Politics, recent, Top Stories

Borking Neomi Rao

At the height of the #MeToo ferment over Judge Brett Kavanaugh, hundreds of Harvard and Yale law students shut down their classes to protest Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The students demanded that Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accusers be believed unconditionally, simply on the basis of having made an uncorroborated accusation. 

Many of these elite law students will end up as judges. Yet the media cheered them on, even though their rejection of the presumption of innocence, if carried to the bench, would demolish a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence.   

However, if you argue that female college students have agency to prevent many cases of what feminists label as campus rape then you have unfitted yourself for a judicial career, according to a large segment of the media and the political class. Last week, Democratic Senator and presidential contender Kamala Harris contemptuously grilled a judicial nominee for having written that female students can control whether or not they get drunk, the usual prelude to the hook-up sex that the campus rape industry routinely classifies as rape. Neomi Rao, whom President Trump has selected to fill Brett Kavanaugh’s now-vacant seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, penned several op-eds as a Yale undergraduate questioning the idea that females are always helpless victims of the male libido, unable to avoid regretted dorm room sex. Rao’s treatment on Capitol Hill suggests that fealty to the narrative of perpetual female victimhood is fast becoming a prerequisite for a judgeship. 

Activists had initially attacked Rao’s judicial nomination because of her role in Trump’s deregulatory agenda. As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Rao has led efforts to prune back the administrative state. The Center for Biological Diversity announced that, if confirmed, Rao would “dismantle 40 years of environmental and social progress.” Rao’s deregulatory sins were tame, however, compared to the student writings unearthed by Nan Aron, head of the left-wing Alliance for Justice and long-time scourge of conservative judicial nominees. Aron gave the website BuzzFeed first dibs on Rao’s college op-eds, which the site publicized on January 14 under the headline: “Trump’s DC Circuit Court Nominee—And Reported Supreme Court Contender—Wrote Inflammatory Op-Eds in College.” Seeking the most “inflammatory” quote it could find, BuzzFeed splashed across its page in massive boldface type: “If she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.” The rest of the quote, which BuzzFeed included in the body of its article, was just as shocking to a liberal sensibility: “Implying that a drunk woman has no control of her actions, but that a drunk man does, strips women of all moral responsibility.”

Two days after BuzzFeed’s story, USA Today announced: “Trump Pick to Replace Kavanaugh on Appeals Court under Fire for College Op-Eds on ‘Hysteria over Date Rape.’” USA Today recycled the same “inflammatory” passages chosen by BuzzFeed, confident in their shock appeal, but added some new content here and there, such as the scandalous statement: “Unless someone made her drinks undetectably strong or forced them down her throat, a woman, like a man, decides when and how much to drink.” The student journalist Rao, it seemed, just couldn’t stop recklessly attributing efficacy to females. In another column from 1994, Rao wrote that while a drunk man who raped women should be prosecuted, “a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober.” 

The scene, in other words, was all set for Kamala Harris to underline the powerlessness of women during Rao’s confirmation hearings. Barely able to contain her contempt, Harris repeatedly asked Rao what steps she thought women should take “to avoid becoming a victim of sexual assault.” At each iteration of the question, Harris’s incredulity grew: the cretin sitting before her kept suggesting that females could avoid excessive drinking in order to lessen the risk of assault! Obviously, Rao was engaging in victim-blaming of the most patriarchal, rape-culture-y sort. Harris asked Rao if she still stood by her comment that, in Harris’s words, a “good way for a potential date rape to be avoided is for a woman to stay reasonably sober.” Harris continued wearily: “You went on to say if a woman ‘drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well getting to that point was part of her choice.’” Rao caved and said that she would no longer stand by those comments today. She should have said: “You bet I stand by those comments; drinking yourself blotto is a personal choice carrying known risks. I thought we all wanted to keep females safe, a separate question from criminal culpability.” 

Iowan Senator Joni Ernst jumped on the feminist bandwagon with Harris. Rao’s writings gave her pause, the Republican told Rao, “regarding messages we send young women everywhere.” One might have thought that a message of empowerment was a good one to send, but perpetual female victimhood is better, apparently. “We have to change the culture of sexual violence,” Ernst said. “Young women need to feel comfortable sharing the experiences they’ve endured.” Even if we were in a “culture of sexual violence” —which we are not—why not arm females with ways to stay free of allegedly ubiquitous male predators, such as telling them not to get black-out drunk? Ernst’s charge that Rao had somehow inhibited females from “sharing the experiences they’ve endured” implies that females can only share their experiences in a context of uncritical feminist victimology. To acknowledge the complicated tangle of desire, confusion, cultural expectations regarding easy sex, and embarrassment about saying “no” that gives rise to drunken hook-ups is incompatible with the simple feminist morality play of helpless female and toxic male. 

The Republican defense of Rao has taken the easy way out: Rao’s op-eds are past the statute of limitations. Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec told BuzzFeed that the views Rao “expressed a quarter century ago as a college student writing for her student newspaper were intentionally provocative, designed to raise questions and push back against liberal elitism that dominated her campus at the time.” Kupec’s statement is correct as far as it goes. But these “intentionally provocative” views should not be disqualifying even if Rao had written the op-eds yesterday. Texas Senator John Cornyn was even squishier. These days we “criticize people for maybe some of their youthful indiscretions or opinions they expressed back then that are not particularly politically correct today,” he observed blandly. But Rao’s college writings were not “youthful indiscretions,” they were accurate assessments of the hook-up scene and the role of excessive drinking in perpetuating it. Republicans should proudly own Rao’s critique, regardless of its vintage. 

