Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2018

Noah Rothman on What’s At Stake with the Kavanaugh Nomination

Filed under: General — JVW @ 3:21 pm

[guest post by JVW]

Over at Commentary, Noah Rothman has an excellent post about why it is important to fight for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and not throw in the towel or, worse, tuck in our tail and hide. Here is how he sees it:

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Chris Coons, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when she was a minor, did not want to come forward. In an eerie echo of Anita Hill’s public ordeal, her accusations were “leaked to the media.” With her confidentiality violated, Ford had no choice but to go public. Coons could not say where that leak came from, but he did confess that “people on committee staff” had access to the letter in which Ford made her allegations. Draw your own conclusions.

In a more sane world, the professional feminists would be aghast at the fact that a Democrat (and let’s be real: it’s almost certainly a Democrat) staffer leaked the contents of the letter to the media, thus ensuring that Ms. Ford would inevitably be unmasked and forced to go public. Yet one doesn’t have to be a cynic to reckon that any discomfort or even anguish that Ms. Ford will be forced to endure pales in comparison to the opportunity to torpedo the nomination of a conservative justice. More from Rothman:

[. . . ] For some, this has become a proxy battle in the broader cultural reckoning that began with the #MeToo moment. Quite unlike the many abusive men who were outed by this movement, though, the evidentiary standard being applied to Kavanaugh’s case is remarkably low. His innocence has not been presumed, and a preponderance of evidence has not been marshaled against him. It is not even clear as of this writing that Kavanaugh will be allowed to confront his accuser. At a certain point, honest observers must concede that getting to the truth has not been a defining feature of this process.

[. . .]

The experiences that Dr. Ford described are appalling. Even for those who are inclined to believe her account and think that she is due some restitution, no true justice can be meted out that doesn’t infringe on the rights of the accused. Those in the commentary class who would use Kavanaugh as a stand-in for every abuser who got away, every preppy white boy who benefited from unearned privilege, every hypocritical conservative moralizer to exact some karmic vengeance are not interested in justice. They want a political victory, even at the expense of the integrity of the American ideal. If there is a fight worth having, it’s the fight against that.

That’s the part that I like best. Deep down inside many on the left probably have doubts that Kavanaugh behaved in the manner alleged. Democrats have been said to have serious regrets about forcing out Al Franken on unsubstantiated groping allegations (though Franken was of course undone by the picture of his boorish behavior), but after years of putting up with this sort of behavior from the Ted Kennedys, Chris Dodds, and Bill Clintons of the world they had no choice but to cut him loose. It should therefore come as no surprise that they are seeking the proverbial pound of flesh from the GOP side in return. But just as Democrats lived to regret tampering with judicial filibusters, so too should they be careful about the furies they unleash with this latest stunt.

Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.

– JVW

192 Responses to “Noah Rothman on What’s At Stake with the Kavanaugh Nomination”

  1. I think I pulled out the best parts, but read the entirety of Rothman’s excellent piece.

    JVW (773988)

  2. Quite unlike the many abusive men who were outed by this movement, though, the evidentiary standard being applied to Kavanaugh’s case is remarkably low. His innocence has not been presumed, and a preponderance of evidence has not been marshaled against him. It is not even clear as of this writing that Kavanaugh will be allowed to confront his accuser. At a certain point, honest observers must concede that getting to the truth has not been a defining feature of this process.”

    Really says it all about this Democratic dumpster fire.

    harkin (2582ce)

  3. Really don’t believe you can compared elected office holders to lifetime political appointments. Massachusetts voters elected Kennedy; Connecticut voters. All could be voted out based on their conduct in office by those voters. No so w/a lifetime SCOTUS gig.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  4. ^ …’Connecticut voters elected Dodd and Arkansas voters- then later the whole country- elected Clinton. Twice. All could be …’ (sorry wifi is hiccupping.)

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  5. That’s why she took the poligraph and hired a lawyer, Shirley noah can’t be serious.

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. IMO the political aspect should be focused on electing or not re-electing a POTUS who nominates Justices, not in politicizing the nominations or confirmations. I don’t think Trump did anything wrong with this nomination but the Senators are free to disagree after hearing the testimony. I don’t think it’s good to further politicize the Court by making it a partisan popularity contest.

    DRJ (15874d)

  7. I don’t find that overworked argument too persuasive, DCSCA. It’s like saying that if the people of New Jersey want to elect a corrupt Senator who may have had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, then that is solely the province of the people of New Jersey. Hey, if a state wants to elect a corrupt governor or a city wants to elect a foolhardy mayor then that’s their business, but members of Congress write and vote on legislation that impacts people beyond their districts and states. So I do think that Congress should do much more to police its own, and I do believe the American people should put more pressure on them to do so. I wrote Feinstein and Harris to ask if they would be moving to censure Menendez and strip him of his power, but naturally I never heard back.

    If you want to argue that a Supreme Court Justice should be subjected to reappointment after a certain period (say, 10 years) then I think that would be an interesting debate to have.

    JVW (773988)

  8. i think it’s ok to unmask somebody when they weren’t actually sexually assaulted

    you have to drag things out in the open

    this is how lying crazy people get the help they need

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. And my bringing Kennedy, Dodd, Clinton into the argument was more to point out that after looking the other way at their behavior for several decades, Democrats had no choice other than to bring the hammer down on Franken. They are still sore about that, so it was quite certain that they would seek to find some Republican to take it out on.

    JVW (773988)

  10. That’s why she took the poligraph and hired a lawyer, Shirley noah can’t be serious.

    Sorry, narciso, I’m not quite following you here. Which part of Rothman’s argument do you think is mistaken?

    JVW (773988)

  11. the reason she had the sketchy fbi dude give her a phony polygraph was cause she’d resolved to come forward with her lurid albeit phony rape fantasies

    most likely she was paid in some way (she’s certainly not paying for the lawyer or the services of the sketchy fbi dude herself)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. I notice they haven’t released the polygragh questions, answers, report, or polygrapher’s name.

    DRJ (15874d)

  13. Can’t compare Kavanaugh to Franken.

    Franken’s assaults were much more recent, multiple victims came forward and they even had at least one instance of photo evidence.

    Too funny that those claiming Kavanaugh should not even be allowed near young women also claim Franken was railroaded. These people have no shame.

    The real dingbats still think Claire McCaskill should be replaced for suggesting Franken resign. These same folks think Kamala ‘no due process’ Harris is a champion for human rights.

    harkin (2582ce)

  14. She was not going to be uninvolved, she went to both Marches I suspect she sees herself as an older version of offred

    Narciso (1b2921)

  15. Noah’s piece is unreadable

    it’s like his vagina aches in sympathy with fantasy rape victims everywhere

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  16. most likely she was paid in some way (she’s certainly not paying for the lawyer or the services of the sketchy fbi dude herself)

    I don’t want to go overboard in attributing malicious motives to her. It may be that she was indeed traumatized by some event from her teen years. But perhaps she is misremembering Brett Kavanaugh’s involvement or perhaps she is conflating events as we tend to do with age. And sure, this could be an out-and-out lie from the beginning, just as it could also be true that these events happened exactly as she described them.

