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. Funny you should ask, Anonymous, because I can’t see any consistency in your comments on this thread. It seems like you’re all over the map. Maybe that’s why you use the name ‘Anonymous’.

  1. I weep for the women and men supporting these claims, if one day your son becomes a victim of a false accusation and his career is ruined. Then you’ll have a different story. “Let my son be heard. He is innocent until proven guilty. Let him keep his job. This woman must be lying.” Careful of the precedent you are all setting for your innocent sons and mine.

    1. i know of many boys of friends and aquaintances that have been through this, sometimes reported and prosecuted, sometimes no prosecuted, and sometimes pure spurious gossip.

      it is frequent where it was not; it is becoming a common rite of passage for decent young men to be accused.

      to be sure there still rapes. even if the FBI sees a Russian spy behind every bush, for example, doesn’t mean that there are not real Russian spies plying their trade. so yes crimes happen and they are bad

      but false accusations have gone up, up up. it is becoming HYSTERIA yes I use that word intentionally

      where are they going with this? sexualize the kids with cell phone porn and then turn half of them, the boys into presumed criminals. something crazed amazonian feminists would like.

      i begin to understand the viewpoint of ancient times on certain things

  2. i’m going to say something that will help bring this down to brass tacks and it’s aimed at men not women

    1– boys, see how the Democrats want to treat you? You are now a lifelong Republican, or you are a chump, a beyotch, and you will always be working for them, you will never be a boss.

    2– men, make no mistake, you are a second class citizen and less than equal under the law to any woman with a real or imagined beef. so, you can accept being second fiddle and let Hillary, Difi, Michelle Obama, and kavanaugh’s accusers etc. determine your destiny, or you can become a Republican and don’t be daunted. maybe you will be a boss one day but you need to grow a pair and get busy.

    women can decide on their own. i am not telling any woman what to do, no Ma’am!

    just talking to men here.

    soy boys = Democrats

    real men = Republicans

    I think it’s sad that it’s come to this, the Democrat party has an important history in this country with many high honors, but now it’s just a propaganda operation for the radical left.

    1. Kurtz, if I knew nothing about American politics, I would think your points here are valid.

      But we know the Republican party is disproportionately represented by older White males. One can see for themselves every 4 years when TV cameras pan their conventions; it’s mostly older White guys!

      That helps explain, in part, why Republicans keep chipping away at women’s reproductive rights while vehemently fighting ‘any’ gun regulations. Those two positions alone reflect a party completely out of touch with educated women. So it should come as no surprise that a high ratio of Americans distrust Republicans now with regards to Kavanaugh.

      1. But we know the Republican party is disproportionately represented by older White males

        You say that like it’s a bad thing.

        1. Spastic, this might be a good opportunity for you to identify ‘your’ gender. Unless, perhaps, you’re transgender. But you can share that too.

            1. Why the big secret? Are you a woman who’s uncomfortable with supporting Republicans? That wouldn’t surprise me.

              1. There’s no secret. You just weren’t paying attention that thread.

                It doesn’t come up with normal participants because we’re discussing issues and events and my ascribed characteristics are not elements in an argument. They matter to partisan Democrats who seem to think the votes of their various client groups and mascot groups shine in some ineffable way and thus count more than the votes of we deplorables.

                It’s also not terribly difficult to figure out from my mode of expression that I’m not female. I’ve never in any forum been mistaken for female. I’ve never been mistaken for being young. I’ve never been mistaken for being black. I’ve been mistaken for Jewish (anti-semites are like that) and I’ve been mistaken for Italian.

      2. ah please they’re not chipping away at reproductive rights. that is a scare tactic, it’s about technology not democracy, democracy always plays catch-up to tech and markets

        all these phony movement things are orchestrated conflicts

        the left is great at coordinating all this stuff across media platforms and all the social organizers and the rest of it

        I’m not giving my guns up but the old white guys need to quit greasing their barrels and figure out how to coordinate administrate and agitate counterforce to all this phony social conflict jive

        1. Kurtz, after the Tea Party victories of 2010, Republican-dominated states proposed, and, or passed a record number of abortion restrictions. I don’t know how you missed those stories unless you were trying to avoid them. Then in January of 2017, just after Trump took office, House Republican tried to pass a bill restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks. Again, I don’t know how you missed that story.

