And Then There Were Two: Another Woman Reportedly Has Come Forward To Accuse Kavanaugh

440px-Judge_Brett_KavanaughNews reports indicate that Democrats have been speaking with a second woman who is now prepared to accuse Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.  The accuser is reportedly Deborah Ramirez, 53, and went to Yale at the same time as Kavanaugh.  She describes a bizarre scene of Kavanaugh exposing himself at a party in a dorm.  Ramirez admits that she was drunk and was previously uncertain if she could implicated Kavanaugh.

Ramirez was studying  sociology and psychology at Yale when she said she attended a party.  Both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen and she was repeatedly selected in a drinking game. She recalls someone pointing a plastic penis at her and then later she says that Kavanaugh exposed himself and shoved his penis in her face — forcing her to come into contact with it.  She notably identified other people at the party so we could have a situation not unlike the one with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Ramirez could face questions over her memory and initial reluctance to implicate Kavanaugh.  The New Yorker contacted Ramirez about the story and she was later contacted by staff for Democratic senators after they were altered by “a civil-rights lawyer.”   She reportedly said that her memories was spotty due to the drinking at the party and she did not initially implicate Kavanaugh.  However, The New Yorker reports that “[a]fter six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”  She now wants an FBI investigation.

The timing and gaps in memory is likely to again raise objections from the GOP.  The question now is whether she will also be invited to appear at a hearing to give her account under oath and face questioning from the Committee.

307 thoughts on “And Then There Were Two: Another Woman Reportedly Has Come Forward To Accuse Kavanaugh”

  1. People who commit sexual assault usually don’t stop at one victim. If anyone has had this type of experience with Kavanaugh, I hope they will come forward with it no matter how difficult or embarrassing it is to do so. It is a matter of justice. Abuse of others by the powerful must end or we never return to the rule of law. So please speak up now.

    If you read scientific literature concerning sexual trauma memories you will not see anything unusual about either women’s testimony. It’s actually very typical. You will see this same thing in the priest sex abuse trials as well.

    People will need to inform themselves about sexual trauma and they will need to listen. They should be honest and fair in hearing out these women. It is a matter of justice not 1. either just believing or 2. just getting your guy on the court. People need to have integrity in this nation.

    1. Jill, even in the stated allegations, he didn’t sexually assault anyone. That aside, there is simply no reason to give any credit to these allegations.

      1. if I had a nickel for every time somebody mooned somebody,. or a guy whipped it out at a drunken party, or some woman flashed her boobs……

        seriously, the left has cultivated an absolute licentious environment encouraging sexual “expression” in public but if only if you’re gay parade marcher or a “protester” like pussy riot/. FEMEN. They’re lauded as saints but now a drunk teenager acting poorly is a demon.

    2. Both women have been discredited by witnesses. In Ford’s case she provided 3 names and the girl she claimed who was her closest friend denied her facts. In the second case numerous witnesses have denied the event including Ramirez’s closest female friend. The best thing to do in an alleged assault is to wait until all the facts are in and not play armchair psychologist. The Democrats and others who immediately took the side of the accusers ought to ask themselves what they would have done if a woman came forward and accused their husband, brother or son? Would they have said your right because your a woman. The pendulum needs to be reset to the middle in these charges. For many years the woman was always lying about rape and now it’s sitting where every woman has to be believed, Hopefully this event will help it inch back to where each case is decided after all the facts are gathered.

    3. Jill – I remember all the best sexual trauma studies said the best way to get information from a reluctant victim was to spend 5 days recreating it with her attorney.

  2. We need a “lineup”. Have nine men in justice of the bench clothing and bags over their heads and faces line up and expose their private parts to her at an open session of Congress. If she can pick the right dong out of the lineup then the K guy should withdraw his nomination. And ask her to dinner.

    1. Why would anyone but a fanatical nihilist support the walkout?

      Dr. Ford has named four people as potential witnesses to her alleged assault. All four have said they don’t know what she’s talking about. Granted, one of the four is Kavanaugh himself and another two are supporters of his. The fourth, however, is a friend of the alleged victim, a woman, and a democrat, one of the few, apparently, retaining any shred of honesty and decency.

      “Women must be heard,” the walkout supporters say. Fine, except Dr. Ford, has not apparently been particularly interested in being heard, despite strenuous efforts of the committee to get her to testify. Instead, she prefers to make ridiculous demands that in an actual trial court would be flatly refused as blatant due process violations.

      Admit it Benson. This is not about sexual assault or kavanaugh. It’s about Roe v Wade and nothing besides.

