Have Mark Judge Testify Along with Christine Blasey Ford (and Kavanaugh)

I am strongly opposed to giving the President any “break” in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship — unless before his questioning on Monday, he either (i) resigns or (ii) confesses perjury and issues a public apology to you. I have tried hard to bend over backwards and to be fair to him and to think of all reasonable defenses to his pattern of behavior. In the end, I am convinced that there really are none. The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me.

SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s justification for asking the President (among other things): “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office, would she be lying?”

As you’ve no doubt heard, the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape during high school, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her lawyer, Debra Katz, says Ford is willing to testify before Congress, though no one has yet asked her to.

If she’s willing, I’m all in favor of having Ford testify. After all, Brett Kavanaugh thinks a 17-year old must jump through extraordinary hoops before she can terminate an unwanted pregnancy; surely he thinks young men should similarly bear the consequences of their actions?

But she shouldn’t testify alone. Mark Judge should testify along with her. After all, according to her letter and the WaPo account, he was a witness to the event.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

And while he currently claims he doesn’t recall the event, she says that the one time they crossed paths afterwards, he exhibited discomfort upon seeing her.

Judge has also admitted to being an alcoholic in high school. He and Kavanaugh both admitted to being Keg Club members together, and they appear in a number of pictures together. In addition, Judge’s comments about women at the time were pretty atrocious.

Virtually all the people attacking Ford’s story are utterly silent on Judge’s presence as a witness. I suspect that’s because both his own descriptions of his social life at the time, and his professed inability to recall the event, might suggest that Kavanaugh, too, was simply too drunk to remember this attempted rape.

So if we’re going to put Ford (and Kavanaugh) under oath, let’s also put the one witness under oath, the one Ford says not only told Kavanaugh to “stop,” but actually saved her by piling on top of the two of them, the one who (Ford claims) exhibited some memory of the event after the fact by exhibiting discomfort.

Update: Brit Hume’s daughter, Virginia, who went to Holton Arms with Ford and organized the letter signed by 65 women attesting to Kavanaugh’s character, was tweeting with Judge about ignoring youthful indiscretions last year.

119 replies
  1. Peterr says:

    From the Daily Beast:

    In the hours after a 51-year-old California professor came forward to publicly allege that Judge Brett Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her while they were in high school, the White House signaled no interest in slowing Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.

    Instead, the president’s team and his allies on and off the Hill began to mount a vigorous defense against the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, questioning why she had identified herself only now, and framing Kavanaugh’s alleged antics as almost commonplace in nature.

    A senior White House official told The Daily Beast that, as of Sunday evening, things are still “full steam ahead” for Kavanaugh. On Friday afternoon, a different White House official confirmed that President Trump had been made aware of the earlier reports involving the Kavanaugh sexual misconduct allegation—reports that did not name the accuser.

    The president has told those close to him in recent days that he believes there is a “conspiracy” or organized effort by Democrats to smear Kavanaugh and try to derail the nomination of a “good man.” One Trump confidant said on Sunday that they “can’t imagine that” Ford coming forward will change the president’s position, and that it will far more likely cause Trump to dig in and attack those going after Kavanaugh.

    So Ford come out and puts her name and face on her story, but (at least) three Trump confidants and WH officials are too scared to do the same? They anonymously question why she came out now?

    These folks wouldn’t recognize irony if it bit them in the tail. And why do I hear Sesame Street ringing in my ears: “One of these things in not like the others . . .”

    Absolutely get Judge to testify.

  2. TheraP says:

    “But she shouldn’t testify alone.”

    Other witnesses should be called as well.  Expert Witnesses!

    A.  Including experts on alcoholism and blackout effects.  (Such an effect erases memory, which fits with two drunken young men “swearing” that “nothing happened.”)

    B.  Including experts on Trauma and Traumatic Memory.  (Victims of trauma often have extremely vivid memories of the traumatic event itself, but hazy recall of “before” and “after” – which fits with Dr. Ford’s recollection of her reported sexual assault.)

    Members of the Senate Committee may well have their own memories of a blackout.  They might not want to admit to that, as Kavanaugh also might not want to admit.  But in their hearts “they know.”

    All testimony must be made in public.  And not rushed!  We do not need another almost 3 decades of a Justice on the court, whose own hearing erased “justice.”

    Thank you, EW! Your tireless pursuit of Justice cannot be understated or under appreciated.

      • Rayne says:

        They could try that but given the other details about this event — some from the other witness, some from the context of Ford’s therapy — it’s extremely doubtful this is a case of false memories.

        If you’re trying to peddle that line of gaslighting here, bring a stronger game, n00bie. Welcome to emptywheel.

      • TheraP says:

        On what basis are you assuming “false memories”?

        She never asserts that she forgot this. Only that she put these thoughts of our her mind. And never told anyone till she was in therapy.

        To demean a woman for her recollection of a brutal traumatic event, when she was 15, in a room with two older male adolescents, is rather provocative – especially in the absence of any evidence that her memory cannot be trusted. This woman has a Ph.D. after all. She is a college professor. She has taken – and passed! – a lie detector test. She has come forward at a high cost to herself, but in view of her sense of responsibility to the nation. I find that admirable.

        Additionally, she has been referred to – over and over – as “a very credible witness.” (This shows up in many commentaries in reputable press reports.)

        • Tracy says:

          I agree, she never lost the memory – she has said that it derailed her for years at the time, and it came up in therapy again later.