  3. DEVELOPING: New Kavanaugh accuser Debbie Ramirez helps lead a left-wing “social justice” nonprofit group in Boulder, CO, that believes that “violence against women is systemic” and that “women are an oppressed group.” Also believes that “heterosexism” is “an act of violence.”

    Paul Sperry
    24 Sep 2018

    1. Sen. Hirono asks: “You think women just sit around making this stuff up?”

      Kav accuser says: “Heterosexism is an act of violence”

      Kav accuser says: “He whipped it out and made me kiss it –but I can’t be sure”

      Porn lawyer Avenatti says: Kav and buddies were gang rapists in high school.

      Kav accuser says: “I though he might accidentally kill me”

      Sen. Hirono says: “No presumption of innocence for Kavanugh”

      Sen. Hirono says to men: “Y’all need to just shut up already.”

      Observer: “We’re in Lord of The Flies territory here”


    Ford alleges that Kavanaugh’s friend and Georgetown Prep classmate was present in the bedroom at the house party when he attempted to rape her. Judge told the Weekly Standard that the professor’s allegation was “just absolutely nuts” because, “I never saw Brett act that way. … I don’t remember any of that stuff going on with girls.”

    Judge said through a lawyer that he does not want to testify, and Senate Republicans are blocking requests by both the purported victim and Democratic lawmakers to compel him to appear.

    Buried low in the lengthy New Yorker story is this remarkable paragraph that shines a light on why Judge might be so reluctant to answer questions under oath:

    “After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women. … ‘I can’t stand by and watch him lie.’ In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, ‘Mark told me a very different story.’ Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. … (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he ‘categorically denies’ the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.)”

    Edited from: “The Daily Caller: Can Kavanaugh Survive?”

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST with excerpt from THE NEW YORKER

  5. “Lawyer Michael Avenatti told the Senate Judiciary Committee late Sunday that he has multiple witnesses who can say Brett Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes of drunken women during high school.”

    Walkout @ 1 pm

    “This sleazy porn lawyer must be heard!”

  6. “A healthy republic wouldn’t have this problem, because a healthy republic wouldn’t have nine judges acting as absolute oligarchs. The courts have become legislators and dictators of social policy. What freedoms you have are determined not by elected officials responsible to voters, but by unelected lawyers serving in lifetime appointments.

    The late Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out this exact problem. Outrageous rulings like Roe v. Wade that find no grounding in the Constitution but merely in the policy preferences of activist judges have poisoned the well.

    Our nine-person ruling oligarchy is being selected right now, and this is why everyone is losing their minds. And the return to sanity begins with a return to a jurisprudence based on the text of the law and of the Constitution.”

    1. I agree, but would cite Scalia’s own legislative reach on Citizen’s United as a negative exemplar.

      He and his majority somehow invented a legal theory that election campaigns cannot be refereed with a set of rules decided by Congress. It’s common sense that all highly-contentious, winner-take-all competitions need to be refereed by rules-of-competition, and overseen by a powerful referee who enforces the rules.

      In Citizens United, the majority needed to invent a way to circumvent commonsense, and found it in stretching the 1st Amendment to mean “campaign spending is speech”. The analogy in a Court of Law would be to dismiss the need to have a neutral presiding judge, rules of evidence, and court procedures, because all of these stand in the way of the litigant’s free speech rights. SCOTUS voted in Citizens to undermine the principle of election campaigns are refereed competitions, unleashing the worst competitive impulses and tactics.

      1. pbinca – I agree with Citizens United that money is speech. It really cannot be much clearer. If you, as a candidate, cannot gin up financial support or support yourself, you are going to have a tough time getting elected.

        1. Paul, one should note that a small group of billionaires can greatly influence elections. And they are! It’s called the Koch Bros Network.

          Does that sound like democracy to you?