        1. Jay………If you are truly leaving the Democrat Party, I want to tell you how your life will change: Food will taste better, the air will seem fresher, and there’ll be a spring in your step! Enjoy!

      1. Well, I think it is about mental fitness to be a supreme court justice. Kavanaugh doesn’t appear to be as stable as one desires…

        1. Kavanaugh doesn’t appear to be as stable as one desires…

          LMAO. Did I miss the background checks which turned up psychiatric hospitalizations, public drunkenness, DWI (hello Beto), use of street drugs, divorces, rapid cycling between jobs, &c.? He’s issued hundreds of judicial opinions over the last dozen years. Was he cited by the administrative judge or the appellate courts for sloughing off or writing like Ken Kesey? Do you give 5 seconds of thought to anything you post?

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Read Weart.

        2. “Well, I think it is about mental fitness to be a supreme court justice. Kavanaugh doesn’t appear to be as stable as one desires…”

          Based on what, exactly. Tell us, Benson.

        3. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – when we think about mental aptitude for teaching classes, yours brings me up short. I would be curious to see what your Rate My Professor ratings were.

  3. This is why the delay, delay, delay, so they could find more leftist feminists to come forward against a good man. Remarkably there isn’t a Republican woman coming out with outrageous claims in the 12th hour. The media was even hinting that more women would come forward, hint hint hint. How much is the left paying them? Is it a coincidence she has a Hispanic name? No.. Now they can play the race and sexist card. Double whammy. “Kavanaugh hates women and Hispanics.” What’s next, he bullied a transgender at Yale? I won’t put it past them. Dirty, slimy tricks of the left.

    We voted for Trump so we could get conservative judges on the courts. The left is desperate with these moves and it may backfire in the voting booth like it did in 2016. Careful what you push for Dems. You are looking pathetic right now.

    And for the party that cares about women and children (so they say), think of what you are doing to Kavanaugh’s school-age daughters. As a women with lifetime experience, these claims DON’T ring true. I’ve been to drinking parties. I’ve never witnessed a guy “take it out” in front of others. This sounds contrived. The truth will prevail like it did last 2016. Thank God.

          1. I don’t know why men are commenting on what males do. Only a female with experience dating would have first hand knowledge of the male behavior. I’ve seen the males who spontaneously “take it out”. They are losers from the get go. You know who you are. But you don’t do it at a party with others looking on. If one did, that would be common knowledge among his peers. Let’s wait and see, shall we, what the ladies have to say in front of congress?

        1. It’s Peter Shill who cannot abide any criticism of BO (or even an accurate precis of his biography). Benson can’t remember who BO is.

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – it is now Seventeen Weeks since you have been Making Stuff Up for me. I have yet to see a citation. You are in no position to call anyone anything.

                1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you are the last person I would seek advice from. Take care of your own house, David.

      1. “You haven’t been to a Yale frat party in the 80s.”

        Have you?

        This party occurred in a dorm, not a frat house, or so this very cautious accuser seems to hazily recollect. But let’s just say, you know, for the hell of it, that it did occur in a frat house. Tell us, Benson, how would this particular factoid move the needle one iota in making this specific accusation against this specific alleged perpetrator more or less probable?

          1. DBB:
            “If in a dorm then even worse about Yale governance in the 80s.”

            **********************
            If Jay corrected you that the allegation originated in a nunnery in New Haven, you’d swear that was the worst site for infamy you’d ever heard about!

          2. If in a dorm then even worse about Yale governance in the 80s.

            Correcting you on the location wasn’t even my point, I conceded your point just for the sake of argument anyway. Also, the defendant is not the Yale administration.

            I’ll ask you again: “How would this particular factoid move the needle one iota in making this specific accusation against this specific alleged perpetrator more or less probable?”

            Tell us, Benson.

    1. guys whipped it out when i was in high school and college from time to time. it was a shocker and people would just laugh. nobody was ever busted for indecent exposure.

      then in a decade after that there was this thing called “girls gone wild” where girls all over the US would raise their shirts and pull the butts out on camera

      now there is a “Free the nipple” movement, and women wear tights that leave nothing to the imagination including the intimate contours of their vulva. the boys who are distracted by this are told to quit complaining

      it’s a terrible double standard now; cultural diversity only applies to nonwhite people; tolerance of different or awkward social behavior only applies to those in the coalition of the left; free speech only appplies on the left, etc.

      it is boiling down to the soup of civil war

    1. Really? Al Franken did less then the attempted rapist/pervert kavanaugh and might have a different take on your moronic party comparison.

      btw – how is that child abuse enabler Jim Jordan doing? Believe Joe Paterno lost everything for a somewhat similar scenario – but in conservatopia, not only has Jordan not been kicked out of the house, extremely low morals/ethics republicans might instead make him their leader. How effing sick is that?

