Hirono: Men Need To “Shut Up and Step Up” After Kavanaugh Allegations

440px-Mazie_Hirono,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressImagine if a male United States Senator declared that women just need to “shut up.”  It would be a grossly sexist and disturbing statement that lead to calls for censure.  However, there apparently is no such concern in the inverse.  Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) told men to “shut up and step up” when asked about the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Hirono further insists that accused Dr. Christine Blasey Ford “need to be believed” and not just heard.  


Hirono stated:


SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): I think we all know when something is not fair, when something smells. This is so patently not fair to her and what really bothers me and gets me so angry that the White House is victimizing this person. Why don’t we get that out there? Why should we participate in the victimization of someone who has the courage to come forward? And she is under no obligation to participate in a smearing of her and her family. That is why I am very clear about what needs to happen. But at the same time if the Republicans go forward with their plan to railroad this fast-track as they have so many other nominations, I expect the members of the press to talk about how unfair that is. I don’t think that is editorializing, that is laying out the facts. I expect that from you guys…

HIRONO: I expect the men in this country and the men in this committee because we all signed on to this letter to demand an FBI investigation. But really guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change.

Hirono is clearly right that Ford must be treated fairly and not punished for coming forward with her allegation. That includes not having to testify next to Kavanaugh, as her counsel suggested was the plan for Monday.  However, the calling of the hearing is not a form of victimization.  Her allegation was made shortly before the vote on Kavanaugh and the vote has been delayed.  A hearing has been scheduled for Monday but Ford is now saying that she will not testify unless the FBI launched an investigation.

On the issue of believing Ford, do you believe that she has a right to be believed or to be heard?



391 thoughts on “Hirono: Men Need To “Shut Up and Step Up” After Kavanaugh Allegations”

  1. The longer this goes on the fishier it gets. First, Dr. Ford sends a letter to Sen. Feinstein. The letter requests anonymity. Fine. Understandable. Feinstein fails to honor the anonymity request, but sits on the letter for two months. During Kavanaugh’s hearings, she remains mute about the allegations instead of bringing the allegations to the light of day so that they can be properly evaluated in a timely manner. At the 11th hour she sends the letter to the FBI which has no jurisdiction over such allegations.

    Senate Republicans say “ok, let’s hear what the lady has to say” and schedules a hearing so that the country can hear what Ford has to say. After all, this is a matter of importance to the country. The country should be informed. The Repubs even offer to have Ford testify in private. That is, they call her bluff. Or, is it Feinstein’s bluff. Ford backs down, insisting on an FBI investigation. News flash: the FBI is not the decision maker in this affair. The FBI will not vote up or down on Kavanaugh. The Senate will. It is the Senate that needs to hear the evidence.

    Besides, the FBI has conducted 6 backgrounds checks on Kavanaugh over the years and not one of them turned up this incident. Doesn’t that tell you something.

    Besides again, what can the FBI investigate? Ford doesn’t know when or where her assault occurred. The FBI cannot send agents to an unknown location and ask unknown people about an unknown event.

    Also, how does Ford know that it is Kavanaugh who assaulted her? Some 16 year old kid whom you have never seen before assaults you, you don’t see him for 36 years, but 36 years later you know that the guys name is Brett Kavanaugh. How does she know it was Kavanaugh in the first place? Did she know him from elementary school? Did he introduce himself as he was pushing her into the bedroom? As far as we know, Ford never saw or knew Kavanaugh before her assault and never saw him afterwards. But now she says she is sure her assailant was Kavanaugh. Does Kavanaugh look the same as he did when he was 16? Did Ford see Kavanaugh on television and recognize him from 36 years ago? Not terribly likely.

    The longer this goes on the less sense it makes.

    1. Vince – Nobody said the FBI is the decision maker. They are investigators. The Senators are not investigators, they are decision makers. Who knows what the FBI may turn up? Maybe others will come forward, like the other two males and one female who were at the party. Anyone who is afraid of an FBI investigation is afraid that additional facts will come out that don’t support their position.

      1. I welcome a fbi investigation, even though they do not usually investigate trivialities such as gropings at teenage beer parties.

        i feel that the serious crimes they are investigating and the less serious russian spies they are counterspying on will wait for them to return to duty once they are done with this investigation which should consist of about three fifteen minute interviews before they say CASE CLOSED

        1. I read a book by a former FBI agent many years ago. I don’t recall the name. He wrote that the FBI isn’t all that it’s glamorized to be on t.v. He said maybe 25% of the Agents are hot shots, working the tough, high profile cases like espionage and terrorism. About 50% are average, going through the motions and doing acceptable work but nothing special, and 25% are inadequate agents and are assigned to hum-drum duties like doing background investigations.