            1. Paul, we don’t want billionaires in politics. But with that said, the Koch Network is considerably more active than Soros or Steyer. Steyer, in fact, is relatively poor compared to the Koch Bros. And even Soros has less than a quarter of the Koch’s combined net worth.

              1. Peter Hill – the key is what are they donating and who are they donating to? You could have more money than God and if you are keeping for yourself then who cares about your impact on elections. However, Soros donates to a series of groups that affect elections and is said to be behind the payoffs to those arrested at the Kavanaugh hearing.

                1. Of course Soros is ‘said’ to be “behind the payoffs of those arrested at Kavanaugh hearing”. On any given day someone in right-wing media is blaming Soros for anything annoying to conservatives.

              2. But with that said, the Koch Network is considerably more active than Soros or Steyer

                Rubbish. Open Secrets ranks the Koch Industries as the 15th largest organizational contributor in the 2018 election cycle. Soros Fund Management ranks 9th. In the 2016 cycle, Koch ranked 39th, Soros ranked 13th. In 2014, Koch ranked 13th, Soros 45th. Neither were in the top 50 in 2012 or 2010. In 2019, Koch was outside the top 50; Soros ranked 9th.

                As for their educational philanthropy and advocacy, when the Koch Foundations are not giving in the realm of the natural sciences and science education, they’re subsidizing libertarian outfits whose work is commonly inconvenient to the Republican Party. And there’s no equivalent in KochWorld to the Center for American Progress, much less cheesy operators like David Brock.

                  1. Koch is trying to run the world and money is no object.
                    Talk about a megalomaniac

                    “BUDAPEST (AFP) –
                    “The foundation run by US billionaire George Soros said Monday that it has filed a legal challenge with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against Hungary’s controversial “Stop Soros” laws adopted last June.

                    The New York-based Open Society Foundations (OSF) said in a statement that it had submitted a complaint to the rights court, calling on it to “defend Hungarian democracy” and urge a repeal of the laws.

                    “There is only one thing this legislation will stop and that’s democracy,” said OSF president Patrick Gaspard.

                    The “Stop Soros” package targetting the Hungarian-born 88-year-old includes a 25-percent tax on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) deemed to be supporting or positively portraying migration.

                    A year’s prison term could also be handed to those convicted of assisting someone to enter the country illegally.”


                    1. Koch is trying to run the world and money is no object.

                      You are aware that the article to which you link is not about the Koch Foundations?

                  2. Spastic, what are you talking about here???

                    You’re claiming the Koch Bros don’t even rank in the Top 50 of billionaires..????? Nooooooooo!!!! Charles and David Koch both rank in the Top 10 and their combined net worth is at least $90 billion. Soros’ net worth is closer to $20 billion. While Steyer, I believe has less than $5 billion.

                    1. Spastic, what are you talking about here???

                      Open Secrets ranks the Koch Industries as the 15th largest organizational contributor in the 2018 election cycle.

                      You should have quit with the question mark; that is if you were looking for clarity rather than just proving you lack reading comprehension skills.

                    2. Olly, the Koch Network budgeted nearly $900 million for the 2016 elections. Google this if you want. This figure is fairly consistent for several news sources.

                      The Koch Network is not just the Koch Bros. It’s a group of about 20 billionaires who pool their money like a super pac.
                      It’s like a hedge fund for politics. Their budget rivals those of the two biggest parties.

                      Most sources say the Koch Network has budgeted about $300 million for the upcoming midterms.


                    3. The Koch Network is not just the Koch Bros. It’s a group of about 20 billionaires who pool their money like a super pac.

                      IOW, you make use of ‘Koch Bros” as a term of art to include anyone who agrees with them. Cute.

                1. Spastic, who are you kidding here?? Not ‘me’, that for sure.

                  Only a fraction of Koch contributions actually come from Koch Industries. The Koch’s have so many proxy groups that even the pros have a hard time keeping track. Americans For Prosperity is just one of many.

                  One should note that a few elections back, the Koch Bros funded a ballot referendum in California to make us a ‘Right-To-Work’ state. It was defeated, thank God. And word got out early that it was Koch Bros sponsored initiative.