      The CULTURE OF CORRUPTION permeates every part of the trump administration. Thus, why not put someone on the Supreme Court who really belongs on a national sex offender registry.

      1. then the attempted rapist/pervert kavanaugh

        Perhaps you might take your silly credos to a forum of partisan Democrats. This isn’t a kid’s table (the presence of Marky Mark and Chris P. Bacon notwithstanding).

              1. If you want to be taken seriously and treated courteously, you have to behave better. Right now, you get what you deserve.

        1. Sigh! supporters of attempted rapist response #1 – attack the poster when to weak to address posted comments.

          btw – Shouldn’t the sick, twisted, disgusting Jordan be out of congress instead of running for party leadership?

          btw2 – And shouldn’t criminal unindicted presidents in fact be indicted? Oh wait, that is the rush for krapanaugh. another just as shitty conservative SC Justice could replace the pervert. but not likely one with such a distorted concept of law believing a president can never commit a crime…………..or at least when a republican is in office

            1. “Sigh! supporters of attempted rapist response #1 – attack the poster when to weak to address posted comments.”

              btw – Shouldn’t the sick, twisted, disgusting Jordan be out of congress instead of running for party leadership?

              btw2 – And shouldn’t criminal unindicted presidents in fact be indicted? Oh wait, that is the rush for krapanaugh. another just as shitty conservative SC Justice could replace the pervert. but not likely one with such a distorted concept of law believing a president can never commit a crime…………..or at least when a republican is in office.

              If u don’t have the chops to respond to your parties putrid morality and ethics………..then don’t.

              1. Not An Unindicted Co-Conspirator – do you get paid to repeat yourself? I know the money is out there. Just wondering if you are getting your fair share. Which Soros organization do you work for?

                1. Soros? That’s the best u got? Talk about no chops! Especially coming from someone with a plethora of garbage posts and incessant whining – BWAHHH! BWAHHHH! You owe me a citation! BWAHHH! BWAHHH! You owe me 9 citations! BWAHHHH!!! BWAHHH!!! BWAHHHH!!!.

                  Again will ask the same and see if you have anything intelligent (doubtful) to reply with

                  btw – Shouldn’t the sick, twisted, disgusting Jordan be out of congress instead of running for party leadership?

                  btw2 – And shouldn’t criminal unindicted presidents in fact be indicted? Oh wait, that is the rush for krapanaugh. another just as shitty conservative SC Justice could replace the pervert. but not likely one with such a distorted concept of law believing a president can never commit a crime…………..or at least when a republican is in office.

                  btw3 – I’ll add one more. Once krapanaugh’s nomination is pulled, shouldn’t he also be impeached? After all, he did lie a number of times at both this confirmation hearing and the prior.

                  1. Not An – clearly you are being paid by Soros or a Soros backed organization. If you are so proud of your facts, use your real name.

  4. Ramirez, while drunk, gave a fellow student a blow job at a college party. So now she is qualified to say who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. Makes perfect sense.

    1. Why not? Trump paid Russian prostitutes to piss on him when he was in Moscow. So now he is qualified to say who gets appointed to the Supreme Court? Makes perfect sense. This is to, “yeah, I got an F in logic but I know perfect sense when I see it” Kevin.

      1. Trump paid Russian prostitutes to piss on him when he was in Moscow.

        I see you’re an absolute Charybdis for the day’s disinformation. It must frustrate your husband when you pony up money in response to Nigerian e-mails.

        1. And you know that I have a husband because all cats are female and all females have husbands. This is to, “I put the piss in epistemology,” spastic.

          1. And you know that I have a husband

            I gather the poor man eventually ran screaming across the state line.

      2. that’s nonsense. not credible at all. maybe he had some paid sex work in moscow that we can believe and I care not a bit. It’s hardly kompromat if you’re DJT, just get in line behind the other women trying to cash in a second time on their sex work for the Donald

        but why would he ask for this secretly in moscow when he’s had hundreds of women in the US that never report it. total fabrication, classic political smear, well worn against other targets of british intelligence services in the past

        keep it up; soon sexual accusations will be a dime a dozen and lose their sting

  5. This new one is even more transparently contrived than the last.

    Memo to Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, and Ross Douthat: remember the iran-Contra mess? Every time the MadFarlane-Poindexter crew ransomed a hostage in 1984-86, Lebanese brigands took another one. Incentives matter.

    1. The democrats weren’t (quite) the shameless fanatics that they are now. Besides Ted Kennedy in his glass house would never have been one to cast stones on sexual matters.

