I'm glad to hear Professor Blasey Ford has a good support system.

I also hope that Judge Kavanaugh, his wife and young girls also have support at this time. [Portion removed.]

I believe that the SC vote should move forward however and that the accusation, while certainly shocking, cannot be used in evaluating Kavanaugh's suitability because it lacks fundamental concrete elements. It's impossible to ascertain its level of truth.

It's important to educate young girls, and boys really, to come forward if they are assaulted or harassed in any way. Sadly many victims of assault or bullying do feel shame or do not trust their parents or teachers enough to confide in them.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

Senator Grassley on the need for a full and fair FBI investigation before the senate meets...

...for Anita Hill.

Web Link Grassley demanded and supported a full FBI investigation.

This nomination also deserves a full FBI investigation of these new allegations. Why hide things and rush without complete information?

What are Grassley and Kavanaugh hiding?

This is one of the most rushed nominations ever.

Call all potential witnesses.

What are they hiding?

This worries me big time. The assumption that anyone making a sexual claim against anyone is believed without question and not only believed but rewarded unconditionally makes me wonder about mindset of those who appear to be able to think any deeper than believing everything they are told.

There are many instances of women making sexual claims against someone who eventually admit they are lying or exaggerating and how can we believe this coming out at such a strategic time after so many years. Childhood memories can be distorted and until or unless we know more I won't believe unquestionably.

[Post removed.]

[Portion removed.]

How complicated is this? Not very.

A teenage girl in the 80s was assaulted by another teenager at a boozy party.

People were talking about it in their peer group.

He moved on.

Over the years, she confided in some people.

Now this guy is being vetted for SCOTUS.

She knows he’s not temperamentally qualified because he attacked her, violently.

She struggles with whether to come forward.

She’s ‘outed’ by the media.

She comes forward.

She’s hounded out of town by the media, her fellow Palo Altans, and by anonymous, scary actors (some of them posing as Palo Altans).

The only thing unique about this is that her attacker is now a federal judge.

Otherwise this would just be another tragic episode that one person buries and the other person carries.

[Post removed.]

@Mkara

You're right; it's not complicated.

Ever see "TO Kill a Mockingbird?"

Once upon a time in America people formed real lynch mobs and hanged men because of unsubstantiated stories.

Our nation rests on a presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence.

I hope our schools still teach and instill these basic American values in our children.

[Post removed.]

I am saddened by the comments above that doubt Professor Blasey Ford's veracity or dismiss the incident as high school high jinks. Obviously, none of these posters have been sexually assaulted or have sisters, mothers, daughters or friends who have been. I have been harassed many times, although not assaulted, but have friends who have been raped. Rape and attempted rape leave deep scars on the psyche long after the physical wounds heal. Those who dismiss this disclosure as a political stunt clearly do not understand the moral and ethical imperative we should all have in "doing the right thing." Professor Blasey Ford suspected that her disclosure would subject her to ridicule and harassment, and acted anyway. However,the attacks on her children are beyond despicable. Get a life people. Please remember what your mothers and fathers taught you about fair play and respect for others.

[Post removed.]

I hope that Ms.Ford's description of events is investigated fairly as she has requested. I hope that the outcome of this investigation is considered in deliberations toward Judge Kavanaugh's approval. Attempted rape is a crime. Being young and drunk is no excuse. If the investigation confirms that Judge Kavanaugh did this, he does not belong on highest court of the land.

Thank you, Dr. Ford, for summoning the courage to offer your story.

From what I've heard, the main issue is not whether Kavanaugh did what Ms. Ford said but Kavanaugh lying about it. THIS is what pundits say disqualifies him for the Supremes.

[Post removed.]

Prof. Ford,
Thank you for your courage. Trump's America is a tough place to be a citizen who believes in civic responsibility. I am so sorry that you experienced the trauma of that attempted rape while still a child, I'm so sorry that it has cost you such troubles. It shouldn't have to be so hard to speak up for what is right. Good on you for being so brave, and thank you for speaking out.

"I believe that the SC vote should move forward however and that the accusation, while certainly shocking, cannot be used in evaluating Kavanaugh's suitability because it lacks fundamental concrete elements. It's impossible to ascertain its level of truth."

I believe that Kavanaugh's SC vote should be canceled immediately and forever, and another candidate considered. There are many other qualified jurists out here.

Our top court deserves only the best of the best. Others may, of course, disagree. And apparently many do.


"Our nation rests on a presumption of innocence."

Nominally true, in criminal trials, which this proceeding is not. Kavanaugh is up for a position which should command the highest respect of all citizens. He is instead tainted. If he were a patriot, he would gracefully withdraw his name.

[Post removed.]

Thank you for being brave, Professor Ford. This is a test.

[Post removed.]