          Also, the theory that when a significantly traumatic event occurs it is repressed and blocked from memory has been challenged by research – it’s been found that when an unusual traumatic event occurs, the recollection of it is likely to actually be BETTER, rather than worse.

          Moreover, we have to honor this woman and her experience.

        • bps6162 says:

          But, what we have at the moment is hearsay. The notes of the therapist (who by professional standards must keep accurate details) is accused as not recording “facts” correctly. We also have a witness of a traumatic event that cannot recall numerous details about events leading up to the  event and following the event.

          This seems odd to me. Having been in several traumatic events (serious accidents, 9/11, assassinations of political figures, the Challenger explosion), I can recall many details of where I was, how I got to that point, and what happened afterwards, (on several occasions after I regained consciousness).

          This entire story doesn’t ring true. Either the victim is still withholding critical details that will crystalize during her testimony, or her entire story will fall apart, much like that of Tawana Brawley and the toddlers that were coached in their testimony about abuse in daycare facilities during the 1980’s.

          Whatever the case, let’s hear her out, and let’s also give Judge Kavanaugh the impartial hearing. If there is concrete proof that he committed the act, he should answer for it, as would anyone. On the other hand, if Dr. Blasey-Ford is untruthful, she should be dealt with as a common liar. Not only should she be forced to render a public apology, so too should all of the others who participated in charade.

          Next week will be interesting and critical to the near-term future of the country.

        • TheraP says:

          An assault victim’s account is nothing but “hearsay”? If she goes to the police, they’re gonna be skeptical because it’s only “hearsay”?

          By your use of the word, any report by anyone outside a court of law is nothing but hearsay. News reports would be nothing but hearsay. Are you casting aspersion on all social conversations? Because they’re not generated under oath? Is that how you operate in your own life? Your own family?

          This is never going to court. The Committee process is not a court.

          Dr. Ford is very credible – in my professional opinion, having listened to many victims. But the accused? He’s equivocated even under oath. He’s allowed masses of his own writings to be kept from investigation. There are strange red flags in his background.

          Many lawyers post here. They haven’t discarded her testimony as merely “hearsay.”

        • CitizenCrone says:

          bps6162–despite what you experienced, the facts you call odd about Ford’s experience are not uncommon, and are very plausible.

          But can I just point out your use of the descriptive “common” liar and that she should be”forced” to apologize.  Also, you say we should hear her out, but we should give Kav an impartial hearing.

          Sounds as if your mind is made up.

        • howard martin says:

          Hearsay? In a he-said, she-said both parties are equally credible. Unless one of them has already perjured himself regarding knowledge of stolen e-mails, or there is a 3rd party who was present who has previously described him as a co-member of a drinking club that routinely left at least one of them blacked out drunk.

        • W. Kiernan says:

          Whatever the case, let’s hear her out, and let’s also give Judge Kavanaugh the impartial hearing. If there is concrete proof that he committed the act, he should answer for it, as would anyone. On the other hand, if Dr. Blasey-Ford is untruthful, she should be dealt with as a common liar.

          What about the third, more likely than either, case, which is that a.) she is truthful and the drunk prep boy did attempt to rape her, but b.) being that it’s 36 years later, there is, of course, no “concrete evidence” that anyone can provide. In that case, what should we do, “deal with her as a common liar”?

          Or rather I should say “that anyone is willing to provide.”  Mike Judge’s eyewitness testimony would be as close to “concrete evidence” as could exist in a case this cold, but oddly enough, while he claims in public that he doesn’t recall any such event, he also refuses to testify under oath.

        • OneMadMack says:

          It is a known scientific fact that we do not have clear recall, particularly in reference to traumatic events.  Juanita Broderick had crystal clear recall, Bill Clinton is not in jail.  The suggestion was with Ms. Broderick that her memory was tainted.  It is a very real probability, not just possible, but probable, that she has mixed up memories.  Keep an open mind and allow the truth to enter rather than seizing upon a premise and working hard to prove same – just a suggestion!

        • Rayne says:

          Get out of here with your bullshit. You have established zero credibility at this site, dropping in out of nowhere to sow whataboutism by preferencing one woman’s testimony in another unrelated case over the case at hand.

          If you think Broderick was credible, so is Ford. Now beat it.

      • OneMadMack says:

        Thank you.  It is surprising how readily people wish to believe accusers, now, after putting Juanita Broderick thru hell when she bravely came forward.  They are truly sick.

    • Janet yvars says:

      Absolutely correct. I think the fact judge will not testify speaks volumes to Susan Collins and other key votes. You know the white house has been in touch with him. If he was a good witness for Kavanaugh he would be testifying. I hope she answers the call and testifies .Don’t know why she hasn’t but maybe her lawyer is getting in line with her appearance legally and there are some issues to clear up.  Can’t believe Kavanaugh is testifying .He will be committing perjury . Judge may not remember now or saw but who knows about next year

  3. JasonS says:

    As a Canadian political junkie who has been watching American politics since the “read my lips” days i can only say …what the hell has happened to the conservative movement in your country? I consider myself a small “c” conservative which is fiscally conservative and socially liberal but what is transpiring in Murica right now is bleeding into our politics at an alarming rate. The conservative movement in your country has lost ALL moral authority and ethics needed to govern your once great nation. Please get your shit together guys. Thank you.