                  Nevertheless, the California State Attorney General’s office conducted an investigation to see where all the money was coming from that supported the ‘Right-To-Work initiative. That investigation became a highly complex undertaking. It turned out the Koch Bros had endless webs of proxy groups to route their money through. Even the investigators were shocked by the deliberate effort to shield the funding source.

                  1. right to unionize is good, the socalled right to work laws sound good in theory but in practice not so much

                    that issue is beneath the radar of the “Left” such as it is today which could care less about economics. Friday they had the head of US Steel workers union on NPR talking about possible strike and tariffs and the lady sounded barely awake.

                    today it was total breathless wall to wall reporting about rape and sexual abusers. oh they had a little break to talk about north korean economy a while. but we can tell where the energy is on the left and in dem party: calling out men as rapists and the patriarchy and all that nonsense

                    just like a while back, last summer or was it two summers ago, it was BLM and other engendered social conflict movement ops that had different packs of white racists, republicans, and the male patriarchy being demonized

                    before that it was gay rights versus the patriarchy and white racists and republicans etc. i could never figure that one out since most of these gay leaders are white guys but whatever.

                    the koch bros and their dumb causes like “right to work” union busing whatever is not on the same plane at all. not that I know much about them, whatever I have read does not impress me

                    Silicon Valley billionaires are all in favor of more more immigration., that is pure capitalist interests in operation. Even if they all vote Dem.

                    The Dems are not the party of working class Americans at all at this point; that is fake. Now Republicans are not much better but at least Trump is trying to revitalize the industrial economy

                    all this sex sex sex scandals stuff is big insignificant distraction, from pressing issues of the day. Americans are right back where they were with Hawthorne and the Scarlet A on this one. Sad! Think of something else besides sex scandals for a while folks, eh?

                  2. i also read they are big on climate change denial or let’s be charitable and call it dissent. well i assume that the majority of scientists who say climate change is happening and is anthropogenic,. are correct. however, that is theory not dogma. and it may be that it is happening but it is not anthropogenic; or maybe it is happening faster or slower than some self annointed authorities say. the questions are not clear nor the answers.

                    but the pressing social question is less what is the cause than how society should adapt such as by modification of coastal zoning laws and infrastructure investments.

                    that’s boring engineering stuff and probably more important to figure out fast than whether or not its from co2 emissions versus sunspots. sunspots could plunge us into global winter even with all the overly abundant co2 emissions. the biggest issue is how to adapt to environmental change not just use it as a pretense for a massive taxation regime.

                    now if a little bit of climate dissent will slow down an expensive and useless massive new tax regime hell that’s great the koch bros are funding it. we need a little more “tolerance and diversity” in the climate change arena i think, even if probably the mainstream view is correct

                  3. The Koch’s have so many proxy groups that even the pros have a hard time keeping track. Americans For Prosperity is just one of many.

                    You’ve been paying too much attention to talking point mills. Americans for Prosperity is not a campaign donor. It is an advocacy group that has as one of it’s function the promotion of grassroots engagement. BTW, it’s budget is about 40% of that of the Center for American Progress. I know it bothers you that your opposition gets to organize and promote its viewpoint, but you should just get over it.

      2. dude, they didnt invent anything. you use words in paid advertising, hence, paid advertising is definitely speech. grow up

        i don’t like citizens united but it’s pretty squarely in the first amendment free speech tradition

        people need to understand there are some problems that can’t be solved with simple legislation, the reach and power of capitalism as a social system is far deeper than the mere statutes and cases

  7. The common thread in all these accusations, and reinforced by Mark Judge’s memoir of his high school years, “Wasted: Tales from a Gen X Drunk”, is the sexual predator’s opportunistic use of alcohol overconsumption to take advantage of less experienced female drinkers.

    The message for young people needs to be: Don’t mix your love life and sexual desires with alcohol inebriation.