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals...# 13 Pick the target (Kavanaugh) freeze it, polarize it and personalize it. #6 A good tactic is one your people enjoy (no further commentary necessary). # 11 If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into it's counterside. # 8 Keep the pressure on. # 10 The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.

Does this sound like what is going on ? Time to take the blinders off.

[Post removed.]

“Atticus, you must be wrong."

"How's that?"

"Well, most folks seem to think they're right and you're wrong. . ."

"They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions," said Atticus, "but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.”
― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

[Post removed.]

@ Novelera......and the pundits are certain Kavanaugh lied? And they can prove that how ? What if Ford is lying ? Can you wrap your head around that ? Could it be possible ? Think about it.....

I support Ms. Ford completely and I admire her courage, but flying a plane over town is not likely to rally supporters to her cause. Palo Alto skies are already outrageously congested thanks to SFO routing planes over Santa Clara County, and adding yet another aircraft to the mix will just cause more headache for residents. Please rally support for Ms. Ford and hold Washington accountable, but do it on the ground!

To “Resident,” who wrote: “There are many instances of women making sexual claims against someone who eventually admit they are lying or exaggerating and how can we believe this coming out at such a strategic time after so many years.”
Have you done your homework? Instances of false reporting of rape are actually extremely low. And, no wonder; it is frightening and dangerous for people in Ford’s shoes to come out publicly, in this case resulting in death threats and other forms of intimidation.

I can’t help thinking that if Kavanaugh were accused of murder, we wouldn’t be having the same national conversation. We are talking about the highest judicial office in the land; shouldn’t we be asking more of our nominees than a simple “innocent until proven guilty”?

To “Resident,” who wrote: “There are many instances of women making sexual claims against someone who eventually admit they are lying or exaggerating and how can we believe this coming out at such a strategic time after so many years.”
Have you done your homework? Instances of false reporting of rape are actually extremely low. And, no wonder; it is frightening and dangerous for people in Ford’s shoes to come out publicly, in this case resulting in death threats and other forms of intimidation.
I can’t help thinking that if Kavanaugh were accused of murder, we wouldn’t be having the same national conversation. We are talking about the highest judicial office in the land; shouldn’t we be asking more of our nominees than a simple “innocent until proven guilty”?

"This nomination also deserves a full FBI investigation of these new allegations. Why hide things and rush without complete information? What are Grassley and Kavanaugh hiding?"

The truth. Grassley is afraid to know what the FBI might find out; Kavanaugh knows what the FBI would find out.

If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. It's that simple.

"Thank you for being brave, Professor Ford. This is a test."

It is indeed a test--of Ms. Ford's courage and of the nation's commitment to the integrity of its highest court.

Many thanks to @"What Will They Do Next" for bringing that to our attention.

We got your back, Ms. Ford.

Please stop posting comments about assault and memory unless you have personally been assaulted and personally have memory of it OR you are a professional with expertise in it.

I remember the man, the season, the setting, the shocking abruptness, the throwdown, the physical pain, the blinding recognition of what was happening, the hand over my mouth, the other hand gripping my wrist, his silence, his finish, my shame. I remember cleaning myself afterward and walking into the dark night. I remember the first time I told my therapist.

In other words I remember pretty much everything except the date.

@i_like_good_people: You win. I'd didn't want to share my personal experience, but here it is. I have been stalked by three different men in my lifetime. One was a former finance. One was a manager in my office. The other was from Match.com. Those unsettling experiences gave me nightmares for just a few months. I have also been in a date rape situation. I fought him off and he was shocked at me defending myself and left my home rather quickly. And why did I let him into the house in the first place? Because we had gone to an charity event at a local museum. I was very dressed up, in a sexy, but classy dress. He took me home and I knew him well enough to invite him in for coffee before his long drive home. He took it as an invitation to pin me on my sofa with his 200-lb body. At first, he interpreted my protesting as foreplay and started to aggressively grab parts of my body. It wasn't until I screamed loud enough for the neighbors in my townhouse to hear that he got off of me and left. I still remember every detail, twenty years later. And I do know women who have been much more seriously assaulted. So stop pontificating about a subject you clearly do not understand or empathize with.

[Post removed]

[Post removed.]

@i_like_people. I support Prof. Blasey Ford. I support you in your recovery. What I don't support are misinterpretations of my words. Best of luck.

However this turns out.....

1) I do not support a judicial system where a person is found guilty based on one person's word without any supporting evidence, without a statement, with basically nothing but what the media is reporting.

2) I would never go to, or recommend a friend might go, to any psychologist who does not believe that people can change for the better over 36 years. What is the point of being a therapist if there is no possibility of progress and change?

