A Kavanaugh classmate at Yale alleges that the Supreme Court nominee shoved his penis in her face at a party… and, believe it or not, that’s not even the worst story about the man to come out today

Well, it looks as though there’s another allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh. This one dates back to the Supreme Court nominee’s freshman year at Yale, when, according to a classmate by the name of Deborah Ramirez, he dropped his pants and thrust his penis into her face at a party without her consent. Here’s an excerpt from the story by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, which was just published by the New Yorker.

Oh, and the Republicans apparently learned last week that this allegation might be forthcoming, which is why they’ve been pushing so hard to move on with the vote, and not slow things down in order to conduct a proper investigation of the charges made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford… “Senior Republican staffers,” Farrow and Mayer write in the New Yorker piece, “also learned of the allegation last week and… soon after, issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.”

As Senator Elizabeth Warren just said, “If Republicans have blocked an FBI investigation, bullied Dr. Ford, and tried to “plow right through” and put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court – all while holding onto credible information about a second sexual misconduct claim – then this isn’t a confirmation. It’s a cover-up.

But, wait, there’s more… Just as the above news was breaking, attorney Michael Avenatti went public with a letter he’d sent to Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, demanding that he ask Kavanaugh about his participation in a “gang rape” while in high school. “We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the DC area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others participate[d] in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them,” Avenatti said in the letter, telling Davis that he would be coming forward with evidence to substantiate the claim in the next few days. [And I think we now know why Mark Judge has been so insistent about not appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.]

Oh, and completer unrelated, Jason Miller, former senior aide to Donald “only the best people” Trump, has been accused of giving his pregnant stripper girlfriend an abortion pill in a smoothie without her knowledge. [How’s that for “family values”?]

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Posted September 23, 2018 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    It’s going to be funny to watch these degenerate GOP morons scramble. Cue the Yakety Sax music.


  2. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Back when I worked for congressman William D. Ford, his nemesis in the House, as some may remember. was a Texas rep named Dick Army. We all thought that was a perfectly fitting name for a Republican congressman. It seems even more appropriate these days.

  3. Anonymous
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    “This is starting to feel like a vast, left-wing conspiracy,” Kellyanne Conway tells CBS regarding the latest allegation against Kavanaugh.

  4. Kim
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    So you’re telling me that McConnell knew about his new allegation when he said a few days ago that the Republicans would “plow right through” on this nomination?

  5. M
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Kavanaugh’s got this, folks. He’s got proof that he couldn’t have assaulted Blasey Ford. He’s got a blank 1982 calendar that shows definitively that he didn’t attend any parties.


  6. Kyle Griffin by proxy
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Ronan Farrow on GMA about his reporting on Deborah Ramirez: “It is not accurate to say those who knew him at the time dispute this.”

  7. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I feel sick. There’s no way this guy can be confirmed. And I’m not even happy about it. I wish he would be denied confirmation for other reasons really. It’s not like any of this is new. Kavanaugh is my age. My sister and many friends went to Yale. I visited them there. None of this surprises me. We all accepted this nonsense. It was common. To be avoided, but common. Normalization I guess. But, even then, we would have said that anyone participating in such ‘youthful shenanigans’ would not be eligible for a SCOTUS appointment. SCOUTS appointees were in their rooms studying. These characters were going to be wall street bankers or politicians. Those are the halls in which frat boy antics continue into middle age, where male bonding rituals that attack women and other vulnerable people can contribute to one’s social advancement. My intolerance for this crap is one of the reasons I rejected many opportunities for social advancement that were available to me. This whole Kavanaugh thing is painful to many of us out there. It’s not that we aren’t strong and capable of moving on. It’s just hard to move on with these kinds of reminders all over the news. I can’t wait for this to go away.

    I really don’t want Kavanaugh appointed. And I know this narrative is useful to the cause of female agency in the long run. But it’s also a huge drag. Speaking up is a drag. Hearing people speak up is a drag. Watching so many people deride and diminish those who speak up is the absolute worst. But I guess this is the price we must pay for progress. The halls of congress are not the right place to hold such men accountable. Maybe worse than Hollywood. Most Congressmen have a lot of this kind of ‘privilege’ they’d like to protect. Tradition!

    I don’t think whoever would be appointed in Kavanaugh’s place will likely be better. Maybe at least they won’t hate women. I hope it’s all worth it. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

  8. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    I guess what I’m trying to say is I ran away from these people when I came to Michigan. And I guess I have been doing that my whole life. I’m just remembering why. Now I have to figure out how to pay my bills next month. I often question my life choices when I’m broke. Not today. So I guess that’s something.

  9. Lynne Fremont
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Assuming this actually derails Kavenaugh’s confirmation, I think it is pretty likely that the next person noninated will hate women at least enough to make them legally second class citizens. They just might not be a rapist (hopefully)

  10. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    The ‘vast left wing conspiracy’ is to expose the systemic and cultural subjugation of various classes of people in America. It would be cool if we actually did anything about it at some point. But that requires us to look at our role as well. Or at least at how we benefit from the marginalization of others. And then we need to be willing to give that up. The left seems not much better than the right at doing that if Ann Arbor is any measure.

    I was sad when I came to Michigan to find a whole lot of leftist predatory men as well and a whole lot of excuses made for them. The ex-hippies were as bad as frat boys in their way. Mostly because I rarely saw it coming. At least those guys were less likely to rise to positions of great power.

  11. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Lynne– yes. That’s about what we can hope for, unless we can delay this thing past the midterms, which might be possible. Ok, I’m starting to feel a little better.

  12. Lynne
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Even if it gets delayed past the midterms, there is still a lame duck session.

  13. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Accusations need to be made in real time, not 30 – 35 years later. If there were photographic evidence or a stained blue dress with DNA evidence, it might be different. But partisan supporters who make unsubstantiated charges without any supporting evidence can’t expect to derail an appointment. The person making the accusations has the burden of proof.

    Kavanaugh was chosen by Kennedy, who supported abortion rights and homosexual marriage. He was hired by Kagan in the past and was seen as a candidate who could work amicably with the extreme left. If the left is successful in derailing his appointment, then Trump can nominate a more conservative jurist.