    But if it is true that she has been a fairly activist Democrat then it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the party has hooked her up with a lawyer and some image consultants. The allegation that she recently scrubbed and closed all of her social media accounts (which I believe is still unverified — an important caveat) is just the sort of thing that a PR consultant would advise.

    JVW (773988)

  17. I don’t find that overworked argument too persuasive, DCSCA.

    It’s not really a matter of being persuasive but simply a matter of fact, JVW. It’s up to the voters w/elected officials. My sister-in-law in from MA and I’d routinely ask her back in the day why they kept electing a drunken womanizer. She’d just shrug and mutter ‘Kennedys.’

    That luxury isn’t afforded the electorate w/lifetime appointment- SCOTUS or otherwise.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  18. Can’t compare Kavanaugh to Franken.

    what about comparing the rape evidence against herpes bill clinton to the rape evidence against Mr. Kavanaugh

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  19. it’s like his vagina aches in sympathy with fantasy rape victims everywhere

    Dial it back a few notches, happyfeet.

    JVW (773988)

  20. Noah has often supped from the thinnest gruel,

    Narciso (1b2921)

  21. I don’t want to go overboard in attributing malicious motives to her.

    if we don’t call her out we just empower crazy people

    she needs to understand that everyone is giggling at her phony and deeply silly rape story

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. Dial it back a few notches, happyfeet.

    ok i’ll dial it back but i’m a go get the quotes that made me uncomfortable and just copy them into a comment

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  23. So the 9/11 calls against Ellison, where does that fall on noahs scale?

    Narciso (1b2921)

  24. @12. An aside to DRJ. It’s only Tuesday w/six days to go, if it goes at all… the tick-tock over the past 24 hours on all this have seemed like the longest week in ages.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  25. With her confidentiality violated, Ford had no choice but to go public.

    poor choiceless little thing

    The details of the attack that Ford alleges are deeply disturbing

    most of all to Mr. Kavanaugh’s daughters would be my thinking here

    CNN political commenter Symone Sanders, too, confessed that “there is no debate” in her mind as to Kavanaugh’s guilt, in part, because she was the victim of a sexual assault in college.

    “confessed”

    The experiences that Dr. Ford described are appalling.

    also clichéd, banal, uncorroborated

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  26. ugh i swutchered my formatting from italics to blocky blocks half way through sorry about that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  27. Wait, what? Clinton, Dodd, and Kennedy represent the very very short list of skeezy D pervs. They took out one, and that only after they had photos, during the metoo extravaganza. One! And that is an argument for a pound of flesh?

    By that logic Garland is payback for Bork.

    This is pathological.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  28. “A call to action: Do not be cowed. This is a hill to die on.”

    So, after having turned tail at Mount Trump and Fort Roy Moore, Rothman makes a valiant stand at Kavanaugh Hill. Haven’t seen such valor from altNeverTrump since they fought their way out of a wet paper bag. Rothman wins the Dan Rather “Courage” Award.

    https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/1042139122775871489?s=20

    Munroe (c9a127)

  29. My big problem in comparing Franken and Kavanaugh — and let’s put aside this lifetime appointment versus elective term issue — is that immediately after Al Franken’s boorish groping picture emerged there came forth an on-the-record allegation of him groping a woman’s rear end at the Minnesota Fair. After that, one more woman publicly alleged breast groping by Franken and three other anonymous women told various lefty news sources that they too had been felt up or forcibly kissed by him. So with Franken you have three women who were willing to go public and name him, and at least three others who did so anonymously. And all of these incidents took place when Franken was at least 50 years old.

    With Kavanaugh, exactly zero other women have come forth and alleged something similar. That leads us to one of two conclusions, both of which reflect well upon him: either 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh was extremely remorseful about his behavior and mended his ways so that it never happened again, or Ms. Ford’s allegations are either mistaken or bogus to begin with.

    JVW (773988)

  30. *switchered* i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  31. either 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh was extremely remorseful about his behavior and mended his ways so that it never happened again, or Ms. Ford’s allegations are either mistaken or bogus to begin with.

    Or the “Brett Kavanaugh” in her mind is a composite of her school’s girls’ field hockey team.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. So, after having turned tail at Mount Trump and Fort Roy Moore, Rothman makes a valiant stand at Kavanaugh Hill. Haven’t seen such valor from altNeverTrump since they fought their way out of a wet paper bag. Rothman wins the Dan Rather “Courage” Award.

    Here’s a radical idea: maybe Rothman has carefully considered the character of the men involved and determined that it is likely that Trump and Moore both have engaged in at least some of the behavior they were accused of, but Kavanaugh has very likely not done what he is being accused of. That’s probably what he is trying to signify with the idiom “hill to die on.”

    JVW (773988)

  33. Just to reiterate. Ford can’t remember when the assault took place or where.

    Until she provides that information, its trash.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  34. Strip this down to what it is with some basic common sense- why would anybody go to the extreme of making this all up and then subject themselves, their family and their reputation to the public hell of going through all this and the consequences for years to come? Why? Would you do it?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. She might have compiled them from mark judges animal house meets st elmos fire tales, of course we ignore the falsified evidence in rot Moore’s case, because it’s inconvenient,

    Narciso (1b2921)

  36. Why? Would you do it?

    Yes, Anita Hill certainly has “suffered” hasn’t she?

    I assume you’re engaging in sarcasm. If so, well played.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  37. @36. Yes, she has. And remember, this isn’t 1991, it’s 2018. It’s a different era now.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  38. Why would a Border Patrol sergeant kill four prostitutes (that we know of)? Why would Jeffrey Dahmer kill, rape and eat (in that order) twelve young men? Would you do it?

    nk (dbc370)

  39. Strip this down to what it is with some basic common sense- why would anybody go to the extreme of making this all up and then subject themselves, their family and their reputation to the public hell of going through all this and the consequences for years to come? Why? Would you do it?

    To be blunt, DCSCA, she is apparently an academic lefty and it has become pretty obvious that a whole lot of academic lefties are absolute nut jobs. She’s not well-known for her scholarship, so it could be that her method for rising from obscurity is to become a feminist hero a la Anita Hill. That’s a harsh assessment, I know, but it is seems to be undeniably true.

    JVW (773988)

  40. After all Anita hill mined a certain passage of the exorcist, Abramson and Mayer made a career of recycling the claims

    Narciso (1b2921)

  41. The “undeniably true” part I refer to is that becoming a feminist hero opens up the doors to wealth and fame, well beyond one’s intellectual qualifications.