3) If she felt strongly about this situation, why not go directly to Kavanaugh, with someone else present, and ask him if he has changed? She has chosen a damaging route for him and herself. First, do no harm. It didn't need to be this way. It should not have been done this way.

4) I did things as a kid, and as a teen that I later felt sorry about and I would NEVER do again. That is sometimes how kids/teens learn life lessons. I think she might not let her daughter go alone to a party where there are drinking male teens. Right? Well, then, why couldn't he say (if this happened) that he learned a lesson as well? Do only women learn lessons, and men don't? To my mind we all need to respond to an accuser.

A sad situation not matter how you look at it. Sad for all women, sad for all men, sad for the judicial system, sad for political divide, and sad for the country.

It is baffling that ANYONE would "believe" someone that they do not know on the basis of a recent allegation from an event that supposedly happened 36 years ago. This really says more about the mentality of highly political individuals than it does the desire for truth. People believe him/her more often because of their ideology and political goals than the desire for truth.

It is a shame, really.

@S Brady: I am very curious: if Kavanaugh were accused of attempting to murder someone back when he was an older teen, would you still favor a neutral posture towards his nomination as a Supreme Court justice? I’m not asking whether or not he should be convicted or jailed. I’m asking whether or not he should be considered for a lifelong position on the highest court on the land. It seems to me that those positions should go to people who without a doubt are of impeccable character. Even when they were younger.

@ i_like_good_people - I agree with what you're saying about remembering the event. However, I can remember the date too. I can remember the next day...the day after that...and days and weeks that followed. The terrors of reality from such an event is burned into the subconscious.

This alleged event took place 36 years ago and before I was even born.

However, in 36 years, I might eventually forget the date of my own horrible experience. Yet, I would still be able to remember other things that can help me pinpoint the date.

I will remember the day of the week. I will remember the time of day. I will remember that exact location. I will remember who was there. I will (unfortunately) remember the face, touch, smells and, yes, the name of my attacker. I will remember trying to maintain my composure and even the assignment that I struggled to complete in school during the following school day.

I think that this is true of almost every victim. Of course, the details of this particular alleged assault aren't particularly clear. We've learned very few details. Apparently, this wasn't as dramatic as what many of us have experienced.

For instance, one colleague indicated that she had not stepped forward before because she said "wasn’t an actual rape it’s not going to do any good." Web Link

My issue is that this should be understood to only be an ALLEGATION. Society cannot simply accept an accusation as "fact" simply because she's a woman. In this country, people are still "innocent" until proven guilty even if the accusation is vile and the accuser is a woman.

@ kapi - I know that this wasn't addressed to me, but please permit me to provide my thoughts.

You asked, "If Kavanaugh were accused of attempting to murder someone back when he was an older teen, would you still favor a neutral posture towards his nomination as a Supreme Court justice?"

An accusation is just that -- merely an accusation. The problem with this particular accusation is the TIMING. It didn't come forward until this week -- even after his appearance before the judiciary committee.

If we are going to take justice seriously, then we must follow the law and the blind justice that it tries to establish.

In this sense, Kavanaugh is still "innocent." The only thing that has changed is that a woman has brought an accusation about an alleged event that supposedly took place 36 years ago.

No one should be expected to believe this woman if we weren't there. Unfortunately, there are people who want to believe the accuser or the accused for purposes of political ideology. The irony is that some people almost WANT it to be true if only to destroy a nomination that they didn't support anyway.

If we aren't careful, such accusations could become a weapon.

I don't support Gavin Newsome. Yet, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt if he faced a similar accusation. If someone came up with an accusation against him a week before the gubernatorial election that accused him of sexual assault as a teenager more than three decades ago, does that mean that voters are supposed to reject him?

Instead, the better thing to do is let justice have its place.

Unfortunately, in cases like this, many highly political people are more concerned about a conviction in the Court of Public Opinion than any sort of search for truth. After all, a reputation can be marred with just a single accusation. A reputation might never be repaired because there will always be someone who believes and spreads it without fear of repercussions.

In this case, Brett Kavanaugh has apparently lived a stellar life outside of the one alleged incident at an alleged drunken teenage party on an alleged evening that allegedly took place 36 years ago -- of which he and his also-accused friend deny ever took place.

At this point, most Democrats were going to vote "nay" anyway. The rest of the votes should only depend upon what he has been proven to have done in his life and not simply because someone steps forward and said that a teenage Kavanaugh groped her 36 years ago.

@Nayeli,

The timing is deliberately orchestrated the the Democrats. It is not the fault of Donald Trump or Republican Senators. Senator Feinstein got the information months earlier. She chose to fire the political torpedo at the closing of the hearing process. Mrs. Ford and her supporters should not blame Chuck Grassley. They should blame Feinstein and her team. Everything has a process, procedure and deadline.