    1. Gorsuch is a right-wing conservative, and the Dems didn’t want him on the Supreme Court. He also attended Georgetown Prep. Yet nobody came forward saying he was a drunk or a sex offender or stuck his dick in their face. Because he didn’t do any of those things, and Kavanaugh did. Deal with it. Your boy is damaged goods.

      1. “Yet nobody came forward saying (Gorsuch) was a drunk or a sex offender or stuck his dick in their face.”

        That’s all that has to happen? Somebody coming forward and saying something?

        Be very careful, democrats, I don’t think you’re going to like the new rules.

  6. Senator Dianne Feinstein is looking for more eye witnesses

    There is perquisite: Must be between the ages of 15-18. Drunk & doped up. And can’t remember times, dates & places.

  7. Now you know why the Katzenjammer woman wanted to wait until Thursday. Dumb ol’ McConnell. I’m guessing they have about 6 on the payroll with one story more outlandish than the last. Find somebody who went to some school with him. Ply her full of the Roe sky is falling crap and then give her the script so she’s lying to preserve the right of women not to be inconvenienced with kids. Did the same to to Judge Moore. (And where are those traumatized young lassies now btw?) Now on to Kavanaugh.

    Like Gordon Liddy said, “Oh you suckers.” Wanna fix it? Convene the Grand Jury. Subpoena financial records and see who’s paying their lawyers. Haul the payers in front of the GJ and find out where the money came from. Wanna bet a certain former teenage high-stepper and a creepy porn lawyer aren’t behind it? Follow the money!

    1. Didn’t read it all, but when you attack Roe, don’t be surprised when the half of the population directly affected will decide to charge into the pillbox. So sorry that your antiquated view of male-female interaction is rendered obsolete.

      this is to mespo

      1. Mark M:
        Roe is bad law as most any lawyer can tell you. Half the population favors it but doubtful they’d charge a pillbox for it. That you think you know my view of Rowe’s policy value is belied by your admission that you “didn’t read it all,” and what you did read you obviously didn’t understand.

          1. Because there is no constitutional provision which is inconsistent with a state legislature exercising its general police power and prohibiting abortion. This isn’t that difficult, David.

            1. Cuz that thingy in the 14th Amendment prohibiting states from denying life and liberty and equal protection of the laws doesn’t apply to women. It isn’t that difficult, Spastic.

              1. Cuz that thingy in the 14th Amendment prohibiting states from denying life and liberty and equal protection of the laws doesn’t apply to women.

                It doesn’t apply to the issue at hand nor could any person of integrity look at the semantic content of that phrase and fancy it did.

                1. When Ireland decides to legalize abortion, why would we move in the opposite direction?? Like we really want to put churches back in power..??

                  1. When Ireland decides to legalize abortion, why would we move in the opposite direction??

                    Because our culture and law were improving while their’s was decaying.

                    1. Well if you noticed, Spastic, Irish expatriates from all over Europe traveled home to vote on that referendum. And by and large they were YOUNG people. Which indicates future trends.

                    2. And by and large they were YOUNG people. Which indicates future trends.

                      No, it indicates a bloc of corrupted cohorts.

          2. “mespo727272 — Why, in your opinion, is Roe vs Wade “bad law”?”

            Here’s a better exercise for you, Benson. Why don’t you look up and find out why Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks it’s bad law. She has an answer for you.

          3. under our system of federalism it is left to the states, which have plenary power to legislate, to generally regulate health and morals. that takes the form of the general criminal statutes of each state

            the central, federal government is one of enumerated powers, to regulate commerce for example, and those powers not enumerated to the feds remain in the states per the tenth amendment, or the people under the ninth

            laws regulating abortion are both health related and moral. moral in that they define the inherent biological conflict between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. crime and punishment for such profound things should remain democratic in the states

            roe was a judicial abrogation of the abortion laws of 45 some states in favor of a minority view imposed by unelected judicial tyrants who were social engineering

            observe that this argument is one of process. even if the pro choice viewpoint is “better” by some ethical reasoning– I can only imagine one, simply that the autonomy of the woman over her own body supersedes the life interest of the unborn child which changes it from an illicit form of homicide, into a licit one, like a self defense homicide that is not punishable because it is licit, that is, it is believed to protect an important social value, that is, self defense, or in the case of women, absolute physical autonomy

            i am not saying i precisely agree with that. i am just advancing what seems to me the best argument of pro choicers.

            even if that is “right” the matter was not settled democraticaly, it was imposed by judicial fiat.

            that is the viewpoint of criticism for roe v wade

            and yes it also could apply to brown v board or gay sodomy & marriage cases.

            if you think that is ok nonetheless, then don’t complaint when the SCOTUS legalizes plural marriage that is polygamy or perhaps bestiality, who knows what the judical tyrants may decide is ok ten years hence. observe that polygamy is part and parcel of Islam which is in America is a predominantly Democratic constituency

            I can live with polygamy just like i can live with homosexual unions being called marriage. i just would prefer to see such things imposed by legislatures rather than judges. ok? fair enough?