  2. I don’t believe Ford as I had a much worse attempted rape even longer ago than hers. I remember every little detail even what I wore and said when I ran out of his apartment. I remember his name and the scene like it was yesterday and it was 1972. And the guy was much heavier, stronger, older, and sober than her so-called groper. I only told my sister. And the guy took his clothes off. I never feared for my life nor was tarnished nor needed therapy. I was 22. This is a political stunt and if she was telling the truth she should come forward and explain the accusations she has made if it means so much to her. She obviously doesn’t want to embellish her lies on camera or to congress. I think Kavanaugh would have a pattern of this kind of stuff like Bill Clinton, if it were true, and he does not. Case closed.

      1. I gave her the benefit of the doubt until she refused to confront her alleged attacker. She’s got something to hide. You never, ever, go in a bedroom unless you’re planning to make out with a guy. It’s my female opinion. You’re not female, sorry. And you never, ever, forget minor details of an attempted rape.

        1. betteroffwithtrump – I wouldn’t think you would forget details about how you got there, got home, why you were alone with 4 boys?

            1. Kitty Wampus – girls I knew usually had at least one other girl glued to their hip for protection. And the other girl is an after thought. She is not part of the original narrative.

              1. Paul – Ever wonder why a girl would feel the need for protection when she was around YOU? I had girls come over to study & play video games and whatever and they never brought anyone for protection and nothing indecent ever happened.

                1. Kitty Wampus – if a girl was going to meet with 4 guys she would have a friend. I single dated and double-dated. And my town had a teen dance hall were we could dance on Friday and Saturday nights. It was run by a council of students from the two high schools. I was on that council in my senior year. Girls had nothing to fear from me. I really was too shy with girls. In fact, the girl had to ask me to the senior prom. 🙂 You grow up with a domineering mother and no father and see what it does to your dating. 😉

                  When I go back for my reunions some of those female companions are still sticking together. 🙂

            2. Mullah Kurtz here. Ford was probably a girl of loose morals. Let’s investigate that. Why was she there? was it because she wanted to illegally consume alcohol, or she liked one of the boys that supposedly assaulted her?

              you know what happens a lot. A women tries to seduce a man, fails, and then makes something up.

              Or, hello, naive folks: sometimes bad women seduce men…. to try and control them. To get them as captive husbands, or pliant bosses, etc. They want blackmail opportunities and they offer them up gladly with spread legs.
              If the man does not comply with future demands, she may have a pregnancy to entrap him, or maybe able to cry sexual harassment or rape. That’s part of why they delay in accusation….. they want to see how it plays out first!

              Happens every day, guaranteed, and most people are too polite to inform the stupid ignorant young men that this is a time honored practice of sneaky, cunning women.

              but i have now disabused any young readers who never heard of being “Trapped” yes it’s a real thing

              1. Congratulations Kurtz, you win the most ignorant, bitter old man post of the day! The prize is one blue pill and a gift card for a $10 hooker. Call Turley to collect.

      2. Agreed. If “she” thinks a 22 y/o woman would have the same reaction as a 15 y/o girl, then “she’s” not really a female and has never raised a daughter.

        1. Kitty Wampus – we can also agree the reaction would be different between a 15 y/o and a 17 y/o or 18 y/o. According to the therapist notes she was in her late teens (17-18-19) not midteens. Which would make the party summer of 84, 85, or 86. Not 1982. You see why see doesn’t want to testify?

            1. No, her counsel is stalling. The FBI have no raw material but her statement and any replies. She’s refusing to give her statement awaiting their ‘investigation’.

            2. She’s demanding an FBI investigation into an event that may or may not have happened, with people she cannot name, and sometime between 1982 and 1986 – all of this based on what SHE herself has said.
              This woman is lying, or suffering from some sort of delusional episode, but people like you want to destroy a good man’s career over this.
              What if this was your brother?

          1. Which would make the party summer of 84, 85, or 86. Not 1982. You see why see doesn’t want to testify?

            At which time Kavanaugh was enrolled at Yale and Judge at Catholic University. How much time would they have been spending with someone enrolled at a girls’ school in Bethesda?

        2. Are you referring to my experience at 22? If so, I was a virgin, and never drank in high school. Girls at 15 in the 80s are probably more experienced than I was at 22. But I still have a vivid memory of that day.