    JVW (773988)

  42. Who know what evil lies in the hearts of women? The Shadow knows! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

    nk (dbc370)

  43. That’s a good point, narciso. Additionally, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein pretty much were both elected to the Senate thanks to Anita Hill (and an overall good year for Democrats in 1992).

    JVW (773988)

  44. More than willing to entertain a rationale argument for Dr. Ford subjecting herself and her family to this but not one based on a chase for fame and money. There are easier and less painful paths to recognition and riches.

    Given the high profile of this, it just doesn’t make sense to believe it’s all made up. Because in the end, unless the Senate flips, regardless of how the Ford/Kavanaugh matter plays out, a conservative is going to get the SCOTUS slot. It’s not going to change the inevitable outcome. There are 20 or 30 qualified names on that FS list.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. if good government corporate establishment liberal democrat punching bags are still running democrat party kavenaugh is in for a generation. if discredited establishment corporate democrats are tossed out of power in democrat party by radicals like tea party and trump did with republican party. radical democrats will impeach conservatives off court if they have to arrest surviving republicans on trumped up charges. as democrat patron saint Malcolm X says “by any means necessary!”

    lany (1d86f0)

  46. CNN breaking news- Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying on Capitol Hill.

    That doesn’t seem like the thinking of a ‘nutjob.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. There are 20 or 30 qualified names on that FS list.

    pickle-ninny could have been raped by a good dozen of them though… but there’s no way to tell which ones until their hearing are already over

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  48. oops *hearings* i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  49. you can’t just ask for an FBI investigation

    she must be thinking of the pudding at Luby’s

    it’s not like that sweetie

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  50. btw; Franken was taken out by friendly fire. He’s a casualty of metoo not Trump, not GOPe, etc.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  51. There’s an immediate benefit to Democrat Senators running for re-election in places like Missouri and West Virginia. It gives them cover on both sides to vote against Kavanaugh. Before this, they would have had to justify to their leftists why they voted for him and to their blue dogs (Democratic Old Guys) why they voted against him.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. CNN breaking news- Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying on Capitol Hill.

    That doesn’t seem like the thinking of a ‘nutjob.’

    That is exactly the thinking of a mendoucheous nutjob. The FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate this now. It will have jurisdiction to investigate her for perjury after she testifies.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. Appears Ford is a better chess player than Grassley.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  54. Given the high profile of this, it just doesn’t make sense to believe it’s all made up. Because in the end, unless the Senate flips, regardless of how the Ford/Kavanaugh matter plays out, a conservative is going to get the SCOTUS slot. It’s not going to change the inevitable outcome. There are 20 or 30 qualified names on that FS list.

    Not if this can somehow be delayed until after the election and a blue wave really does materialize and Democrats win the Senate.

    As I said in the earlier comment, she might not be purposefully lying. Perhaps she had a really bad experience with some boys from Kavanaugh’s school one summer afternoon — not Kavanaugh himself, but some boys from his school. Then perhaps over the years as she has internalized things and become a partisan Democrat, she has convinced herself that Kavanaugh himself was part of her bad experience. After all, I am guessing that he is probably the most prominent member of his graduating class, as well as probably the classes immediately preceding and following him, so he would be a name with which she was familiar. So given all that, and given my belief that lefty academics quite often have a screw loose anyway, she truly does believe that Brett Kavanaugh was there that day even if the wasn’t. I think that is every bit as likely a scenario as any other.

    I’ll write it again for the record though, just so that I am not misunderstood: It could in fact be that everything happened exactly as Ms. Ford alleges, with all of the characters doing the things she attributes to them. I hereby acknowledge that. But given that there are still no other allegations of this sort against Kavanaugh before or since this one, I would conclude that this was either a horrible drunken out-of-character aberration that he never again repeated, or it simply did not happen the way Ms. Ford describes it. And I won’t close myself to the possibility that she did indeed make this up entirely in order to advance the cause of left-wing feminism. Her inability to fill-in specifics is very troubling to me.

    JVW (773988)

  55. @52. Not so sure, nk.

    Grassley’s got to start thinking faster. Full-speed ahead into the midterm minefield may not be a wise course to follow. But if time is their motivator, they best know where their lifeboat stations are.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. what poochie creamcheese is doing is telling the women of america that their sons brothers husbands will never be safe

    that they can be ambushed by a creepy lying rape fetishist at any moment

    ambushed and destroyed

    testify, sister

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  57. They are going to interview every classmate with 25 square miles between 1982 and 1985?

    Narciso (1b2921)

  58. #46

    The FBI has already said they wouldn’t investigate. I’m not sure refusing to testify until after the FBI does something it has already said it won’t do counts for much in the sanity department. Demanding the FBI investigate is a double edge sword though since she would have to be interviewed. Maybe she can get the same agents who interviewed Clinton and Huma.

    It does lend more evidence to the argument that this is just a delaying tactic.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  59. @54. JVW, see #46; put on CNN- the story is literally change now.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. @58. Seems like a delaying tactic on the surface, but it puts the next chess move in Grassley and the Senate’s hands. CNN’s Gergen doesn’t see a ‘few weeks delay’ for the FBI to investigate as an big problem. That attitude likely won’t sit well w/conservatives.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  61. JVW, thanks for your efforts but apparently nothing is going to make a certain person “dial it back.”

    Have a look at #47.

    As for DCSCA, sigh. Why would a person lie about something that gets them in the public eye and under scrutiny? Sadly, there is quite a list of people who have done precisely that. Look at the weirdness with Asia Argento right now, just for an example.

    Or any of these:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hoax

    Why would they lie, when they are going to be caught?

    Because they aren’t thinking clearly.

    What I want to see is evidence. As I wrote before in another thread, we know Kavanaugh’s history pretty darned well. We know very little about Ford’s. My guess—and it is a guess—is there is much in her background that she would not want to have public. So the effort is to use hearsay and suggestion, hoping that many people would argue as does DCSCA. I think that is what the senior Democrats on the committee were trying to do.

    I say, interview under oath.

    Given the history of many of the people currently making anti Kavanaugh arguments (that he is presumed to be an abuser, and thus doesn’t merit office) in government (with regards to their attitudes regarding Clinton or God help us, Keith Ellison), I believe the seasoned politicians know they must move very carefully.

    I mean, I hope you all saw this regarding “white power” hand signals.

    https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/18/she-must-withdraw-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-caught-in-a-highly-problematic-situation-pic/

    Whoops! Narrative has been derailed.

    Simon Jester (4357eb)

  62. CNN’s Gergen doesn’t see a ‘few weeks delay’ for the FBI to investigate as an big problem. That attitude likely won’t sit well w/conservatives.

    All except for that part where the FBI already said that this sort of allegation does not involve them. Do you think as a general rule the Senate should be able to order the FBI to investigate what the Senate wants investigated? Are you sure you want to make that standard operating policy?