But really what is the outcome Democrats, or Mrs. Ford and her supporters want? Let's discuss some of them.

(1) Can the accusation be proven? No it cannot. Let's be realistic. There is no way this can be proven.

(2) Even if people think it happened, would it disqualify judge Kavanaugh? No it does not. 36 years of outstanding experience speaks a lot about the man. It's just common sense. We don't destroy a person simply because he or she made a small mistake in teenage years. It's not American.

(3) Is there anyone on Donald Trump's candidate list that are more moderate, less conservative, and better for Democrats' causes? No there is none. Check it out yourself. There are some true right-wing judges on the list.

(4) Can Democrats block supreme justice selection for the full two years, until next presidential election? No they won't. Never happened, never will. It'd be a party self-annihilation if they try.

(5) Will this issue help Democrats in November? No it will not. On the contrary it will help energizing Republicans and those who are offended by the political mob lynching attempt.

@nayeli: You speak of blind "justice" in its classic Western form--yet, as we all know, justice has often been ill-served in this country, especially for persons of color as well as for women, and, unfortunately, for survivors of sexual assault. I hope I don't need to dig out statistics about how few perpetrators of sexual assault are EVER punished for it; but it is a very, very low number. And roughly 96% of accusations are NOT found to be false or frivolous ones. So, the question remains: Do YOU wish to see someone sitting on the highest court in the land, for a lifetime appointment, accused of this crime and without even a full FBI investigation into the matter? I for one do not. The language of "innocent until proven guilty" was designed for (and works reasonably well for) decisions about when someone should be criminally punished. It does NOT work well for decisions about positions of power such as SCOTUS. The "blind justice" you promote is, it turns out, not so blind when it comes to survivors of sexual assault. As for me, I'll choose to go with the 96% odds that the accusation has some degree of merit. If you want to play the reverse odds, that's up to you. But I expect more from my government and its leaders; I expect them to take accusations such as this one with all due seriousness and not write it off to a political power play without at least giving it a thorough, FBI-led investigation.

@alexa is not a real person. Real people don’t pick fake fights with others just to create drama.

The bot phenomenon is so rampant in local papers...part of the RuGOP strategy being revealed this minute in the NYT.

Christine is a real person though, and she’s going through hell to ensure that our children have decent laws protecting them.

@ kapi - As a "person of color," an immigrant, a woman, and a survivor of sexual assault, I think that I do have keen insight on what people like me go through in terms of "justice."

As you've pointed out, I certainly understand that many perpetrators never face consequences for their crimes just as I also know that some people aren't truthful with allegations or denials too.

The fact that sexual crimes are a problem doesn't change the fact that a person is not necessarily guilty simply because one person says that he is.

In this case, a woman stepped forward and made an accusation against a man about an event that she claims happened 36 years ago.

She says that he didn't "rape" her but that something happened (although the specific details aren't entirely clear). She also said that he was joined with a friend. He says that this isn't true. The friend says that this isn't true.

Are we supposed to "take sides" when it comes to people that we don't know?

I feel that it would be exceptionally foolish to simply "believe the woman" because she is a woman. It would be worse -- dishonest and imprudent -- to stand by the accuser's side simply because it would be motivated by a desired advancement a political goal.

Like I said, it would be wrong for anyone to publicly convict Gavin Newsome in the Court of Public Opinion if someone accused him of sexual impropriety during his high school years (more than three decades ago) but it wasn't revealed until a week before the upcoming gubernatorial election.

The #MeToo movement cannot ignore due process. A person should not be publicly lynched on the basis of an accusation. This is true no matter if the accused is Brett Kavanaugh, Gavin Newsome, Bill Clinton or Asia Argento.

@ kapi - I know that you're saying that roughly 5% of accusations are found to have no merit. I think that this stat is based upon accusations deemed by police to have no merit. Of those that the police feel have merit, many of those end up with prosecutions without a finding of guilt. Thus, the "5%" rate isn't entirely accurate.

Remember: Justice -- guilt or innocence -- doesn't work by statistics. Society doesn't simply deem an accused man guilty of a sex crime simply because a study found that police believe 95% of sex accusations to be credible. I've had the displeasure of sitting on a jury in which I would have convicted the defendant if the accuser didn't recant her accusation.

I am surprised that someone would be angry if everyone doesn't simply "believe" an accusation because the accuser is a woman. None of us know if she is telling the truth (or the full truth). The only people who really know the truth are the accuser and the two men who she accuses.

Why should I believe this woman? I don't know her. Even if I did know her, it wouldn't mean that she was telling the truth. I wasn't there. In fact, none of us were there.

I fear that people have turned an accusation from 36 years ago into a political weapon motivated by sociopolitical fervor.

And it's very very low when compared against the fact that more than half of ALL girls and women have been sexually assaulted and raped at least once.