      3. my mind is definitely closed to women who recollect being groped at a beer party 35 years ago and expect the Senate to grind to a halt because of it

        a sane mind should be closed to insanity!

        we need MORE closed mindedness of that sort not less of it

  3. My personal opinion is that this woman is lying, but regardless of that, she has the right to be heard – but NOT on her terms. The ‘accused’ has rights too, and the left seems to wish to ignore those in this case. One of those rights is to be heard as soon as possible, given the severity of these accusations and the particular circumstances of them. Imagine living under the cloud this woman has created, in your life. Would you be happy with the posturing and crap her lawyers are putting out? Would you be happy with what shows every sign of being a political set up?
    She deserves to be heard, and as soon as possible, and that is Monday. Then, she deserves to be cross-examined – but oh, she doesn’t like that idea, does she? Kavanaugh has already agreed to the same from her lawyers however.
    No, in the interests of fairness and justice and decency towards the accused, this woman should be heard from – on Monday. And if she won’t appear, then she – AND her lawyers, AND the DNC – very bluntly need to be told to STFU and go away with what she will have proven to be her lies.

    1. Dr Ford’s case is credible for the same reason President Clinton’s accusers were credible, because everyone knows how common these events are. Most people experienced what Dr Ford describes. It has to stop. Rape is a crime which must be severely punished.

      1. Your first two statements are nonsense statements. What’s amusing about you is that you fancy yourself one of the ‘Brights’.

      2. Sam – there was no rape. In fact her clothes were never off. At worst it is sexual assault. However, Democrats thought all of Clinton’s accusers were bimbos. Part of the right-wing conspiracy to bring down Bill and his Presidency. However, they had details. Names, dates, places. Monica had a dress with semen on it. Opps. There went Bill’s big lie.

        Ford shows on Monday. Tells her non-story under oath and Kavanaugh defends under oath. Then they vote. Up or down.

        1. No, he’s a fantastic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect though. Since he isn’t a manifest kook like Bill McWilliams, he’s a much purer example.

          1. I think Sam’s comment is the dumbest offering ever on this board: I believe her because this stuff happens all the time. Stunning in its sophistry and, as you point out, made more pathetic but the utter obliviousness of its speaker. Yeeeesh.

  4. When I was 14, and being last to be dropped off after night religion class, I was brutally attacked by the 16 year old driver. There was no alcohol involved. I was able to escape. I, 64 years later, remember every detail of that awful event. I wonder if he does. Most men, unless they were attacked sexually, have no concept of my experience and I, too, wish men would reserve their negative comments.

    1. I’ve recently read stories from women who have shared experiences such as yours and they recall every detail. Should we take from your comment that a woman such as Ford making this allegation lacks credibility because she remembers virtually nothing of the incident?

      1. OLLY – most repressed memories come from children, not teens who cannot remember how old they were when it happened.

      2. Different crime victims experience the event differently. Every cop or LEO who has taken victim/witness statements knows that. These ppl who write, “I was a sexual assault victim and my reaction was different so therefore she must be lying” are shockingly ignorant, and if they truly are survivors and not just trolls, they are also cruel. Anyone who has really experienced such a traumatic event should have some empathy and basic human decency. These old men like Paul CS and PTSD are just misogynists and haters, so they can be dismissed,out of hand, but I would expect more of a fellow victim of sexual assault.

        1. Kitty Wampus – I am not a hater. I lay the facts out there. If you cannot deal with them, that is not my fault. Calling me names is not going to help your case or make me go away.

        2. I raise my hand and freely admit, YES I HATE IT WHEN WOMEN LIE AND MAKE THINGS UP TO DEFAME A MAN!

          I hate it and every time I see it happen, which is a lot these days, I HATE IT MORE AND MORE

          HATE is a healthy reaction to abuse and false accusations are definitely a form of abuse

          stick that in your victim pipe and smoke it!

        3. These old men like Paul CS and PTSD are just misogynists and haters, so they can be dismissed,out of hand, but I would expect more of a fellow victim of sexual assault.

          I’ve seen no lack of empathy from them at all. What they demonstrate actually is equal empathy for both the accuser and the accused. They’ve asked logical questions based on many factors; timing, no evidence, 36 years since the event, no supporting witnesses, no identifiable year, location, and so on. Lacking any of that, Ford’s accusation could be made by anyone against anyone and lives could be destroyed as a result.

          If you truly had concern that victims of these alleged crimes (or worse) are to be taken seriously, then you should demand they are based in something more than what we have here. Every time these claims are discovered to be false, it harms the accused and harms future victim’s efforts to be taken seriously.

          Your posts so far have demonstrated no empathy for the accused. In effect you are what you claim others to be; a troll.

