsome family-man charm of his, and get to the voting part that puts a guaranteed fifth solid conservative on the Court for the next three decades.

    I don't agree that what you propose is likely to happen..

    But it damn well SHOULD be what happens..

    This is nothing but a desperate Dumbocrat 11th hour ploy to derail Kavanaugh's nomination..

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY fact to support this so-called "victim"'s story..

    Let me repeat that for the cheap seats..

    NOT... A... SINGLE... SOLITARY... FACT... TO... SUPPORT... THIS... LIAR'S... STORY...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail.”
    -Christine Ford

    Yo... Moron...

    A man's reputation is at stake!!

    You damn well better remember every little detail!!

    Judge Kavanaugh doesn't have to PROVE his innocence..

    *YOU* have to prove his guilt..

    If you didn't want to have to do that, you should not have anonymously tipped off WaPoop...

    You are a blatant liar thru and thru...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we have three people present at this alleged incident..

    The 15 year old drunk and 2 17 yr old boys..

    Of the three, 2 categorically deny that the incident took place..

    So, we have the word of a SINGLE drunk 15 yr old...

    Seriously!!!?????

    As strictly a Law Enforcement matter, in the here and now, this would never see the light of day...

    This is NOTHING but pure partisan politics..

    Throw in a #MeToo lynching and it's all perfectly clear..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Post reports that the therapist’s notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can’t recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening.

    This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote. We’ve heard from all three principals, and there are no other witnesses to call. Democrats will use Monday’s hearing as a political spectacle to coax Mr. Kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry, and to portray Republicans as anti-women. Odds are it will be a circus.

    The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

    Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

    The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

    The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

    Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.

    She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another. 9/19
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395

    This is the flimsiest of stories in the history of flimsy stories..

    Categorically, undeniably, unequivocally.... NOTHING but a partisan agenda...

    Aside to CW.. I realize the part quoted pushes the envelope, but there are a lot of good FACTS there....

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news..

    President Trump

    Census Bureau: Hispanic Household Income Hits Record High

    (CNSNews.com) - The median household income for U.S. households in which the householder is Hispanic hit a record high of $50,486 in 2017, according to the Census Bureau’s annual income report, which was released last week.
    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-bureau-hispanic-household-income-hits-record-high

    Making America Great Again

    It's pretty clear why hispanic Americans are leaving the Democrat Party and supporting President Trump by the tens of millions..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    “There are those who say, ‘What if we get rid of him? Then we’ve got that Vice President and he’ll be worse.’ I say knock off the first one and then go after the second one.”
    -Maxine Waters

    Knock Off
    7. verb, slang To murder someone. IE The mob has been knocking off every witness that has taken the stand, so now people are terrified to come forward.

    Once again, "peaceful" and "tolerant" Dumbocrats promote the murder of President Trump.. :^/

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump will slap 10% tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods — and they will go to 25% at year-end
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/trump-puts-new-tariffs-on-china-as-trade-war-escalates.html

    Hmmmmmmmm

    Now, let me see if I remember correctly..

    Ya'all have been hysterically yelling for quite a long time now that Trump's.... excuse me.. PRESIDENT Trump's tariff's would decimate the US economy and plunge this country back to the stone age... or words to that effect..

    And yet, the ONLY results from these tariffs have been GOOD results for the US economy...

    So, apparently, ya'all were *WRONG* again about President Trump...

    It's funny that THAT is always the case, eh?? :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting back to this latest #MeToo lynching..

    Ya'all are of the opinion that a woman's story is ALWAYS to be believed, right??

    And that maximum punishment should be meted out to any male transgressor, right??

    Keith Ellison domestic violence accuser says Democratic party doesn't believe her story
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/keith-ellison-domestic-violence-accuser-says-democratic-party-doesnt-believe-her-story.html

    Of course, that DOESN'T apply when the male in question is a Democrat Party leader like Bill Clinton or Keith Ellison..

    If ya'all believe that Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because of this alleged incident, then ya'all MUST believe that Keith Ellison should step down...

    Anything less is blatant hypocrisy...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have attested to Kavanaugh's good character and integrity even back then..

    Despite bullshit claims to the contrary, not a SINGLE ONE of those women have recanted or changed their story in ANY WAY...

    Now we have nearly 200 women who know Judge Kavanaugh and ALL attest to his good character..

    200 Women Testify to Kavanaugh's History of 'Treating Women With Respect,' Going Back to High School

    Roughly 200 women have testified to Judge Brett Kavanaugh's history of treating women "with decency and respect," going back 35 years. This testimony seems particularly important, given the suspiciously timed accusation of sexual assault coming from 51-year-old accuser Christine Blasey Ford. On Friday, 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school joined at least 131 other women who testified to his character over the years.
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/200-women-testify-to-kavanaughs-history-of-treating-women-with-respect-going-back-to-high-school/

    I mean, seriously people..

    TRY and take a step back and look at this logically without ANY Party blinders..