"The timing is deliberately orchestrated the the Democrats. It is not the fault of Donald Trump or Republican Senators. Senator Feinstein got the information months earlier. She chose to fire the political torpedo at the closing of the hearing process. Mrs. Ford and her supporters should not blame Chuck Grassley. They should blame Feinstein and her team. Everything has a process, procedure and deadline."

A masterstroke of political gamesmanship. Feinstein blew up the process right at its most vulnerable. As every warrior knows, it is much more effective to derail a speeding train than a standing one. Or to torpedo a ship in deep water than in shoals.

And foxed out by a woman, no less. Aren't those white Republican males just squealing.


"Can the accusation be proven? No it cannot. Let's be realistic. There is no way this can be proven."

"Proof" is unnecessary and entirely beside the point. This is politics, not trial procedure. The damage is done.


"Can Democrats block supreme justice selection for the full two years, until next presidential election? No they won't. Never happened, never will. It'd be a party self-annihilation if they try."

You mean, like the Republicans self-annihilated by stonewalling Garland for a year?


"Will this issue help Democrats in November? No it will not. On the contrary it will help energizing Republicans and those who are offended by the political mob lynching attempt."

It will help them with their targeted group--American patriots. You know, the Clinton mob that outvoted the Trump mob by three million in 2016? The "fraudulent" votes that Trump never could prove. They're relishing the spectacle.

@ mkara - I think that you're forgetting to include words like "alleged." Let me present this "not very" complicated series of events from a somewhat different perspective:

A woman who was teenage girl 36 years ago CLAIMS that she was assaulted and groped by two other teenagers at a boozy teenage party.

After the alleged event, she says that everyone went on with their lives.

She received her education and became a psychology professor at Palo Alto University. She married and had children.

In March 2012, it became increasingly clear that Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be at the very top of a short list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Web Link

Later that same year, this woman purportedly mentioned her recollection of the alleged event from that party at a couples counseling session.

This woman was also very politically involved -- donating money to several Democrats. She also helped coordinate transportation to take women to the rally response to Donald Trump's inauguration in Washington D.C. (and appearing in an article by the San Jose Mercury News wearing specially-sown pink brain caps).

Web Link

In April, Kavanaugh again became the most likely candidate for potential Supreme Court nominees.

In July when one of the men that she accuses of being the teenage boy that groped her was being vetted for nomination to the Supreme Court, she contacted the Washington Post but decided against cooperating with them on any sort of story. The Washington Post never reached out to anyone else about it and simply let the story die.

Web Link

This accuser also enlisted a prominent Washington D.C. attorney known for her work on sexual harassment cases. This attorney prepped the accuser for her potential fallout and repercussions of stepping forward with her case. The attorney even had her undergo at least one lie detector test administered by an ex-FBI agent hired to administer it. A resulting affirmative on a single statement was given to the Washington Post.

However, the accuser again decided against going forward. She told one colleague that since it wasn’t an “actual rape it’s not going to do any good. He’s going to go through."

Web Link

However, this woman also wrote letters to our local representative to Congress, Anna Eshoo. Eshoo then shared it with Senator Diane Feinstein. Neither Eshoo nor Feinstein went public with the accusation or details in the letter.

However, the contents of the letter were leaked to adversarial website, The Intercept, by other individuals aware of the letter's content. The sources "provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school."

Web Link

Although when the various leaks became public, Senator Feinstein was instructed by the accuser to not go public. According to Feinstein, "I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision."

Following her contact with newspapers and the letter to our member of Congress, the accuser deleted all of her social media accounts. Some of the photos from her accounts were still recovered and some of them became memes online (particularly images that were anti-Trump in nature).

When asked about the alleged incident, Brett Kavanaugh strongly denied that this alleged event from 36 years ago took place. The other person accused of being complicit also strongly denied it. Although he hasn't been in contact with Kavanaugh for years, he said, "It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way."

Still, the bottom line is that the entire incident is an ALLEGATION. It isn't proven. There is no evidence -- other than three accounts -- to corroborate the accusation. In fact, the details of the allegation are somewhat less precise too.

Yet, her supporters, Hollywood celebrities, certain media outlets, liberal activists and politicians opposed to Kavanaugh have declared that the accusations are TRUE and that the accuser is undoubtedly a "victim." They have painted Kavanaugh as a violent perpetrator -- despite a stellar record clear of any other accusations over his lifetime since he was a teenager when the alleged event supposedly took place.

As such, Kavanaugh's supporters and many conservative politicians have declared the accusations to be FALSE and that Kavanaugh is the real "victim."