          1. even though I have no empathy for her as a tardy and likely false accuser, i feel bad because the poor lady is having a lot of trouble now from anonymous people harassing her. people should not do that, all the threats and so forth, i was reading about in the news this morning, that’s terrible antifa style behavior, i deplore that.

            but, the Dems know that would come and they put her up to it anyways, running out the clock on a lost game. SAD

            1. Don’t be too sympathetic, Mr Kurtz. She’s probably being well-compensated for her troubles, and Soros is funding her attorney.

          2. Okay, if PTSD and Paul are showing equal decency and empathy for Kavanaugh, then please point out their posts where they questioned K’s morals and called him a slut and questioned what he was wearing; called him a liar and mentally ill, said he shouldn’t have been at the gathering without a chaperone. I have sympathy for K’s two daughters and I will have sympathy for him if it turns out he is innocent. And I think the trolls who are making death threats against the woman’s family and threatening her elderly parents should be tracked down and prosecuted. That goes for both sides. If anyone intimidates any witness or family member of either of these ppl they should do some jail time.

            1. I have no reason to lob accusations against Judge Kavanaugh in regard to his everyday behavior and Judge Kavanaugh isn’t lobbing accusations against anyone else.

              Christine Blasey has elected to insert herself into this controversy. However, the character of the information she provides simply would not be offered by anyone who was on the level. There is nothing about her nexus of associations which would indicate she’s a person of integrity and no testimonials to her character have appeared as yet.

            2. I said empathy; decency is your call. I have 2 sons and a daughter. I’m concerned for all of their welfare. I do not want any of them to be victims. If my daughter (age 31) told the same story Ford has told, I would have exactly the same questions for her as I do for Ford. I would think she was being exploited and I would want to protect her.

            3. “I will have sympathy for him if it turns out he is innocent.”

              There is no way for him to ever prove himself innocent. You sound like a prior alias that keeps returning under a different name because you were embarrased by all previous ones.

              You don’t care about truth whether it is from a man or a woman. You care only about your warped view of the world.

            4. Kitty Wampus – Judge Kananaugh has said he was not there so it does not make any difference what he wore. And I asked a question about her reputation? Isn’t her reputation open for discussion? It wasn’t even open-ended, just yes or no. No one has answered me yet. At this stage in the game I cannot remember if I discussed her clothing or not, but it would not be inappropriate to have a dress on over a bathing suit.

              I am concerned about the many versions of the story that take place at some vague time between 1982 and 1986. And at some vague yet to be named place. With either four attackers or one attacker with an accomplice and two boys downstairs or one attacker with an accomplice and two boys and a girl downstairs. Plus, she doesn’t know how she got there or how she got home. Did someone magic her a$$ home?

        4. These old men like Paul CS and PTSD are just misogynists and haters,

          Sayeth the woman who has offered precisely nothing to this discussion but displays of free-floating hostility.

          I do have sympathy for people who have to contend with you in meatspace. Your mixture of resentment and obtuseness must be difficult to bear.

      1. No, your recrimination is because you don’t give a 💩 about what happened to her, you’re just annoyed that your guy didn’t cruise non-stop to the SCOTUS. Because politics are more important to you than ppl, especially if the person harmed is just some disposable chick, right?

        1. Ktty:

          Please dont use the sexist word chick it comes from the yiddish “shiksa” a demeaning word for a gentile woman.

          now you can go back to scolding men with your ill formed viewpoint

          1. So you’re accusing me of cultural appropriation? I truly don’t care what some Jews in a village in some crappy 3d world country thought about non-Jewish women 1,000 years ago.

          2. That is very doubtful. More likely it is of British origin. Chick, bird. Check out Shakespeare.

            Your use of the word shiksa is questionable as well. I don’t think it is meant to be demeaning rather it may be used in a dissapproving fashion by family when a man of the Jewish faith is attracted to a woman. At other times I think it means a Gentile woman without any specific connotations.

            You seem to be carrying some baggage Kurtz.

            1. I think ‘the shiksa’ was 40 years ago a term of annoyance used by grandmothers, as in “Oh, I see the shiksa’s making us a nice presbyterian dessert”.

              1. That too DSS, but that is a reference to a Gentile not an insult to the one being called a shiksa. Anything, of course, with the right intonation can be an insult.

    2. Most men, unless they were attacked sexually, have no concept of my experience and I, too, wish men would reserve their negative comments.

      Women who say things like this have no concept of how inconsequential their real time emotional reactions are to making serious evaluations of evidence or of how to optimally resolve disputes.

        1. but we aren’t all pigs.

          You have more evidence in this discussion to the contrary than Ford has provided in her allegation against Kavanaugh.

          Well done!

    3. what?