    You have a single incident 35 years ago from a drunk 15 yr old who can't remember a single detail about the incident other than the people present.. She can't say when or where or anything else... Not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT in existence supports this drunk 15 yr old's version of events..

    In the OTHER column, you have a unequivocal denial from the only other witnesses, you have almost 200 women who KNEW Kavanaugh at the time and attest that this is something Kavanaugh would NEVER do and you have not even a single solitary HINT of an indication that Kavanaugh has ever done ANYTHING like this in his life..

    Like I said.. Try to think things thru logically and rationally without ANY Party blinders..

    This is the very definition, the very epitome of a nothingburger...

    Now, put your Party blinders back on and answer me this..

    Would you accept this kind of character assassination from the GOP if the nominee had a -D after their name??

    Of course ya'all wouldn't and we all know it..

    This is nothing but partisan politics, pure and simple..

    As a LEO issue, it's a joke..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    it's an awful thing for the victim, and probably true, though nearly impossible to prove.

    Why do you say "probably true"??

    What fact do you have that would indicate to you that this so-called victim's story is "probably true"???

    I am sincerely curious if there is a single solitary fact that supports this so-called "victim"'s claim that I may have overlooked..

  20. [20] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Thomas was only confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

    Yes, but remember that prior to Anita Hill’s testimony, Thomas was on his way to be confirmed by approximately 90 votes in the Senate... just like the Republican nominees Scalia and Kennedy had been. But after Hill’s testimony, he lost around 40 votes. It would only take losing two votes to end Kavanaugh’s nomination.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have a single incident 35 years ago from a drunk 15 yr old who can't remember a single detail about the incident other than the people present..

    Actually, scratch that..

    This so-called "victim" couldn't even remember how many people were present.. She initially said that there were 4, not 2...

    Of course, this so-called "victim"'s NeverTrumper lawyer probably told her to change it to 2 because 4 denials are more powerful than 2 denials...

    Undeniably, unequivocally an orchestrated event SOLELY for the purposes of pushing a Party agenda..

    That is ALL that this is...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump orders feds to declassify key FISA documents, text messages in FBI Russia probe
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/17/trump-orders-feds-to-declassify-key-fisa-documents-text-messages-in-fbi-russia-probe.html

    October Surprise!!! In September!!! :D

    Dumbocrats' world is collapsing in on itself!! :D

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    She must have been psychic to have known years ago that she needed to lay the foundation for her false charge against Kavanaugh by sharing her story of the “sexual assault” first in couple’s counseling and then later with her own personal therapist! To plan ahead like that really takes commitment!

    Why would anyone want to subject themselves to this kind of humiliation and public scorn for a lie? It makes no sense... unless she is telling the truth. Then, you can see why a victim would be willing to put themselves in the cross hairs in order to call out their attacker.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to admit..

    You just HAVE to admire the audacity of the Dumbocrats Party play here..

    Even if they don't derail Judge Kavanaugh's nomination (which they won't) they provide political cover for their red state Dems to vote against Kavanaugh...

    So, the Dems get a political win... And all they had to do was smear a good and innocent man's name thereby proving they are no different than what they accuse Republicans of...

    I am wondering if there are an red state Democrats who will buck their play and say, "No thank you.. I am going to do the right thing here..."

    I kinda doubt it...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    She must have been psychic to have known years ago that she needed to lay the foundation for her false charge against Kavanaugh by sharing her story of the “sexual assault” first in couple’s counseling and then later with her own personal therapist! To plan ahead like that really takes commitment!

    And yet, the story she tells today is NOT the story she told in 2012...

    Why would anyone want to subject themselves to this kind of humiliation and public scorn for a lie?

    Party Slavery.. DUH...

    It makes no sense... unless she is telling the truth.

    It makes PERFECT sense to a hysterical NeverTrumper..

    . Then, you can see why a victim would be willing to put themselves in the cross hairs in order to call out their attacker.

    And yet, her story is full of lies..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    She must have been psychic to have known years ago that she needed to lay the foundation for her false charge against Kavanaugh by sharing her story of the “sexual assault” first in couple’s counseling and then later with her own personal therapist! To plan ahead like that really takes commitment!

    Actually, she DIDN'T name Kavanaugh until Jul of this year...

    If another SCOTUS nominee was named, *HE* would have been her so-called "would be rapist"...

    So, yer entire argument falls apart..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words....

    Dumbocrats put out a "casting call" for a female NeverTrumper who has a "rape story" accusing an un-named GOP Judge...

    This so-called "victim" answered the call and Dumbocrats filled Kavanaugh's name in the blanks...

    Remember all the signs the Dumbocrats fielded with the name BLANK so they could fill in the proper name at the proper time when the nominee was known??

    Just like that...

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (15)-
    The Jags knocked off the Patriots.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    R.I.P., Tom Brady. :D

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for the accusation on Kavanaugh, I have personally seen enough people falsely accused and seen people "remember" things that happened in a way that helps them to not have to believe they did or did not do something by not remembering what actually happened. And over the years they have told the "corrected" version of events so many times that they actually believe the "corrected" version is true.