At this point, the accuser has gone back and forth about whether or not she would testify. However, she has said that she would be willing to testify before Congress -- but only on certain negotiated terms. In fact, one of those terms mentioned is that she would be allowed to testify after Kavanaugh rather than before. This would be different from traditional protocol in that that an accuser usually presents an accusation first and the accused is allowed to defend himself/herself.

My issue is that this is an allegation. I am troubled by people who declare an allegation to be true because it fits with the narrative or a desired political outcome.

This issue reminds me of two episodes of podcast Revisionist History by the renowned journalist Malcolm Gladwell.

In season 2 episode 7, State v Johnson, he described how in 1959 Georgia a 32-year old white nurse accused a black man named Nathaniel Johnson of rape. He was convicted despite numerous inconsistencies of the accusation and executed on the electric chair. But the truth was that she had an affair with him. In a fallout he beat her. She became angry and fearful. Hence the accusation.

In episode 8 in 1954 a black man named Willie Nash was accused by a white woman of rape and the killing of her boyfriend. In truth her boyfriend was killed by her other boyfriend. She just randomly picked out a black man she saw while driving and blamed him to cover up the incident.

What I’m trying to say that one should not always believe one side of the story. These accusations have serious consequences. In this politically charged environment we should be even more careful.

"I am troubled by people who declare an allegation to be true because it fits with the narrative or a desired political outcome."

Indeed. We all remember Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones alleging Bill Clinton tried to molest them.

I think it bears reminding ourselves: We are not talking about whether or not Brett Kavanaugh should be put in jail, or register as a sex offender, or face some other criminal punishment. We are talking about whether or not he should be appointed, for life, into the most powerful judicial position in the land, one where he will be ruling over women’s well-being and bodily integrity for the rest of his life. It is a job interview, and a very, very important one at that. It is not a criminal proceeding, where defendants are indeed presumed innocent in a court of law. In this case, however, the question is whether the accusation raises real questions about his fitness for the position. @nayeli claims that Kavanaugh has a “stellar record clear of any other accusations over his lifetime.” But what else DO we know about Kavanaugh? We know that he belonged to a secret society at Yale fondly nicknamed “T*t and Cl*t”.
Web Link
We know that he belonged to a fraternity notorious for its disrespect of women. I’m not sure how any of this indicates a “stellar” record, as claimed. Yes, he was in college at the time. But again: Do we really want to go down such a path, for THIS office, Supreme Court Justice of the United States? We reject people all the time in job interviews for far, far less egregious behavior—for goodness sake, we reject them because they have visible tattoos, or indiscrete Facebook pages, or because they wear something not quite suited to an interview. I have no idea how it can be a wise choice, for the left OR for the right, for Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS nomination to continue. At a minimum, let’s call for a full and fair FBI investigation. And in this forum, let’s stop framing this as a criminal proceeding; it’s NOT.

@ Curmudgeon - I'm not sure if anyone tried to force Bill Clinton to withdraw from the 1992 election because certain women accused him of impropriety or rape. Moreover, I'm not sure if the media covered it as tenaciously as they're covering this accusation (despite the fact that it is alleged to have occurred even before Clinton's alleged acts).

Again: I don't know if it is true. I simply know that we cannot weaponize accusations or decide that something is "true" simply because it aligns with our politics or political desires.

@ kapi - You claim that you want to stop framing this as a "criminal proceeding."

Meanwhile, you seem to be testifying about Kavanaugh in the Court of Public Opinion. Your testimony is based upon the presumption that his life hasn't been clean because some freshman who was supposedly attempting to get into the Yale chapter of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity was captioned in a photo with ladies undergarments as part of initiation (where those undergarments might have been purchased at K-Mart for all we know).

Are you really calling his character into question because some unnamed person trying to get into that fraternity (of which he was only one member out of many) was photographed with women's undergarments? Are you going by the hearsay from "some students" who claim that the Truth and Courage society at Yale was referred to by a colorful nickname?

That is the very definition of muddying someone's reputation in the public! Why? It seems increasingly likely because it fits a particular controlled narrative and a desired political outcome.

"@ Curmudgeon - I'm not sure if anyone tried to force Bill Clinton to withdraw from the 1992 election because certain women accused him of impropriety or rape."

If you're not sure of something, Google it up.

The idea was to prevent Clinton's (re-)election, and to stain him while he was president, not to get him to withdraw from the election. But it didn't work--not enough people believed women in those days. Same story with the Anita vs Clarence thing just before that.

Things have changed. Now even corporate titans are falling.

One view of the Kavanaugh affair is it's a futile effort to prevent his confirmation by appealing to the Senate Republicans' sense of decency. Futile, because the target of the appeal does not exist.

Just saw Jonathan Last, a commentator on Weekly Standard, analyzes potential outcomes for Kavanaugh nomination from a game theory point of view.