Rao’s nomination may yet survive this latest Borking of a conservative lawyer. But the drill for taking down government appointees who have dared dissent from progressive orthodoxies is now clear. All the media need do is quote or paraphrase a sentence or two from the offending pieces and—voila!—the case against a nominee is all but sealed, since the disqualifying heresy is self-evident. This script worked for another recent Trump judicial nominee. Ryan Bounds, a federal prosecutor nominated to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, had written mocking columns about campus race politics as a Stanford undergraduate. BuzzFeed reported that in one, “he accused campus ‘multiculturalists’ of stereotyping minorities who espoused conservative views, and he listed some of the derogatory terms used to describe them.” Res ipsa loquitur. No need to prove that minorities who espouse conservative views are not stereotyped, just as it is not necessary to argue that staying sober would not help females avoid “campus rape.”  The media can assume that its readers share a set of cultural assumptions that render superfluous any effort to rebut conservative opinions through argument and reason; those opinions are self-evidently absurd. BuzzFeed characterized Bounds’ language lambasting identity politics as “racially charged.” Terms like “white supremacy” and “white privilege” are presumably not “racially charged,” they are simple fact. (One Bounds aperçu, overlooked by the media, was particularly prescient: “Whenever a group of white males happens to be at the same place at the same time, you can be sure that the foul stench of oppression and exploitation lingers in the air.” This observation, from 1995, adumbrated last month’s mobbing of white male students from Kentucky’s Covington High School with eerie precision.)

Like Rao, Bounds recanted. He had used “overheated” and “overzealous” language, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He may as well have stood firm. First one, then two, Republican senators decided that identity politics trumps honest critique. South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, soon joined by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, scared other Republicans away from backing Bounds and his nomination was quietly shelved. Joni Ernst may play the same role for Rao, spooking male Senators into insulating themselves from any taint of “rape culture.” (On the other hand, Rao’s identity profile—female, non-white heritage [her parents are East Indian]—increases her Supreme Court appeal, so she may have more political value than Bounds.) 

Every time a public figure repudiates a previous challenge to politically conformist thought, he solidifies the grip of that thought on public discourse. He gives credence to the idea that non-orthodox statements of reality are so patently offensive that they disqualify their holders from respectable office tout court. Mere citation of those statements is enough. To be sure, conservatives and Republicans have their own repertoire of left-wing statements that they, too, judge as self-evidently absurd, such as: America’s “legacy aspires to the shackling of black bodies,” or: The role of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is to “terrorize immigrants.” The divide between the progressive and the conservative world view can be measured by these “inflammatory” statements: obviously preposterous on one side of the ideological divide, obviously true on the other. But while Rao may squeak by the political censors this time, the longer-term prognosis for breaking the grip of progressive ideology on elite institutions is not good. If any mention of females’ co-responsibility for drunken hook-ups causes a terrified dash for the exits, even more fundamental questions of culture and agency will become further off limits. 


Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of The Diversity Delusion. You can follow her on Twitter @HMDatMI


  1. I think the answer to the apparent paradox of Kamala Harris is as obvious as it is simple. She has factional interests, rather than personal opinions.

    • E. Olson says

      Kamala Harris – what a wonderful role model for young women!!! Checks multiple boxes for the affirmative action sweepstakes. Good looks to sweep rich and powerful old (married) men off their feet, and trade sex for appointments to powerful, high visibility, and well paid patronage positions. Saves the world by having no resource wasting children, and gives her more time to solve problems for all the rest of us!!!

  2. michael.s.baechle says

    I am confused. 40-50 years ago, the feminist anthem was “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar”, sung by Helen Reddy.
    Now, it seems that feminists demand to be seen as victims who do not “roar”, but only squeak, whine, and sob.
    Is this progress? The reason I ask is that my daughter tells me she is a feminist but I have never heard her roar, squeak, whine, nor sob.

    • Lightning Rose says

      Back in the day when we had actual PARENTS, (instead of sparmaceti donors and petri dishes), part of an adolescent female’s essential education was being told, in no uncertain terms, what NOT to be caught dead doing on dates. Some of the basics were: Don’t go where the bad stuff happens, don’t go with the “wrong” crowd, stay in command of your own mind and body, don’t do anything you don’t want to do and if you’re reading the wrong signals, like a lot of people out of control on booze or drugs, get out of there FAST–Mom or Dad will come pick you up, pronto! My father was quite clear about what might happen to one who didn’t heed these commonsense rules.

      Of course, in that quaint antediluvian world, your actions had CONSEQUENCES for which you would be held RESPONSIBLE. Unfortunately, Ms. Rao just walked into a glass door called “idiotic post-modernist mumbo-jumbo.” I wish her well . . .

    • Robert Franklin says

      And yet squeaking serves them quite well. Indeed, by appealing to males in the power structure, it’s gotten them more than roaring ever would have. And continues to do so. Why do they do it? Because it works.

  3. So, the word “Borking” means…accurately quoting someone’s words?

    • Sean Ohsee says

      No, it means to “obstruct someone, especially a candidate for public office, by systematically defaming or vilifying them.”

    • Bork was defiant towards the fools on the committee. It might be wiser to finesse a bit, as Rao was doing. I am disappointed with Ernst,

      • Marian Hennings says

        Bork would have been a disastrous choice for the Supreme Court. He was not defamed so much as he was exposed.

    • Jay Gladwell says

      Did you ride a short bus to a school that your mommy said was for “special” kids like you?

    • Adler Pfingsten says

      There was once a time when words had meaning understood by all listening until neo-Marxists began redefining words and in doing so created what Ludwig von Mises referred to as polylogism; groups incapable of communicating for want of a common understanding and a shared logic.

      I would be curious to know what you think of Joe Biden’s words as it concerned Obama; “I mean, you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a story-book, man”

      If the words were spoken by a “conservative” would they have the same meaning? No, which means that someday, soon, the inevitable will happen; a verbis ad verbera; from words to blows…the planned chaos of the false religion Marxianity.

  4. I just find it amusing that feminists will get insanely bothered by the insinuation that men are women have different interests, such as in the case of James Damore, the former Google engineer. How dare he disagree with the obvious truth that men and women are the same!

    Then, they will turn around and claim that obviously females have no agency as to whether or not to get blackout drunk. For some reason, only men have the particular ability to judge when they’ve had enough. Biology in leftist circles must be an absolutely crazy adventure.

    • Lightning Rose says

      I don’t think they teach ’em “biology” any more. You know, 52 “genders” and all? I vaguely remember when “sex” was supposed to result in “reproduction.” And I’m not even on Medicare yet. . .