  14. John Brown
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Yes to delaying until after midterms. Personally I’d like to see President Maxine Waters nominate the next judge in January 2019. Right after the new Dem majority impeaches, indicts and jails Pence and Trump simultaneously for conspiracy against the USA.

  15. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    my point is made by an actual high schooler: “When a girl has come to school after a weekend party and says someone made her feel uncomfortable, she’s called a drama queen,” Ms. Leach said. “People would say she’s fabricating stories for attention. The language being used by a lot of Republicans is eerily similar to the way boys sound in high school.”


  16. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    “Accusations need to be made in real time, not 30 – 35 years later. ” EOS, you are unbelievably dense. You seen to know nothing about human behavior or care nothing about it. It’s people like you with your suspicion and shame slinging who create the barrier to victims coming forward. I suppose you feel the same way about accusations made against Catholic Priests. Even now, neither of these women came forward publicly willingly until after they were going to be outed. (That’s part of my discomfort with all of this.) They are facing death threats. They are not activists and they didn’t sign up for this re-victimization. You know damn well sexual abuse is very hard to prove in our criminal justice system. To properly vet these accusations, even by your standards, will take a lot of time. What’s your hurry?

  17. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    “Kavanaugh was chosen by Kennedy” — that’s not how its supposed to work.

  18. wobblie
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    JH, the fear is yet more woman will come forward. Just as with Trump, the number of woman abused by Kavanaugh are many. There are many Federal employee’s who want to testify to Kavanaugh’s covering up for the serial abuser Kozinski whom Kavanaugh clerked for. To know the character of a man, look at who he associates with. We know what Kavanaugh.
    For the morally turpid–speed is of the essence.

  19. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink


    Avenatti has backed everything up so far, but I worry about his capacity to center himself in so many of these media moments. If he has what he is implying he has, Kav is toast.

  20. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Accusations do not need to be made in real time. People need to not commit crimes. If they do, I agree, the best time to execute them is in real time, during the commission of the crime. Had Christine Ford simply carried a knife and stabbed Cavanaugh in the throat, the problem would have all been solved there.

  21. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Women go to jail for very long sentences all the time for that kind of behavior in self-defense iRobert. Most violent crime committed by women was committed in defense of themselves or their family members. We don’t excuse women very easily for being violent, no matter the reason.

  22. Meta
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Yale Law School students are walking out of class.


  23. Michael Avenatti by proxy
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    “Warning: My client re Kavanaugh has previously done work within the State Dept, U.S. Mint, & DOJ. She has been granted multiple security clearances in the past including Public Trust & Secret. The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible“

  24. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    I wasn’t being serious, Jean. I just wanted EOS to know rapists deserve death.

  25. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Why are you attempting to shame Kavanaugh? There is no evidence that he did anything. If the women are speaking the truth, they have nothing to be ashamed of. In America, an accusation alone does not prove guilt.

  26. Anonymous
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    EOS is a Bill Cosby supporter.

  27. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    I must have missed it. Where is the evidence that he raped anyone?

  28. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    …but I appreciate the point you make also. Yes, women are punished too severely in cases of self defense or imprisonment.

  29. Anonymous
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh is taking his case directly to the base on Fox News tonight.

    “FOX News Channel (FNC) anchor Martha MacCallum will present an exclusive joint interview with Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley Estes Kavanaugh tonight on The Story with Martha MacCallum (7PM/ET).”

  30. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    EOS, it’s in that FBI investigation your heroes are blocking.

  31. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    The second woman was calling mutual friends seeking anyone who could corroborate her story. She found none. But several persons told the New York Times that she admitted to them that she wasn’t even sure it was Kavanaugh.

  32. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Jean, didn’t we have an agreement that you would ignore me?

    EOS, you said that as if this comment section is a place for serious discussion.

  33. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Why is Dr. Ford demanding a FBI investigation if one was already done?

  34. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    EOS, you do remember you talk about Trump as if he isn’t a ridiculous clown. And now you talk as if you want to have a serious discussion?

  35. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Check the record. I’ve admitted he is a clown, but was the lesser of two evils.

  36. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Well, then, for this moment I’ll be serious and tell you, of course Cavanaugh isn’t guilty until proven so in a formal court. By the way, he isn’t determined to be innocent by a bullshit senate hearing either. There needs to be an investigation of all these accusations against him. There is no rush to confirm him. The American people deserve a thorough process, not a rush job just so you can get what you want politically.

  37. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    What can possibly come out of an investigation 35 years after the fact? At best (for your side) they will find more Democrats who will say that he is a despicable person without any evidence to support their opinion. A thorough process? Trump released his list of names during his campaign. There has been a year and a half for Democrats to look for mud to sling. If this is all they came up with, what difference will another 6 months make except to denigrate his good name before he takes his seat on the court.

  38. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    You haven’t heard all of what they have come up with, EOS. We haven’t even heard the senators question these accusers. We don’t have the answers. Also, you statement about not being able to learn details of a 35 year old crime is moronic. It occurs all the time. It’s a whole specialization in criminal investigation. You might have heard of it, genius. It’s called cold case investigation. Stop acting like an idiot, EOS.

  39. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    You speak in almost pure rhetoric, EOS. Have you ever noticed that?

    Do you realize how few people actually read these comments? I don’t think it’s the big public relations podium you fantasize it to be. Are you even capable of stepping out of the bullshit rhetoric mode? Your poor wife.

  40. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    We’re not talking about a homicide or rape here. How would you prove that a drunk fell on top of a woman or if he waved a dick in her face 35 years ago? And why the hell does it matter?

  41. Anonymous
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I would prefer that a lifetime appointment to the country’s highest court in which cases that could involve drunk men falling on women or waving dicks in their faces not be given to a man that was drunk or waved his dick in a woman’s face. Is that such a high standard?

  42. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    If he were proven to have done that or if he admits that he did it, then the Senate should vote against him. But an unsubstantiated accusation should not be acted on. Some shred of evidence to support an accusation? Is that such a high standard?