    It is possible that the event in question happened in the way the accuser said, that the accuser is remembering a "corrected" version, that the accuser is purposely lying, the event did not happen the way the accuser said, that Kavanaugh is lying or remembering a "corrected" version of the event.

    And many will believe whatever they need/want to believe to fit their ideology/worldview.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Jags knocked off the Patriots.

    Heh :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is possible that the event in question happened in the way the accuser said, that the accuser is remembering a "corrected" version, that the accuser is purposely lying, the event did not happen the way the accuser said, that Kavanaugh is lying or remembering a "corrected" version of the event.

    But here is the kicker and there is simply NO GETTING AROUND it...

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY IOTA OF A FACT that supports the so-called "victim"'s story...

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why do you say "probably true"??

    because the majority of cases where alleged victims of sexual assault come forward are true. there's too much for the individual to lose, and not enough for them to gain. this is not to say that cases of lying or mis-remembering don't exist, they're just significantly more rare than the he-said-she-said narrative and statistics on "unfounded" allegations would have us believe.

    https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Orrin Hatch Logic

    * "He didn’t do that, and he wasn't at the party."

    * "So, you know, clearly, somebody's mixed up."

    * "I think she's mistaken. I think she's… she's mistaken something that I don't know. I mean, I don't know her."

    * "If that was true, I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today."

    * "That's the issue. Is this judge a really good man? And he is. And by any measure he is."

    So to recap: Orrin Hatch says Ford is "mixed up" and "mistaken," but he doesn't know her, and anyway, Kavanaugh didn't do that and wasn't at that party... "that party" that Ford didn't provide any identifying details as of yet; however, even if she's telling the truth, it wouldn't matter anyway because Kavanaugh is a good man.
    _______________

    Remember that time recently when Orrin Hatch removed the glasses he wasn't wearing?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82DB25mWkY

    It's like "the emperor has no clothes"... except eyewear. :)

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kavanaugh meets Kafka in kangaroo court

    The charge was inevitably viewed through the prism of #MeToo. But it lacked the credibility of allegations that have felled powerful men over the last two years. There is no contemporaneous corroboration. There is no pattern of conduct on the part of Kavanaugh. There is no weaselly, “Well, I don’t reminder it that way, but I’m sorry if she was offended” denial; Kavanaugh rejects the charge categorically.

    Ford’s memory is so fuzzy that there is very little in her story that can be corroborated or debunked. She doesn’t know what year it happened, although she thinks 1982. She doesn’t know who owned the house where the party took place, or how she got there or how she got home.

    Not only is there no other allegation against Kavanaugh, the assault charge runs against everything we know about his personal and professional life, as attested by everyone who has known him. His exemplary reputation, earned over the course of decades and a matter of public record, should outweigh a charge that is unproven and, as far we know, unprovable. 3/12
    https://nypost.com/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-meets-kafka-in-kangaroo-court/

    This so-called "victim" was so traumatized by this incident, she can't even remember what YEAR it happened!!!

    Of course she can't.. By her own admission, she was a 15 yr old drunk... :^/

    That's probably the ONLY factual thing she has said about the whole incident..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    because the majority of cases where alleged victims of sexual assault come forward are true.

    Yea?? Maybe for every day cases..

    But cases with a political or racial component???

    Duke Lacross???

    Rolling Stone???

    Tawana Brawley???

    The list is exhaustive and I would wager that if you weed out all the every day cases, those with a political or racial component, there are a lot more FALSE accusations, then factual ones..

    there's too much for the individual to lose, and not enough for them to gain.

    In THIS case, I think you would agree that there is PLENTY to gain...

    this is not to say that cases of lying or mis-remembering don't exist, they're just significantly more rare than the he-said-she-said narrative and statistics on "unfounded" allegations would have us believe.

    NOT if you factor in the political/racial component..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The list is exhaustive and I would wager that if you weed out all the every day cases, those with a political or racial component, there are a lot more FALSE accusations, then factual ones..

    In other words, this case is about a partisan political agenda and NOTHING else...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Christine Blasey Ford, the Democrats have descended to new lows in politicising justice

    They tried the same thing when they wheeled out Anita Hill during the hearings on Clarence Thomas

    The difficulty in trying to assess the behaviour of Democrats these days is thinking sufficiently low. When I wrote about Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing in these virtual pages a couple of weeks ago, I predicted grandstanding from Cory ‘Spartacus’ Booker and Kamala Harris. I did not think low enough to suspect that the Democrats would help orchestrate a series of embarrassing outbursts from the NeverKavanaugh Left, but so it happened.

    There is a lot that Ford does not remember, including the year of the alleged assault, whose house it was, and many other details. She first spoke about the alleged incident in 2012 — 30 years after it is supposed to have happened — when she was in couples therapy. The therapist’s notes contradict Ford’s account in several details, including how many people were supposed to have been involved.