Basically he argues that the best outcome is to pull Kavanaugh and nominate a more conservative judge. Give the liberals some bones to brag about, but in exchange install the most conservative judge possible for long-term gain. If you look at Donald Trump's candidate list there is certainly no shortage of such judges.

In politics no one is loyal forever. Kavanaugh is not indispensable. He can be a sacrificial lamb if more can be gained for the right wing Republicans.

The tactic is called "owning the libs".

Web Link

@ m2grs - That's interesting. The irony is that Kavanaugh was not the favorite of conservatives. Kavanaugh, the former clerk for Justice Kennedy, is more to the center than most of the other options that Trump considered.

"In politics no one is loyal forever. Kavanaugh is not indispensable. He can be a sacrificial lamb if more can be gained for the right wing Republicans. The tactic is called "owning the libs".

It would be a very smart move, and it would work--if any president other than Trump were in office. Even W.

But Trump has personalized this matter like he personalizes everything. With his characteristic childishness, he regards it as a mortal contest of his manhood versus this upstart female who dares to get in his way, who therefore must be personally and utterly demolished by the master male (himself). To him, your strategy amounts to his personal surrender to Ms. Ford. He will never allow it.

Too bad. The Repubs elected their own worst possible obstacle.

@kapi

In this new era of extraordinary acrimony between the Left and Right, generally speaking, It's important we maintain rule of law, proper procedures and common sense and decency.

Pelosi: "This is Armageddon"
Eric holder: "this is a knife fight"

More than ever we cannot allow scurrilous, unsubstantiated claims out of nowhere and at the 11th 59 minute hour to upend the course of the proceedings. Sen. Feinstein failed to follow procedure and has turned what should have been a quiet committee issue & examination into a tabloidesque, character assassination.

To prevent future attempts to sabotage government, we need to set an example and throw out this woman's claim and proceed with a vote.

Should she ultimately face perjury charges that will be in no small part the blame of Sen. Feinstein.

Harper Lee is looking down and shaking her head at all who slander this Judge Kavanaugh today. It's not okay to convict a person without due process and without evidence, AND it's not okay to use salacious stories and decades old tales to destroy a person's life and reputation.

[Post removed.]

@i_like_good_people. "alexa is not a real person. Real people don’t pick fake fights with others just to create drama." I am a real person and I apologize for offending you and causing you pain. I do not "pick fights with others to create drama." That accusation hurts me more than you can imagine. I admit that I did not read your original post thoroughly enough before my responses. Neither one of us can know what Professor Blasey Ford is feeling. Her experience hit me very hard, just like Prof. Anita Hill's testimony when she was so disrespected and bullied by the same Senate committee.

Further, please try not to accuse people of being "bots" or "trolls" or whatever offensive term you can think of when they appear to disagree with you. No one in our currently volatile environment benefits from name calling, even if these terms arise from a painful place in the name-caller's soul. If you haven't already, I urge you to seek either professional or peer-group help. I have and it's helped enormously. This is a mostly anonymous forum, so people tend to reveal their real feelings. Dismissing those as originating from a "bot" is not only disrespectful to those you accuse, but also to yourself.

@ I Like Good People (ironic name choice)


You have your opinion and I, as well as my fellow members of the community, all have a right to express opinion too.

We have a right to voice opinions too.

Personally I think the committee should go directly to vote. None of the four others named as people present during the party offer any corroboration whatsoever and all have very clearly stated that there was no party they recall.

Presumption of innocence is key of course and this accusation is so egregiously lacking in substance it's, frankly, verging into the ludicrous.

@Nayeli

WELL SAID! Bears repeating:

Remember: Justice -- guilt or innocence -- doesn't work by statistics. Society doesn't simply deem an accused man guilty of a sex crime simply because a study found that police believe 95% of sex accusations to be credible. I've had the displeasure of sitting on a jury in which I would have convicted the defendant if the accuser didn't recant her accusation.

I am surprised that someone would be angry if everyone doesn't simply "believe" an accusation because the accuser is a woman. None of us know if she is telling the truth (or the full truth). The only people who really know the truth are the accuser and the two men who she accuses.

Why should I believe this woman? I don't know her. Even if I did know her, it wouldn't mean that she was telling the truth. I wasn't there. In fact, none of us were there.

I fear that people have turned an accusation from 36 years ago into a political weapon motivated by sociopolitical fervor.

"Why should I believe this woman? I don't know her. Even if I did know her, it wouldn't mean that she was telling the truth."

On the other hand, even if you didn't know her, it wouldn't mean that she wasn't telling the truth.

But brace yourself. There's another one: https://www.newyorker.com

Kavanaugh's beginning to challenge Trump's record.

I grew up in that era in that sort of school, and all the reporting in the New Yorker article rings true. Terrible, misogynistic and even criminal behavior. And now of course the patently false denials by these supposedly respectable men. Thank heavens for the many people stepping forward and speaking the truth.