  43. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    You are incredibly stupid, EOS. You almost answered your own question there by accident. What are you, 60 years old? And you need every little fucking thing explained to you? Use your own brain. Stop pretending you’re somehow a spokesperson for something.

    It matters because it is a crime, and because he’s being considered for one of the most important jobs in the country. Could you not have answered that question for yourself, rather than make me have to say it?

    You are incredibly stupid, EOS. You almost answered your own question there by accident. Cold cases aren’t limited to murder and rape, you jackass. Do some reading before you make your asinine comments. What are you, 60 years old? And you need every little fucking thing explained to you still? Use your own brain. Stop pretending you’re somehow a spokesperson for something, and just start using your own brain.

    You obviously need every little thing explained to you, EOS. There is something wrong with you. Maybe Jean will walk you through every little bit of it. I’m guessing it’s not too complex for her, and she apparently thinks it matters whether or not you ever understand anything. I know you’re a lost cause. I don’t want to just keep pointing out the obvious to you.

  44. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad I double posted that shit. You don’t deserve to have every little thing explained to you, when you could very well have figured it out yourself.

    I’ll explain to you what an idiot you are and why later, when I have more time.

  45. John Brown
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Don’t forget that the rape-y-ness is a distraction from the fact that K-bro will protect Agent Orange from indictment for treason once the Dems take the house and Mueller reports out. This is about the very integrity of our government and they have everyone acting like it’s about trumpublicans normalizing sexual assault. Well that boat has already sailed with the election of ole ‘shroom dick.

  46. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    EOS– If you are looking for evidence, then an FBI investigation should be something you support. It sounds as though Avenatti may have some. Dems are showing some game in holding their cards a bit. We’ll see on Thursday. If Avenatti has anything substantive, Kav may withdraw rather than testify under oath.
    If having a dildo shoved in one’s mouth after being plied with drinks and then having an actual dick shoved in one’s face until one if forced to push it away at a virginal 19 years old is no big deal, maybe you’d volunteer for the same treatment now at 60 or whatever to prove it. Please note that this young woman was at least as religious as you at the time, describing herself as a devout and faithful Catholic. While we’re at it we can rig up some waterboarding for you. No big deal, right? Fuck you EOS. You may be the most corrupt human I’ve encountered. At least HW seems truly demented, crippled by insecurity and incapable of either discernment or self-control. What’s your excuse?

  47. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    I love how a drunken assault in which the assailant covers up the young woman’s screams and his equally drunk friend feels compelled to break it up becomes ‘a drunk man falling on a woman.’

    Corrupt a/f.

    My ex was a drunk. I guess he fell on me and that’s how I got pregnant.

  48. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Jean, I have a newfound and profound respect for your incredible patience with EOS’s ridiculousness. The next time I am disrespectful toward you, please feel free to remind me of this moment.

  49. iRobert
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never been a parent, and I can see how it really can do a lot to develop a person’s patience and endurance. I have to leave the incurable cases to others who have those special powers. I really just want to use a baseball bat to fix every problem.

    Mark Judge tackled Cavanaugh because that was the only way he could make him stop and still not lose him as a friend. My friend all know I’d utilize a blunt object in such a situation.

  50. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    It’s you two who are willfully ignorant, making wild assumptions of things you know nothing about. Hope you saw Fox News at 7. The man categorically denied everything. All he is asking for is a fair process. Go ahead, keep calling him a rapist without any evidence. Hope you never get accused of something you haven’t done and then get a jury who is willing to convict based only on an politically motivated accusation. Wouldn’t hurt either of you to study some rhetorical arguments. Works better than name-calling if you hope to get the upper hand in any debate.

  51. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Mark Judge doesn’t have any recollection of the events described by Dr. Ford. Seems he wasn’t there either.

  52. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Mark Judge and Kavanaugh were blotto drunk and so, conveniently, can claim not to remember. Why do you believe them more than Dr Blaisey Ford?

    corrupt a/f

  53. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    I havent accused him of anything. Others have. I’d be happy with an FBI investigation of all allegations. What’s your rush?

  54. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Stay off the FOX News EOS. In the past, you assured us that you relied on more serious and reliable sources for your information. In fact, I believe you said you never watch FOX News. Oops. Maybe you’re drunk and will deny this tomorrow.

  55. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    That’s what she said.

  56. EOS
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    He said that he was a virgin when he graduated high school, and for a number of years afterward, whic I presume includes his freshman year of college.

  57. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    You can be a virgin and still stick your duck in someone’s face. Why would you believe Kavanaugh over His accusers? Why don’t you want to hear the evidence? Why resist an FBI investigation?

  58. Jean Henry
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    I wish it had been a duck.

  59. #PolygraphForBrett
    Posted September 24, 2018 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    “I went on my own research journey about Brett Kavanaugh, and discovered something that hasn’t been reported anywhere else. AND I AM HERE TO SERVE SOME PIPING HOT TEA ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH. (For those who don’t read any news at all: Kavanaugh is Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, and a woman named Christine Blasey recently accused him of sexually assaulting her.)


    I’m getting to the tea!

    But first a little background.

    Reader: “OMFG.”

    Christine Blasey, aware that her credibility would be viciously attacked by zillions of terrible people, decided to head off a few doubters by taking a polygraph. She passed.

    Lots of people debate the legitimacy of polygraphs. We’ve all seen child molesters pass them on Dr. Phil!

    But let’s put aside your opinion of polygraphs, or my opinion of polygraphs, or the talking heads’ opinion of polygraphs. No, kids, in the words of Brett Kavanaugh, who used the phrase “Buckle up” in a court opinion he wrote that I am about to have a lot of fun writing about, LET’S DISCUSS WHAT BRETT KAVANAUGH THINKS ABOUT POLYGRAPHS!

    Reader: “WTF?”




    You see, when I am not being a circus performer, or playing Cities Skylines, I have this thing I do to pay rent, which is being an attorney. Specifically a litigator. I spend a lot of time reading cases written by judges. Kavanaugh is a judge. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion about polygraphs.