  5. E. Olson says

    If I have to, (unless I’m having a bad hair day)
    I can do anything. (except refrain from getting blotto drunk)
    I am strong, (unless I get a mean tweet)
    I am invincible, (as long as I have Title IX protection against rape culture)
    I am woman. (until I decide to become gender fluid, in which case my preferred pronoun is vi)

  6. Matt K says

    I’d prefer judges to have a backbone and do what is legally and morally right even if it’s not politically correct. How can we trust her now to rule justly if she’s willing to back down from a few screeching SJWs?

  7. “However, if you argue that female college students have agency to prevent many cases of what feminists label as campus rape then you have unfitted yourself for a judicial career, according to a large segment of the media and the political class.”

    Try to look at this from a legal perspective.

    Generally speaking, there are two main things taken into account: whether something is a crime, and the intent of the accused to commit the crime. In other words, you can’t prosecute something that isn’t illegal, and “it was a genuine accident” can be the difference between murder and manslaughter.

    But if you show that something is a crime, and you show that the accused had the intent to commit the crime, in a fair judicial system you can’t then start to question whether the victim could have taken precautionary steps to prevent it. Stabbing a person walking down the street in a good neighborhood should not incur a higher penalty than stabbing a person walking down the street in a bad neighborhood, presuming that in both cases the person convicted was shown to have willfully committed the crime.

    It’s one thing to speak as a concerned human (telling a friend or family member to avoid a bad neighborhood that statistically has higher crime rates) but when you speak as a judge, you need to be impartial.

    It does seem reasonable to say that when you look at statistics, drinking alcohol alone with a male puts you at higher risk of sexual assault than drinking alcohol alone with a female. But bringing that mindset into the legal realm carries a level of bias that should be considered unacceptable.

    This bias plays out in parallel ways: convicted criminals from bad neighborhoods and convicted criminals who are male tend to receive harsher sentences than those from good neighborhoods and those who are female. It comes from judges who, on some level, believe that the first two groups have a stronger inherent criminal nature, and the second two groups were more likely to have just made a one time mistake.

    Most people would be shocked if a judge said that crimes could be prevented by not letting yourself be vulnerable near people of a certain race, and in an ideal world, you would not hear that crimes can be prevented by not letting yourself be vulnerable near people of a specific sex.

    As humans, we know this isn’t an ideal world. But we still hope our judges can apply as near to an ideal standard as they are able. Just as a convicted man should not be more harshly punished by any perceived “criminal nature” of his sex, an accused man should not try to avoid responsibility by hiding behind that perception.

    “The victim was stupid enough to be drunk near me” isn’t a defense for any other crime, and more to the point, it shouldn’t be.

    • Morgan Foster says


      “It does seem reasonable to say that when you look at statistics, drinking alcohol alone with a male puts you at higher risk of sexual assault than drinking alcohol alone with a female. But bringing that mindset into the legal realm carries a level of bias that should be considered unacceptable.”

      So a woman who expresses an opinion before she becomes a judge cannot be trusted to be a judge later in life?

      A woman who continues to believe its a bad idea for a woman to get drunk with strange men cannot be trusted to separate her personal beliefs from her conduct as a judge in a criminal trial?

      You think women with opinions are unfit to be judges?


      • @Morgan Foster

        My hesitance to believe that a person who stands by a previous belief later in life is no longer influenced by that belief is based on human nature, not the sex of the judge in question.

        I prefer humans over AI. That doesn’t mean I believe humans are infallible.

        • Morgan Foster says


          You seem like a nice person, and I appreciate the effort you put into your earlier post.

          Nevertheless, it’s clear that you are not an attorney and you do not have the first notion of how rape trials are prosecuted or defended.

          It also seems clear that even if you are personally acquainted with a judge, you have never had a conversation with her about how she separates her personal beliefs from the job she does as a judge.

          You should seek one out and ask her. I’m sure you will be impressed.

          • @Morgan Foster

            You seem like a nice person too, and not to push the point, but I hope if I saw you at a party where I had been drinking, you wouldn’t steal my phone or try to hit me or anything else like that.

            Because I like to think that even if I weren’t at 100% capacity, you’d still maintain your choice not to do something criminal.

        • They were college OpEds. Not legal opinions. You are afraid she will be “wise” in applying the law?

    • E. Olson says

      Maya – was Rao giving a legally binding opinion when she wrote the college newspaper editorials – or just suggesting a common sense strategy for reducing risks?

      Perhaps we should also ask about other types of advice and whether they indicate sexist tendencies that would preclude Rao from fairly judging women. For example:

      How about advice that women shouldn’t invest all their money in one company’s stock just in case the company would go bankrupt – would that be also sexist?

      Or how about advice that women should pack extra food, water, and blankets when driving during the winter just in case the car breaks down in the cold or get stuck in the snow – would that be sexist also, or just global warming denial?

      Or how about advise that women shouldn’t drink and drive. If a woman then gets drunk at a party, and decides to drive home and gets hurt when she crashes into a man’s car – should Rao rule that the man be held liable for the damages?

      • @E. Olson

        You’re helping to prove my point here:

        “sexist tendencies that would preclude Rao from fairly judging women.”

        Unless I’m misinterpreting this and you actually meant she would be judging women accused of sexual assault, her role is to judge the convicted criminal, not the victims of the crime.

        The other examples you give make it clear that you aren’t really aware that when we’re discussing a crime, there’s a criminal agent involved who made the active decision to commit that crime.

        Or do you think it’s reasonable to imagine that she will at some point preside over a trial where a snowstorm is being prosecuted?

        • Steve says

          “her role is to judge the convicted criminal, not the victims of the crime.”

          Judging the veracity of witnesses is very much a judge’s role in a bench trial.

    • Well said. Excusing a crime because the victim didn’t take steps to prevent it is ridiculous on its face.

      However this is somewhat unique among crimes because determining the parties’ mental state at the time is central to determining if a crime has even occurred. It’s not a crime for consenting adults to have sex. Saying “I had sex willingly but I was too drunk to legally consent” seems solid enough until one starts applying that standard more broadly — why are only certain people not responsible for their drunken actions? Why is “I was too drunk to hit the brakes before I collided with the bus” not a sound legal defense? How drunk is too drunk to be held responsible and to what extent can others be expected to recognize when that threshold has been crossed? Rao’s point here is pretty obvious, but I’m not sure the answer is as obvious.

