I Believe Her. And Him.

Comments

1

Christ, more mush-minded apologism from Herzog, focused strategically on just this single attack. Kavanaugh has assaulted other women and he has claimed he isn't someone who would do a lot of the shit he's accused of. Think he's being "honest" there, too? Then you are an idiot.

2

He could be telling the truth, but his angry statements and deflections, as well as the shifting statements of Mark Judge, tilt more towards a gulty conscience than amnesia.

He has also lied and exaggerated (not to mention exposed himself as more partisan politician than impartial jurist) in his other statements. He has never disrespected women - that “Renate Alumnus” crack was just endearment, don’t you know?

A truly innocent person doesn’t get mad at the questions, and he doesn’t lie and exaggerate - he calmly answers with the truth. I know - I have been in a conflict with someone who misrepresented the facts. I was patient and persistent and consistent. The truth won out.

I’m willing to give him a slight pass. He was a stupid drunk kid, arrogant, and entitled. He probably thought she would want his attention. He wasn’t a monster.

He still categorically does not belong on the highest court in the land - the final arbiter of equal protection under the law - for the rest of his life.

3

Katie, OMG you're so edgy!

4

Also, why doesn’t Mark Judge volunteer to testify? He could corroborate Kavanaugh’s story in a flash. Instead, he fled town. Simplest explanation is: guilty conscience. He doesn’t want to perjure himself or finger his buddy.

5

Pathetic.

6

@2 I assume Kavanaugh came out angry because that's the decision he and his advisors came to that they felt would best demonstrate his sincere innocence. There's a 0% chance they didn't talk about and plan how to carry himself during these questions. Based on my twitter feed, it feels like they miscalculated badly. I don't think the tenor of his responses says anything important about him as a judge.

If the GOP were smart, they could snooker the Dems: Agree to a full investigation after confirmation, with an agreement to support impeachment and before the next SC session. Heck they could even draw it up and Sens Graham and Grassley could put their names on it right now; locked in votes. Of course, the Dems would have to concede that the real goal - the only goal - was to delay the vote past the midterm elections. (which would be great news for Ramirez and Swetnik, who's significantly less credible stories will avoid enhanced scrutiny).

Of course, as it is, we'll get an investigation into Swetnik's claim, Avenatti will be forced to say that his client can't speak to any specific allegation against Kavanaugh, she'll be utterly humiliated (and whatever side deals he's making with her will be exposed), and Stormy Daniels will continue to pick up checks on the talk-show circuit (he only takes 10%).

7

Only two people on the planet actually know the truth, leaving the rest of us to only go by our feelings and assumptions as we sort through unsolvable ambiguities and unknowns. Enough said, time to vote.

8

I.CAN'T.EVEN.

9

Some people do awful things and then deny it though.

10

Brilliant piece, though it only exacerbates my pessimism about the fate of common sense.

11

He also had the option of admitting that he was a heavy drinker in high school and college (is he still? No one's asked) and that he had blackouts. That he doesn't remember everything he did. You know, he could be honest.

12

Also, he came off like every abusive husband, dad, boyfriend, etc. Doesn’t like his authority being questioned. Regardless of his guilt or innocence if this particular charge, I hate that reaction. It triggers me, and I have never been raped. Abused, but not raped. Fuck him and the culture of cruelty he represents.

13

@3, you can always count on klickbait katie to have her garbage takes.

14

Oh bullshit raindrop.

15

As somebody who has suspected Kavanaugh doesn't remember that night, I believe I can say, Ms. Herzog, that is different than "believing him", which is your clickbaiting. What specifically has he said that's narrow enough to believe on this?

@11 yep. If he had just said "I had a drinking problem when I was younger, I just can't believe I'd do this but I certainly can't remember a lot of drunken nights" that would be a very different picture.

He's showing different drivers of his behavior than honest amazement at what he might have done. If he's in any real denial about what he is, he suspects enough that he's scared.

16

Do you also believe his blathering bullshit about how this is all a setup by the Democrats? This article (like most you write) brings nothing to the table other than to make you look like a complete idiot, defending a garbage person via arguing semantics.

17

Never seen so much Party Partisanship like this in a while. But who is the one with faulty memory is the question? Both are partisan in there believes and those control both motivations and wishful memories. A couple of generations after the incident.