    Reader: “I would think the media would have noticed this.”

    I thought I was the first to invent an idea for microtransactions only to discover Google patented it right before I tried and I was unbelievably pissed about that. So if you think I’m not going to take credit for being the first person to think about searching for polygraph opinions written by Brett Kavanaugh, well, you try to find it somewhere else. I got the scoop and you’re reading it here first!

    Reader: “So what does Brett Kavanaugh think about polygraphs?”

    Brett Kavanaugh has a soft spot in an otherwise stone heart for polygraphs. For a heart that hasn’t pumped blood in years, it’s a soft spot that might be gangrene, but which also led Brett to opine that government reports about polygraphs qualify for what’s called a FOIA Exemption 7(E).

    Reader: “This sounds complicated.”

    My job is explaining the law to both lay people and judges. Judges are much harder for some reason.

    Anyway, a 7(E) exemption is what allows the government to avoid sharing documents with the public if it would risk causing “circumvention of the law”. As in, we can’t be releasing important law enforcement things if it will make criminals’ lives easier. Information is dangerous in the wrong hands!

    A college student, Kathryn Sack, was researching polygraphs, and trying to get the government to release documents it had about polygraphs. This was “for her dissertation on polygraph bias”. Sack v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir., 2016) at 688.

    Reader: “I think I know what’s coming.”

    I bet you do!

    There might not be many court opinions written by Brett Kavanaugh about the sanctity of marriage, or the sanctity of the unborn, which is why everyone is reading tea leaves about it, but there just so happens to be a court opinion by Brett Kavanaugh about the sanctity of the polygraph. As socialist atheist liberals, we can’t believe in god, but with irony this rich, we just might have to start!

    Instrumental in his decision as a judge, Kavanaugh calls the polygraph “an important law enforcement tool”. Id at 694. Kavanaugh noted that “The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” Id. Kavanaugh agreed with the Government’s concern that if information were released about how polygraphs work, it “could enable criminal suspects, employees with ill intentions, and others to subvert polygraph examinations.” Id at 694 and 695.

    Reader: “OK, but we all know that polygraphs are not admissible as evidence. Doesn’t that mean the court doesn’t believe in the veracity of polygraphs, especially for people accused of crimes?”

    Not according to Brett Kavanaugh! “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants.” Id at 694, quotations omitted. If Facebook allowed bolding, I would bold that “criminal defendants” bit.

    Reader Who Also Happens To Be a Lawyer: “But was this decision deferential or de novo?”

    “[R]egardless of whether our review here is deferential or de novo, we would reach the same result because we agree with the District Court’s segregability determination.” Id at 695.

    Non-Lawyer Reader: “What is de novo?”

    The gist is basically that Brett Kavanaugh isn’t just taking the lower court’s word for it that polygraphs are a legit tool that needs to be protected. It means Brett Kavanaugh himself believes that.

    This case is from 2016.

    But wait, there’s more!

    Kavanaugh wrote the decision in Jackson v. Mabus, 808 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir., 2015) where he’s like, super casual about discussing a polygraph that was used as evidence in front of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, which isn’t as exciting as the Sack case, but at least puts to bed the notion that judges don’t discuss polygraphs as evidence, or at least, not as far as Brett Kavanaugh is concerned.


    Reader: “Oh god. How many of these are there going to be?”


    Besides, wouldn’t you want to know the tea about Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion about sex offenders who preyed on 14 year olds being required to take polygraphs and whether that’s an unreasonable attack on liberty?

    Reader: “OMFG.”

    The restrictions placed on a convicted sex offender, Tom Malenya, in his supervised release, included a number of things, such as polygraph testing. The court tossed the provision restricting his ability to use a computer (reasoning it would make it impossible for him to get a job). Brett Kavanaugh dissented and said all of the restrictions were fine, (thus including the polygraph) except for the one that involved a medical examination of Malenya’s penis. United States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir., 2013). Yes, in a world of forced ultrasounds, Brett Kavanaugh is here to defend pedophile penis.

    And that’s it. That’s it for the tea. I have only searched and read Brett Kavanaugh’s literal handful of cases that mention polygraphs, and I have reached several conclusions:

    1. Brett Kavanaugh thinks polygraphs are important tools for measuring the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants.

    2. “Polygraphs are not admissible in court” is an utterly, utterly ludicrous argument when you’re discussing Brett Kavanaugh, who thinks polygraphs are not only useful but critical in everything from high level government jobs to reasonable safeguards against sex crimes.

    3. Brett Kavanaugh is a douchebag. And also a poor writer who thinks he’s a good writer, and I really hate those people.

    4. When deciding whether people should be given high level government positions, it’s reasonable and probably a good idea to subject those people to polygraphs, at least according to Brett Kavanaugh.

    5. If I end up taking a case to the US Supreme Court and Kavanaugh is confirmed, I had better hope his memory of who wrote articles dragging him is as poor as his memory of attacking a fifteen year old girl. The depressing thing is that I’m pretty sure he’s far more likely to remember the first than the second.

    He could clear his name with a polygraph! For a believer, one wonders why he hasn’t offered to take one himself


  60. Anonymous
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    that’s what she said.


    comment made (usually by a male) after someone says something that a female might say. Usually it reinterprets a harmless statement as something sexual.

  61. iRobert
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Maybe Senator Grassley can ask Christine Ford if in fact what she saw was merely a duck.

  62. EOS
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Maybe Dr. Ford’s therapist can conjure up some repressed memories involving Trump.

  63. Fake News
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    “The man categorically denied everything. ”

    I fail to understand why we are required to believe him. If he is asking for due process…. that means an investigation, not simply the unquestioning belief in his personal statements.

    NYT: “Did you kill her?”
    OJ: “No.”
    NYT: “OK, cool.”

  64. EOS
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    No one is required to believe him. But without evidence to the contrary, he is presumed to be innocent. In our country, if you kill someone but leave no evidence of the crime, you go free. Far better to let a guilty man go free then have an innocent man imprisoned.

    Some have argued that he won’t go to jail, but would only fail to be appointed to the position he has worked for his whole life. No big deal they say if his career is ruined, his character questioned, and his family shamed.