      One one hand Rao’s rhetoric can be taken as standard victim-blaming, “she was asking for it” apologia. On another it’s the kind of practical advice that is absolutely uncontroversial in other contexts — if you don’t want to get into a traffic accident, don’t drive drunk.

      Telling somebody before the bad thing has happened that there are ways to avoid it is one thing, telling them afterwards is another. One seems concerned, the other callous.

      • Lightning Rose says

        Change the context: How ’bout “I signed that sales contract willingly, but was too drunk (tired, stoned, stupid) to consent.” Is the contract binding, signed by a legal adult? Does she get to keep the Mercedes? 😉

        • @LightningRose

          Going back to what I said above, the 1994 definition of rape was, as far as I’m aware, based on lack of consent entirely, and that’s what would have been in Ms. Rao’s mind at the time.

      • I see where you’re coming from in cases of “too drunk to give consent” issues. My personal opinion is that there’s a very fuzzy line and I generally draw it at being physically incapacitated rather than just not having sound judgement.

        That being said, while there is debate over when a “yes” becomes invalid, the line drawn at “no” is stark in comparison. There are a few people here talking about this issue as if it’s only one of a drunk person saying “yes” and the rape case being solely based on whether they were legally able to consent.

        But the above article references a quote from 1994. At that time, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the definition of rape that Ms. Rao would have had in her mind when she made the comment did include a drunk victim who did say no.

      • Nate D. says

        A missionary is foolish for attempting to infiltrate a violent tribe and being speared. A photographer is foolish for visiting a crime-ridden ghetto and getting robbed. A tourist is foolish for getting out of the vehicle on safari and getting mauled. A sports player is foolish for inciting a hostile home-crowd and getting a beer bottle thrown at him in the gangway. People say, “That was foolish,” and we agree with them.
        And yet, if a person gets black-out drunk in a room full of people they don’t know, it’s considered “victim shaming” to note that such behavior is foolish.

    • @Maya

      I didn’t see any reporting that Ms Rao agreed that “the victim was stupid enough to be drunk near me” is or should be a defense of any crime. Could you provide a citation, or is this a strawman you’ve knocked down?

      Ms Rao’s statements seem eminently sensible to me. Any good parent, friend, mentor, teacher, etc. should tell any young person something similar. How does voicing these same concerns to your classmates indicate impartiality in judicial matters?

      • @CP

        It was just to add a bit of rhetorical impact to the point I was making.

        I explained at a few points in my above comments why this causes an issue, but the short version is that her role should be to focus on the criminal act and the person who committed that act, without either pre-judging him as criminal by nature of his sex (getting drunk alone with a female friend being considered far less risky than getting drunk alone with a male friend) or believing that the same act can be considered more or less criminal based on what preventative measures were taken to avoid it.

        Like I said, I understand from a human perspective where she is coming from. I also understand why she backed down from those words when she is representing herself as a judge, and why she wants to put herself above that.

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


      “Stabbing a person walking down the street in a good neighborhood should not incur a higher penalty than stabbing a person walking down the street in a bad neighborhood”

      True, but is it a fair comparison? These ‘rapes’ are almost never genuinely violent. Couple hooks up in bar, gets drunk and then goes up to her room. Days or months later she regrets it and decides it was rape. Is that comparable to being stabbed? When you are drinking with a man in a bar, there is a certain sexual suggestion isn’t there? If you then invite him up to your room, what is he supposed to think is being offered? Women get drunk to advertise the fact that they intend to be ‘helpless’ and they know it gives them an excuse later. It’s a way of having your cake and eating it too. I suppose if we have a ‘rape culture’ these days it will be the culture of young men knowing the risk they take going upstairs. Like riding a motorcycle too fast, it’s fun, but of course it might kill you.

      • Lightning Rose says

        Are we now going to outlaw teaching young people COMMON SENSE? Getting drunk with strangers is dangerous; so is stepping off docks (like, water!) walking behind horses (kick!), laying down in the middle of the road to watch an eclipse (happened last month!) or sticking your wet finger in a light socket. How ’bout those plastic bags and 5-gal. buckets that now have to have actual printed warnings on them about not sticking your head in them?

        All I see here is an endless road opening up for the plaintiff’s bar–8 lanes wide to eternity!

        • @Lightning Rose

          I’m actually kind of amazed by this list.

          Rapists can be prosecuted.

          Docks, horses, light sockets, plastic bags, and everything else you listed can not.

          We don’t actually live in a dystopian world where criminals are considered irrepressible forces of nature and it’s just our job to avoid them as best we can.

          • Stephanie says

            Maya, it’s very difficult to believe you genuinely cannot understand this. How old are you, if you don’t mind me asking?

            Some vital points:

            1) Expecting a judge to have never expressed an opinion is unreasonable. Hers is well-supported by evidence and common sense alike.

            2) Having an opinion on how to prevent crime does not mean you are biased in favour of criminals.

            3) If you don’t like the examples listed above, how about this: the omnipresent instruction to not leave valuables in your car. Is that instruction forgiving towards thieves or “victim-blaming” drivers in any way?

            4) Opinions on crime prevention are entirely irrelevant to ruling on a case.

          • Robert Franklin says

            Every sensible adult takes reasonable precautions to avoid becoming the victim of crime. Women do so every day. They can do so regarding rape and sexual assault. Those precautions will almost always prove effective, but not always.

      • @Ray Andrews (the dolphin)

        I addressed this above a bit, but I’ll say it here too. I understand where you are coming from, but this was 25 years ago where as far as I’m aware the definition of rape she had in her mind was one where there was no consent.

        But I’ll say this in response: There’s about a zero percent chance that any woman is going to invite a man inside to offer sex. This might seem like a minor point, but it’s absolutely true.

        If a woman (or a man) intends to have sex, it’s not because they’re offering it to the other person. It’s because they want it for themselves. Same thing in reverse if they don’t want it. They’re not denying it to the other person, just not wanting it for themselves.