    JVW (773988)

  63. Asia Argento is an excellent example, Simon Jester. I wish I had thought of her myself. And Hollywood probably has just as many (if not more) people with psychological issues as academia does.

    JVW (773988)

  64. Newspeak is tricky as Parsons Winston smiths cellmate.

    Narciso (1b2921)

  65. @61. Take your point but there’s a lot supposition w/it. Ford’s story went through several filters since her first revelation some years back and through a rep, a senator and staff before getting leaked. She’s been hounded out of her home, had death threats, her life disrupted and so forth… all for fame and glory?

    Doubt it.

    “we know Kavanaugh’s history pretty darned well.”

    Not really. We only ‘know’ what been marketed to us ‘pretty darned well.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. Too bad that Feinstein can’t be kicked out of the Senate for this–her behavior has just been disgusting.

    Rochf (877dba)

  67. @62. Yes, but believe Senate Republicans can request the FBI to do an investigation (as opposed to a background check)– and Trump could order it as well but don’t think he’s going to step in this any more than necessary.

    Republicans aren’t likely to request it. So to steam roll ahead hope midterm revenge isn’t too damaging.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. @68. Meh. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. It’s a (redacted) lie, you Rupert pumpkin level fantasist,

    Narciso (1b2921)

  70. There is nothing for the FBI to investigate.

    There is no crime, much less a federal crime. There is no evidence. There are no witnesses.

    Next chess move: subpoena Ford to appear Monday. Let her decline to answer any questions she wishes, on privacy grounds.

    Dave (445e97)

  71. Yes, but believe Senate Republicans can request the FBI to do an investigation (as opposed to a background check)– and Trump could order it as well but don’t think he’s going to step in this any more than necessary.

    Senate Judiciary Committee: Please investigate this matter.

    FBI: What do you want us to investigate 36 years later? What sort of interview with the alleged participants could we conduct that Senate counsel can’t conduct? Do you really expect us to comb the alleged “crime scene”? Is there physical evidence that should be sent to our crime lab? No? OK, then, what would you have us do?

    Sorry, I just don’t see the FBI adding anything to this discussion. It’s nothing more than a delay tactic.

    JVW (773988)

  72. @70. Please refrain from name-calling, narciso.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. @71. There’s a difference between investigating a ‘crime’ and doing a ‘background check.’ The FBI does bc’s. It’s up to Grassley to make the next move but Cornyn and the others best stop verbal sniping at Ford. It’s a very bad look.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. @72. Then if Grassley agrees w/your assessment they’ll press on and deal w/any fallout at the midterms from indy women voters. As said, it really doesn’t matter unless the Senate flips, which seems doubtful to me; a conservative is going to get the slot.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. alexandra ocasio-cortez tells democrat base don’t worry when we get rid of pelosi and take power we will impeach kavenaugh off the supreme court!

    lany (1d86f0)

  76. There’s a difference between investigating a ‘crime’ and doing a ‘background check.’

    If Ford wants to voluntarily provide a sworn statement to the FBI, I don’t think there’s anything stopping her.

    It’s obvious that there is no basis for the FBI to investigate anything. Refusing to cooperate with the Senate after they canceled a vote and scheduled a hearing proves this is an utter farce.

    Dave (445e97)

  77. the FBI’s dirty and corrupt anyway

    there’s no way an FBI investigation would be credible and trustworthy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. Parson used god in a verse, inadvertent crime think.

    Narciso (1b2921)

  79. It’s a (redacted) lie, you Rupert pumpkin level fantasist,

    Narciso (1b2921) — 9/18/2018 @ 5:44 pm

    Was that about DCSCA or Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  80. And what does it mean?

    DRJ (15874d)

  81. The first part was about how CNN edited a talk Cavanaugh gave, the second is about his feigned authority, heck I though after he had ridiculed Texas plight last year hed be unwelcome

    Narciso (1b2921)

  82. Rupert Pupkin (not pumpkin) was Robert DeNiro’s character in The King Of Comedy.

    nk (dbc370)

  83. Who kidnapped jerry Lewis so he could put on a show,

    Narciso (1b2921)

  84. plus it’s very telling how she had to scrub every trace of her dirty self from facebook

    that’s a dead giveaway that she made the whole thing up

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  85. If you want a narciso decoder ring like mine, you can get one by sending two 1963 Impala convertible tops and a flat-rate stamped, self-addressed envelope to Area 53, Rachel, Nevada 89001.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Well, that didn’t help me at all. I know that movie and still have clue what he’s saying. Forget it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  87. Ford concedes she told no one about the alleged assault – not even a high school girl friend or family member – until 2012 when she told the story during couples therapy with her husband.

    Doesn’t pass the red face test.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  88. if crazypants *were* telling the truth so this would mean that Republican Supreme Court nominees are something like 72,000% more likely to be dirty sexual predators than the average Adult Male 25-54

    that seems unlikely to me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  89. @86. ROFLMAPIP, nk.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. plus it’s very telling how she had to scrub every trace of her dirty self from facebook

    And now she’s asking for an FBI investigation? There’s a federal law that promises up to 30 years in the pokey for scrubbing evidence material to a federal investigation. Including a Congressional investigation. (But not if the evidence is fish. That’s only five years.)

    nk (dbc370)

  91. “It’s a (redacted) lie, you Rupert pumpkin level fantasist,”

    Whoever that was aimed at, you have to give narciso points for his eye on both a bad Scorsese movie and the approaching Fall season.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. I’ve dubbed CNN Rupert pupkin, because of their desperation movies msnbc is a whole other scoop of crazy, but when practically every outlet throws out the same story.

    Narciso (1b2921)

  93. But enough about the Alex Baldwin show on ABC,

    Narciso (1b2921)

  94. Speaking of which, how many militia leaders and alt right figures will the villain on duck wolf’s new offering fbi?

    Narciso (1b2921)

  95. That Sandra Bernhard performance left me retching for 5 days.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. But enough about Hudson hawk, who greenlit that, and what blackmail did Lehman use on the producers

    Narciso (1b2921)

  97. @71. Meh. Dave, a subpoena to Ford to appear would be a ballsy move by the committee. But recall from another time a Senate committee ordering someone to testify under oath on very short notice… a fella named Alexander Butterfield. That didn’t work out too well for Republicans.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. @92. Meh. Missed the Emmys. And didn’t miss them.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  99. Why subpoena her? She either wants to tell her story or she doesn’t. No testimony means no evidence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  100. @100. Well, it could be read as a positive signal from the committee of intent to get her side of it tbefair to K. But it could backfire, too. Grassley has some thnkin’ to do on the next move for sure.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. That didn’t work out too well for Republicans.

    Only if you imagine that the Republicans’ goal was to assist in Nixon’s illegal cover-up.