    The same “drinking games” that result in predatory sexual misconduct are still as popular today as they were in the 1980s. This is where things have to really change. I wish the feminist movement could get on-board to supporting a safe-drinking standard, but disappointingly, they are teaching their younger sisters that they have a “right” to get stupor drunk with men, and somehow be “protected” from sexual misconduct – unwilling to admit that their own bodies become active pursuers of sex when alcohol shuts down the frontal lobes. They teach young women to refuse to be accountable for their drunk selves. Tragic.

  8. It’s now obvious to everyone that Ford’s delay tactics last week were meant to give time for the racist New York Times and Ronan Farrow to try to corroborate Ramierez’s story that Kav was the boy who pulled his wiener out at a party. Both came up empty.

    Ironically, Ramierez helped impeach herself by telling friends she is not sure it was Kav’s wiener.

    “The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

    1. That may not matter so much as the confession that Mark Judge made to his girlfriend that Mark and his friends took turns having sex with a drunk young woman. This is very damaging information. It leads to Mark Judge being subpoena’ed and having to claim the 5th when confronted with his own private confession to his girlfriend.

      The tide is turning in a way that paints the young Brett K as an immature, alcohol-fueled sexual deviant. I frankly don’t see how he even gets to keep his current job on the DC circuit.

      A pattern of immature sexual deviancy under binge-drinking is emerging, and it’s likely that more instances will come out.

    2. Scott: how is The New York Times ‘racist’..?? Is this some new conservative talking point I’m just hearing about?

  9. The various allegations so far suggest Kavanamattergh doesn’t have the mental stability one desires in a supreme court justice, or any other justice for that matter. Not only his excessive behavior at parties, but also his excessive ticket buying. How he paid those debts remains unexplained.

    Even more troublesome is the allegation of perjury during the process of appointment to his current position.

    Propriety is a mnimal qualification for a judge. Fire him.

    1. Yes. The Duke LaCrosse team members and the members of UVA’s Phi Kappa Psi fraternity are equally unstable! The accusations against them are dispositive!

      Oh! Wait!

    2. i know a lot of judges and they are all men with feet of clay

      kavanaugh sounds pretty clean to me but then again I know a lot of judges and I know them well

      society holds them up as gods, that’s part of the problem

  10. “Believing is enough”

    “Remember Democrats have said allegations against Brett Kavanaugh don’t have to be true to disqualify him; they merely have to be ‘credible.’ And what does Sen. Hirono call the weak New Yorker story? Why credible, of course.” – Byron York

    Mission accomplished for the Dems. Even if BK survives and is confirmed, there will always be a taint, a tarnish, a cloud over him.

  11. Kavanaugh’s reputation as a heavy college drinker and carouser is surfacing. This parallels the Trump routine. Trump walked all his life like a sex obsessed, lying, cheating, crook, talked all his life like a sex obsessed, lying, cheating, crook, bragged all his life about getting away with all that would sink the average people, because he was born rich, privileged, connected, etc. Trump is the poster child for those ‘just a little more or a lot more depending on your lawyers, equal’. Now Kavanaugh is being presented to the American people for a position for which there is no revisiting in two or four years, for life, to set the judicial, but more importantly moral and ethical compass. On top of all this, Kavanaugh is openly supportive of protecting high level officials from legal ramifications when they step over the line. Kavanaugh would protect the dregs like Trump when they somehow slither into office. Aren’t there any other choices for this opening? Does the Presidency need any more protection? Does America need someone as President who is more disgusting and yet untouchable than Trump? If Kavanaugh is tossed, and the Senate and/or the Congress goes Democrat in November; then the next nominee of Trump’s will have to be more centrist. America is too polarized as it is.

    1. Isaac writes:”If Kavanaugh is tossed, and the Senate and/or the Congress goes Democrat in November; then the next nominee of Trump’s will have to be more centrist. America is too polarized as it is.”
      Dream on pal, you of all people should know that Dear Leader doubles down when he loses. What he will have to do? Good Lord.
      Things are just going to get uglier. Wait til he declassifies what he can to flush John Brennan down the dumper.
      All the while, Mike Pence is next in line.
      The Dems shouldn’t have been so nasty to Bernie.Things might be a bit different.