    That’s not fair or just.

  65. Anonymous
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I think the reason for that is to protect an individual citizen from the state because the state can have overwhelming resources and motivations that are not unbiased. In this case, the state is asking for protection from individual citizens from revealing motivations that are not unbiased. Ironic?

  66. Fake News
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    “No big deal they say if his career is ruined, his character questioned, and his family shamed.”

    No, not a big deal at all. This is politics. In a democracy.

    Why should we as citizens at all care at all about the welfare of people who work in powerful government positions?

    The point is that we hold them to a higher standard than we hold even ourselves, at least ideally.

    I do not at all care about what happens to Kavanaugh, or Trump or anyone around them.

    Why should I? Why should you?

  67. Fake News
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Besides…. he makes what $220,000 a year for his lifetime appointment as a federal judge?

    Who fucking cares what happens to him. I bet he has millions stashed away.

    Even if he loses his appointment (unlikely) he will rack up plenty of money in consulting fees.

    Who cares.

  68. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    His career isn’t ruined. No more than Garland’s was. He will still be a sitting federal court judge. If his reputation is ruined– well, he should have thought of that when drinking excessively with a pack of proto-frat boys in high school and continuing that behavior into college.

    Most men accused of sexual assault re-emerge and continue to have productive careers. Why are we more concerned about the reputation of high-status men than the safety of women.

    corrupt a/f, EOS

  69. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    EOS– Kavanaugh was accused of a crime but not charged with one. In the court of public opinion, the presumption of innocence is not relevant. you know damn well it’s almost impossible to prove sexual assault in our judicial system. That’s precisely why there need to be social consequences for such behavior. Up until recently, there weren’t any. Why the hell would you want to preserve that status quo. If Kav doesn’t make it you’ll get another conservative SCOTUS appointment. Let it go. We lost Garland, a better man by any measure, for purely political reasons. Send this frat boy misogynist home and find someone who actually lives up to their stated values. Think for a second about what you are defending.

  70. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    EOS cries in empathy about a high status man’s loss of reputation but thinks a young woman being hit in the face with a dick should just shut up and take it. EOS think that being held down and groped by a drunk guy who covers your mouth to muffle the screams is ‘being fallen on by a drunk” not sexual assault.

    Corrupt a/f

  71. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    EOS– Please at least admit that an FBI investigation is in order and the nomination vote should be postponed. Then please acknowledge that if the charges against Judge Kavanaugh are found to be credible or he is found to have lied under oath, then his nomination should be withdrawn.

    Salvage your own reputation. Show us you have some integrity.

    Is politics at play? Of course, it is. It always is. Does that mean that the charges are false? No.

  72. EOS
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    No. It is insanity to think that a women should have such power to destroy a man’s career or reputation by simply making an accusation without any evidence. I never said that I knew the charges were false, only that they are not supported by any evidence. The accusation cannot be proven. What makes you so sure that he did what he is accused of? With the help of a therapist, this woman remembered a repressed memory in time to derail his nomination.

    It has been reported that the FBI has already investigated the man. It is standard procedure for all Federal appointments. They cannot do any investigation that would prove he was a a party about 35 years ago (the exact date is unknown) at some location (the exact place is unknown). The woman claims 3 people were in the room, but two of them deny it. If the woman has a videotape of the event, she should present the evidence. If not, stop wasting everybody’s time.

    I have integrity. I will not participate in destroying a man for political gain because of a baseless accusation.

  73. iRobert
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    If Christine Ford believes Cavanaugh attempted to rape her, and even if her memory is wrong, her claims deserve to be investigated. In fact, an investigation may likely clear Cavanaugh entirely in finding the incident did happen, but did not involve Cavanaugh. It could also lead to another very different conclusion, that the incident didn’t happen quite the way it was remembered. Every individual named as a participant or witness should be interviewed. This would likely be enough to give a strong indication one way or another.

  74. Anonymous
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    It is insanity to think that a man should have such power to destroy a woman’s career or reputation by simply making an accusation without any evidence.

    Yet it happens.

  75. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    EOS– You know damn well that the FBI did not investigate these allegations. So again, why don’t you support an investigation if you would like fair treatment?

  76. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Dan Rather
    43 mins ·
    Thursday’s hearing is all about credibility. And judging from Kavanaugh’s “infomercial” on Fox News I think the GOP should be worried. I’ve seen people hawking wares on late night TV who appear to be a lot more sincere and believable. This isn’t a time when you can “set it and forget it.”

  77. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh speech excerpt addressing the Federalist Society at Yale:
    “I am approaching my eighth anniversary on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I am approaching the 24th anniversary of my graduation from this school. That means I am approaching the 24th anniversary of my organizing 30 classmates in a bus to go to Boston for a Red Sox game and a night of Boston bar-hopping, only for us to return falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m. One friend of mine, Steve Hartmann, actually had a Labor Law final the next morning. (I checked with him just yesterday to confirm that it was Labor Law.) True story.

    On the bus, he actually had his book out and was reading his notes while people were doing group chugs from a keg. He got a P. I think the people doing the group chugs got H’s. Fortunately for all of us, we had a motto, what happens on the bus stays on the bus. Tonight, you can modify that to what happens at the Fed Soc after-party stays at the Fed Soc afterparty.

    We had a good run my third year. We got our work done, but we had our share of fun. During our third year class party, it was a beautiful night then as it is tonight. We were at the Lawn Club. No one had done their SAWs. Most people didn’t even have their topics yet. But we didn’t care that night. We had a memorable evening. It is fair to say that we had a few drinks. Indeed, as a classmate of mine and I were reminiscing and piecing things together the other day, we think we had more than a few beers before the banquet. Might have been at Toads. Not a good idea.

    Anyway, toward the end of the evening a friend of mine who shall remain nameless—and this is a story that is really about a friend of mine, not about me where I am disguising myself as a friend of mine—my friend broke a table in the Lawn Club reception area. Smashed it into multiple pieces. I actually still possess a photo of him sprawled on the floor on top of the table. How’d did he break it, you might ask? The old-fashioned way. He lost his balance and fell into the table, drink in hand, and the table collapsed. My friend was a big guy.