    Dave (445e97)

  102. Who would’ve thought people would actually believe the FBI would ever agree to investigating a non-federal matter like an alleged attempt at whoopee at a high school party that may or may not have happened in 1982.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. The next move should be to go forward with a vote on Thursday.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  104. @103. If memory serves, don’t think more than a few people knew what he was going to end up revealing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. Why subpoena her? She either wants to tell her story or she doesn’t. No testimony means no evidence.

    It’s going the extra mile.

    I think it’s important to make absolutely clear, on television, if need be, that she was given a hearing and chose not to provide information.

    If, having appeared, she declines to answer some or all questions on privacy grounds, that’s fine.

    Dave (445e97)

  106. Nooo!!! Because if I were her lawyer, I’d run to a federal court on a writ of habeas corpus to quash the subpoena, and with a little help from my Democrat friends using the Senate’s rules for witnesses summoned by subpoena she might be deposed or examined in closed session around this time next year.

    nk (dbc370)

  107. 3 Circuit Court nominees, 17 District Court nominees, and assorted U.S. Attorney and Marshall nominees were also delayed by the postponement of the Thursday meeting of the Judiciary Committee.

    Farce.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/09/13/2018/executive-business-meeting

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  108. if Jeffy Flake wasn’t a coward in the great Arizona senate tradition of cowardice this hoax would have failed already

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  109. John Hawkins
    @johnhawkinsrwn
    Hello, FBI? We need you to investigate a sexual assault allegation? Oh, that’s a police matter? Still. When was it? Roughly 36 years ago? The actual date? No idea. The location? Not sure. What do we know? There were either 2 or 4 people in the room. Hello, hello? Did you hang up?

    harkin (2582ce)

  110. Nooo!!! Because if I were her lawyer, I’d run to a federal court on a writ of habeas corpus to quash the subpoena, and with a little help from my Democrat friends using the Senate’s rules for witnesses summoned by subpoena she might be deposed or examined in closed session around this time next year.

    Welp, you’re the fancy-pants, gold-toothed (ha!) criminal technicality-finder lawyer, but that sounds fishy to me.

    IIUC, you’re talking about crying to a judge to prevent enforcement of the subpoena. I don’t think Congress would or should try to enforce the subpoena. It’s all theater, and the subpoena would have served its purpose if she doesn’t show.

    Dave (445e97)

  111. “We’re thrilled for the opportunity to helm this live-action adaptation of ”Avatar: The Last Airbender,'” said Konietzko and DiMartino said in a statement provided to Variety. “We can’t wait to realize Aang’s world as cinematically as we always imagined it to be, and with a culturally appropriate, non-whitewashed cast.

    wow that really

    that really effing sells it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  112. They, the “They”, might even be Rupert Pupkining an Abe Fortas scenario. A filibuster delayed his confirmation from Associate Justice to Chief Justice and during that delay they managed to dig up other dirt on him which led to his resignation. Republicans. Merrick Garland was not the first time they played hardball with a Supreme Court confirmation.

    nk (dbc370)

  113. I thought they had already done that film, it can’t stink worse than stormbreaker can it?

    Narciso (1b2921)

  114. Let’s keep looking for pink elephants, I was promised sheet terror and ruthlessness like cardinal fang (Terry gilliam)

    Narciso (1b2921)

  115. My daughter was really into that series when she was in first grade and I totally enabled her. I even took her for a Firebender haircut. I doubt if she will ever forgive me.

    nk (dbc370)

  116. A filibuster delayed his confirmation from Associate Justice to Chief Justice and during that delay they managed to dig up other dirt on him which led to his resignation. Republicans.

    Just about the only time they ever got one over on LBJ. It was payback for his demagoguery of Barry Goldwater and because they knew Fortas was Johnson’s mole on the Court, but it turned out that Republicans were right about Fortas’s sleazy dealings all along.

    JVW (42615e)

  117. Duke Lacrosse team scenario

    mg (17622f)

  118. Either way, whether this was a truthful accusation or not, an injustice has been done to the character of one of these people that can’t be fixed because we won’t get the truth. We have an awful way to figure out who should administer justice. Once again, partisanship, or at least a two-party winner takes all system, doesn’t work well.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  119. Great post, JVW.

    This:

    I’ll write it again for the record though, just so that I am not misunderstood: It could in fact be that everything happened exactly as Ms. Ford alleges, with all of the characters doing the things she attributes to them. I hereby acknowledge that. But given that there are still no other allegations of this sort against Kavanaugh before or since this one, I would conclude that this was either a horrible drunken out-of-character aberration that he never again repeated, or it simply did not happen the way Ms. Ford describes it. And I won’t close myself to the possibility that she did indeed make this up entirely in order to advance the cause of left-wing feminism. Her inability to fill-in specifics is very troubling to me.

    Feinstein has issues with her too, which is telling:

    Feinstein on Ford. Says Ford “is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.”

    This too goes against the feminists, Schumer, Harris etc of “I believe her”.

    Dana (023079)

  120. High schoolers this time. Who knows… middle schoolers next time around? There comes a time when common sense needs to make an appearance, no?

    It’s a crock and those who provide cover or even a shred of credibility do the country and even their own muddle-headed selves a disservice.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. Hillary say ‘she deserves the benefit of the doubt”. It is so for sure political that any normal person should be offended at this level of garbage even from Ds. Hear her or not on Monday, and confirm him Monday night!

    Rich (de9149)

  122. I can handle the truth, either way.
    The FBI to investigate? Gut wrenching laughter in my circle of deplorables!

    mg (9e54f8)

  123. The Dems clearly understand that the substance of Ford’s charge is far too thin to change anyone’s vote on Kavanaugh, so they’ve decided to try to shift attention to the process, where there is no limit to the number of dilatory demands they can make without ever being satisfied.

    They’re fighting for the blue wave, not to stop the nomination, at this point.

    Dave (b41e40)

  124. Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying on Capitol Hill.

    Not good enough. The FBI doesn’t have jurisdiction, and the statute of limitations has way passed. She doesn’t need an investigation to testify. All she needs to needs is to put her hand on a Bible and swear under oath to be truthful. Grassley should hold firm and tell her to show up on Monday or forfeit her chance. If she bails, so be it.

    Paul Montagu (1f900e)

  125. The goal is to delay the nomination. It’s been that since the beginning. Lucy and Charlie Brown. Over and over again.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  126. Feinstein has issues with her too, which is telling:

    I wonder if Feinstein is starting to realize that — as we say in Colorado — she’s way over her skis on this. She wanted to shore up her feminist base in advance of her reelection campaign against someone running to the left of her, but now she’s starting to realize that she played this badly and her attempt to throw this into the mix at the eleventh is not (apparently) swaying Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski right now.

    Jeff Flake has apparently indicated that if Ms. Ford doesn’t show up for the hearing on Monday, he will vote to move ahead with the nomination and confirm Kavanaugh. That has to be a pretty big blow to the “let’s slow everything down” movement that Feinstein was trying to ignite.