    So what do you think? Mark Judge flatly denies the story. Kavanaugh did so as well. ‘I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.’

    Everything we know about Kavanaugh — and we know a lot — suggests that he is telling the truth. Is there a more honourable, charitable, and public-spirited public servant padding about Washington today? If there is, I do not know him.

    Kavanaugh has been through six — count ’em — FBI background investigations and none turned up this allegation. I suspect that, whatever traumas Ford claims to have experienced, none has damaged a rich fantasy life. 5/12
    https://spectator.us/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-democrats-kavanaugh/

    Once again...

    NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to support this so-called "victim"'s claim...

    Mounds and mounds of facts to support the idea that she is lying or grossly and perversely mistaken...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed"
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    OOoooo LIIIZZZZZZ ??

    https://youtu.be/Z1BCujX3pw8

    :D

  40. [40] 
    John M wrote:

    [38] Michale

    "Once again...

    NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to support this so-called "victim"'s claim..."

    1) Ford's account is corroborated by therapists notes from 2012

    2) Ford passed a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in July

    3) Kavanaugh's own High School friend Mark Judge, in his 1997 addiction memoir, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk. makes a passing reference to Kavanaugh using a pseudonym:

    "Do you know Bart O'Kananaugh?"

    "Yeah, he's around here somewhere."

    "I heard he puked in someone's car the other night."

    "Yeah, he passed out on his way back from a party."

    YET, you are calling Ford a liar, etc. without ANY PROOF, without any sort of proper professional investigation being done YET, without any witness testimony being taken, etc.

    Remember, it is as much HER reputation being on the line, as it is the MAN'S.

    A 15 year old drunk and two drunk 17 year old boys. So what makes their word better than hers??? Simply because they are boys? please!

    And YES, Keith Ellison SHOULD step down.

    "Now we have nearly 200 women who know Judge Kavanaugh and ALL attest to his good character.."

    The BEST serial killers are very good at what they do too. Remember, just because Ted Bundy was nice to you doesn't mean he's innocent of killing that other girl.

  41. [41] 
    John M wrote:

    [22] Michale wrote:

    "Trump orders feds to declassify key FISA documents, text messages in FBI Russia probe

    Dumbocrats' world is collapsing in on itself!! :D"

    HARDLY! But what this does show IS:

    1) Trump interfering and grossly overstepping his bounds by getting publicly involved in an ONGOING criminal investigation by releasing documents hoping to help his own defense.

    2) This not only BORDERS on OBSTRUCTION in and of itself, it also dangerously COMPROMISES critical FBI sensitive sources and methods. Hardly something a "so called" staunch law enforcement supporter should want to do!

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    1) Ford's account is corroborated by therapists notes from 2012

    Not entirely.. There were discrepancies..

    Regardless, that's not a fact.. That is simply the so-called "victim" saying it twice..

    An accusation, made twice, is not a fact.. It's STILL just an accusation..

    2) Ford passed a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in July

    Yea, and polygraph tests are useless to determining FACTs...

    Especially since we don't know what questions were asked..

    Finally, a polygraph ONLY proves that the subject BELIEVES or DOESN'T BELIEVE what they are saying.. Has NOTHING to do with facts..

    3) Kavanaugh's own High School friend Mark Judge, in his 1997 addiction memoir, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk. makes a passing reference to Kavanaugh using a pseudonym:

    Which has NOTHING to do with the alleged incident..

    YET, you are calling Ford a liar, etc. without ANY PROOF, without any sort of proper professional investigation being done YET, without any witness testimony being taken, etc.

    And I have FACTS that support my calling this so-called "victim" a liar..

    You STILL have no facts..

    Remember, it is as much HER reputation being on the line, as it is the MAN'S.

    Yea?? Would that be the reputation of a Dumbocrat HERO who took down President Trump's nominee??

    Is THAT the reputation you are referring to??

    A 15 year old drunk and two drunk 17 year old boys. So what makes their word better than hers??? Simply because they are boys? please!

    Nope.. Simply because we have 2 NO IT DIDN'T HAPPENs vs 1 it did happen..

    Which explains why this so-called "victim" changed the number involved from 4 to 2...

    FOUR claiming it didn't happen would torpedo her claim right from the get go...

    And YES, Keith Ellison SHOULD step down.

    At least yer consistent.. Kudos...

    The BEST serial killers are very good at what they do too. Remember, just because Ted Bundy was nice to you doesn't mean he's innocent of killing that other girl.

    Yea?? I must have missed the part where Bundy went thru SIX indepth FBI investigations..

    Could you point me to that so I can confirm you have a legitimate point?? :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-accuser-has-not-yet-accepted-invitation-to-testify-before-congress.html

    Looks like this so-called "victim" is afraid to testify...

    What is she hiding???