        I’ve probably typed more than the whole original article in comments at this point so I’m sorry if it seems like I’m being short with you, but that’s just such a big thing I had to say it.

        • @Maya

          Reading your comments, it feels like you’re playing semantic and linguistic gymnastics to avoid obvious commensense conclusions.

        • I understand why you would think that, but it is not accurate. Just the other day I was watching a video (Tedx I think) by a school counselor. She related how one girl told her, (approximately but pretty close to this), “I went out with a guy, but I didn’t like him, so I didn’t let him kiss me. I just gave him a blowjob.” Apparently a lot of women feel like they need to give a guy something at the end of an evening (dating or drinking). I don’t think that’s good in principle, but clearly there are women who are not having sex (/performing sexual acts) because they want to, even though they are doing it voluntarily.

        • The idea that there is “zero chance” that a woman or man will invite a man/woman inside to “offer” sex is nonsense. Indeed, if a woman (or man) intends to have sex with someone else there has to be an offer. The offer of sex is the very basis for a consensual sexual encounter. Think of consensual sex as a contract between two people (or more depending on your proclivities). Someone offers sex (the man/woman who “wants” sex for themselves doesn’t get that sex from another person unless they “offer” to the other person the opportunity to have sex). The offeree accepts the offer and the parties then engage in sex. Viola, a contract. Conversely, if a man/woman doesnt want to have sex, then that person either doesn’t accept the offer or dosn’t extend an offer. Basic contracts.

    • Andrew Mcguiness says

      @Maya: The problem with your argument is that while stabbing someone walking down the street is always a crime, having sex with someone in’t a crime unless you somehow force them into doing it, or unless they are incapable of consenting (eg. by being too drunk to consent). Your argument seems to imply that any instance of sex between a man and a woman is a crime carried out by the man, for which he needs a defence. Consider that, if a young woman at a campus party has drunk enough to be incapable of consenting to sex, then it’s highly likely that a young man at the same party will also be drunk. Why is it (potentially) a crime for the young man to have sex with the young woman (who is drunk) but not a crime for the young woman to have sex with the young man (who is drunk). Why does being drunk offload the woman’s responsibility for her choice onto the man?

      • @Andrew Mcguiness

        That really depends on what you mean by “drunk enough to be incapable of consenting to sex” because virtually everyone in this comment section seems to think it means a person who said yes but then is later declared not capable by legal reasoning, whereas my definition and the automatic thought in my head is someone who is passed out, incoherent, unable to clearly form words, or otherwise literally physically incapable.

        • C Young says

          @Maya Good to see that there can be disagreement here without anger.

          From my perspective, you don’t seem to be aware of the broader context of extreme progressive/feminist ideology in action. It is now common to assert that if two equally intoxicated people have sex (nowhere near the limit of physical incapability), the man raped the woman.

          This is even applied when the two people are married. Almost every married man is thus a rapist. (If you redefine rape enough, Andrea Dworkin’s claims eventually become true, but trivially so).

          This is playing out on campuses with bizarre incidents. See the notorious one in which a male student immediately reported a female student for rape after waking up after drunk sex. Panicking, he felt he needed to get to the authorities before his sexual partner did.

          It is also, without question, part of a broader movement of the current wave of feminism in denying women’s autonomy for strategic gain. This is, in turn, part of a broader sociological change described in the book The Rise of Victimhood Culture. Read it if you haven’t.

        • Andrew Mcguiness says

          @Maya – Oh, OK, on the “someone who is passed out, incoherent, unable to clearly form words, or otherwise literally physically incapable” definition of drunk, it’s obviously a crime. In that case, Rao’s advice to women is on a par with advice not to walk down dark alleys alone (my son was mugged at knife point, taking a short cut near his home), or the advice in London Underground not to have your phone out in the station.

        • Maya I think all the objections to your original comment come down to the sad fact that today the definition of rape has been expanded to include icky feelings of regret. Of course that’s not rape.

    • Maya, you’re spot on here. The condition or position of the victim is irrelevant. It’s the same with so called hate crimes. What I find strange is the argument that “a victim is not responsible for the crime committed against them” is seen as Victorian. On the contrary, in the Victorian age, a woman who dared go out at night and get drunk would have been seen as almost wholly responsible.

      A friend of mine had a close call with date rape and she wasn’t drunk at all. She jumped out the bathroom window to get away, wrenching her ankle.

    • A man can be just as drunk as a woman and both engage in sex with impaired judgment. Happens all the time. Hook up culture is rampant in almost all societies. I hope nobody suggests that on My the man should be responsible under such circumstances. Drink driving or drink fighting is not a gendered issue, the potential results of being drunk are many.

    • Julia says

      It’s one big twisted mental pretzel.

      The question was explicitly about *preventing* crime, not comparing one criminal case to another. But with the popularity of kangaroo courts on campus everything is possible.

    • mr1492 says

      First, this is an excellent starting point. My concern is that we are conflating “good advice” with a “legal opinion.” It’s good advice to anyone (male or female) to avoid getting drunk and not being able to make sound decisions or to protect oneself. Period. There should not be much to disagree with on a “social advice level.” I believe that is what Ms. Rao was doing in her OpEd. I don’t believe she was giving a legal opinion or indicating that if she were a judge, she would look askance at a rape victim. These are two separate things and I believe we are conflating them.

      As I said, I don’t think your argument is invalid or stupid but that I have a different interpretation. I gave similar advice to my children when they were young and got the same advice from my parents when I was young. Neither I nor my parents were giving legal advice but were giving “life lessons.” We shouldn’t forget that they can be different.

  8. Itzik Basman says

    So glad to see Heather Mac Donald grace these pages.

    She’s evidence, logic and common sense based, as outspoken as she’s plain spoken.

    She cares not a whit about the pieties of orthodoxy.

    • E. Olson says

      I agree 100% – no wonder the Left hates her with such passion – mustn’t let facts get in the way of the narrative.

  9. Benjamin Perez says

    Although I believe that Heather Mac Donald’s articles and books are required reading, this particular piece is marred with unnecessary and distracting Russell Conjugations.

  10. Craig WIllms says

    Agreed. Love Heather Mac Donald! The woman has courage. I wish there more like her.