    JVW (42615e)

  127. Grassley should hold firm and tell her to show up on Monday or forfeit her chance. If she bails, so be it.

    He basically has:

    “The invitation for Monday still stands,” Grassley said in a statement.

    “Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events,” he said. “Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

    Bonus points for stating the obvious: that Ford does not need any investigation to tell the committee what she knows.

    Dave (445e97)

  128. her attempt to throw this into the mix at the eleventh is not (apparently) swaying Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski right now.

    According to the sequence of events I read, Feinstein was called on the carpet by her fellow Dems when news of the letter first leaked in The Intercept, and it was they who insisted on sending it to the FBI, against her wishes.

    The evidence continues to suggest that Feinstein was wary of trusting Ford, until her less circumspect colleagues forced her hand.

    Dave (445e97)

  129. The evidence continues to suggest that Feinstein was wary of trusting Ford, until her less circumspect colleagues forced her hand.

    In any case, Republicans should make it clear by repeating over and over again that it was the Democrats who “outed” Christine Ford and that any personal problems she experiences as a result of their violating her request for privacy in order to score political points are solely due to the donkey side of the table. In fact it would be great if Sen. Grassley begins the hearing by apologizing to her “on behalf of the committee” for the leak.

    JVW (42615e)

  130. CNN
    @CNN

    Sen. Mazie Hirono said her message to men in this country is to “just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,” following the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
    __ _

    Cobb Anderson
    @ThurstonDana
    Replying to @CNN

    The Democrats are not sending us their best.
    __ _

    Crypt Keeper
    @DefiantVictory
    Replying to
    @ThurstonDana and @CNN

    I’m afraid they are.

    harkin (2582ce)

  131. #134

    Agreed. If this is the best we can get from senate D’s it’s pretty sad and embarrassing. But it’s also in line with the generally poor performance of the D’s during the hearing.

    Last night the news was full of KH loudly proclaiming that the credibility of her story is obvious given her bravery in stepping forward while at the same time Ford is announcing she won’t step forward and testify. It’s even more laughable when you realize Ford didn’t step forward. The letter was leaked and KH was probably involved in the leak.

    DF is walking it back so now it’s looking like the reason she sat on it was she didn’t believe it.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  132. everyone pushing this dirty rape hoax should be censured i think, including Jeff Flake

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  133. If I could manipulate GOP senators like little puppets, I would get Collins and Murkowski to announce their judgments on the current state of play, and push very, very hard on the issue of due process. The prosecution can’t just wander in just before closing arguments with a bunch of new, not terribly substantiated evidence. Nor can a plaintiff.

    I would also weave this into a narrative about how colleges have treated sexual harassment claims and the multitude of abuses that has caused, and the young careers that have been demolished by a failure to follow due process. Due process is a constitutional right, and isn’t it ironic that, in a nomination process, the Democrats are so intoxicated by power that they can’t abide by basic fairness. Isn’t that just like the Democrats?

    And then, it would be good if we could have an outline of every single delaying tactic and slanderous accusation that has come from the Democrats on the committee. And similar behavior from them over the years when it looks like their control over the judiciary is threatened. They look to destroy the reputations of decent people.

    Is that entirely fair? Maybe not. But Schumer boasted early on that the Democratic Caucus had met before the hearings to coordinate their tactics. You can infer that a late political hit might have been part of the discussion.

    There is no reason to be nice. And since Ford won’t be testifying, because the FBI won’t be investigating, the visuals and targets are not innocent women but self-righteous politicians. Collins and Murkowski need not even mention the accuser’s name.

    Appalled (96665e)

  134. the cowardly men and women of the fbi are too busy trying to play hide the pickle with all the evidence about how they lied to the FISA court

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  135. So she s named another person, Patrick j Smyth, she’s the older mattress girl.

    Narciso (342636)

  136. That last bit comes through kellyannes significant other.

    Narciso (342636)

  137. #136

    Censure isn’t practical, but utter contempt toward those pushing what you call “this dirty rape hoax” certainly is.

    DN (e91bf6)

  138. yes yes utter contempt

    i can’t understand why these sleazy trashy senators would want their own sons to grow up in a rape hoax america

    mind-bogglingly petty and shallow people, these sleazy trashy senators

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  139. So she s named another person, Patrick j Smyth, she’s the older mattress girl.

    You can forget both Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey Ford now says there were others around at the supposed party. One of them she identified as PJ. Well, PJ has come forward. He is Patrick J. Smyth and he says nope.

    “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

    someone really needs to sue this crazy trashy rape hoaxer for defamation

    she’s sick she’s crazy and she’s out of control

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  140. i can’t understand why these sleazy trashy senators would want their own sons to grow up in a rape hoax america

    That’s easy, those rules aren’t applied to them. A better question is why the people who vote for them, parrot these talking points all over any media outlet they can get into front of, are the school administrators who implement these policies, etc, go along with it?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  141. if Christine’s dirty rape hoax rules can be applied to esteemed harvardfilth like Brett Kavanaugh they can be applied to anybody

    these sleazy trashy senators are very shortsighted people i think

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  142. It’s a little too cruel intentions without that credit on the imdb any Adams would rather forget.

    Narciso (342636)

  143. As I remember (and my memory is pretty good despite what they did to my brain, thank you), the Democrat smear-machine semi-victimized Anita Hill in a similar way. They led her to believe that they would only use her to just throw the allegations against Thomas out there, and that she would never have to testify and be cross-examined about them. Once they had her committed and her name made public, they left her no choice but to go before the Judiciary Committee and double down if she wanted to save her reputation.

    nk (dbc370)

  144. Yes but she was all stalky for years, were in tje territory of law and order and scandal episodes here,

    Narciso (342636)

  145. I meant to commiserate from yesterday, I had a wisdom tooth oh 20 years ago, that I could feel the throbbing to the top of my skull, after I got an appointment, it took about two hours to extract because of the locatiom

    Narciso (342636)

  146. What is it, an epidemic? Me (mine is a wisdom tooth, too), Kevin and now you?

    nk (dbc370)

  147. No it was 20 years ago, but I still remember my lip was a bass fish,

    Narciso (342636)

  148. Oh, I misunderstood you. Yours was in the past. Thank you, I’m fine now. Had some hard Polish sausage (Krakus) last night with no problems.

    nk (dbc370)

  149. With Anita Hill, it was pretty clear that she was the catspaw. That she was being used by the Democrats. With this lady, Feinstein and Schumer may have felt that she was trying to use them as her catspaw while she remained in the background and that’s why they outed her?

    nk (dbc370)

  150. I might have believed that thirty years but layers and Abramson convinced me otherwise,

    Now about that (what’s the Greek word for screwed up) supreme court decision

    Narciso (342636)

  151. So just to recap from last night, (1) Ms. Ford won’t testify, (2) another witness has come forward, denying her allegation, and (3) Ms. Feinstein is distancing herself from Ms. Ford. This political dirty trick from Feinstein is about to blow up in her face. It’s too bad she won’t really pay for this by losing her seat because she’s 20 points ahead.