      • JasonS says:

        No barking at all. I have voted Liberal (democrat) Conservative and NDP which is more like the Greens or independent. I haven’t a dogmatic bone in my body. There is only the truth , and when one party is full blown hypocrisy , lies half truths and conspiracy theories the only answer is for the Democratic party to shut them down for good. My call was for the Democratic party to get their shit together not the conservatives i’ m sorry i wasn’t clear on that. Fun fact , i live in British Columbia and our two major newspapers are owned by Postmedia which until very recently had David Pecker on the board. Yes that David Pecker and he resigned his position when he agreed to co operate with Muller. Small world huh.

      • Doug R says:

        Jason says “country” – no aspersions on emptywheel. Thank god we finally booted our Bush-lite, although his goons are helping Doug Ford ram through some undemocratic unconstitutional crap in Ontario.

    • Jim says:

      The GOP has been co-opted by right wing evangelical crazies and wannabe libertarian crazies.  It started under Nixon, really took flight under Reagan, and went to hell in a handbasket when Gingrich had the keys.  The party is completely controlled by people like the Kochs and the Mercers, the money men who have far too much influence on policy planks.

      Add the Citizen’s United ruling really untying the hands of the monied to influence elections, and this is the result.  A tsunami of madness.

      • marc schuman says:

        Thank you Jim, well said.  A tsunami for sure.

        When people ask “what happened?” its important that they know this was not some kind of overnight thing, although as Hannah Arendt pointed out, it took less than a couple of decades for Europe to slide into a totalitarian horror with death camps.  Importantly, going forward, we have to convince people that this kind of thing wont end with Trump – not by a long shot.

        Morris Berman now lives in Mexico – his readers and friends there should know well by now what happened up here over the last couple of decades and why Morris now chooses to live there instead.  (Not saying I agree with all of his opinions, just pointing out that he articulates the gravity of the problem pretty well.)

        Media control and dumbing down over the last couple of decades is of course another big part of it.  Jon Stewart said it something like this and few others have: (paraphrasing) “if you listen to the radio and watch Fox news, its pretty much a continuous 24/7 alarm bell that the immigrant gangs are en mass trying to get over the border and are coming to steal from you and rape your daughter …… so if that’s all you hear every day, then what Trump is saying makes perfect sense to you.”

        • marksb says:

          I agree with much of what you-all are saying about the majority of conservatives going from unacceptable meanness to outright insanity.


          My father was a John Birch Society Republican. I remember being 12 and, on our way back from seeing the circus in downtown LA, he pulled over so he could concentrate on the Goldwater nomination acceptance speech. It was a hundred degrees in our Ford Country Squire, but that speech was my awakening to politics and the political direction I didn’t want to go. I started picking up and reading the newsletters he got from batshit-crazy right-wingers and what they had to say was even crazier than the crap we read today, as their racism and the use of racial insults was blatant,and they called anyone who disagreed a communist. I was also an electronics/radio kid and listened to clear-channel broadcasts late at night on my home-made radios (tubes glowing in the dark) often to call-in shows run by people that would make Rush look like Mr. Rogers. Often it was like the people were calling in from the Asylum for the Criminally Racist Insane.

          My point is that these people have been around forever; it’s just that the Internet and 24/7 cable news has given them an organizing tool and a way to broadcast their insanity to the globe. Before they were in small clumps of craziness, mimeographing their little newsletters and calling into the Vegas radio station at midnight. Now they’ve got a ten thousand followers on social media. Goldwater captured the Republican Party with his special brand of conservative insanity. Yes he mellowed with age, but for awhile, their Republican Party looked a lot like today’s.

        • Tracy says:

          Thanks, marksb, interesting idea about the the internet – I’m sure you’re right, these far-right-wing looney-toons are now finding each other and spreading to other discontented people who take up the mantle of hate, whereas before they were isolated – in another post, didn’t you say that in spite of being exposed to all this dark stuff growing up, you went to a liberal school, and the rest is history? :-)

          I heard an interesting podcast: a neo-Nazi, who went really far down in all of this, found his way out – all that hate, those hateful actions – a lot of these people are unhappy, discontented, misfits – and they join a club that makes them feel powerful and accepted. It’s a total in-group vs. out-group thing, but stoked by fear, with total intolerance for the out-group.

          It’s the Radicalization of the Republican Party. Obama just talked about it in his speech to U of I. (It takes an hour to listen to all of it, but I totally recommend it – we are not alone!!!)

        • orionATL says:

          mark –

          this is well-written and resonant with me; john birch society cracked pottery lurked in my family too. your analysis of our times and the importance of the internet megaphone as force multiplier seems solid.


    • orionATL says:

      JasonS –

      i understand what you are saying and agree with much of it.

      the answer to your question i’m not so sure of. personally, i think the overweening presence and attraction of calculated, deceitful rightwing media (the murdoch monster in u,s. and canada) accounts for a lot of the craziness among the modestly well educated in the small towns and rural areas. my own family is from such an area in the appalachians. some are as wise, thoughtful, and sceptical of media as one could ever expect any human to be. others not as much. personality type and gender also seem to play a big role in susceptibility to propaganda.

      a big problem as i see it is the tendency in small town/rural america, where a truely fundamental conservatism underpins all thought, for certain ideas, ways of thinking, memes to become widely accepted as true, hence widely repeated to each other in casual conversation, hence rarely disputed in some period of time. homogeniety of thought sets in on certain issues. once it has been set, changing that self-confident mindset is a difficult educational job until the inutility or falseness of this conventional wisdom makes itself manifest.

      i must say though that i’ve also noticed the tendency toward minds strongly set by mutual social agreement on certain social issues (immigration) (poverty) (race) in big-town america where i’ve now lived much of my life. :)

      p.s. i went to graduate school in canada and retain a strong affection for the country – its people, its diversity, and its beauty. where else in north america can one find scots and french influence in such abundance. :)

  4. Ollie says:

    Oh thank you Marcy for writing this today.  I watched DN! and Amy had this woman’s attorney on and as of this am airing?  No one has reached out to the attorney at all from Congress.  No one.  Well, I guess Kellyanne has publicly stated that this woman should be hear (for whatever that’s worth, lol).  I think this is a great idea about also have Mark Judge testify too as well as Brett.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    By all means, let’s ignore prep school indiscretions – she was only a girl and she wanted it – and let’s comfort the comfortable.  But we must prosecute those miscreant 15-17 year olds as adults for murder, especially when they are people of color.  Slippery slope, moral consequences, and all that.