  11. Marty says

    Why can a drunk woman form the intent to drive (impaired driving is a strict liability offence) but that same drunk woman cannot form the intent to have sex (ie. consent)? If she is in an accident with a man (sober or not) has he committed an offence, instead of her?

    • Morgan Foster says


      Can a drunk woman form the intent to commit an act of prostitution? Yes, of course.

      She gets drunk, negotiates a price, initiates the act. Busted.

  12. David Prichard says

    I have long wondered why, if I go into Billy’s Bar and get rolled for my pay cheque I’m a fool, where a woman who gets sexually assaulted is a victim.

    Obviously both are victims but both bear responsibility for their alcohol intake.

    • Nakatomi Plaza says

      By “rolled” you mean robbed? What on earth are you talking about? On what planet is somebody who is robbed not considered a victim? I guess, if it makes you feel better, go get yourself raped and tell us how much you prefer that to theft.

      I have no idea where you people get this crazy shit.

      • Dan Love says

        @David Prichard

        Nakatomi Plaza told you to “go get yourself raped”. The left is evolving. I don’t know if everyone else will be able to keep up with these huge leaps in IQ.

        • David Prichard says

          Dan Love Being responsible for ones actions, as Plaza amply demonstrates, is not in vogue in feminist circles. Perhaps she believes a drunk female driver should not be held accountable for a collision.

  13. James Howe says

    I’m disappointed. This is little better than a rant and
    is just echo chamber chatter. if it is truly the best the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute can do at dissecting the politics involved then I’ve over estimate what it takes to do think tank work. I believe that it is discernable that the battle over Mrs. Rao is simple tribal politics. Republicans have been taking advantage of their gains in 2016 to fill judicial vacancies with little push back. After the gains the Democrats made in 2018 and coupled with the hope they have for 2020 they are now pushing back against this. Additionally, those involved recognize that the judgeship Mrs. Rao has been nominated for is going to get additional media attention, because it both is a powerful position and because of who held it previously. Mrs. Harris, in here role, is running for president and sees her biggest weakness being her former record as a prosecutor and is now trying to paint a different picture while spinning the skills she gained then as an advantage.

    Mr. Bounds has long been seen as a liability/persona non grata and should have been pushed through by Republicans well before they lost the house. His case had nothing to do with Mrs. Rao

    • Morgan Foster says

      Wow. You have really high standards.

      This may not be her best piece, but Heather Mac Donald’s worst day is better than most.

    • mr1492 says

      Remember that it is the Senate which gives the consent to a judicial nominee and the Democrats lost seats in the Senate. Their House gains have nothing to do with whether or not a judicial nominee is approved.

  14. Jezza says

    All right, I’ll put my ignorance on display again. Please define “borking” and wtf is a “Russell Conjugation”?

    • Dan Love says


      “Borking” and “Russel Conjugation” sound like they describe a sex act. “Borking” is the low class term, while the aristocrats call it “Russel Conjugation”.

  15. Conner M. Steacy says

    Good signs of a healthy and mature society:

    -Women are aware of their propensity for vanity and keep it in check
    -Men are aware of their propensity for aggression and keep it in check
    -Children are taught both axioms by their parents. Preferably by example.

  16. emanations & penumbras says

    Re Joni Ernst: for this we replaced Tom Harkin?

  17. blitz442 says

    Imagine that a town has had a rash of pedestrians getting hit by cars. It then implements a pedestrian right of way law, such that vehicles must stop to let pedestrians cross the street and the criminal culpability in the case of an accident lies solely with the driver of the vehicle.

    At the same time, the town urges pedestrians to not endanger themselves by crossing the street in a reckless manner, to look both ways before crossing the street, to wear clothing that makes them more visible at night, etc.

    This is because the whole point of the new law is to prevent pedestrians getting hit by cars, and that BOTH the behavior of the driver and the pedestrian are causal factors in these accidents.

    I can’t imagine anyone other than the irretrievably stupid thinking that asking pedestrians to be careful would somehow let drivers off the hook or “blame the victim”. Surely we can understand that if a problem has more than one cause, we can address those multiple causes!

    So why do people make the exact same logical error when it comes to the causes of rape?

    • Peter James says

      Imagine more accurately that a town has had a rash of pedestrians getting hit by cars, wherein only half the pedestrians hit (the women) get counted as being hit. It then implements a pedestrian right of way law, such that vehicles must stop to let those and only those female pedestrians cross the street and the criminal culpability in the case of an accident lies solely with the driver of the vehicle, but only if he is a man. Female drivers can hit pedestrians of any gender without punishment.

      At the same time, the town urges female pedestrians to not endanger themselves by crossing the street in a reckless manner, to look both ways before crossing the street, to wear clothing that makes them more visible at night, etc. This is seen as a sexist affront, and lawmakers back down. Now a female pedestrian is considered hit by a car solely based on her word, not any evidence.

      Men quit driving cars and swerve/re-route to avoid even coming near female pedestrians.

      The end.

    • Ship Ahoy says

      Because hitting a pedestrian is clearly a crime (although it gets hazy if the pedestrian crossed against the light). Sex is not a crime unless forced, difficult to prove especially when both parties are in a state that inhibits the faculties of memory, exacerbating the often unreliable accounts of witnesses.

      To wit, I remembered being victimized — the bartender refused to return my coat — years later the friend who drank more responsibly told me I had been saying awful things about that bartender which she felt could have justified his actions. I have no memory of speaking that way. Alcohol does that to people…or only to men if one is a “feminist” I.e women too drunk to give consent can remember that when drunk but men can’t.

  18. Morgan Foster says


    It’s not an error at all.

    Progressive Socialists are training the public to believe that a woman who makes an accusation of rape must be immediately believed. Even by judges. By everyone.

    No need for a trial.

  19. Peter James says

    The reality is that regulatory capture by feminists is ongoing and accelerating beyond he family courts. I just hired a male assistant at work and have a male intern.

    I’m careful not to spend too much time alone with women at my company and I only date women I have texted/emailed at length before meeting them.

    Better safe than sorry.