            1. There’s is–contrary to what the enablers of the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make will tell you–a constitutionally-protected right to privacy, which includes birth control. So, there’s that.

              this is to “why, tyranny of the majority is peachy-keen with me” kurtzie

    2. Subpoena financial records and see who’s paying their lawyers.

      Indubitably cut-outs which lead back to George Soros or Tom Steyer.

    3. Dumb ol’ McConnell.

      Don’t care for McConnell at all. See Neo-neocon on this issue. It’s a reasonable inference that the delays have been to please a small caucus of temporizers and NeverTrump twerps who whole the swing votes. From public statements made in recent days, the source of the obstruction would seem to be Flake and Collins.

  8. In his prep sessions, Kavanaugh didn’t want to deal with questions about his alcohol consumption as it was “too personal.” Why would a little thing like that not matter to the Senate or the American people? I’d love to hear him try to refuse to answer any of the multiple questions coming about his drinking? Have you ever been treated for Alcoholism? Have you ever blacked out while being drunk? Are you the character referred to in your good friend Mark Judge’s book who passed out on the way home from a party and vomited in a car seat?

    How long will the Senate refuse to allow any investigation or any other witnesses? The pressure is going to increase between now and Thursday while Kavanaugh’s historically low approval ratings will continue to plummet. Given the witnesses named by the new accuser, what are the chances nobody can at least remember a drunken Kavanaugh at Yale parties? How many more witnesses will come forward.

    No fears though. Mitch McConnell will “plow through.” Lindsey Graham has already made up his mind. The President has never met a Republican accused of a sex crime he didn’t believe. And the women in the White House, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kellyanne Conway will be right there to tell any lie needed or defame the accusers so the boys don’t have to. There are those troubling female Senators to worry about, they’ve been bought off before, I wonder what it will cost this time?

    It will be an interesting few days until Thursday.

    1. enigma…………..Settle down now, Longinus…….Whatever the outcome, I’m sure there’ll still be plenty of innocent fetuses for y’all to kill.

      1. Ah, now the wackjob-wingnut motivation is revealed (though all rational persons were already well-aware). So it’s ethical to manipulate the levers of government to instigate a policy that 70% of the population is against? What do you dare call that? Pro tip: it’s biblical to be unpopular–get used to it.

        this is to “but gramma taught me to be subservient” cindie

        1. well that’s what they di with roe v wade.

          now the public opinion on abortion is probably net in favor, but then, it was a strongly net against.

          it was a judicial change in law that abrogated the democratic will of 45 or so state legislatures.

          changing it back now would not be appropriate for the SCOTUS but make no mistake it was judicial tyranny at the time

      2. Oh, so Kavanaugh IS all about stopping abortion, then, and not about the Constitution. Well ,Cindy, the nomination is really about trying to stop the Mueller investigation.

      3. You must have some other tactic besides changing the subject? Wasn’t that a Republican CNN personality that is allegd to have spiked his stripper girlfriends smoothie with an abortion pill. Morals are apparently situational for them.

          1. The Donald doesn’t share your obsession. If it were all about abortion, he’d pull the nomination of Pervy Kavanaugh and appoint Amy Coney Barrett, the old woman in the shoe with all her 10 kids and counting. This is to, “If the federal government could only force more white women to have kids, we wouldn’t have to import all those dirty immigrants to fund my Social Security check,” Cindy.

            1. Why would he pull Kavanaugh’s nomination? No reason for him to truckle to the Democratic Party’s oppo fraudsters.

          2. it isnt about abortion. thats a red herring. Kav will not vote to overturn Roe. that will not happen. abortion is now just a totem subject, superseded by technology, but which still fires up the troops.

            this is strictly about power, a war between ideological powers. who will prevail.

            this is a form of civil war not between men and women, though at times it seems that way; that is how Democrats want people to see it.

            rather it is the forces of progressive individualist liberal ideology, which is sponsored by capitalism; and the ancient social institutions of family and religion, that are perennial because they subsist in the nature of human society itself in all ages; which still exist in the west and increasingly coalesce around the Republican flag for lack of any better leadership. They sure won’t find any leadership in the Catholic Church, that moment has passed.