      Did a woman say men should sit down and shut up?

      a lot of men have been attacked sexually, less so by women but more so by other men, but they don’t like to talk about it. nobody gives a person a berth in a speaking tour for being turned out in jail, or having a gay bully molest when little talk about it and a man just gets made fun of for being weak. sorry women get praised and elevated as heroes instead. it’s sad.

      men won’t shut up and “Reserve negative comments” men will say their peace and exercise their First amendment rights.


      1. I agree that men have no obligation to sit down and shut up. This is still a free country and all ppl should have the equal right to express themselves. And I agree that Ford has a right to be heard. But not a right to be believed. Those who choose to listen to her have the right to believe or dis-believe.

        1. Is the right to believe without proof a right that permits people to impugn the integrity of others that have demonstrated integrity their entire lives? Is character assassination a right? Why jump on that type of bandwagon?

  5. Civil rights are required to be equally protected. Thus, if Christine Blasey Ford has a right to be believed (she doesn’t), then Donald John Trump would have an equally protected right to be believed (he doesn’t). This should be a no-brainer. No power on Earth can compel L4D to believe a single word that comes out of Trump’s mouth. I forbid it.

  6. My Dad told me many years ago, “always have the courage of your convictions”. Another saying that was shared with me has given me food for thought.THAT WHICH YOU ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT, BECOMES YOUR STANDARD….What sort of people do we have making decisions for us in this country?

    1. I agree, Sen. Hirono is an absolute disgrace.

      Her sexist views should not be allowed to be part of the mainstream standard.

      Allowing her sexist views to go unchallenged will empower the bigots and misogynists.

      1. It won’t ’empower’ anyone but people like her, whose inanities pass into the realm of things commonly assumed in public discourse sans critical examination. She says stupid things like this because she gets away with it. She may not even be aware of how silly the statement is because at no time does she have interactions with people in meatspace who tell her it’s manure, or if she does, it’s a rude uncle she dismisses out of hand.

  7. Hirono isn’t a serious person. Not surprising. She’s a Democratic pol and the media covers for her when when she beclowns herself. . She’s also female. Women will not demand she be a serious person and neither will a critical mass of men. She has no children, has never run a business, and has never worked in an executive position in the public or private sector. She hasn’t practiced law in 30 years (and only did so for about six years, two years for the state attorney-general, four years for a small firm in Honolulu).

  8. I will be call the Senator’s office today to complain about her being sexist. Kavanaugh is willing to testify under oath, is she? It appears she is waffling and hoping his name will be withdrawn so she doesn’t have to testify. He should be there when she testifies as he has a right to face his accuser, this is a crime he is being accused of committing. He is now on trial. I do not care how they configure the room.

    Oh, and they go on Monday.

      1. She didn’t allege a serious crime. She provided no date or location for said ‘crime’, just a time frame which indicated it supposedly happened around about 1982. She provided no evidence but her swiss-cheese account. Had there been any crime, prosecution would be time-barred now, would have been time-barred 30 years ago, and would have been time-barred even if the ‘participants’ had not been juveniles. It’s a transparent tactical ploy and should be treated as such.

        1. This isn’t about a state crime, nitwit. It’s a job interview for a SCOTUS seat. Examining a candidate’s character is what this is about.

          1. Nitwit Kitty: He is already an article III judge and an appeals one too. He has gone through more backround scrutiny than nonentities like you and me can even imagine!

            why not a little more, the FBI will nail this one shut. i welcome it!

            though it implies that the previous FBI clearances were incompetent somehow….. not that you would understand that kind of nuance.

            1. Nitwit Kurtz: The FBI conducted numerous background checks on K but they didn’t investigate this alleged incident because they didn’t know about it. FBI background checks are fairly perfunctory anyway.

              1. Why don’t you tell us what tangible evidence the FBI is able to investigate?

                You are engaging in character assassination.

      2. Sam – do you understand the statute of limitations? Do you understand repressed memories? This is a state crime, if anything, which it no longer is. The FBI gave it a pass already. It would not be federal jurisdiction anyway.

        The Republicans have called her bluff, now it is on her to show up on Monday. If she does not show, they should vote immediately on his confirmation.

        1. And Collins, Murkowski, Flake and Corker all agree with you now, Paul.
          So it would appear that the gambit has failed.

        2. Paul CS – The FBI never investigated this allegation as part of their background investigation of Kavanaugh, because they didn’t know about it. Now they do. So let them investigate. What are you so afraid of? Why is K’s buddy, who was allegedly a participant in the assault, refusing to testify? Why isn’t he willing to back-up K under oath?