    Now, you might think that we would have quickly left the Lawn Club after that, with some sense of shame. But you’d be wrong. My friend actually tried to get another drink at the bar. Proving something I have always known—that bartenders have a lot more common sense than many law school students—the bartender refused to serve my friend.

    But that’s where one of our many fond memories of Yale Law School came in. Professor Steve Duke, who himself might have had a few cocktails, came to the rescue and told my friend that he would take care of the situation and argue his case to the bartender. His actual words, as we recalled the other day, were “I’ll take your case.” And sure enough, Steve Duke—or as we called him for reasons too bizarre to recall now, the Dukie-stick—won the case and got my friend some more beers. That’s probably one Professor Duke deserved to lose. The moral of this story: I suppose there are a lot of them. But here’s one I like: Don’t ever let it be said that Yale Law professors are not there when you most need them.”

    I hate bros like that. They think they are above consequences. They openly celebrate their privilege and the institutional protection from consequence provided to them. Bring the consequences on.

  78. Lynne
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Sometimes bro behavior has consequences! It is just so rare that when it does, it makes international news. Like that business with Otto Warmbier who found out the hard way that bro behavior does not fly in N. Korea.

  79. EOS
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I don’t support an investigation because there are no grounds for an investigation and no possibility that an investigation 35 years after a supposed incident occurred can bring new evidence to light. Our justice system does not convict based on who appears to be more believeable. Lacking any corroborating evidence, there is nothing to investigate. I think she should appear before Congress, state her accusation, present her evidence, and then they should vote to confirm this highly qualified person.

    How would you like it if I made a baseless accusation about you? You would get mad and start calling me names and threaten to stick me with a knife and I would calmly state any falsehood I pleased. I’m sure I could be more believeable. Try thinking with empathy and you would reach a different conclusion.

  80. Demetrius
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    @ Lynne

    Otto Warmbier tried to take a propaganda poster from a North Korean airport. A foolish decision, yes – and one that ultimately resulted in him being tortured/medically mistreated until he was in a coma from which he never recovered, before he finally died as a result of his mistreatment.

    Your callous attempt at analogy, reducing Warmbier’s action to “bro behavior” and suggesting he “learned the hard way” is absolutely shocking and despicable.

  81. Lynne
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Ok but the whole tragedy was one of a guy who was used to getting away with things like tearing down posters without any consequences only to find himself in a situation where that was not the case. While it is very unfortunate that the consequences in that case were so harsh, one has to wonder if he might have been a little bit more cautious if he hadn’t lived his life in an environment where young white men could get away with such things? I am not saying that the punishment was just, just that there suddenly was one when previously there had not been. If you find *that* statement shocking and despicable, I guess there is nothing more for me to say other than I disagree.

    In general, I think we give way too much leeway to young white men in this country. Sometimes to their detriment as with Otto Warmbier, More often to the detriment of those who encounter them.

  82. wobblie
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    EOS, there is no statute of limitations on rape or attempted rape in Maryland
    ” Investigators in Montgomery County confirmed Monday they’re aware of a potential second sexual assault complaint in the county against former Georgetown Prep student and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    While investigators weren’t specific and spoke on background, they said they are looking at allegations against Kavanaugh during his senior year in high school after an anonymous witness came forward this weekend.

    This would potentially bring the number to four women accusing Kavanaugh of wrongdoing and comes after Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale college student, stepped forward this weekend to accuse Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college, and after attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted out a message saying he represents a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”

  83. iRobert
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    What is Avenatti doing with the supposed bombshell information he has? Is just going to tease everyone with his hinting about it? What purpose does that serve?

  84. Jean Henry
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    EOS is certainly getting worked up about this. I guess I should have made the idle threat of swinging a dick in her face, since it’s no big deal.
    PS people accuse me of all sorts of bs on the internet and in the community. I’ve been enough of a locally public figure that many rumors have been generated. I find it amusing and rarely correct. It always says more about the people saying it than me. I also don’t care much about my ‘reputation’ obviously. I use my full name. I try to be myself, damn the consequences. I don’t know how else I could live with myself.

    Kavanaugh is up for a SCOTUS seat during the most tulmultuous time in our political history. Why would he even expect to be treated fairly by the opposition? If he’s innocent, let the investigation of all charges go through. What’s he hiding?

    I’m shedding crocodile tears over the unfair treatment of a GOP scotus appointee… Turn around is fair play… and about time.

  85. iRobert
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    I suspect EOS is used to being treated like an annoying child. In his real life, I would assume everyone is fed up with him and his inability to critically examine his own beliefs. Coming here anonymously provides him the experience of being taken remotely seriously, if only for a short time by any individual. In the real world I’m certain anyone who tolerates him has long since given up on trying to get him to think through his thoughts before he expressed them. That’s if they haven’t totally abandoned him as hopeless.

    Rather than pretending online, he really should reflect on why he’s driven people away in real life. Maybe he feels he’s too old to change.

  86. Wobblie
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Avenatti is doing what good attorneys do. Read an interesting take on him and Trump. Trump loves to make up nick names and engage in twitter rambles against his enemies. Trump has never said a word on any public space about Avenattii. I think he is some one Trump is truly scared of. He will have his witnesses ( note it is plural) all lined up. He will not let them be savaged the way Feinstein and other Dems have left Ford be attacked. Even money on Trump pulling the nomination tomorrow.

  87. Jean Henry
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    “In his real life, I would assume everyone is fed up with him and his inability to critically examine his own beliefs.” –EOS has an entire church community invested in her and their “inability to critically examine [their] own beliefs” It’s called faith. There are even subdivisions in Ypsi Township designated Christian Communities. (Somehow that’s legal) Even delusional assholes have people. Those who don’t usually have other issues at play.

  88. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    I still theorize that EOS is an outcast and a loner by nature. I don’t believe his supposed Christianity extends much beyond a few idiological positions. He has little to bond him to church folk in his neighborhood or wider community. They would expect him to be genuine and committed to a pursuit of Christian values in all aspects of his life. He’s not into that. He just wants to push political agendas as sort of a shortcut to piety, in his mind.