I was a young teen and into my early 20's I wanted to fuck them all. More times than I would like to admit I grinded without permission, I made suggestive comments without permission and touched a women without permission. Some gave me looks like get the fuck away, some buzz off and others liked it. You never knew. That kind of behavior is now considered sexual assault. That was the times, and we thought we were enlightened then, Ha.

18

Ya just can't change the past (much less make fit) into today's standards.

20

...or, she was attacked (not saying she's lying), but it's a serious case of mistaken identity?

21

@17

It was sexual assault. Too bad you didn't get the shit kicked out of you.

22

@21, Read 18.

23

So, tell me Dr.Zaius, tell me how you were such the Boy Scout growing up.

24

Pretty sure Katie has reached the limits of contrarianism for contrarianism's sake with this column.

25

@23 Oh, no, I was not a boy scout. But neither did I think I was enlightened.

And clearly it may shock you that many un-enlightened men did not feel perfectly okay with grabbing, groping and grinding on uninterested women. That it was widely known then, as now, as a fucking thing asshole who are piles of shit did.

I did some bad shit. And I don't make excuses that it was just "the times." It was me. The shit I did was bad then and it's bad now.

But I never sexually assaulted women or anybody else.

I guess if you think you're special and "enlightened" then no matter what you do you can justify it. Even retroactively.

26

@22

Yes, and too bad you did not get the shit kicked out of you, as you deserved.

27

@21, 25,

Not necessarily defending jackkay @17/18, but I definitely understand the times too. As a boy growing up in the 70's and 80's I remember the common belief--and the instilled training in all of us young boys--was that men, REAL men, were aggressive, strong, powerful, stoic... they fought off criticism and pursued what they wanted, and they absolutely, positively NEVER took NO for an answer! Jesus Christ... we were told to not take no for an answer! Please tell me that bullshit is no longer taught to boys (or anyone!) today?

It's fucked up. Totally fucked up. American society has major foundational problems, ESPECIALLY in the bullshit ways people are encouraged to raise their male or female children.

Touching women without their permission and making suggestive comments is bad. I get that. But go back 20/25 years and take a kid who's hormones are raging and who wants to fuck and is told over and over and over to be aggressive and don't take no for an answer and she wants you she's just playing hard to get... Shit... that was me. I understand it.

28

@ 25, My own quote. "That was the times, and we thought we were enlightened then, Ha." I was making fun of what we thought of as being aware of the Woman's Movement. Sorry that went over your head.
You say it was as bad then as it is now, yet you say you did bad shit too.

Your saying I'm justifying things I did in the past. No. I have many regrets. I've changed, but the past hasn't.

Glad to see you admit to being one of those "asshole who are piles of shit did.".

30

No way. This guy is guilty as sin and that’s why he carried on like a spoiled brat.

31

The only good thing to come out of this is that, hopefully, Kavanaugh's inevitable confirmation (combined with the bullshit that went down with Garland) will be the event that galvanizes the left and creates the will, the funding, and the follow-through to build their own judicial movement, similar to the one that started on the right after Bork's thwarted nomination and which has now culminated in a Court that is positioned to issue a generation's worth of regressive rulings and lax corporate oversight.

32

@29: Which is always tempting and delicious clickbait that you just can't resist.

34

Seriously Katie, this is dissapointing bullshit.

35

"What is clickbait?"

36

@24: Yep. I've been trying to hold out hope that it's not a trend, but the evidence seems to be piling up. But it drives people into the comments section to register their criticism and outrage, which loads the ads again*, and that's all that really matters to The Stranger.

*Not for me, I have to use an ad blocker because some of the ads on the site would get me fired just for being on my screen in an open office setting. I come by for those reasons though, and to watch the inevitable show of the regulars making fools of themselves.

37

He's a mean drunk.

38

You people that are pissed about this are out of your mind. She said she believed Dr. Ford and that Brett K is out of his gourd deluded, meaning there is a bigger problem with rape culture. It's not like Herzog is letting him off the hook.

For myself I watch maybe 3 or 4 mins of his defense and I thought to myself this sounds like stuff an man would say and I don't care. Not because of his politics which I find evil, but I don't care because he's dragging all the stuff he's claiming to be horrified about through the mud with him. Would I convict him, not based on those testimonies (tho it stinks like rotten fish that Judge skipped town tho, I might do the same shit because I don't want to get my family into this) It boils down to his integrity in besmerching a court he believe needs to be beyond reproach. I think the high court is a rotten body with a dodgy history but he thinks it's a shiny jewel and he's tarnishing it rather than withdrawing. Guilty or innocent, his integrity is lacking and his motive is probably personal gain. It's gross, he sounds like a terrible person and he's proving it, that's enough to disqualify him.