          1. actually KITTY you wouldn’t know unless you are FBI if they had already investigated it…. but we can assume that is correct nonetheless

            the allegation did not exist in a timely fashion and it is stale and uncorroborated and the most pathetic lame thing the Dems have done in a long time

            We believed Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal that they had a consensual if well paid toss in they hay with Alpha Trump….. i am not sure who believes “Dr Ford” but apparently not even her own husband.

            Ten bucks says they are divorced within 2 years of today

          2. Kitty Wampus – the charges are too vague to defend. Dr. Ford needs to appear on Monday or not. Then the committee can vote to confirm.

            Really, if we are going to open this up, I want to know why Dr. Ford was in family counseling. I want to see all the notes from the sessions. Her students said she had a dark side, did this appear in her marriage?

      3. Then Ford needs to file charges in the state of Maryland, where the alleged crime may have taken place.
        This is in no way a federal offense, so the FBI has no jurisdiction. The FBI doesn’t even investigate incidents that turn up in background checks – they simply report them.

        1. For the millionth freaking time, this isn’t about a state crime where the statute of limitations has long ago passed. This is about an investigation into the character of a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. The FBI routinely performs background investigations of federal judicial nominees. In fact, the FBI has performed background investigations of K four times already. If you still can’t get this through your thick head, read it again. And again.


            YOU JUST WANT TO SAY:


            The FBI is not your personal blackmail squad!

          2. For the millionth freaking time, this isn’t about a state crime where the statute of limitations has long ago passed. This is about an investigation into the character of a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

            And for the millionth freaking time, the character of the adult for the U.S. Supreme Court has been determined. If we needed to vet the character of teenagers for the court the bench would be empty.

          3. Again, there is nothing to investigate. Since she provides no contextual details, nor a plausible set of circumstances, nor a coherent sequence of events, there is nothing you can do with this other than cross-examine her (something to which she refuses to submit voluntarily) or subject an affidavit to critical review.

          4. Kitty, please read Senator Grassley’s letter today to Ford’s counsel. In it he explains to them how It is up to the Senate, and the Senate alone, to determine whether to “advise and consent” to a President’s nominee for a federal judicial appointment, at any level. The FBI merely provides the results of its background checks. The Senate cannot order an Executive branch agency to do anything.

            If Dr. Ford wants to press charges against Judge Kavanaugh, she will have to do it in state court.

            You’re embarrassing yourself here.
            Please stop.

            1. FSS: You are as thick as 40 tons of concrete. Nobody said the senate could order the FBI to open an investigation. The President can order his appointee, the Attorney General, to order the FBI, which is part of the DOJ to do so. And there is not going to be any “charges pressed” in state court. That ship sailed 36 years ago.

              1. it’s not FSS, which would stand for “for sh!ts sake”. It’s FFS – slightly different.

                And Honey, you appear to be the thick one, and I’m just not able to help your comprehension of this situation. Sorry.

  9. “On the issue of believing Ford, do you believe that she has a right to be believed or to be heard?”


    What is the “right to be believed”? By who? Me? No one in this country can impose their beliefs on anyone else hence this is nonsensical. Like respect, believing someone or something is earned. The price of belief varies with the person and may explain why so many folks think they own the Brooklyn Bridge.

    Ford has only earned scorn by teasing this out and demanding things before she participates. Forget her. It’s over. She loses.

    1. Ford, her counsel, and Hirono are subscribers to certain assumptions you find in contemporary girl culture which are common and perhaps modal (at least among professional class types). And that would be the notion that women have options, while men have obligations.

  10. Turley asked, ” . . . [D]o you believe that she has a right to be believed or to be heard?”

    That ought to be a strictly rhetorical question. There’s no way to exercise, nor to secure, nor to protect, nor to enforce any such right to be believed. Even if one endeavors to be as believable as one possibly may, still one could not stake a claim upon anyone else’s credulity as though one had a right to it. It truly is a bizarre question. Presumably the First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience. And the question of whether we believe someone or not is a question of conscience. Conscience cannot be compelled.

      1. On September 9th, 2018, at 9:32 am, the old truism that “stranger things have happened” happened, again. FTR, it was way far too easy this time.

          1. Professor Pavlov is trying to trick us into agreeing with one another. It also looks like Turley paraphrased Hirono’s comment to perform the trick. The comment cited in Turley’s original post has Hirono saying that Christine Blasey Ford has a “need to be believed.” That’s not quite the same thing as asserting a “right to be believed.” So now I have to wonder if Turley garbled Hirono’s statement on purpose or by accident. I’m leaning towards Turley doing it on purpose.