    The disparities of the plot read like the banksters rewarding themselves for nearly toppling the global financial system, while foreclosing on nearly a million people who worked hard to own a home, sometimes foreclosing on people who were not delinquent, simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I realize the Goopers have no shame, let alone an awareness of hypocrisy, but that should not stop anyone else from pointing out their failings, and proposing fixes for them, as well as the apparent failings of Mr. Kavanaugh.

    He has the hallmarks of a well-groomed political hit man, not a legal scholar.  Some of his quotes from his Ken Starr days seem straight out of a coming of age novel, by a guy who never came of age.  His carefully built persona, meant to convince us that the man who would be king has the substance of a real one, I find unpersuasive.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      I was thinking a lot about Molly Ringwald’s reassessment of her role in John Hughes’s movies, and how those films simultaneously spoke to young adults who felt marginalised while treating really sketchy sexual stuff as normative.

      As I said before, the word that came to mind for Kavanaugh during the hearings was “unctuous”. The focus on his 80s elite-bro years has only heightened that. Impunity for me means the full force of the carceral state for thee.

    • Pete says:

      I dunno what the law was 30+ years ago in the place where this (is alleged to have happened – gotta say that even though my gut tells me it did happen) – but it’s possible that even if this were consensual (and my gut tells me no way it was) it’s still possible to have been a sex crime.

      My point is, there are many more teenage boys in more contemporary times who are labelled sex offenders for a variety of sexual conduct..  I suppose one could argue the binary status of some of those labelings, but I suspect a black-out drunk attempted sexual assault (rape) would get you in legal trouble and labeled in a lot of places.

      I have witnessed black out drunk persons “function” in ways that, if you did not witness it, you would no believe.

      Kavahaugh (still) under oath, Ms. Ford and Judge under oath, and the two other females as well if possible.


        • r helder says:

          thanks, posaune.  my initial on-line legal research (i worked for west publishing for a while and practiced for 14 years before switching to education) is that you are correct.  god bless maryland!  there is no reason to have s.o.l. on murder or rape, or attempted murder or attempted rape.  perhaps that is why mr. judge (the alleged co-conspirator it the attempted rape of a 15-year old) is so reluctant to appear before the committee.

          and let us not overlook the fact that this is not a trial, it is a job interview for the second most important job in america.  strict rules of trial evidence do not apply.  nuance is important

  6. mathteacher says:

    Also, the conversation about youthful indiscretions happened on the day that Kennedy retired. Funny coincidence, no?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      And when you put together that Kennedy’s son work(ed) for Deutsche: (1) in a division that seemed skilled at laundering Russian rubles into American real estate, and (2) which made loans to the Trump Org, the plot thickens.

      Add onto this foul mire that Kavanaugh was nominated by President PussyGrabber, a man who repeatedly sent his lawyer to alternately harass women, and/or pay them off.   And who wished that he could date his own daughter (!).  In addition, his current tv lawyer (Judi Ruliani), is notable for cross dressing: wig, lipstick, nylons, yada yada.

      Lady Karma must be a bitch on wheels, and she seems to morph into an S/M Dominatrix when she gets Trump and Kavanaugh in her sights.   I imagine Lady Karma is having the time of her very long, bitchy, and irony-laden life — delivering a whole lot of poetic justice to asshats who can’t seem to decipher the real thing.

      • AndTheSlithyToves says:

        ROTL, Thank you for reminding everyone of Kennedy’s (privileged) kids and their sleazy behavior. He’s another smug a$$hat that sold his soul to the devil of money and deprived Al Gore of the presidency.

  7. edge says:

    Can someone help me read Virginia Hume’s last tweet (linked in the update). The Red circles make it difficult. I can read it all except the last line that says “..you knew even then to keep bu..??… in the back”

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      “you knew even then to keep business in the front, party in the back.” It’s a mullet reference, but more than that.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I agree with the twitter commenter that we could show appropriate leniency for every 17 year old’s behavior – while being fair to, say, every 15 year old’s treatment. But we don’t have to put the adult version of every 17 year old on the Supreme Court – or into any other high government office.

    One would think that the FBI should pursue the allegation, if for no other reason to reassess Mr. Kavanaugh’s security clearance. Presumably, he has one and needs one.

    I suppose it’s possible, but it’s hard to see how a judge could sit on the DC Circuit and not have one. Along with the Fourth Circuit, it hears most appeals involving the government’s secrets. It’s kind of like Al Capone’s tax problem.

    • bmaz says:

      I have at least two clients, even after their initial sentencing terms, that (as far as I know) are still on lifetime sex reporting status as a result of conduct almost identical to Kavanaugh’s putative conduct. These date back to late 80’s and early to mid 90’s.