I hate the supreme court and this is why. Those people are fallible and flawed yet the rule us like medieval priests. They're a pack of fucking ghouls from a bygone time.

39

sounds like stuff an *innocent man would say and I don't care

more coffee needed

40

I read that a group of women in Maine are “torn.”

About what?

“On the one hand, his legal views, particularly on presidential power, are horrible.”

“On the other hand, he is an awful person.”

“Oh what to do what to do?”

The fact that there’s a “debate” about loony toon crazies like Thomas (incompetent), Gorsuch (illegitimate), and Kavanaugh (hack) shows how fucked up our “system” is.

41

@36

Which ad blocker?

42

@38: It's just performative at this point. It does not matter what Herzog actually says.

Same with the Kavanaugh hearing. I have no idea why people feel the need to pretend anything that happened would, or even could, change their minds. They were made up weeks ago based on political ideology. It is not like there is a scrap of objectivity to look at from either end.

It's about proving to online strangers you are a good soldier.

It's so fucking bizarre. I just really hope these folks actually have real people they talk to sometimes face to face so they don't forget what the outside world really is. It makes me sad to think about it.

43

Leland has said the statement was written by her lawyer and she did NOT know what was in it.
She apparently apologized to ms Ford and stated the opposite.

With his combatively defensive postures I do NOT see how anyone can believe him. What witness turns around and questions the interviewer? When asked FIVE times if HE WANTED a FBI investigation he would NOT ANSWER YES.
YET all the accusers have asked for an investigation and to be under oath IN PENALTY OF PERJURY.

What does THAT tell you about this??

44

Contrarian for the sake of being contrarian? "I don't want him on the Supreme Court -- but I am going to write a column essentially defending him." The author can deny that's what she's done but is in fact what's happened. Unbelievable. Reasonable people should be going full bore against this man's nomination, not creating wiggle room for him. This article is more than disappointing.

45

The fact is there is not going to be any independent examination of her claims, or those of the other women who have come forward.
The Republican party has once again abused the confirmation process and are going to install an alleged rapist on the Supreme Court.
But wait, it gets worse... this particular jurist has completely abandoned any pretense towards future objectivity and announced a policy of score-settling with his ideological opponents.
Worse still, with this vote a solid right-wing dominance of the highest court in the land is cemented for a generation.
So right here in the 20th Century the Republicans have stolen two presidential elections and two Supreme Court seats, abused their power, corrupted our institutions on an unimaginable scale.
And with all of this criminal behavior right before us, the Katie Herzogs of the world say the scale re-sets to zero and we should remain objective.
Wipe the scales from your eyes Katie and be witness to the complete corruption of the Republican party.

47

oops 21st I guess, huh? the time does get away from you doesn't it?

48

@7: Yes, time to vote for Jeff Flake's no vote so it doesn't even make it to the floor.

I "believe" Christine Ford just as I "believe" Juanita Broderick.

49

@48: Flake is voting to confirm, he just released a statement.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/jeff-flake-kavanaugh-vote-nomination/index.html

Although, one hopes you simply mistyped the number, and did not forget to sign out of this account...

50

@42 Online reality is a warped shithole of absolutes and it is very sad.

@48 sock puppet much? This is another reason to always be wary that your twitter feed reflects consensus

51

@48: Corker is a "yes" too:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-bob-corker-senator/1450347002/

This likely means that Collins and Murkowski are voting "yes" as well.

It's probably over.

53

@23 your boy Zaius was a hardcore Reagan and Bush supporter growing up.

54

@41:

I use a combination of Ad Block Plus and Privacy Badger - although it's my understanding these work best on Chrome, so you may want to look at others, depending on your browser.

Also, I believe using Tor may be your best bet overall, but I don't use it often enough to be conversant on its specific advantages when it comes to ad blocking and tracking.

55

What is the point of this artlce? I am really not sure at all.
If you're going to make the case that he did it but just doesn't remember it as an asault or as anything at all as it consistuted the 'norm' of his teenage (and beyond?) life - then you have to address that as a fundamental character flaw. You have to address the entitlement that goes along with that behavior. And the clear possiblity that that sense of entitlement and lack of concern of how his actions affect others is still present in this man.