    The patterns he displays here are no doubt also his patterns in real life, even though he is convinced he’s constructed a whole different persona here. That sense is reinforced by other commenters on this blog assuming the way he portrays himself here is authentic.

  89. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    September 24, 2018

    Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

    When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy.

    At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.

    Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36-year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.

    Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.

    These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.

    As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.

    I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday.

    Brett M. Kavanaugh

  90. Fake News
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    I think that most men who have committed sexual assault have denied it. I think that most men who commit sexual assault are incapable of seeing the wrong in it, which is why they do it.

    Whether Kavanaugh did it or not is irrelevant. Note that the “denial” makes the case that it is all about him. He expresses no empathy at all to the victims, makes not claim as to how horrific sexual assault is and makes no effort at all to offer to recognize growth and maturity.

    Instead, he plays himself as the victim, which is so common in sexual assault cases. In short, he is representative of the culture that allows powerful men to prey on women and get away with it.

    Kavanaugh is worthy of dismissal on the basis of this alone.

  91. Fake News
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    Even women can enable male sexual predators. I am assuming the this EOS character also believes that Bill Cosby is innocent, given Cosby’s wife’s denials.

    “Official Statement From Camille O. Cosby

    “We the people” are the first three words of our nation’s Constitution, but who were those people in 1787? Dr. Howard Zinn, the renowned, honest historian, states in his best-selling book, A People’s History of the United States: “The majority of the 55 men who framed the Constitution were men of wealth in land, slaves, manufacturing or shipping.” Clearly, most people were not included in that original draft of the Constitution; no women, Native Americans, poor white men; and, absolutely, no enslaved Africans.

    What have the masses of people done who are treated as outcasts by “we the people”? They, through the purity of the unceasing human spirit, forced 27 amendments to the Constitution that have guaranteed fundamental rights to all people…finally doing what the framers should have done in 1787.

    Now enters an American citizen, Bill Cosby. The overall media, with their frenzied, relentless demonization of him and unquestioning acceptance of accusers’ allegations without any attendant proof, have superseded the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee due process and equal protection, and thereby eliminated the possibility of a fair trial and unbiased jury. Bill Cosby was labelled as guilty because the media and accusers said so… period. And the media ensured the dissemination of that propaganda by establishing barricades preventing the dissemination of the truth in violation of the protections of the First Amendment. Are the media now the people’s judges and juries?

    Since when are all accusers truthful? History disproves that…for example, Emmett Till’s accuser immediately comes to mind. In 1955, she testified before a jury of white men in a Mississippi courtroom that a 14-year-old African American boy had sexually assaulted her, only to later admit several decades later in 2008 that her testimony was false. A more recent example
    is the case of Darryl Hunt, an African American who in 1984 was wrongfully convicted for the rape and murder of a white woman, only to have DNA evidence establish in 1994 that he did not commit the crime. Nonetheless he was held in prison until 2004, serving almost twenty years behind bars, until the true rapist confessed to the crimes. These are just two of many tragic instances of our justice system utterly and routinely failing to protect African Americans falsely accused in so-called courts of law and the entirely unfair court of public opinion.

    In the case of Bill Cosby, unproven accusations evolved into lynch mobs, who publicly and privately coerced cancellations of Bill Cosby’s scheduled performances; syndications of “The Cosby Show”; rescissions of honorary degrees and a vindictive attempt to close an exhibition of our collection of African American art in the Smithsonian Museum of African Art. Although the Smithsonian’s hierarchy did not capitulate, a disclaimer was posted on the exterior of that Museum. And all of that occurred before the trial even started.

    The worst injustices, however, have been carried out in the Pennsylvania Montgomery County Courthouse. Three criminal charges, promised during an unethical campaign for the district attorney’s office, were filed against my husband…all based on what I believe to be a falsified account by the newly elected district attorney’s key witness. I firmly believe her recent testimony during trial was perjured; as was shown at trial, it was unsupported by any evidence and riddled with innumerable, dishonest contradictions. Moreover, Bill Cosby’s defense team introduced the testimony of a witness who confirmed that the district attorney’s witness admitted that she had not been sexually assaulted, but that she could say she was and get money … which is exactly what she did.

    I am publicly asking for a criminal investigation of that district attorney and his cohorts. This is a homogeneous group of exploitive and corrupt people, whose primary purpose is to advance themselves professionally and economically at the expense of Mr. Cosby’s life. If they can do this to Mr. Cosby, they can do so to anyone.

    How much longer will we, the majority of the people, tolerate judicial, executive, legislative, media and corporate abuses of power? We, the majority of the people, must make America what it has declared itself to be….a democracy…not to be destroyed by vicious, lying, self-absorbed paradigms of evilness.

    Once again, an innocent person has been found guilty based on an unthinking, unquestioning, unconstitutional frenzy propagated by the media and allowed to play out in a supposed court of law. This is mob justice, not real justice. This tragedy must be undone not just for Bill Cosby, but for the country.

    I wish to thank the witnesses who courageously came forward at trial to testify as to the truth, as well as those witnesses who would have done so but for the judge preventing them from testifying. Someday the truth will prevail, it always does.

    Camille Cosby”

  92. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Fake News,

    If he didn’t do it, there are no victims and it is all about a false accusation. Had he questioned her truthfulness or motives, the left would have gone berserk.

  93. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Bill Cosby admitted his actions under oath.

  94. Lynne
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    EOS, I think he should have at keadt acknowledged that it is possible that he did it but doesnt remember. Either because of drinking or because he thinks so little of women that a sexual assault is not remarkable enough of an event for him to recall it.

  95. Fake News
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    The left are already going berserk. Nothing will change that.

    But there is right and wrong. Kavanaugh has taken the “wrong” option. I was previously inclined to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt on policy and ideological matters.

    Reading his response, I am convinced that he is mostly devoid of morality and indifferent to issues of sexual assault and by extension issues of basic human suffering. There is no room for that on the Supreme Court.