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    “If they believed Professor Ford, why didn’t they surface this information earlier so that he could be questioned about it? And if they didn’t believe her and chose to withhold the information, why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it? It is really not fair to either of them the way it was handled.”
    -Senator Susan Collins

    This entire sad incident smacks of political machinations and nothing else..

    It's payback for Merrick Garland...

    That's all it is..

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm very interested in the new allowances for Supreme Court nominees when it comes to attacking women.

    As I see it, if you don't attack 200 women that means you are given a mulligan on the 201st.

    Given that there are about 160,000,000 women in the United States, this gives a Supreme Court nominees a free pass to attempt to rape 800,000 women.

    For these women's protection, can we have the Republicans advocating this policy be more specific - do the women have to be under 18 (given Moore's and Kavanaugh's track record)? Is there any other characteristic? It would help women know if they need to take special protection around Republican Supreme Court nominees if we could just get some more clarity on which women were acceptable to Republicans.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the stats from 2016 gave the traitor about a 1/3 to 1/5 chance of winning - he beat the odds.

    The chances of Democrats winning the Senate is 1/7 to 1/10, so if the Democrats do win the Senate it will be even more unexpected that the 2016 result.

  47. [47] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This drama is not about law, it's about what the voting public will tolerate. If Republican Leadership* wants Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court badly enough they can probably have him, but the price in House seats may be higher than they paid for Thomas.

    I think Liz is right, the questioning of Ford will be much more polite than it was of Hill, but the end result will probably be the same. A damaged Kavanaugh will get through....unless more incidents, evidence and witnesses come to light.

    *I'm not including Trump in the leadership - he's wrapped up with own snowballing problems.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm very interested in the new allowances for Supreme Court nominees when it comes to attacking women.

    Any FACTS to support the claim that Kavanaugh anyone???

    ANY facts at all??

    No??

    Of course not..

    There never are... :^/

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    This drama is not about law,

    Exactly right.. The ONLY thing this drama is about is pushing a political agenda...

    That is all..

    I think Liz is right, the questioning of Ford will be much more polite than it was of Hill, but the end result will probably be the same. A damaged Kavanaugh will get through....unless more incidents, evidence and witnesses come to light.

    Yer not up on current events. There will be no questioning of this so-called "victim"...

    She is scared to testify...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    How NOT to greet LEOs when being pulled over...

    https://tinyurl.com/y88q4hrh

    I wonder how many Dumbocrats would have screamed "RACISM!!!!" if the subject was black.. :^/

    My guess would be.. ALL OF THEM... :^/

  51. [51] 
    John M wrote:

    [42] Michale

    "Not entirely.. There were discrepancies..

    Regardless, that's not a fact.. That is simply the so-called "victim" saying it twice.."

    Which MISSES the POINT that it's a CONSISTENT story. LIARS are NEVER so consistent.

    "3) Kavanaugh's own High School friend Mark Judge, in his 1997 addiction memoir, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk. makes a passing reference to Kavanaugh using a pseudonym:

    Which has NOTHING to do with the alleged incident.."

    BUT it DOES do two other things:

    1) It provides contemporary context and

    2) It establishes a pattern of behavior at the time.

    "Yea?? I must have missed the part where Bundy went thru SIX indepth FBI investigations.."

    And how many times was Bundy ALMOST caught and got away??? The ONLY reason he was caught the FINAL time near Lake City, was because he was such a bad driver in the stolen VW Bug! Otherwise he would never have been pulled over and stopped.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which MISSES the POINT that it's a CONSISTENT story. LIARS are NEVER so consistent.

    No, it's NOT consistent..

    She told the therapist that there were 4 guys and then changed it to 2..

    She didn't identify the boys and then she did..

    BUT it DOES do two other things:

    1) It provides contemporary context and

    2) It establishes a pattern of behavior at the time.

    Really??

    Exactly how does it establish a behavior of attempted rape??

    We know the so-called victim was a drunk.

    There are NO FACTS to support that Kavanaugh was a drunk.. There are NO FACTS to support that Kavanaugh was even there..

    And how many times was Bundy ALMOST caught and got away??? The ONLY reason he was caught the FINAL time near Lake City, was because he was such a bad driver in the stolen VW Bug! Otherwise he would never have been pulled over and stopped.

    Which has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Judge Kavanaugh has been thru SIX intense and probing FBI investigations and there was not an IOTA of a whiff or a scintilla of a hint of this kind of behavior..

    You tried to compare it to Bundy but your comparison falls flat.. If Bundy had been investigated SIX times by the FBI, this pattern of behavior would have shown itself..

    You have no argument with this Bundy BS...

    As I said.

    There are NO FACTS to support this so-called "victim"'s story...

    There are TONS of facts that support the idea that this so-called "victim" is totally full of shit...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Stig said..

    This isn't about the law...

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    Best tweet of the day so far:

    The mushroom community is in disarray over this morning’s news.

    If you don't get the reference google: Stormy Daniels Trump and Mushroom.

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We know the so-called victim was a drunk.

    There are NO FACTS to support that Kavanaugh was a drunk..