56

This is BY FAR the best, the most perceptive, the most acute, and the most damning thing I've read about it all.
Someone please get it in front of every senator.

57

My ex was abusive sexually and physically. He cried and raged uncontrollably when confronted too. He too thought he was entitled to everything, including me. His friends, much like conservatives, told me that I wasn't a credible accuser and that I was just trying to ruin a promising man's life. They promised to vouche for my abusive ex regardless of what I was telling them.

Shove this apologetic shit back up your ass where it came from.

58

The false equivalency at the end undermines whatever banal point the author was trying to make about how different people will interpret things in different ways. If the Republicans sincerely believe that this is an intentionally false allegation, then they should be calling for an FBI investigation and for Ford to be prosecuted for lying under oath. If they sincerely think Kavanaugh is an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, you would think they would want to have his name cleared. Of course, they arn't going to do that, because they realize that any investigation would not work in their favor, and ultimately they don't actually care if he did this or not. This above-the-fray attitude that both sides have equally valid realities is more of the same conceited centrism that ultimately just enables those in power. Thursday's hearings proved that the Democrats "crowing" about toxic masculinity and rape culture are absolutely in the right to do so because the other side that is crowing about false allegations are completely insincere about their concerns. And that's a what makes them cruel and delusional.

59

@12 - unfortunately, that indignant, angry behavior to an accusation is also the exact same behavior that many people go to when accused of something they didn't do.

There's three things people do when they're unfairly accused:

1) They react with indignant anger.
2) They blow the other person off as an idiot.
3) They calmly tell the person that they're completely wrong.

The first one is the most common. The third is the least common, by several orders of magnitude. This is basic human psychology.

Only sociopaths and habitual liars are good at faking the response. And women and men alike react similarly - it just may surface differently.

TL;DR: You might think you've found a "tell", but you haven't.

60

Mein Trumpfy, Mein Pencey, Brett Kavanaugh ad nauseum are full of shit.

61

@53 Sporty. And your point is?

Some people can and do change of course not everyone.

62

@59
Uh huh, and are deflecting and ad hominem attacks considered legit rhetorical tactics lawyers or wannabe judges do when arguing a case?

63

If anything, it seems that being able to get away with stealing elections or confirmations is a feature rather than a bug - it's often admired. When Pres T gets his third pick, I'm sure almost all the people who I heard complaining that Pres O shouldn't get to pick THREE Supremes will pivot on a dime.

64

I noted the emotive use of language in this article to create a bias and a battle of the sexes. In referring to Christine Blasey Ford , the age 15 was used along with the term "girl". with Brett Kavanaghan , there was no reference to his age at the time ( 1 year and 8 months other than Christina Ford ) but the term "young men" was utilized and not "boy" (remember he was not old enough to drink or vote) Using term "men" in this way is to demonize the person.

65

Seems reasonable. Clearly, if he does not remember, but did do it, then he should not be a SC judge. But he is condemned for his action, but not his present day reaction, which I though seemed credible if here were innocent or believed he was.

Of course, it is also possible he did not do it. Seems hard to imagine Ford would lie or be that mistaken, but ya never know. many incredible things have turned out to be true. There are a lot of people out there that do crazy unimaginable things.

I will say, if he had done this to any other women, at least some of the women would have come forward by now. And also, two of the accusations are useless. One heard from her BF that they used to do some craxy shit. Another says she went to 9-10 parties where women were being gang raped essentially, and she still went to those parties??? and, she only says he was involved in giving women booze for those purposes. She never says he was involved, which is probably defense against perjury. Even if there was an incident or two of drunk girls being taken advantage of by a few guys, she never says he did that, and as far as the booze, I can imagine a bunch of guys going, hey, you don't have a drink, here, let me get you a drink. Come on, have a drink. But that is a far cry from her accusations. Plus, the attorney is sketchy as all get out.

66

Does Katie also believe Kavanaugh's explanations of the terms "boof" and "devil's triangle"? He clearly perjured himself with respect to the material in his yearbook, and his erratic, disrespectful behavior in response to questioning should have been more than enough to disqualify him from a lifelong appointment to one of the most consequential positions in the US legal system.