    Paul Montagu (1f900e)

  152. Blasey Ford claims she and her family had to relocate. I feel sorry for her family, but she asked to keep this confidential because she knew what could happen in these partisan times. Also, her initial letter ended with this paragraph:

    I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

    I wonder if she had already relocated before this started? Aphrael said in the comments that other people are screening her mail. Who arranged that? I would want that done to try to catch any belligerent mail and publicize it for sympathy, and to give any threatening mail to law enforcement. Perhaps this was arranged in advance because it was planned to move her.

    Finally, in rereading her letter and assuming for argument it was true, I understand why she ran away. But I think she also may have claimed there was a second girl at the party — a girl she left with 4 boys, 2 of whom had tried to attack her. She should have been concerned for that girl’s safety. She should have told someone or tried to get the girl help.

    DRJ (15874d)

  153. Here is where Ddbra Katz said there was a second girl.

    DRJ (15874d)

  154. Allahpundit
    @allahpundit
    Joe Biden: Prominent men accused of rape should be presumed guilty until proven innocent
    __ _

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    There’s more evidence of Biden groping women than there is of Kavanaugh.
    __ _

    Dinkledash
    @Dinkeldash
    Replying to
    @redsteeze and @ls561762
    There’s more evidence of Biden groping children than there is of Biden groping women

    __ _

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnbWZzHUYAANQvE?format=jpg
    __

    harkin (2582ce)

  155. Biden didn’t do well in law school.

    DRJ (15874d)

  156. This Biden quote deserves to be extracted from DRJ’s link:

    “I exaggerate when I’m angry, but I’ve never gone around telling people things that aren’t true about me.”

    *snciker*

    Appalled (96665e)

  157. Next thing is Debrah Katz, Ann Mueller and Brenda Warner (QB Kurt’s wife as the token C) in their own The View knockoff.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  158. This story about the 3-D gun inventor/manufacturer is what a credible allegation of sexual assault looks like. It could still be a setup but the initial evidence looks bad. I wonder if it will impact the gun debate?

    DRJ (15874d)

  159. This political dirty trick from Feinstein is about to blow up in her face. It’s too bad she won’t really pay for this by losing her seat because she’s 20 points ahead.

    I might vote for Kevin de Leon just because of this. Seriously. I mean, a rancid lefty is going to win the Senate seat anyway, so why not send DiFi back to San Francisco in utter humiliation for a 26-year Senate career that accomplished nothing other than making her husband even more phenomenally wealthy through government contracts. Also, it won’t surprise me if de Leon has some scandals in his background, and it will be fun watching them emerge when he is an esteemed United States Senator representing the Golden State.

    The only real argument against voting for de Leon is that Feinstein may be serving her last term and the seat might might come open again in some year where the Democrats aren’t going so well.

    JVW (42615e)

  160. #162

    At least the stories are predictable.

    When it’s homosexuals with young boys we need to be open to the idea of pedophilia. At least that’s one of the side stories from the RC church scandal.

    When it’s controversial men from Austin and a young girl it’s child sexual assault.

    I read it as statutory rape at first but the details also make it look like simple prostitution. Seems like TX has multiple ways to charge the same activity and child sexual assault must make for better press.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  161. I don’t think a child has the legal ability to consent to being a prostitute, even if practically it happens all the time.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  162. I don’t think a child has the legal ability to consent to being a prostitute, even if practically it happens all the time.

    Aren’t those “Sugar Daddy” sites though supposed to be college girls (i.e., those of legal age) seeking older men so they can make money for tuition? I remember reading a pretty lurid story about how popular those sites had become, and of course it was used as an indictment of how college was way too expensive so coeds were being forced to turn to prostitution to make ends meet. In any case, I know prostitution is illegal in Texas, but would the sexual assault of a child charge stick if the accused had a reasonable belief that the girl was above the legal age? I’ve never been in this situation, but I can hardly imagine asking a prostitute to show me her legitimate ID before we conduct the transaction.

    JVW (42615e)

  163. That would be a mistake of fact and it depends on whether the applicable state laws allow mistake as a defense to statutory rape. The general answer is mistake is no defense because statutory rape is treated as a strict liability crime (once age and intercourse are proven), except:

    According to the ALR article, courts in Alaska, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington have ruled that at least in some circumstances a mistake as to age can be a defense in a statutory rape charge.

    A few states have statutes allowing the defense, at least in certain circumstances, including Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Montana.

    ● In Delaware it is an affirmative defense only if the victim is under age 16 and the accused is no more than four years older than the victim (Del. Code Ch. 11 § 762).

    ● In Kentucky when a sex offense is based solely on the victim’s incapacity to consent because of age, mental capacity, or physical helplessness, “the defendant may prove in exculpation that at the time he engaged in the conduct constituting the offense he did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for such incapacity to consent” (Kent. Penal Code, Ch. 510, §510.030).

    ● In Minnesota it is an affirmative defense for fourth degree criminal sexual conduct if the accused proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he believed the victim to be age 16 or older (Minn. Code, § 609.345). In third degree criminal sexual conduct it is an affirmative defense only if the victim is at least age 13 and the defendant is at least 24 months older (Minn. Code, § 609.344).

    ● In Pennsylvania it is a defense to any sexual offense charge that depends on a child being below the age of 14, if the defendant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably believed the child to be above the critical age (Penn. Stat. Tit. 18 § 3102). It is also a defense to charges of corrupting a minor, if the minor is age 16 or older and the defendant believed the minor to be age 18 or older.

    Note that this link is from 1999 so I don’t know how reliable it is. But since th e law varies from state to state, most legal analysis focuses on the laws of a particular state instead of a survey of all states like this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  164. Legal articles have been written on that subject since at least 1964.

    DRJ (15874d)

  165. I think many states now have sweetheart provisions (called Romeo and Juliet exceptions) that make it a misdemeanor or not a crime if the partners are of certain ages, e.g., as discussed in this Georgia case.

    DRJ (15874d)

  166. Texas Penal Code, Section 22.011. The offense occurs “regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child”. Child, for that section, is defined as a person under the age of 17. But it’s not the only provision he could be charged under. Texas considers patronizing a prostitute to be sex trafficking, and this would be child sex trafficking.

    nk (dbc370)

  167. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/19/so-you-lied-woman-who-said-she-knew-of-alleged-kavanaugh-ford-incident-just-torpedoed-her-own-credibility/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget

    A made up story to bring herself into the picture and take the side of the accuser. Now why would she do that? Who would want to turn their life upside down to do that? What possible benefit could there be?

    Where have I seen these questions before?