    Correction: Kavanaugh's accuser said that she was drunk 'at the time', not that she was 'a drunk'.

    Kavanaugh's best friend Judge, on the other hand, wrote two books describing his drunken adventures at Georgetown Prep, and also describes the alcohol-soaked culture he and his friends (including Kavanaugh) lived in.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correction: Kavanaugh's accuser said that she was drunk 'at the time', not that she was 'a drunk'.

    Tom MAY toe, Tom MAA toe....

    Anyone getting drunk at 15 has some huge credibility issues..

    Kavanaugh's best friend Judge,

    Says who???

    on the other hand, wrote two books describing his drunken adventures at Georgetown Prep, and also describes the alcohol-soaked culture he and his friends (including Kavanaugh)

    Facts to support???

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uncertainty swirls around crucial hearing on Trump high court nominee

    Accuser has NOT agreed to testify...
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh/trump-court-nominees-accuser-has-not-agreed-to-testify-senator-idUSKCN1LY2E4

    Apparently, this so-called "victim" has something to hide....

    Not surprising in the least..

    Her claims have holes big enough to fly a starship thru....

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kavanaugh is as guilty as sin, hates women, and is lying through his teeth.

    He is a shoo in for the Republicans - he not only matches their key qualifications for the role, he is overqualified.

    This has to help Republicans win over women in November.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the traitor really wants to win over his base, he could at least help by pointing out that Kavanaugh isn't a "dumb Southerner".

    I mean, he should be all in for his molester.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kavanaugh is as guilty as sin, hates women, and is lying through his teeth.

    Any facts to support yer claim??

    Of course not.. You never have any facts to support ANY of your BS claims..

    Neil.. This is a REALITY based forum...

    Not a fantasy/delusional forum...

  61. [61] 
    Paula wrote:

    Repubs now trying to rebrand the event as "rough horseplay" - even though they are also pretending to believe Kavanaugh when he says he wasn't there. Plus he was drunk. He was drunkenly engaging in rough horseplay versus attempted rape except it never happened. And if it did Dr. Ford is mis-remembering. Because she was drunk. Because everyone there was drunk but hey, kids, right? Except it's BAD that she was drunk but fine that he was drunk. If he was there, which he wasn't. And no one can question Mark Judge - whom she says was there - because why would you want to do that?

    Anyway it all happened a long time ago and Orrin Hatch thinks it shouldn't matter because even if Kavanaugh was a young attempted-rapist, now he's just a perjurer for the GOP and anyone willing to lie for the GOP must be rewarded! Priorities!

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Anyone getting drunk at 15 has some huge credibility issues..

    Why? didn't you? I did, at least a couple of times. Being 15 and drunk at a stranger's party wasn't uncommon in the 1970's and 80's, particularly for Kavanaugh's prep-school crowd.

    Don't forget that this is a story about elites. Kavanaugh's friends at the time were all scions of well-heeled D.C. socialites. Mark Judge's book blames this behavior on the priests that ran the elite institution, complaining that he wouldn't have turned out to be an entitled little drunken snob if his educators had been less liberal.

    Which I doubt sincerely.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno, Neil..

    Pushing buttons is comically useless when it's blatantly obvious that's what yer doing.. :D

    Just sose ya know.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? didn't you?

    Nope, I never did.. The first time I got drunk was when I was at the USAF Police Academy at Lackland AFB/Camp Bullis when I was 18....

    I did, at least a couple of times.

    I thought you were a teetotaler...??? :D

    Being 15 and drunk at a stranger's party wasn't uncommon in the 1970's and 80's, particularly for Kavanaugh's prep-school crowd.

    If you say so..

    Being a drunk at 15 totally destroys anyone's credibility..

    Hell, just being 15, yer credibility takes a shot.. Being a drunk at 15??

    No credibility whatsoever.... :^/

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Plus he was drunk.

    Any facts to support??

    Of course you don't... Funny how no one cares if you spew bullshit, as long as you spew ideologically approved bullshit..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Plus he was drunk.

    Any facts to support??

    Of course you don't... Funny how no one cares if you spew bullshit, as long as you spew ideologically approved bullshit..

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [61]: even if Kavanaugh was a young attempted-rapist, now he's just a perjurer for the GOP and anyone willing to lie for the GOP must be rewarded! Priorities!

    And that's what will trip him up: it's not just that he's a flawed candidate, it's that he has MANY FLAWS as a candidate for our highest court, which after all are just 9 people culled from a population of 400 million.

    So they choose to someone with a highly partisan history, noxious views and a tendency to lie to Senators' faces? And they're wondering why it's blowing up in their faces?

    Republicans know that they could do better, it's just that they're running out of time. Says a lot about their own private assessments of their chances of holding the Senate in the midterms.

  68. [68] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-54 So a witness could conceivably use the Peterson Field Guide to North American Mushrooms to, uh, finger Trump?

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If another SCOTUS nominee was named, *HE* would have been her so-called "would be rapist"...