            capitalism is facile, one day it uses the icons of family life to sell diapers and make money, another day it pushes for legislation to flood the country with immigrants to swell the labor force and depress wages.

            feminism, though it emerged in socialist lingo, can be seen as a tool of capitalist social engineering in that it swelled the labor force dramatically, again depressing average worker wages.

            capitalism in the past, demolished many other barriers to market activity, such as prohibitions on usury. those still exist in Muslim countries, mostly, which however you will observe, have often been under attack at times by America as standard bearer of capitalism and “progress” etc

            now the average worker in Pakistan does not have a big load of consumer and household debt to shoulder, because “interest” is generally forbidden, and they make due with other forms of social financing; but in America the worker is under a big household debt and now useless college degree debt obligations too.

            religion is not entirely useless, actually it contains many forms of hard-fought wisdom of the generations. but liberal progressives just call it a relic of feudal prejudices etc.

            thus, do when you see a socialist propagandist, don’t be fooled, usually they are in the employ of some billionaire capitalist like soros or his ilk in silicon valley

            1. it isnt about abortion. thats a red herring.

              It very much is These people are antic about the prospect of having to lobby state legislators. They have been for > 30 years.

            2. +1 for an interesting take–though with defects.

              this is to “I’m not sure what liberal progressives” are, but I just threw that in for the hell of it” kurtzie

          3. Cindy – It’s fair to say that abortion is a significant issue to many opposing the Kavanaugh nomination. It’s not fair to dismiss all the other issues, sexual assault, attempted rape, and perjury and act as if they mean nothing.
            Frankly, the culture in the 80’s in Maryland doesn’t sound much different than the culture in Minnesota in the 70’s, although I can’t relate to the additional benefits granted to the kids of the rich and famous. Boy’s tried to get girls drunk, there were girls who had “trains” ran on them (one of the allegations involving Judge in one instance and Kavanaugh and Judge in another). I don’t recall any moral outrage at the time. I did have one chance to participate, I didn’t, not because I was such a good person but because I was scared.
            What’s important about Kavanaugh and the sex related charges is that the culture has to change. There are currently 11 Republican male Senators on the Judiciary Committee who are doing all they can to normalize what Kavanaugh did then, therefore making it still okay now.
            I have a five-year-old granddaughter who has already been touched in her private parts at school, the school’s response was weak at best. Perhaps Kavanaugh is a victim of timing in that what might have been looked over as “boy’s will be boy’s” even a few years ago, is now something where he’s been made an example of. The relatively sad thing is if he admitted to several of the things he’s been accused of, says he’s grown from the experience and would never do them again and is a better man now. That would likely be enough for the Republican Senators that he needs to be approved. Instead of throwing himself on the mercy of the committee/Senate, he’s lying his ass off (under oath) so that’s why I have no use for him. We have a lying President, and lying politicians (on both sides). I don’t want a lying Supreme Court Justice whose only loyalty is to those who financed his career.

      4. Longinus was the legionary who pierced Jesus side with his spear and then in amazement called him the Christ. his spear is a relic.

        why would you call enigma Longinus. that is not an apt comparison. i guess i missed it.

          1. 3 only vie for the one. i say it’s the Vienna Lance, held at the Weltliches Schatzkammer Museum in Vienna, Austria.

            carbon dating is a lot less precise then “scientists” pretend it to be

            1. Mr Kurtz – several can be three. 😉 I have several kids, Fred, Timmy and Joan. Agree on the carbon dating. When you are plus or minus 200 years, there is a lot of slippage.

    2. Enigma:
      Why do you care if a college kid got drunk? Most of us did. Some even (gasp!) threw up!!!! Most of us now live productive lives not troubled by alcohol and we aren’t federal judges who appear before the public. Most of us know that people change and mature. Personally, I don’t trust a guy who hasn’t gotten drunk before or a girl who hasn’t smacked the face of a handsy date. Call it a rite of passage.

      1. You conveniently left out the put his penis in her face part. Are you attempting to normalize exposing your genitalia to repulsed observers, and causing unwanted sexual contact, too?

        1. Zoe, of course rational, normal, authentic persons would be horrified by those allegations. However, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who infect this place have long ago ceded any claim to rationality or humanity.

        2. Zoe Chanceller – I also didn’t forget the days of working with an attorney it took to connect the dots back to Bret Kavanaugh. It appears she was not appalled by being touched by the dildo and she didn’t seem to leave after the mystery penis touched her (if it did). She is not a reliable witness. She has been heavily coached.