    • Nakatomi Plaza says

      Yea, because it’s soooooo hard not to sexually assault a woman. And the amazing thing is that you aren’t even capable of recognizing that most women live by those same rules every day of their lives. You think women look forward to being alone in a closed office with your creepy ass at work? You think women look forward to hanging out with strange men they know nothing about? Have you ever talked to a woman about any of this, ever?

      But yea, you’ve got it rough.

      • @Nakatomi Plaza

        It actually is very difficult to not sexually assault a woman, when a mere brush in the hallway literally fulfills a feminist definition of sexual assault and merely disagreeing with a woman literally fulfills a feminist definition of sexual harassment.

      • George G says

        @ Nakatomi Plaza

        I saw your sensible comments on the “Public Education’s Dirty Secret” article and was worried that you’d had a stroke, your name was hijacked or maybe you’d had an epiphany that led you to a moderate, sensible political position?

        But I’m glad to see that after that blip your back off the meds. We don’t want women to get the mistaken idea they have agency in their own lives. Not when there’s the Illuminati, sorry I mean “Patriarchy”, to blame.

        Keep those grievance fires stoked sweet cheeks.

        • Craig WIllms says

          @George G

          So well said! For Gods sake every other TV show has the 110 pound woman kicking the ass of 220 pound men in every other scene, displaying a self-confidence and self-assuredness that 99% of 220 pound men don’t have.

          Yet, on the TV news nearly everyday someone is ‘offended’ or ‘harassed’ by words and phrases. If not that it’s some jibe about female empowerment, declaring a woman can do anything a man can do. God, it’s no wonder men are confused.

  20. Pierre Pendre says

    The issue is not the self-evident stupidity of extreme feminist positions which Democrats will always support unanimously and unconditionally but the self-defeating stupidity of Republicans (I hesitate to say conservatives) like Joni Ernst and the cowardice of Marco Rubio who concedes that the extremists may have a point. What Ernst said as quoted above does not even make sense in the context of what Rao wrote. In the real world, it is hard deny that young women who get drunk and lose control of their sexual inhibitions in the company of drunk boys put themselves in danger. I daresay the hard nosed Kamala Harris, who appears to have used sex as a stepping stone in her political career, would agree in private. But she knows that in public she has the power to intimidate the Rubios who dare not express a common sense view for fear of leaving themselves open to a media shellacking. Gutless conservatives are the liberals’ best allies.

  21. Bubblecar says

    “Rao caved and said that she would no longer stand by those comments today. She should have said…”

    Well no, she should have said what she wanted to say, not what Heather MacDonald wants her to say.

    As a student, whatever her motives may have been, Rao could adopt the deceitful rhetoric of the misogynist lobby. But she knows that as a judge, she’ll be expected to acknowledge that a rape victim is a rape victim, whether they’re drunk or sober.

    MacDonald and her ilk never have to make that acknowledgement, because their spiel is that rape doesn’t truly exist – to them it’s always “rape” in contemptuous quotes, a matter of women “choosing to put themselves in that situation”.

    • C Young says

      > MacDonald and her ilk never have to make that acknowledgement, because their spiel is that rape doesn’t truly exist – to them it’s always “rape” in contemptuous quotes, a matter of women “choosing to put themselves in that situation”.

      Nobody thinks that, let alone says that in public.

      You are inventing an entirely imaginary pro-rape ‘misogynist lobby’ to justify you own extreme position.

    • Morgan Foster says


      “MacDonald and her ilk never have to make that acknowledgement, because their spiel is that rape doesn’t truly exist – to them it’s always “rape” in contemptuous quotes, a matter of women “choosing to put themselves in that situation”.

      This is demonstrably false in Mac Donald’s case, and a very clumsy bit of defamation.

      • Bubblecar says

        It’s pretty much exactly what she said in the article. I mean, she didn’t even try to dress it up in evasive language. But it seems that when the Right “tell it like it is”, they are then offended when people interpret them “too literally”.

        • No, you are confusing responsibility with crime. If you put yourself in a dangerous situation then it is more likely something bad will happen to you. Predators of all kinds target the weak and helpless. So if you want to avoid being victimized then it is wise to take responsibility for your own safety and not put yourself in situations where predators can get you.

          That is very different than saying that predators are not bad peoples who are not committing crimes. They absolutely are and should be prosecuted accordingly. But their moral turpitude is a separate issue from expecting people to have some agency of their own when defending against it.

          Oh, don’t beat any women today. I’m a good person for reminding you to be a good person!

    • Defenstrator says

      “The deceitful rhetoric of the misogynist lobby.” Wow, this explains a few things about your rhetoric. If you actually believe there’s a conspiracy out there to promote misogyny then reality isn’t quite what you think it is.

      Oh, and that reminds me, I haven’t been acting like a proper Gillette man, So let me remind you not to rape any women today. It’s bad. I’m a good person for telling you not to do bad things!

  22. Morgan Foster says

    It appears that many of the commentators here – perhaps most – have never had a conversation with a judge, and do not have the first notion of how a judge separates personal belief and her professional conduct. It’s something that all judges have to do.

    Kamala Harris knows because she’s a trial attorney, making her recent conduct about as shocking a display of duplicity and deceit as you’re likely to see in the US Senate.

  23. Let me see if I’m getting this right (I’m a foreigner after all), according to the American left :
    1-Women, Latinos, Muslims, Blacks, Native Americans have no agency. Unless of course they are convervatives, in which case they are scum.
    2- Citizenship means nothing, and any person illegal or legal resident of the USA should have a right to vote and access to public services and allowances.
    3- Patriotism equals racism and the patriarchy

    It’s very unfortunate that the GOP is a madhouse, because with a left like this, a reasonable conservative party in line with classical liberal ideas, a patriotic party, would rule the USA for 25-30 years with wide majorities in both houses. If only….