    So, yer entire argument falls apart..

    So if Trump had nominated a female (no snickering) that was 10 years younger than Kavanaugh, Ford would be claiming that a drunk seven year old girl tried to rape her?

    I love how Trump has been so impressed that Kavanaugh was able to pass the FBI’s background checks so easily. God knows no one from his family or his campaign could ever pull that off!

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Nope, I never did.. The first time I got drunk was when I was at the USAF Police Academy at Lackland AFB/Camp Bullis when I was 18....

    Okay, so you were socially awkward, I guess. These prep school kids didn't have that problem at all.

    I thought you were a teetotaler..

    I am now, but I was hell on wheels a couple of decades ago.

    Being a drunk at 15 totally destroys anyone's credibility..

    You've missed the entire point of her complaint. She isn't alleging that Kavanaugh and his buddy had it in for her, or targeted her at the party. The reverse is true: they grabbed her randomly, casually, and after she fled, thought nothing more of her.

    She, on the other hand, was devastated, and spent years battling the feelings of inadequacy that the event instilled in her.

    That's the story, in a nutshell: the preppy male student athlete acts boorish and stupid, and we're all supposed to look the other way because that's become a rite of passage for elite males.

    No wonder Trump loves this guy.

  71. [71] 
    Paula wrote:

    [67] Balthasar: Republicans know that they could do better, it's just that they're running out of time.

    Exactly.

    [68] TS: You got it! :-)

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Didya catch this, Paula? To counter the GOP's letter from Kavanaugh's classmates, 200 women alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Maryland, who had considerable experience with the boys from Georgetown Prep, all signed a letter which says the story

    “is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.”

    Notable signatory: Julia-Louise Dreyfus, class of 1979.

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72] Balthasar: Yep - read about it yesterday and referenced on it Friday's comments: Do 200 signers of letter-of-support for Dr. Ford trump 65 - many of whom are back-pedaling?

    Meanwhile, Repubs now getting into their stride of setting up sham hearings Monday with the intent of discrediting Dr. Ford. They set a time without consulting her and Jeff Flake is now saying if she doesn't appear he'll vote for Kavanaugh - iow, he's flaking out like he always does.

    Key takaways from all this: Women should never go to a Republican for help if she's assaulted by a white man, especially a privileged white man. The gang will close ranks and protect him - that includes GOP women like Susan Collins. Keep your kids away from Republicans, especially those who "coach". Don't leave your daughters alone with GOP males. Don't drink with or around Republican men - they may decide they want to engage in some "horseplay". Ask the GOP women you know how many times they retreated to the kitchen for "protection". Ask GOP women if they are currently being abused - I bet many of them are or have been.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's being reported that the reason why DiFi did not immediately act on this so-called "victim"'s letter is because she received a VERY similar letter describing VERY similar circumstances with Judge Gorsuch's nomination...

    Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm"........

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, so you were socially awkward, I guess. These prep school kids didn't have that problem at all.

    Funny how you equate illegal drinking and MIP with being socially awkward...

    I find that... surprising..

    You've missed the entire point of her complaint. She isn't alleging that Kavanaugh and his buddy had it in for her, or targeted her at the party. The reverse is true: they grabbed her randomly, casually, and after she fled, thought nothing more of her.

    And she was drunk at the time so her credibility is shot...

    And she doesn't have a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to back up her claim..

    AND she is refusing to testify....

    In other words, she is lying out her ass...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, so you were socially awkward, I guess. These prep school kids didn't have that problem at all.

    Funny how you equate illegal drinking and MIP with being socially awkward...

    I find that... surprising..

    You've missed the entire point of her complaint. She isn't alleging that Kavanaugh and his buddy had it in for her, or targeted her at the party. The reverse is true: they grabbed her randomly, casually, and after she fled, thought nothing more of her.

    And she was drunk at the time so her credibility is shot...

    And she doesn't have a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to back up her claim..

    AND she is refusing to testify....

    In other words, she is lying out her ass...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how you equate illegal drinking and MIP with being socially awkward...

    Because I equate illegal drinking and MIP with out of control children and lousy parents...

    Perhaps this so-called "victim"'s parents should have instilled better values and a sense of decency in their daughter...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how you equate illegal drinking and MIP with being socially awkward...

    Allow me to rephrase...

    Funny how you equate NOT illegal drinking and NOT M.I.P. with being socially awkward...

    Seems to me that the out of control kids who are out there M.I.P. and illegally drinking.... THEY are the socially awkward ones...

    Trying to be "cool" and see how shitfaced they can get and how many boys they can bed...

    Apparently, they turn into Democrats... :^/

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    New Senate race poll drops — and it’s bad news for Beto
    https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article218563900.html

    Sorry, Balthy.. Kick called it.. :D No BETO for you.. :D

  80. [80] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Q: Why is FOX news and entertainment at press conferences? You rarely see Entertainment Tonight at White House pressers...

    Fox is one neo-fascist propaganda toilet I won't miss in the post-Trumpian era.