      • orionATL says:

        yeah, it seems to depend on who you are – and maybe who your parents are. here is the infamous case of a young man (black)who got sent up the river for 10 years as a sex offender for consensual sex involving what i’m pretty sure is a standard teen introduction to sex these days:


        maybe a bunch of legislators (who were parents) saw the light on this cruelty and forced a change in the law, though not enough of one in my view.

      • Tracy says:

        There appears to be a big difference in how black offender and white offender crimes are treated, in the court of public and opinion and in practice by the law. Also, in the treatment of Anita Hill, and Angela Wright – who wanted to come forward but wasn’t allowed to – basically b/c of white privilege.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Re security clearance.

      Do you have any reason to believe that Kavanaugh has never leaked ‘stuff’ to WH in recent months?

  9. Trip says:

    The email from 2001 about keeping the boat trip quiet, “and growing AGGRESSIVE after blowing still another game of dice (don’t Recall)” Sounds like he was out of control at least up until around age 35, perhaps with substance abuse issues.

    Hey, I’m not against people who had issues and changed. Isn’t that what we hope to get out the justice system, people redeemed? Judges who take into consideration that people can change? But those people generally have to admit there’s a problem first. But he denies anything that deviates from his squeaky clean alter boy facade.

    Then there’s his friend’s off color, racist joke about how “Su Ching” was the boat name and not a hostess lined up for a “rub and tug massage”.

    His time with Mark Judge-types didn’t seem to end in high school.

    And rather than being SCOTUS material, he fits in more precisely with ratfuckers like Stone:

    Kavanaugh reminds me of every rich and entitled, cliquey dick villain in the vintage 80’s teen movies.

  10. joulie says:

    Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.


  11. getouttahere says:

    What’s in a name – Mark Judge ? Is this a Dickens’ (another name) novel?
    May Mark mark this judge as fundamentally flawed. May this judge’s drinking buddy, never become a justice. (Too bad that even if his nomination is defeated he will remain a judge.
    Wondering what faction Kavanaugh is part of?

  12. Willis Warren says:

    With respect to some of the stupid and obnoxious “why is this just coming out” questions by Mark Levine and others, it seems the Democrats have vetted her and checked her accusations, including passing a polygraphy (which for Republicans is just more proof that she’s lying).


    I would find the backlash against vetting funny if I wasn’t well past the point of finding this shit funny

    • NotGonnaWorkHere says:

      I tend to find the proffer of a polygraph damaging to the credibility of the offerer. But when Pence offered up that he had taken a polygraph to prove he didn’t write that Op-Ed (in fairness, I just looked again and I guess he just offered to take one), I immediately put that on the scale for his having written it.

      Not that I doubt the accuser here, but I’m trying to stay true to own principles.

      • Rayne says:

        I tend to find the proffer by an all-boys school student of a letter signed by 65 girls attesting to character damaging to the credibility of the offerer.

        Just sayin’.

  13. Jenny says:

    Marcy thank you for suggesting Mark Judge testify too.  All of this needs to be exposed.  Sexual assault & harassment against women is pervasive & has been for centuries.

    Whether this was years ago or today, speaking up & speaking out is vital in order for women to heal. Having been raped, assaulted & sexually harassed, I know how unhealthy it is to live with a secret.

    I applaud Christine Blasey Ford for speaking her truth.  It takes courage to share her experience of abuse.  She has a right to be heard.  No doubt, she will be vilified by many, however, I believe her.

    Anita Hill comes to mind when she testified against Clarence Thomas.  She stood up for herself & all women who had been sexually harassed.  It took courage for her to stand alone in front of an all white male committee.  I applauded her then & now.

    I believed Anita Hill years ago because her experience was my experience.  I believe Christine Blasey Ford because her experience was my experience.

    There are too many red flags with this Kavanaugh nomination.  With all that has been exposed about his record, it speaks volumes about his judgement as a judge & judging others in the court of law.

    Exposing Kavanaugh’s past reveals more about his moral character which at the moment is highly questionable.

    • Tracy says:

      Here here, and thank you for sharing!

      I find Ford’s story and how it’s all playing out very triggering, and I am sure that a lot of other women feel this way, too – too many of us have lived through bad experiences.

      I totally believe her, and we have to honor her and her story. I hope she gets to tell it, if she wants to. I also think that anyone else involved ought to be made to testify, if she is brave enough to come forward. I cannot imagine the incredible courage that takes.

    • Kick the darkness says:

      Feinstein has been around forever.  The idea that she would get information on an important matter like this in July and just sit on it until last week strikes me as….odd.  If I recall, her statement was that she did not pass the letter on to the FBI until last week.  That may not be the same as when she informed the FBI about the content of the letter.  I guess the issue is whether there might be something relating to this accusation within the vetting material that was not made available to the committee.

      • Trip says:

        No, I was referring to the other things that the senators don’t know about (not the letter). The citizens deserve to know.

      • Rayne says:

        READ FORD’S LETTER. Do NOT start this crap that Feinstein sat on the letter — Ford asked for discretion. Feinstein remembers very well what happened to Anita Hill; I can’t imagine any female member of Congress regardless of party affiliation wishing to put another woman through that without her express consent.

        • Kick the darkness says:

          I have, and I’m not suggesting her intent was just to sit on the letter.  That point of view is being put out there in some quarters of the press right now.  I don’t buy it.  Like you say, confidentiality would be a paramount consideration, hopefully for anyone. What I’m wondering is whether DiFi might have reason to believe information about this incident was being withheld from the committee.