        3. Zoe:
          I left out the salacious allegation because enigma and I weren’t talking about that. We were talking about enigma desire to look into Kavanaugh’s alcohol consumption. It’d the same reason I didn’t mention the Lindberg baby kidnapping. It’s better to listen Zoe before jumping into someone else’s discussion, you’d look less like a wide-eyed zealot that way.

        4. yawn, you sound like the kind of puritan who arrested stormy for motorboating a woman undercover cop with her silicone enhanced bosoms. big deal!

          it was a drunken party supposedly if it happened at all. don’t like boors? dont go to their parties! let alone complain 30 years later

      2. I don’t care that he GOT drunk? It might matter a bit if he IS a drunk. If he refuses to discuss it, he might well be hiding a problem?

        In my fraternity, if you were drunk it absolved all behavior. Of course as black men in the South there were definitely limits. It seems that Yale has them too.

        1. that’s a real issue not whether he whipped it out once or groped a girl in high school

          but alcoholism is such a common affliction it wont fire up the troops

          1. Mr. Kurtz – While I don’t think this Republican Senate would hesitate to place an alcoholic on the Court if it was a secret. I don’t think even they would do it if everyone knew? There is quite a bit at stake. I’m wondering what the current odds are on Kavanaugh’s confirmation? Of course they will keep going down as we learn more about events like pulling train’s on girls they got drunk/drugged.

      3. i guess if some of us, whipped it out, pinched some fannies, got drunk and puked, etc, that would be millions of us actually

        let the Democrats open a war on men in the open, we welcome this

        they can have the transmen and soyboys and i will have on my side the real men blessed with real biological testosterone and a proper balance of it!

        if i have to pick i know which car I’m riding in~!

        1. Off topic: Have you ever heard the tale of the midget and the giant? The midget went around sticking his nose in everyone’s business; the giant went around sticking his business in everyone’s nose. Hahaha. This gives new meaning to Trump’s description of Kavanaugh as “A giant in the law.” 😹😹😹

    3. alcoholism is a more germane subject material for inquiry because it is an enduring issue related to work rather than a dated inquiry into teenage sexual shenanigans

      1. Mr Kurtz – “Teenage sexual shenanigans” translates to attempted rape, sexual assault, group rape, and perjury related to those events. Pretty soon we’ll start getting into real crimes?

      1. They didn’t deny it happened. They simply said they don’t remember. Huge difference.

        You mean we treat it as if it happened even though no one remembers any such incident accept the accuser (who account of it is rather protean). Thanks for the primer on epistemology.

        1. If you had any actual understanding of epistemology, you would recognize that what T.I.N. wrote is correct: that there is a clear distinction between someone having no recollection of whether an event did or did not happen, and whether it actually happened. And you don’t get to add your own assumptions or projections on to the stated premise. This is to: I’m a spastic who likes to throw around words and concepts that I don’t fully understand.

        2. “They didn’t deny it happened. They simply said they don’t remember. Huge difference.”

          Huge difference or not, it is but cold comfort to the accusers.

    1. “All the “eyewitnesses” have denied these things ever happened”

      This whole controversy begins and ends right there. It is the only meaningful fact.

  9. Avenatti is a big minus negative for the left.

    The new witness reminds me of the constant flow of such. First she couldn’t remember as was too drunk but then ‘something’ compelled her to change her mind. Does this sound familiar.

    Three in DC
    Three in Alabama
    Two or is it three now in Maryland
    and they all foillow the same script.

    Allege
    Give cover for the previous to escape the lime light of the press
    Then disappear.

    Cui Bono. Follow the money. Probably a book deal or shared book deal.

    Oh yeah I forgot the two whores?

    and where was all this compassion when ‘what’s her name from the midwest oh yeah ‘some girl from somewhere’ was cut into pieces with sharp instruments.

    I find the Left is remarkably the same in one consistency. “Anything said or done to advance the party IS the Truth.”

    Where is all the compassion for the DACA kids INVITED to the USA then thrown under the bus by who. Wow The same Feinstein.

    Anybody seen ALL of Warren’s tax reports yet? No. Not the ones when she made deals for some insurance company. Anybody seen Huma Abedin alive lately.

    Oh that’s right she was recommended for indictment and our non existent AG refused to prosecute…. ‘too close to Clinton.’

    Same pattern as when Mr. Godfather ran for President.

    From the party of slavery, jim crow laws, black laws, that voted to take apart checks and balances, to tax income, to be anti-civil rights to push for a one party system of government. That is blatantly supportive of those who are victimizers of women.