          2. Actually, it gets worse. If you click on the link that Turley provided, you’ll go to an article in The Hill that does not quote Hirono as saying that Christine Blasey Ford has a “need to be believed.” Either Turley got that quote from some other source or Turley’s just making stuff up.

          3. Turley wrote an opinion editorial in USAToday that cites Hillary Clinton as saying that victims of sexual misconduct have a “right to be believed.” So that’s why Turley posed the question. He could have been clearer.

            1. Excerpted from the opinion editorial by Jonathan Turley linked above:

              Hillary Clinton and others have insisted that the test is whether you believe any woman alleging abuse. Clinton declared “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault … You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”

              1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – so now she believes all Bill’s accusers. Oh, the irony of that statement. She is so clueless, she does not even realize what she said.

                1. I’m pretty sure that Hillary was cynically exploiting the popular sentiment of the =#metoo movement. I’m also pretty sure that Ubi Schulte is just pretending to be naïve about Hillary’s cynical exploitation of popular sentiment.

  11. Should the accused have a right to face their accuser? Should the accuser have the right to not face the accused. Please explaint the confrontation clause 6th

    1. Again, women have options, men have obligations. She is not only properly immune from examination, she is immune from skepticism or suspension of judgment.

      If you think otherwise, please be advised that this is a complex matter which can only be resolved by the internal deliberations of faculty committees consulting with the judicial programs office reporting to the Dean of Students.

  12. I’m not sure I understand why the question is an “or” question. Absent the political component, I would say “she has BOTH the right to be believed and the right to be heard.” Moreover, she has the “right” to be disbelieved if circumstances support that conclusion. The appearance of this is increasingly political. And, even if — somehow — Dr. Ford was found to be “100% mistaken,” no Democrat’s mind will be changed with respect to the vote. Only a couple of Republican’s mind (vote) are at stake here. Since these “couple of Republicans” are all it would take for Kavanaugh to NOT be confirmed, this seems to be about ensuring that the vote is either delayed until after the mid-term election or creating enough doubt that the “on the fence” Republicans vote no.

    What is also troubling is if this goes against Judge Kavanaugh, won’t he face the prospect of impeachment from his current position on the second highest court in the land. And, if all of the negatives line up against Kavanaugh on based on a “she said” situation, it would seem to set a chilling precedence. I imagine that this kind of tactic could be used repeatedly anytime one party wants to slow down a confirmation or smear a candidate so badly that they’re effectively ruined.

    It seems all of this is about Roe v Wade. Or/and, it’s about being against anything President Trump wants. This entire situation is political, which means Dr. Ford is little more than a tool or weapon wielded by Senator Feinstein on behalf of the Democrats. I feel sorry for Ford and Kavanaugh, but perhaps most of all for the Judge.

    1. Only a couple of Republican’s mind (vote) are at stake here.

      Four Republicans. The question at hand is whether the calculations which go into their tacking will conclude with a ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ modality for Mmes. Collins and Murkowski and how much china Messrs. Flake and Corker want to break on their way out the door.

  13. Of course she has a right to be heard. A right to be believed? In theory, I suppose. But she would have greatly increased the possibility of both had she come out earlier. Three months ago…or a decade ago when he was nominated for the DC court. This high drama does nothing but foment passion and hysteria. The Dems know they’ll lose the Kavanaugh fight. This is about whipping female voters into a frenzy for the midterms. I can hear the commercials already.

  14. When an allegation is presented both sides must be investigated by the appropriate authorities. In this case, Kavanaugh should be investigated by those who would typically interview an alleged criminal and then have the results of the investigation pertaining to Ford’s accusations included in the Senate confirmation hearings. Ford should be interviewed by the entity that would normally do this in any other situation. Ford is not under scrutiny for a Supreme Court Judge position. If the FBI is the appropriate investigator then she is correct to ask for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh first, as well as have her allegations investigated as well. The Senate is not designed to investigate criminal activities.

    1. If all rape or attempted rape were credibly investigated, there would be insufficient policing, investigative, and judicial staff to deal with the massive volume of work. That’s probably why rape has mostly been pushed under the rug. Rape has historically been a social and cultural norm. That must change and is changing.

      1. If all rape or attempted rape were credibly investigated, there would be insufficient policing, investigative, and judicial staff to deal with the massive volume of work.

        I see mathematics and statistics isn’t your strong suit. Forcible rapes number fewer than 300 a year in a metropolitan region of ordinary dimensions. Sheriff’s deputies and municipal police sum to about 1,300 in a typical metropolitan region.