  12. More political games being played per the New Yorker’s reporting (though they’d never admit it):

    “One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. ‘I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,’ he said.”

    “I have no recollection,” said a second person she claimed was an eye-witness.

    The New Yorker admits that it “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”

    Four Yale graduates who were friends with both Kavanaugh and Ramirez said “with confidence” if the episode had ever occurred, they “would have seen or heard about it—and we did not.” They add that it “would be completely out of character for Brett,” and the first Ramirez said anything about it was when Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court.

  13. From Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker Piece:



    Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women’s soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together. “We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)

    A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”

    Edited from: “Senate Democrats Investigate A New Allegation Of Sexual Misconduct From Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years”.

    THE NEW YORKER, 9/22/18

    1. The recollections here seem to echo the previous incident. Whether Kavanaugh actually behaved as alleged, he is once again described as rowdy when drunk. So the obvious question is: ‘Did Kavanaugh continue drinking long after college?’ Is that, perhaps, why he married late?

      1. Graduates from Yale College on time and with honors. Graduates from Yale Law School on time, and serves on the law review. Admitted to the bar without a hitch. Lands clerkships with three federal judges, among the Anthony Kennedy (you know, the clerkships Barack Obama didn’t get). Is employed in the Solicitor-General’s office, as a federal prosecutor, in BigLaw, and in the White House counsel’s office. Peter Shill’s interpretive frame for this career arc is…’Sh!t-faced Drunk’.

        Peter, you went full hollywood / FishWings.

  14. Is anyone really surprised? Here’s a question I’d appreciate some replies to: Can a senator-lawyer who has publicly trashed Kavenaugh’s presumption of innocence and publicly stated that HE has the burden of proof be referred to his/her state’s bar ethics committee?

    1. Unlikely. The presumption of innocence applies to criminal trials. This is not a trial. It in essence is a job interview, a very important job interview. As in any job interview, the burden is on the applicant to show that he or she is worthy of the job.

      1. He’s been writing judicial opinions on the DC circuit for a dozen years and the animadversions about him are horsesh!t. He’s worthy of the job and the Democratic Party is worthy of being drop-kicked en bloc into the ocean.

      2. Dan Cofran says: “Unlikely. The presumption of innocence applies to criminal trials. This is not a trial. It in essence is a job interview, a very important job interview. As in any job interview, the burden is on the applicant to show that he or she is worthy of the job.”

        Got it! So you’re okay – both morally and legally – with this hypothetical:

        “Hi Danille!

        “Thank you for your application for this job, but the entire world and I are aware of an unsubstantioned and unsubstansiable accusation that 36 yars ago you molested children, tortured puppies and dared to question the causes of global warming. (I’ve tried hard to corroborate those heinous accusations but I cannot, though I have testionials from many people that the accusations are inconsistent with what they know about you for the past 36 years.)

        “As things stand, someone thinks you are unworthy and that’s good enough for me. So I’m not going to hire you.

        “Please feel free to try to proove you did NOT molest kids, torture puppies or depart from the Global Warming canon, but even were that possible (I know it’s not possible : How does one prove a negative?), I still won’t hire you irrespective of your impeccable job performance over the past 3 decades.

        “My very warmist regards to you and your wife, family and friends! Do have a wonderful day and I promise to send you a Christmas card!


        “The person who could have been your boss had I not received an unsubstantianted poison letter.”

        1. Sorry, but this isn’t reddit. Your hypothetical for “Danielle’s” job application to answer the phone at Supercuts isn’t in the same universe as a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

          this is to “darn, it sounded good when I saw it on reddit” blockie

          1. Mark M. says: ‘Sorry, but this isn’t reddit. Your hypothetical for “Danielle’s” job application to answer the phone at Supercuts isn’t in the same universe as a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court.”

            “this is to “darn, it sounded good when I saw it on reddit” blocky'”

            Huh? I don’t follow. Please explain your comment . . . and be specific. (It looks to me that you’re simply making an assertion.)

            As always, I’m wide open to the possibility that I’m wrong or stupid or an ideologue or all of those and more.