More women are coming forward.

Are these women also part of the Democratic attempt to undermine the GOP?

All of these women have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

According to the Merc, more than 1,000 showed up for the candelight vigil tonight. Web Link

..."They gathered in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who they saw not just as a victim courageously speaking her truth, but a neighbor, a hero and something else.

“She has nothing whatsoever to gain from coming forward in any way,” Palo Alto resident Linda Henigin, who volunteers with Women’s March San Jose, said Sunday.

“She really can only be doing this out of civic duty, personal integrity and frankly patriotism. I think she’s the patriot in this situation, because she is being vilified in a way that he is not. She has no security, and he does.”

Henigin said she could viscerally feel the outcry that has driven Blasey Ford from her neighborhood. “It’s pretty real when you see her empty house, that she is afraid to live there safely. It’s very real, it’s not anywhere across the country, it’s in my own backyard. She doesn’t feel safe in my town.”

The quote above makes me wonder what -- if anything -- Palo Alto is doing to provide security for Dr. Ford in the face of all the harassment and death threats. Anyone know?

@Eila Hughes -

Senator Feinstein did not come forward because Ford asked her not to. She requested the Senator not expose her or the incident. She did not want to come forward. Senator Feinstein respected that. She did exactly what she should have done. I'm grateful she put people before politics. She is never the one who broke this story. It bubbled up, because you can't keep a story secret.

Women are being used. Hard fought women’s right are being used by politicians with no decency whatsoever to smear a candidate for the Supreme court. Woman trust but are being lied to and for that they should be outraged.
The people behind these late charges are specialists in these political dirty tricks. They were brought in because everything and anything will be used to defeat this nominee. This isn’t defense of women at its best, its politics at its absolutely dirtiest and worst.
Women deserve and need the legal protections they have earned over the decades and that is why this so especially offensive. The politicians know they can manipulate women by these charges - women are being used.
If all else fails, toss in a sex assault charge. That charge alone, these days is all that is needed - just the charge itself is enough to ruin someone.
The charge is especially incendiary in Palo Alto where so much support rushes in. But women should think carefully about being used in this case because in the end falsely using these claims in a smear campaign diminishes both women and their protections. It’s just wrong.

"Women are being used. Hard fought women’s right are being used by politicians with no decency whatsoever to smear a candidate for the Supreme court. Woman trust but are being lied to and for that they should be outraged."

Hinrich, did Dr. Ford send herself and her family death threats, too?

I'm pretty outraged that such thuggery's becoming increasingly common and can force one of our neighbors out of town.

@online name - there are a lot of nuts out there. It’s sad but just about anything goes these days.
Dr. Ford may have relocated for many reasons, including the certainty of hundreds of reporters on her front lawn.

This will be one for the history books. People, rightly so, have a pretty low regard for politicians these days. We know that we are not happy with their work or the climate of conflict in the legislatures that they have created - each side at the others throats. We know that behind the scenes tactics have been pretty ugly at times. In time, as the whole picture emerges, it will be a lot clearer that this whole affair is manipulation. Dirty politics. Exploitation of the best intentions of things like #metoo. We should not be fooled.

No nominee of either party will suit everyone. Kavanaugh apparently is reasonably moderate and abundantly qualified. We shouldn’t go too far down the road of destroying everyone who stands for public service because we need good people to want to be in our government. The hearings were fair. Desperate measures by unscrupulous politicians should be condemned. As above, they claim to be defending women but are really using them. In all fairness, women should be outraged by these ugly tactics, not parading in support of them.

"In all fairness, women should be outraged by these ugly tactics, not parading in support of them."

Well, so far two women have expressed their outrage over Kavanaugh's ugly tactics. We shall see how many more do. Support will doubtless encourage them, as it did Trump's victims.

Don't fret about Kavanaugh's future. He will receive hero's welcome and a lifetime position with a king's salary at a major Republican think tank--not despite what he did to these women, but because of it.

Near the end of the article there was a comment about a “disservice” to Professor Ford. The real “disservice” to Professor Ford was delivered by our local elected officials who failed to respect her wishes to hold the information confidential.

Besides a disservice to Professor Ford, Dianne Feinstein did a disservice to her constituents. Doctors and other professionals are legally and ethically bound report certain information. The notion that Sen Feinstein was willing, albeit incompetently, to hold information confidential which is critical to such a major decision is unethical and a disservice to her constituents and all Americans. She needs to be voted out of office in November!

@eila hughes, your personal opinion of Dr. Ford doesn't actually matter. Stick to the matter at hand.

@nayeli, is your viewpoint changing at all with the latest news?

I doubt most of the above commenters live anywhere near Palo Alto. Christine you have our support.