  96. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    This is not a trial. A man’s life is not at stake. Nor is his freedom.

    This is a job interview. If hired, he would be working for the American people and the Constitution, not for the President or the Republican Party. The public wants all questions fully investigated and answered, to the extent that is possible.

    It was HIS choice to seek the nomination. If he didn’t realize he would be put through this, he is too stupid to serve on the supreme court. Seeing himself as a victim, or portraying himself as a victim is political, and/or sociopathic.

  97. Fake News
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    I agree that attempting to present himself as a victim is purely political.

    His response strikes me as sociopathic. I am not sure that we can believe anything he says or that he has a basic moral foundation.

    I make this conclusion not based on the specific allegations against him, but on his response to the allegations.

    Time to move on to another candidate. There are plenty other conservative candidates out there, and a number of them probably have some basic moral grounding.

  98. Lynne
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Re: ” There are plenty other conservative candidates out there, and a number of them probably have some basic moral grounding.”

    I don’t recall anyone suggesting Roberts, Alito, Bryer, or Gorsuch being accused of sexual abuse. So even somewhat recently, there have been confirmations.

  99. LUMOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Look up Julie Swetnick.

  100. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    So what is your response to Julie Swetnick’s claims, EOS? Should we ignore them?

  101. Jean Henry
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 10:50 am | Permalink


  102. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    OK I just read the link. The woman went to about 10 parties between ’81 and ’83. She had heard that girls were made to drink to excess and then raped, but she still went to more parties. She was gang raped at one of the parties in ’82 and still went to more. She didn’t say that Kavanaugh raped her, just that he was at the party. She said that someone else told her that Kavanaugh spike the drinks, but she had no direct knowledge.

    So is this the new standard? If someone was at a party 36 years ago where a girl drank too much and was taken advantage of, then they are unfit to be appointed to office today? smh

  103. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    I’ve got a question maybe EOS can help me answer. Why didn’t the Republicans nominate a pro-life woman?

    I suspect Trump was handed Cavanaugh with the intention of causing this uproar.

  104. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Women were considered. Who on this list would you consider an acceptable choice?

    Trump’s Supreme Court List
    Issued Nov. 17, 2017 by the White House

    Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

    Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida

    Steven Colloton of Iowa, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

    Allison Eid of Colorado, United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

    Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

    Raymond Gruender of Missouri, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

    Thomas M. Hardiman of Pennsylvania, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

    Brett M. Kavanaugh of Maryland, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

    Joan L. Larsen of Michigan, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

    Mike Lee of Utah, United States senator

    Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah

    Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa

    Federico Moreno of Florida, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

    Kevin Newsom of Alabama, United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

    William Pryor of Alabama, United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

    Margaret Ryan of Virginia, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

    David Stras of Minnesota, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

    Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    Amul Thapar of Kentucky, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

    Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

    Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (retired)

    Don Willett of Texas, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

    Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

  105. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    I think any of the women would have been a better choice than Cavanaugh, if I were a GOP strategist. Trump seems to do a lot of things which ultimately cripple the GOP position.

  106. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh wasn’t my first choice either. Maybe Trump is letting the Dems spin out with the first nomination so that he can bring in his first choice later. There’s only so many times one call call wolf.

  107. EOS
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    I’ll open the question to everyone. Which persons on the list are the least objectionable?

  108. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure I wouldn’t be happy with any of them. But I don’t have any say in the matter. My opinion was expressed when I held my nose and voted for Clinton.

    However, if I were a GOP strategist, I would have definitely gone with one of the women on the list. It just seems like the smartest thing to do in the midst of the #metoo movement.

    Your suggestion that maybe Cavanaugh is a sacrificial lamb meant to clear the way for the next nominee makes some sense to me, if the Republicans now have him withdraw his nomination and they go with one of the women on the list. I agree it would then be very difficult for anyone to believe the Dems sincere in opposing her.

  109. Elliott
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    “Maybe Trump is letting the Dems spin out with the first nomination so that he can bring in his first choice later.”

    Ah, yes, this old chestnut. Trump the super genius, playing 3D chess.

    You are a funny man, EOS.

  110. CNBC's John Harwood
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Trump on Kavanaugh nomination: “i think it’s working out very well.”


  111. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    I suspect the Republicans were just sloppy and stupid in their strategy. They get that way when they’ve been winning for a while. They also fuck a lot of shit up, and then start losing support among their own ranks.

  112. iRobert
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    It’s also pretty difficult to find a decent human being among them. There are some, but they’re not popular with the majority of their colleagues who are your typical degenerate creeps. The decent Republicans could get a nomination from their fellow Republicans if their life depended on it. They tend to be guys like McCain who everyone starts calling a maverick and slandering constantly. Decent people are quickly isolated in politics, especially those rare few in the Republican Party these days.

  113. wobblie
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    The Republicans know that Democrats (in general) do not know how to play hard ball. Feinstein was obviously willing to role over for Kavanaugh. But the abused, will not let them play dead. It is obvious that they expected Kavanaugh to be greased through by this weekend. If he is not confirmed next week, there will be no nominee confirmed until after the election. Kavanaugh maybe facing a criminal investigation in Maryland. The last thing any Republican wants is Mark Judd testifying under oath. Grassley is already back sliding about a committee vote on Friday. All the Republican Senators up for reelection want/need to get home and try to save their jobs. If Kavanaugh is not voted on by the end of next week, he is toast. Will they slide through an ultra-conservative woman in a lame-duck session?

3 Trackbacks

  1. […] « A Kavanaugh classmate at Yale alleges that the Supreme Court nominee shoved his penis in her… […]

  2. […] out against Brett Kavanaugh, sharing their stories. Yesterday, as you’ll recall, there was his Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that the Supreme Court nominee shoved his penis in h…. And, today, attorney Michael Avenatti came forward with a sworn statement from a woman by the name […]

  3. […] first heard about the charges, and Kavanaugh responded that he’d heard about it only after the piece ran in the New Yorker. Well, it’s looking now as though that too was a lie. NBC News is reporting that, before the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Dave Miller 2