    Prez iyou got problems that won’t go away by coddling Sessions and letting Rosenstein hang around to knife you again or the same from Bloody Chuck and the bigot Feinstein. They aren’t going to go away so why not do the RIGHT thing the CORRECT Thing and drop the axe

    After all you got Gowdy for AG and Jason Chaffetz for Ass’t AG. Bring on the First String.

      1. “Please post more materials defending the child molester in Alabama. Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.”

        The “child molester in Alabama” was not elected, in very large part because a number of republicans both in-state and nationally refused to support him. Why? Because, the allegations against him were numerous, detailed, and presented by sober, accusers, without ideological axes to grind, who had clear recollections of specific incidents, some of which were backed up by documentary evidence and eyewitness corroboration.

        Compare that to this Kavanaugh thing where you have none of this.

        At any rate, the Roy Moore controversy is a dead letter. Let us hear no more about him.

        1. Why? Because, the allegations against him were numerous, detailed, and presented by sober, accusers, without ideological axes to grind, who had clear recollections of specific incidents, some of which were backed up by documentary evidence and eyewitness corroboration.

          They weren’t, they weren’t, they weren’t, they weren’t, and they weren’t. One of his (3) accusers presented forged documentation and every element of the story of another would have had to have occurred within a discrete 12 day period if it happened at all. (And she was, by the way, a person of dubious character). Moore’s been a highly controversial figure in Alabama politics for decades. The notion this lay buried all that time passes no known smell test.

  10. Sexual Perpetrators like Kavanaugh can’t change their behaviour if they can’t start with the truth of their actions. Secondly, if they see women (or men) as objects to fulfill their desires. And given the tight group of, mostly, guys who have been supporting each other to gain positions of great power in the sexist Republican Party over the years – there is a need to investigate all of them as to whether they too are sexual perpetrators.

    1. Allege allege allege you forgot the evidence again. As usual. That bad habit is gettin boring. You get zero points and lots of laughter … for your programmer machine tool.

    2. wrong, genuine sex freak criminals can’t change, recidivism is the highest, and the therapy for them is bogus. the best hope is that they learn not to break the law and hurt people and thus limit the harm to others of their freakish inclinations

      Kav is hardly the type.

  11. More incoherence and hysteria.

    The DOJ should appoint another special counsel according to the democrats (i.e. communists), again, without probable cause.

    At what point does a rational government declare martial law?

    1. There are two that can do that. The PResident or if he is involved as was Obama The military itself makes that decision. All they need to know is contained in their oath of office. and it doesn’t take tanks in the streets. Which is why they started in 2016. Ballots Not Bullets? That was their answer to Obama wanting them to train for civil insurrection and rioting. Notice Obama did not make that decision. He would have been the first one handcuffed.

      Preserve and Defend and sometimes protect is used The Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.

      tick tick tick And now we have two socialists wanting to be sworn in come this fall or Jan 3 to be exact. How are they going to take that oath of office without being immediately culpable? Bernie just said Independent. Ocasio and Salazar came out with their real name and ran for offic eunder it.

      But according to hour classes in the military only the need for defense, preservation and protectioni of the Constitutioin is needed with the civil authorities unable or unwilling to act.

      Under what rules? I assume the Patriot Act but if not their own. During that time period their will be no other government.

  12. Wild parties, booze, male genitalia–real and plastic. No wonder there was a waiting list at Ivy League schools.
    The Democrats have now written another fat check and have a second “victim”, this one with a twist……She’s HISPANIC! That’s a two-fer right there. So, take that, Republicans!
    It’s gonna be a long week.

    1. Excellent. To clarify–it’s gonna be a long month. So sorry for your misfortune.

      this is to “I don’t see a problem with a rapist on the United States Supreme Court” cindie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you know that if you saw this in a trial transcript you would be all over like white on rice. At least, I hope that you are competent to realize she is not a reliable witness.

        1. This is not a court of law. Rather, this is a public proceeding designed solely to determine if this nominee is someone who merits a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court. Standards far below those recognized in civil, family or criminal court proceedings are rightfully in play here.

          this is to paulie

  13. And there’s this:

    “Michael Avenatti

    @MichaelAvenatti
    5h5 hours ago

    I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.”

    And in another tweet, he wrote:

    “My client is not Deborah Ramirez.”

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044013350873489409

    1. And one slides in one slides out ever hear this one.

      The Worms crawl in
      The Worms crawl out
      In you belly and
      Out your mouth

      Did you ever stop to think
      When the hearse drives by
      That you might be
      The Next To Die

      Well someone thought of that your witnesses etc etc etc. never seem to get past allege and always seem to disappear.

      But then obstruction is the real goal

      Who cares when your not a real American

      In your mouth
      Out the other end
      To late to ask
      Will you be my friend?

Leave a Reply