  15. Hirono’s right. Professor Ford’s story has all the indicia of truthfulness, and it’s completely understandable why it had not come out earlier. Kavanaugh on the other hand has already been shown to be a liar and appears to have been a pervert all his life, not just as a drunken prep school student but when he was a lawyer at 32 and writing sexually vulgar questions for Ken Starr to put to Bill Clinton when investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Starr was too embarrassed to ask a single one of Kavanaugh’s ugly questions.

    1. padlegal:

      All the indicia of truthfulness like immediate reporting, credible independent witnesses, specific details of time, place and circumstance and corroborating physical evidence?

      Hey, do wanna buy a bridge?

      1. She cannot name a date or time, due to the fact that she cannot account for all possible alibis he might have over those 2-3 years.

    2. What is the evidence that Kavanaugh is a “liar” and a “pervert” all of his life? Is there evidence that he was a drunken prep school student? Where did the data come from that Starr was too embarrassed to ask the questions you allege Kavanaugh wrote? Where do we find the evidence that Kavanaugh wrote “ugly” questions? If he wrote questions, is there a source where they can be reviewed so that “we” could make up our own minds regarding the “ugliness” of any questions?

      Dr. Ford says she doesn’t know where the party was, how she got to it and how she got home — and she says she is not entirely sure when the party took place. She says the party was a drinking party and that she drank. If she is correct about everything she says, which I have to assume is possible, how would anyone go about investigating it 35+ years later?

      I would imagine other kids who were at the party (assuming it can be determined when and where the party took place 35+ years ago) then don’t want to have the bright light of scandal shined on them now — they may have kids of their own and I would assume they would not want to be put on public display.

      Mark Judge has already made it clear he supports Kavanaugh’s denial, does not remember such a party and that he will not testify to what, for all intents and purposes, seems to be a non-event in his (and as described) and Kavanaugh’s memory.

      Apparently some people have an ax to grind with Judge Kavanaugh because, I assume, they assume Kavanaugh’s appointment to the high-court threatens those who are pro-abortion. That may or may not be the case, but if Kavanaugh is denied a seat on the court because of this situation, it would seem Kavanaugh would have to be impeached once this circus is over. Kavanaugh, based on publicly available information, has an outstanding record and credentials. He’s passed either 6 or 7 background checks, to date. Finally, the FBI is the wrong body to investigate Dr. Ford’s accusation. She needs to file a complaint with the police with the jurisdiction AT THE TIME of the alleged crime.

      This is at least 51% political, and my opinion is that it is north of 80% political, Feinstein seems to care little about Dr. Ford beyond her value as a tool to slow down the process perhaps until after the confirmation.

    3. padlegal:


      You see things as black or white; must be strange going through life and not seeing nuances or having to think.

      1. Cindy – Why are you so contemptuous of sexual assault victims? Do you think that if you put degrade and ridicule and dissociate yourself from any feelings of sympathy or even basic human decency then it won’t ever happen to you or the women in your family?

        1. Kitty Wampus – I am all the sympathy in the world for real sexual abuse victims. However, I think Dr. Ford is a pretend victim. There are more holes in her story that good Swiss cheese.

              1. Public Notice: The above is not my craft. It contains none of the handiwork over which I laboriously toil. Further, it lacks the redeeming social value which I impart to every nugget of wisdom which I so lovingly provide as a service to humanity–and others who lurk hereabouts.

        2. “victims” do not need tons of excuses and whining to get over their damages. they may need other kinds of help but not a lot of social media prattling

          many people have been victims of sexual assault including men, a lot of them, some by women, but mostly by other men. i hear women whining all the time as if men have never been sexually assault and just cant imagine! Trust me there are a lot of men who don’t need to imagine, they remember just fine

          and in case you haven’t noticed it’s the usual ploy of a victimizer to cry victim himself or herself and try and get a lighter sentence. enough of this boo hoo bs

          just stick to facts. verifiable ones. and law. you wade into rhetoric, get ready for a hailstorm

        3. Kitty, dearest……….Anita Hill is a fraud. So wounded was she by her “abuser”, that she followed him from job to job. Say it with me…”She followed him from job to job”….What do you call that type of person? Oh, yeah: a stalker.

          1. No, Anita Hill is a rational person who wasn’t about to quit her job as a lawyer or reject professional promotions because of Clarence Thomas’ bad behavior. Why should she walk away from everything she’s worked for because he’s an ignorant pig? This is to, I’m just silly little airhead Cindy who just don’t get them there upitty professional women!

            1. Public Notice: the above is likewise not my craft. Again, my handiwork is readily identifiable. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this type of product doesn’t come close to imitating my contributions. Have caution going forward; you may be receiving a counterfeit “Mark M.” production.

Leave a Reply