  15. This is not all the Democrats have. On the merits, and most important, Kavanaugh ascribes too much constitutional power/deference to the executive branch, contrary to bedrock separation of powers in the constitution, Federalist Papers and ratification debates, IMHO. In addition, Kavanaugh’s responses to questions in his Second Circuit hearings regarding his WH role in the Charles Pickering nomination to the 11th (?) Circuit were misleading/less than forthcoming. Allegations about Kavanaugh’s conduct as a young man should be professionally investigated by the FBI, not partisan senate staffers. The importance of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court weighs in favor of caution and thoroughness, not expedience.

    1. This is not all the Democrats have.

      No, but the perjury meme is also rubbish. You people just cannot stop lying.

    2. Dan Cofran: Have you ever considered the possibility that you, your son, your father or your best friend could just as easily find yourself on receiving end of just such flimsy accusations?

      How do you prove you or your loved one did nothing? Because that’s exactly the position Kavaganaugh is in wrt these accusations. The left is using the seriousness of the accusations as a proxy for evidence, and that’s just wrong: Kavanaugh will forever live under the cloud that the left has created. His family (3 females, no less) will always live knowing that their husband/father has been publicly besmirched by accusations that cannot be substantiated.

      Americans have a long tradition of placing the burden of proof on the accuser to prove the accusation. Not on the accused to prove his innocence.

      In addition to the dreadful harm these unsubstantiated, not-credible accusations have done to Kavanaugh, his family and his standing, they have chilled the political and social atmosphere.

      You, Dan, better tread carefully lest you or someone you care about becomes one of the expendables.

    3. then zero in on that instead of 35 year old he said she said

      totally irrelevant smears

      if he’s a provable drunk now i would say that is germane too not just an episodic alcohol abuser in college like 80% of us were

  16. So Judge Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court because of 30+ year old allegations without a shred of evidence are somehow more believable than his impeccable record as a jurist and family man, yet Hillary Clinton should have been President despite her well-documented violations of national security.

    Democrats have sold their souls to maintain hope for an activist court. Absolutely disgusting.

      1. Issac……………Almost all of what you call “vile” stories about President Trump took place when he was a Democrat, giving big bugs to Democrats on the Hill, primarily Chuck Schumer.

      2. I’d rather have an effective, experienced, results-driven businessman at the helm, than a know-nothing, race-baiting, part-time law lecturer and community organizer who launched his political career in one of the most politically corrupt states in all of politics.

        Remember that time at the White House Correspondents Dinner when Barack Obama mocked and made jokes about Donald Trump as he sat in the audience and took it? That was the moment Trump said, ‘Oh yeah? Watch me.’

        And you know what he did? He said he was gonna run for president. He was gonna blow his own dam mind by winning. And I’ll be dammed if that’s not exactly what he did. He won. He certainly blew Hillary’s dam mind. He blew everyone’s dam mind. And everyone all over Washington is STILL losing their dam minds.

    1. OLLY – Cory Booker has admitted to groping a girl while in high school. I am sure did it in college as well. Should he be a Senator? Should he be Spartacus? Much as the visual is going to blind me for life, Mad Maxine has probably been groped both as the high schooler and as a collegian. Should she be holding office? And what about Feinstein, I am sure her skirt are not clean.

      1. Feinstein attended a Catholic girls school and then Stanford University down the road from where she grew up. Standford had no frats, and if Feinstein was molested, it’s a reasonable wager she’d acquired a reputation for being cheap. However, inconsistent with that thesis, she married at age 22 to a local man 11 years her senior. Divorced, she married a second time at age 29 to a man 19 years her senior (a surgeon who certainly had other options than a divorcee with a kid).

        1. DSS – well, don’t tell me DiFi has not had pre-marital sex. 😉 And those of us in the PAC-12 know about the Stanford band. They are not goody-two-shoes. They make Animal House look like Mr. Rogers.

  17. So now we are investigating hazy memories from college drinking games 35 year ago and alleged drunken horse play 36 years ago. If this is all Dems got then this points to a man who has lived a pretty clean adult life.

Leave a Reply