  14. Kim Kaufman says:

    I think the blackout drinking is a pretty big issue, along with the sexual stuff. Supposedly Judge stopped drinking but at least up until this…

    ” “…growing aggressive after blowing still another dice game.” Kavanaugh said he didn’t remember it.”

    … Kavanaugh might have still been doing some blackout drinking. In some of the pictures of him he looks to have that sort of “ruddy” coloring on his cheeks that are signs of a, um, heavy drinker.

    Apparently there are only two left of the original 65 letter signers willing to testify for Kavanaugh. They can trash Ford all they want and try to replay the Hollywood Access situation but I don’t think it’s going to fly with the public right now..

      • Trip says:

        Alcohol testing usually only determines use within days. Not months or years. He’d have to have a full body work-up to see liver enzymes, and other symptoms characteristic of alcoholism or abuse.
        Plus I imagine that someone could have quit drinking, and yet still suffer symptoms, damage or disease from past abuse.

        • bmaz says:

          Are you kidding?? Seriously.

          EtOH use only shows up, reliably, on even blood tests, much less breath tests, for a few hours. “Days” is silly.

        • Trip says:

          I found this:
          Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG) is a direct metabolite used by the body to process alcohol. EtG type tests are looking for the presence of a metabolite, known as ethyl glucuronide, in the blood or urine. It can determine if alcohol has been metabolized within the past 80 to 90 hours. An EtG can determine whether someone metabolized any alcohol within the past 3 to 4 days. An EtG type of test can detect alcohol consumption up to 80 Hours after drinking started.

          Supposedly, hair analysis can also detect alcohol use within months, but not proven.


          I realize that this isn’t used for DUI cases.

        • Rayne says:

          Dude. Are you really going to argue with an attorney who’s likely defended against drunk driving charges in court? You’re getting a bit abstruse.

        • Trip says:

          I wasn’t arguing anything legal at all. I specifically said that this test wasn’t used in DUI cases. I only spoke of the availability (extent) of a test that detected alcohol use. I didn’t think that it WOULD be used in the Kavanaugh case, and it has obvious limitations. The point being, in response to the first commenter, he’s not getting a piss test, (or whatever the person called it). We haven’t heard of drug use thus far, only drinking.

        • Kick the darkness says:

          The science on screening hair for incorporation of drug metabolites is pretty solid.  The intro of the link is not bad for anybody that’s interested.  For alcohol, a  tragic application is in diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome.


          And in a few years it may well be possible to analyze gut microbes for similar drug screening purposes.  Not that I’m proposing to sneak after Kavenaugh with a plastic baggie next time he hits the men’s room.


    • Rayne says:

      NO. It’s time for a discussion about consent and personal autonomy. It’s well past time for a discussion about the patriarchy and its perpetuation of toxic masculinity which fails to recognize women’s rights to autonomy.

  15. Curveball says:

    It was interesting to see heavy artillery promised in the past couple of days by Republicans pushing back against the allegations, then rolled back a bit today. I expect they realized they’re not simply going up against the Democrats; they’re to do battle with Christine Blasey Ford, an aggrieved woman. Her allegations are credible, what with her analyst’s notes, etc. So now the question is how Republicans deal with her. If too strongly, suburban women voters who are against Trump but still in favor of their Republican members of Congress might become liabilities. And women in general will be further galvanized and engergized. For my money, Prof. Ford’s demeanor and authenticity in live testimony are key. So I began thinking this morning that there indeed is a chance Kavanaugh will be dispatched. Perusing right-wing sites a few minutes ago, I saw something on Gateway pundit that gives me pause. They’ve been mining her ratemyprofessors ratings and comments. Some samples offered in this linked Gateway Pundit story cast her as a head case. But the actual RMP page – linked in the Gateway Pundit piece — doesn’t have all of that now, and lists a higher rating. Might it have been scrubbed? There now are only five comments, and those favorable to her have relatively huge numbers of negative clicks indicating “xxx people did not find this useful.” I expect most of those might be from GWPundit’s followers. Prof. Ford is described in those comments as “a tough cookie” and “dark personality.” Let’s see what we get.

      • marksb says:

        Also: My wife’s been teaching for over 30 years. Her ‘rate my professor’ ratings are all over the place, some “Awesome” and a number of very negative responses. It’s like Yelp for professors and just as flawed. She browses them occasionally and notes that <surprise!> **every single negative rating** comes from someone who received a poor or failing grade due to lack of work and shitty test scores. Occasionally the negative reporters have made stuff up to underline their unhappiness with her class.

        • Hobbs says:

          I can attest to this —  I’ve got 40+ years in higher education, and my students think Rate My Professor is utterly worthless.  Anonymous posting, giant grudge matches — and students can leave a small red pepper icon if they think the prof is “hot”!  That tells you everything you need to know.

        • Kick the darkness says:

          Yeah, I saw the Rate my professor thing coming up on Josh Gersteins’s twitter comments.  WTF.  Students don’t even really post to it anymore.  Not that it still isn’t the go to site for evaluating claims of sexual assault…,

          And then here’s this thing about comments this Kavenaugh guy gave to students at Yale.  I mean there’s context and selective quoting and all that, but I just can’t imagine addressing a student group in this manner.


    • JD12 says:

      The chances of Kavanaugh being dispatched are probably better than people think, I’d say 60/40. In the #MeToo era shoving him through right before the midterms would be a huge mistake, the only question is if Republicans want him on the court badly enough to risk taking a hit that big, and if his own past success in ushering through nominees gives him too much confidence to do the right thing and withdraw. It will be interesting to see how it plays out from here. It’s a total unforced error by Republicans, is it even possible for the Democrats lose in this situation?