    LL&P

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What an illuminating thread of comments.

  82. [82] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Hmm. Kennedy (LA) just told Chuck Todd that he wants to hear from Dr. Ford whenever she's ready, at any time "within reason." Next Monday is E-43. Time is growing short.

    Kav can't withstand very much softening, and it just seems to me that it's beginning to thaw in places. If it were me, and I were as cold as Stone, I'd pull it now. Six weeks to assure the base that it'll get cross-our-hearts done lame duck, and not be further wounded in the center.

    The meaning of the next thing Sen. Flake says after he comes off the talking point would be a logical way to communicate what's going to happen next. Switzerland has long history of serving as a reliable communicator of official messages between enemies. Geographically and philosophically, it was unassailable.

    By the way, "Democratic Women on the Judiciary Committee" is a distinction without a difference; there are no R women. And that is why Kav is, at best, already the underdog tonight.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I Can't Say That Everything She Is Saying Is Truthful"
    -Senator Feinstein speaking of so-called "victim"

    There ya have it, Weigantians...

    Even DiFi is calling the so-called "victim" a liar...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    What an illuminating thread of comments.

    Aren't they?? :D

    With DiFi's latest admission that she doesn't believe the so-called "victim" is being truthful, this gambit by the Democrats is fast becoming a really REALLY bad idea...

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    61

    Exactly!

  86. [86] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [84] - With DiFi's latest admission that she doesn't believe the so-called "victim" is being truthful, this gambit by the Democrats is fast becoming a really REALLY bad idea...

    That's a good spin on it. I'd spin it the following way, just to show can burst on either side when one spins a grenade like a kids' top.

    Senator Feinstein is a deliberative senator who fully understands that at this point no one knows the facts of this, irrespective of what intransigent, prejudiced old white men like Hatch may believe.

    The only way to conduct the inquiry on the critical question of the nominee's honesty is to have hearings only after there has been a thorough investigation into the matter.

    This necessary search for the truth is, tick by tock, becoming a really REALLY good idea.

  87. [87] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Well, butcher that first sentence in [86] did me. I need a little slack; I was at Honey's Pizza in Smithville, TX, tonight, and now I'm very full and tired.

    Very toney, run by the couple who founded Amy's Ice Cream, named for a fictional pizza place set in that real town in that sappy old movie Hope Floats.
    Their farm is close to that Austin exurban bedroom / work-from-home, gigabit wired little town.

    Lots more Beto lawn signs than Cruz signs, very stylish, art-deco signs, in fact. But no, Beto can't beat Cruz. Just as well, though, because if he did win, people would be talking about the Kennedy-esque Profile in Progressivism, taking a two-year Senate stint before his presidential candidacy. That may yet happen, but not in 2020.

  88. [88] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-71 Portobello, Morel or the much underrated Slippery Jack? Answer is likely on that Best of Trump & Stormy Blue Ray that still hasn't made it to cable news or NetFlicks.

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    The list is exhaustive and I would wager that if you weed out all the every day cases, those with a political or racial component, there are a lot more FALSE accusations, then factual ones..

    if i took that wager, you'd lose your quatloos. those cases where it's been false may stick out more due to the publicity, but i guarantee that for every false accusation there are nine true, even when political or racial. and that tendency cuts BOTH ways politically - for example, a sexual assault is more likely to be reported if it's a black man accused of assaulting a white woman. but that doesn't necessarily make the accusation false. for example, know who jameis winston is?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/sports/football/jameis-winston-erica-kinsman-lawsuit.html

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB

    The only way to conduct the inquiry on the critical question of the nominee's honesty is to have hearings only after there has been a thorough investigation into the matter.

    And yet, as of last night, the so-called victim is refusing to testify...

    That should tell you something right there..

    Regardless of which spin you want to use, it's a FACT that DiFi has called into question the truthfulness of the so-called "victim"..

    That's not a good sign for the Democrats...

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    90

    And yet, as of last night, the so-called victim is refusing to testify…

    She may very well "refuse to testify" after I post this comment, but as I type this, that hasn't actually happened yet. They're definitely quibbling publicly over the terms of her testimony, though.

    That should tell you something right there..

    It tells us that right-wing media are lying and/or mischaracterizing something that hasn't happened yet but could very well happen in the future. "Refusing to testify" and negotiating the terms of that testimony are two totally different things. She has not refused to testify.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    She may very well "refuse to testify" after I post this comment, but as I type this, that hasn't actually happened yet. They're definitely quibbling publicly over the terms of her testimony, though.

    Fair enough..

    As of right now, she is refusing to testify..

    She has not refused to testify.

    She has now..

  93. [93] 
    Paula wrote:

    [88] TS:

    Portobello, Morel or the much underrated Slippery Jack? Answer is likely on that Best of Trump & Stormy Blue Ray that still hasn't made it to cable news or NetFlicks.

    Slippery Jack sounds about right doncha think? :-)

Comments for this article are closed.