    NJRob (1d7532)

  168. It gets to the point where an acccusation of high school rape by a Republican is just boilerplate language attached to any contract. Much like a denunciation of Israel is boilerplate language for anything passed by the UN General Council.

    Ingot9455 (afdf95)

  169. Attention Who… er, Streetwalkers

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  170. DRJ – I said that over at the Jury, not here, and in this case that was a deliberate choice. :)

    I don’t know who arranged it; from what I can tell it’s a volunteer effort from people in her community.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  171. JVW – even that isn’t much of an argument as you’d have to come up with a convincing statewide path to victory for a Republican. Considering that this is three Senate races in a row that they’ve basically not contested, including an open seat in 2016, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  172. This is kinda like the way that Southern Democrats point at Strom Thurmond as being the GOP poster boy for segregation.

    Democrats: Slavery until 1865, Terrorism, Lynching and State-led Oppression for another 100 years.
    Republicans: Nixon’s Southern Strategy

    It’s all Nixon’s fault.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  173. Considering that this is three Senate races in a row that they’ve basically not contested, including an open seat in 2016, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    Oh yeah, I mean the circumstance would have to be something severe, such as the Democrats split their primary vote allowing a Republican to get one of the two slots in the general election, and the Democrat who emerges for the second slot ends up being someone with a really checkered past who is undone by a new scandal that erupts just before election day. And all of this happens while the long-foreseen pension crisis has hit and retired public employees are furious at legislative Democrats and Governor Newsome has gone back into rehab because his drinking problem has flared up again. That’s about the only scenario where a Republican wins a statewide election these days.

    JVW (42615e)

  174. Democrats: Slavery until 1865, Terrorism, Lynching and State-led Oppression for another 100 years.

    Then don’t forget decades of corruption and graft in urban enclaves, dismal inner-city schools which serve to protect unionized teachers rather than educate students, and a counterproductive welfare system that chases fathers out of the home and traps generations in a cycle of poverty. Isn’t the old line that not even the KKK could have come up with anything more nefarious than the urban policies championed by Democrats for the last 75 years.

    JVW (42615e)

  175. In a more sane world, the professional feminists would be aghast at the fact that a Democrat (and let’s be real: it’s almost certainly a Democrat) staffer leaked the contents of the letter to the media, thus ensuring that Ms. Ford would inevitably be unmasked and forced to go public.

    This is a serious mistake. In the leftist mind, ideology is all that exists. There is no human dimension. If a woman has to have her private life dragged out against her will to the public to defeat an ideological enemy (i.e. Kavanaugh) then they don’t care.

    We saw this with Bill Clinton. If anyone else had done to a 21 year old intern what he did, they would have been toast in the feminists’ eyes. But he was on their side, so he got a pass and even support. The same is true for Kieth Ellison.

    Ideology uber alles. That is the leftist mindset. Get used to it, because the leftists have just about taken over the Democratic Party.

    Bored Lawyer (65c323)

  176. I am so sorry, aphrael. I should never have done that but it did not occur to me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  177. The California Republican party seems to be a quixotic exercise at best,

    Narciso (cb1711)

  178. DRJ: no harm done in this case, i think, but thank you for your apology. :) However, it’s worth noting for the future that I will occasionally say things about my personal life in the jury that i won’t say here — and i suspect i’m not alone in that. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  179. narciso — the california republican party is effectively irrelevant. they have no idea how to fix that. neither cox nor allen had a plan that would have led the party forward successfully — although it will be hilarious to watch allen try to put his plan into action if he becomes party chair.

    there are fewer registered republicans now than there are decline-to-state voters, and the democratic party is close to openly fissioning into two wings, because the republican party is simply anathema to too many people in the cities and suburbs, so discontented democrats have nowhere to go.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  180. The second coming of S.I. Hayakawa is solely needed.

    urbanleftbehind (4868ec)

  181. Hayakawa, whose re-election bid collapsed when he was consistently losing in the polls in his own partisan primary?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  182. He got there at least, but his election in 76 against the grain of Watergate hangover illustrates the effect of a far left challenger (Hayden) pulling the incumbent (Tunney) too far for moderates to stomach.

    I still would like see Texas go to jungle primaries just to see if the same conservatives would win or if the Dems would fold under the aegis of a RINO party of Dewhurst, Straus and Hutchison and that party would dominate.

    urbanleftbehind (4868ec)

  183. Tunney who was Kennedy’s actual red channel to andropov

    Narciso (cb1711)

  184. That would be like voluntary taking cyanide:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45569924

    Narciso (cb1711)

  185. This cointains material on Dianne Feinstein reversing herself a number of times (possibly after being pressured [= lectured] by her staff)

    https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/another-alleged-witness-denies-seeing-or-hearing-what-kavanaughs-accuser-claimed/

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  186. 179. Bored Lawyer (65c323) — 9/19/2018 @ 6:55 pm

    If anyone else had done to a 21 year old intern what he did,

    String her along? Lying to her about other people separating them? Trying to keep her employed by the government in order to maintain some control over her?

    they would have been toast in the feminists’ eyes.

    Probably not. They didn’t even catch on what he did to her.

    A bigger question is Juanita Broderick.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  187. 166. JVW (42615e) — 9/19/2018 @ 10:05 am

    but would the sexual assault of a child charge stick if the accused had a reasonable belief that the girl was above the legal age?

    I think it does. It did with ex-football star LT. (although he plea bargained that aspect of the crime away, it probably helped motivate a guilty plea.)

    http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-lawrence-taylor-pleads-guilty-story.html

    “She told me she was 19,” Taylor, standing with his hands clasped behind him, said in court as he admitted having sex with a prostitute who turned out to be a 16-year-old Bronx runaway. Taylor said he now knows the girl was legally incapable of consent.

    Harry Carson, his former teammate and fellow Hall of Famer, was in the courtroom and gave Taylor a supportive handshake when he arrived.

    Prosecutor Patricia Gunning said the plea deal was acceptable in part because Taylor had assisted in investigations into human trafficking since he was charged. Another prosecutor, Arthur Ferraro, said outside court that Taylor “was of assistance in the field of human trafficking in several jurisdictions and with federal authorities.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  188. 147. nk (dbc370) — 9/19/2018 @ 6:48 am

    Once they had her committed and her name made public, they left her no choice but to go before the Judiciary Committee and double down if she wanted to save her reputation.

    And what she testified to wasn’t so bad.

    She may have been forced to amplify her story in order to protect her reputation (she had told a number of people that the reason she left her was becausee she was sexually harassed, not that she wasn”t doing so well)

    Now she’s in it to her neck.

    In her testimony, she used a line, undoubtedly supplied to her by partisans,. which was not true and could only fool members of the general ublic. She said she stayed with Clarence Thomas because there was talk of abolishing the Department of Education. Which would not have meant abolishing her job. Senator Spector brought that out, maybe not clearly enough.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5296 secs.