  16. Nopants says:

    Maybe this sounds simple, (of course it does)but since they have ram rodded this judge in less than 3 months, why don’t they just pay someone else with less paper trail, and ram that one through before the new year?

    • Trip says:

      Trump wants the one who decides that the president has all the rights to be a dictator, with no checks and balances, no investigations, etc.

      • Frank Probst says:

        I think this is spot-on.  And I think Kellyanne Conway went off-script this morning when she said, “This woman should not be ignored.”  Remember, Trump is coming off of a week when Bob Woodward’s book came out and Paul Manafort flipped on him.  Trump is like a toddler who throws tantrums when he doesn’t get his way.  He’s also someone who usually controls the narrative, largely by changing it from one batshit statement to the next.  He’s completely lost control of the narrative at this point.  I’m not quite sure what he’s going to do next, but it won’t be anything that makes any sort of sense.  He won’t admit any sort of defeat by pulling Kavanaugh’s name, regardless of what comes out about him.  That’s just not how he operates.

  17. Frank Probst says:

    Ford has identified two other people who were allegedly at the party that night.  I’d like to hear from them, too.  They didn’t respond to messages from the WaPo, which doesn’t really surprise me.  In fairness to them, if I got a message from a newspaper on a Sunday morning about something like this, I’m not going to call back right away.  But this party sounds like it was relatively small.  It’s possible that neither person has a specific memory of it.  It’s also possible that they remember it, remember other people who were there, and remember the behavior of either Kavanaugh or Ford after the incident took place.  Lots of unknowns here, and at least five people I’d like to hear sworn testimony from.

    • Trip says:

      As Marcy said, they really need M Judge to testify. And he would be deemed not credible pretty rapidly in defense of Kavanaugh. He has written a book about consistently being black out drunk during high school, so there’s no way he’d be able to say with perfect recall what happened. Was he miraculously never black out drunk when he was with “Bart”?

    • Frank Probst says:

      Round 2 looks like a whiff, too.  Kavanaugh’s mother presided over a foreclosure hearing against Ford’s parents, but the case was dismissed before Kavanaugh’s mother ruled on it, and the property is still in the family’s name.  (Per CNN’s John King)

  18. orionATL says:

    i have a hypothetical for judge kavanaugh:

    judge kavanaugh, hypothetically speaking, if a high school girl, say a 15-year-old, were raped by one or more of her classmates (possibly because they were drunk) and happened to get pregnant from that rape, would you support, from the bench, her right to have an abortion?

    “yes” or “no”, judge.

    follow up question, judge kavanaugh.

    do you think one of your daughters would be legally entitled to have an abortion should they get pregnant under the scenario i just presented to you?

    would you permit or council a daughter of yours to have an abortion if she felt it necessary?

    thank you, judge. that’s all.

  19. TheraP says:

    In Medicine, when a test is being developed, a Risk/Benefit analysis is conducted.  So maybe that’s the type of reasoning needed in this case of Kavenaugh v Ford.

    I tend to give a large weight to the recollection of young woman who kept an embarrassing secret for decades, but found she had to face that secret trauma in order to get on with her adult life.  For her, the risk of keeping the secret became too great.  And the benefits of facing it came into focus.  She also has come forward, after determining that the risk of going pubic outweighs her personal pain in doing so.  She’s put societal benefit first!

    But for Kavenaugh?  Apparently facing his own teenage alcohol abuse seems hugely risky.  To him.  And he wants to deny misbehavior – which, if the victim is to be trusted – strongly suggests he was too drunk to recall.  Who is he putting first?

    But what about the Risk/Benefit to society?  Putting one Justice on the Supreme Court, where there is even a question of misbehavior toward a women (or women) should be too high a risk.

    If we have to err, it should be on the side of what is the greatest benefit to society.  Not to the nominee.  Nor the victim.

    It seems clear to me:  Kavanaugh should be rejected.  We take less of a societal risk.  We derive more of a societal benefit.

  20. orionATL says:

    speaking as we have been of the behind-the-scenes political tactics paul manafort used in the ukraine and then in the trump campaign against clinton,

    here is the story of former rightwing assassin-for-hire, david brock, who fictionalized criticism of anita hill’s character in a successful republican effort to get the toadstool of the supreme court confirmed:


    this excerpt from the time magazine archives summarizes the rightwing attack on hill and brock’s subsequent public confession that it was all just character assassination, not fact:

    “… And last week the mystery took another turn, thanks to former American Spectator character assassin David Brock, the man designated by the right to destroy Hill’s reputation and scrub Thomas’. Brock confesses in a Talk magazine excerpt of his new book, Blinded by the Right, that he had printed “virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation” he could to make Hill seem “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” If that was all Brock did, we might have nothing more than another sin committed on behalf of the vast right-wing conspiracy. But Brock, who has forged a second career as a recovering conservative, makes one admission that implicates Thomas. Brock says he used information that came indirectly from Thomas to force a retraction from a woman named Kaye Savage, who had come forward in support of Hill. Brock threatened to publicize vicious charges made by her ex-husband in a sealed child-custody dispute…”

  21. Barbara Brandon says:

    There is another aspect of this situation that should be explored. Kavanaugh’s suspiciously dim recollections of Judge Kozinski’s behavior and his infamous email list was in line with his testimony about Manny Miranda etc. Judge Kozinski retired from the Ninth Circuit after he was exposed as a serial harasser of women by the Washington Post.

    Kavanaugh claimed he was not on Koziniski’s email list, but this can be proved one way or the other. One of Kozinski’s ex-clerks, Heidi Bond, explains how this could be determined.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-kozinski-gag-list-emails-senate-hearings.html The more disturbing aspect of Kavanaugh’s testimony about his clerkship is his denial that Kozinski’s chambers reflected the judge’s hyper-sexualized personality.

    Kavanaugh’s silence and refusal to condemn Kozinski strikes me as in line with his 17-year old behavior towards Professor Blasey. Misogyny and attempted rape are connected.


  22. cd54 says:

    “Youthful indiscretion” has been the GOPer get out of jail card since Henry Hyde used it to wash his shtupping the office staff as a 40-something elected Republican — “What a country!”

  23. P J Evans says:

    Kavanaugh is now saying he wasn’t at that party, the one he says he doesn’t remember. My first question on this would be “If you don’t remember the party, Mr Kavanaugh, how sure are you that you weren’t there?”

    • Rayne says:

      Betting he will rely on the definition of “party.” If it was just Kavanaugh, Judge, Ford, and small number of others, was it a party or a small gathering of teen friends?

        • Diviz says:

          I can’t find it in all the multitudes published today on this topic. Is there a Kavanaugh quote where he’s specifically identifying a year? Are you just saying that because he says “that party,” he must have a specific one in mind which would necessitate it also having a specific year?

          (OT – long time eavesdropper, first time poster. Thank you everyone involved, contributors and commenters alike, for this benzodiazapenesque respite from the MSM news cycle.)

  24. bmaz says:

    You are still crap. Get the hell out of this blog. We banned you three days ago, and, yet, you impertinently worked your way around it. Stop.

  25. Barry Karl says:

    Judge needs to testify. The former FBI agent needs to testify. Each of the 65 women who signed the letter needs to testify to determine if any of them saw him drinking at parties and how he acted when he was drinking.
    Also, wasn’t Kavanaugh’s mother at Montgomery County attorney (prosecutor) at the time that the false imprisonment and attempted rape occurred?

        • Rayne says:

          Your original login was “BK” in caps. Your choice which to use but pick one of “BK” “bk” or “Barry Karl.” It’s very difficult for the rest of the community to get to know you otherwise. Thanks.

    • Tracy says:

      Yes, there needs to be a FULL investigation – anything less, and rushing this process through, disrespects and injures the courageous woman who’s come forward.

  26. JD12 says:

    The Clinton connection is another example of GOP hypocrisy, kinda like Hastert and Foley.

    What do Republicans have to lose by withdrawing him and picking Hardiman or someone else, other than embarrassment? It looks like a lose/lose situation, but forcing it at this point will only energize their opponents for the midterms. And how could Collins and Murkowski justify voting for him at this point?

  27. orionATL says:

    pass on the news to judge kavanaugh’s family, he is dead meat!

    the fury of women, my own kin included, has likely scared the hell out republicans worried about nov, 2018.

    i hope i’m wrong though, and the knuckleheads insist on pushing kavanaugh thru. that would be bad for the nation in terms of a jiggered supreme court, but good for the nation in terms of a dem house.

  28. Blackloki says:

    Isn’t gonna happen – the slime doesn’t have the stones to go under oath and bury his friend’s dreams.

  29. Bruce Stewart says:

    CBF wants an investigation, mentions witnesses. Judge? Sad to say, he might legitimately not remember, it wasn’t traumatic for him. What others? Persons CBF told previously? Since there is not going to be an FBI investigation, is there any way evidence could be entered to corroborate those claims?

  30. sponson says:

    Blasey should say that she will testify voluntarily if Judge will testify (whether voluntarily or by subpoena). She should say that otherwise, if they want her to testify without Mark Judge doing it as well, they will have to subpoena her. This puts the Committee in the position on voting whether to subpoena Mark Judge, and also over whether to subpoena her. Imagine the GOP forcing her to testify, while they refuse to bring in Mark Judge. Alternatively, imagine them proceeding to a vote without hearing from her, when all they had to do was issue a subpoena.

  31. TheraP says:

    I don’t know about everybody else, but this whole situation seems like the “working to the surface” of a huge, huge infection.  One that needs to be lanced and disinfected.

    It feels like things are building to a terrible battle of wills – where all sense is lost except that the GOP/Trump desire to triumph at all costs.  If they proceed to confirm Kavenaugh, they will be doing grave harm to society at at large and to themselves at the polls.

    The social divide here is getting wider and wider, worse and worse.

    There seems little hope of putting the nation first on the part of the GOP.  Especially as most people of that persuasion have already left the GOP.

    • CitizenCrone says:

      TheraP–Yes, a nasty eruption of systemic hypocrisy.  Or, if we look deeper, vestiges of patriarchy and privilege.  It’s ugly what undergirds our power structure.  A wave has been building, but I’m not sure people like Orrin Hatch and other entrenched pols are quite ready to be washed away.

      Society will continue to be harmed as long as this “win at all costs”, short-sighted, self-interest-driven world view is in power.

  32. Allison Shaw says:

    I am new to this site but enjoy it very much.  I was wondering if the Democrats would have more to “win” if Kavenaugh is confirmed.  Meaning, if the House and the Senate turn blue, then impeachment of Kavenaugh could commence based off false testimony in the early/mid 2000s.  If  he was impeached, then a new SPOTUS would not be confirmed until a new POTUS was in office (think Garland).  Any thoughts?

Comments are closed.