    • poley says

      “…a reasonable conservative party in line with classical liberal ideas…”

      yep. you could even leave out the “conservative” part, tho admittedly there seems to have been a strategic removal of any moderate middle ground. That kind of extreme polarization never bodes well. Can always hope that an actual majority of ppl is fairly centrist with only slight leanings to one side or another on specific issues. But who is there to vote for in that case? As you say…

  24. If she were selected for non-political reasons, this argument on her behalf might have traction. She has no special qualifications and was selected because the selector thinks she will rule in the way the selector wants. That removes her from any entitlement to political “fairness”. There was “unfairness” motivating her nomination and thus “unfairness” in discussing her nomination is equally fair/unfair. These are not “merit” selections. These are “political” selections. She has passed no qualification examinations as to her intelligence, knowledge, or fairness. She was selected to assure outcomes. Or am I being naive?

    • Morgan Foster says


      If there’s anything naive about your comment it is in the unspoken assumption that there could be any other way of selecting judges in a democracy.

  25. Linda Curran says

    Political grandstanding by everyone on that committee who took exception to Rao’s college suggestions that women need to be the first to ensure their own safety by making good choices. My parents taught me that ALL my actions had consequences and that I would have to deal with them should I forget how to act. Those committee members who questioned her tried to make Rao look like she was somehow attacking female victims of sexual assault. I am sorry she caved. Her opinion was a no brainer and she should have said so.

    • mr1492 says

      @Linda Curran Thank you. I gave the same advice to both my son and daughter all their lives (and I remind them even today when they are married) that decisions have consequences. It doesn’t absolve the guilty of guilt but isn’t it better to avoid being a victim of a crime? Isn’t that, as my mathematics professors used to say, intuitively obvious?

  26. Pingback: Borking Neomi Rao | TrumpsMinutemen

  27. Angela scarfone says

    Thank you for a sober, sane, and well argued stand against the new standard in politics, just attack, attack, and then attack some more. Never mind qualifications, or the right to express nuanced opinions that provoke thought, no – we want robots that spit out the same mantra over and over. I also find this insane insistence that by admitting some responsibility for your own mistakes and bad decisions removes any and all responsibility of the others. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Not pointing out that a women/girl might be able to avoid being in a situation where she could be harmed by taking certain precautions, like not getting drunk, is not only dumb, but perhaps even dangerous.

  28. Alice Darr says

    It seems that the right of center folks and the writer of this piece do not know the difference between borking a candidate for a judicial office and asking the candidate pertinent questions about her experience, opinions on the law, the Constitution as well as what she thinks about current behavior trends. The Senators who are asking Ms. Rao these questions are doing their due diligence as part of the advise and consent requirement for voting on possible judges to the judicial bench. Ms. Rao can answer the questions or not, that is her choice, but not asking the questions is really not an option, especially when so much is on the line.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Alice Darr

      Not quite. The Democratic Senators who were asking Rao questions were engaged in a political attack upon a woman nominated by Donald Trump.

      Harming Trump, by harming those close to him, was the entire point of the Democratic side of the hearing.

      As the Senators themselves have made clear on any number of occasions since Trump took office.

  29. Lauren says

    Contrary to the myth perpetuated by extreme feminists and liberals/progressives, advising women to take steps to avoid being raped does not constitute victim blaming. You’re actually protecting them. It is no different from advising drivers to protect themselves against thieves. Lock your car. Hide your belongings. Park in a well-lit area. Install car alarm. When you give the drivers these tips, are you blaming them for being victims of theft? No. It’s the same with women and rape.

  30. John Brown says

    We’ve always know that excessive use of drinking by both men & women, especially in College, plays a role in bad outcomes, especially in sexual situations. Encouraging young women & men not to drink to excess as a precaution against ending up in a nightmare sexual situation. I would think Sen Kamala Harris would be a proponent of telling young women to take responsibility for their own protection & not get stupid wasted to the point they pass out or don’t know what’s happening around them especially around young men in the same condition. By the way the advice is the same for men. Don’t get wasted & do something that will destroy your life & Put you in Prison. But of course it’s not about Common sense but all about trying to defeat a Trump nominee even if you have to lie, distort, & trash. This nonsensical fake feminist crap is absurd coming from Sen Harris a person who slept her way to politics position & power w a married man!

  31. If I routinely leave the doors to my house wide open, and then a burglar seizes the opportunity to burgle my house, is the burglary my fault? It was my fault in the purely descriptive sense that I played a part in causing the burglary; if I had not left the doors unlocked, the burglar would not have struck. But it was not my fault in the sense that I did something morally wrong; I was not at fault morally. The burglary was morally wrong, but the burglary was the burglar’s action, not mine; nor did I ask him or pay him or incite him to do it. I did indeed leave the doors open, but it was not morally wrong to leave the doors open, because I was under no moral obligation to lock my doors; I had every right to leave them open. True, I would have been wise to lock my doors, and I can be criticized for my lack of wisdom in not locking them. (And perhaps the police can also be criticized for not doing a better job at preventing crime.) But I’m still not at fault morally.

    The situation is no different for a woman who is raped while drunk. She is not at fault morally to the slightest degree and has of course been horribly wronged. But, depending on the details of the case, her getting drunk may have been unwise, and even foolish (like my leaving the doors open). These are logically compatible things.

    • Dan Love says


      I almost agree. I believe the victim is at fault morally in many cases. For example, criminal negligence. Naïvety or stupidity in someone who should have known better and can demonstrably be proven to know better (so we are excluding mentally disabled people, children, etc.) can be straight up immoral and criminal. There are some cases where it’s almost entrapment.

      For example, if you pick up a random stranger doing crack and carrying a gun in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood, then bring him home to babysit your toddlers in your wealthy home. Or if a woman is having consensual sex and seconds before the man’s orgasm she says “I think I might prefer to possibly withdraw consent at this moment, perhaps”. I would say, in this latter case, the man is responsible for nothing criminal or immoral whatsoever.

    • Defenstrator says

      I understand where you are coming from. I have lived places where no one bothered to lock their doors because there is no crime. But in the end what you are doing is demanding the right to live as a child, naive to the evil that exists. If you told me you were burgled, I would have sympathy. If you told me you had left all your doors open I would have less, because you didn’t bother to undertake the responsibility of securing your belongings. If you were mugged I would be sympathetic, but would be less so if you told me you took a short cut through an alley in a crime ridden neighbourhood, since your choice dramatically increased the likelihood of that happening.

      So no, a woman is not morally at fault for being raped while drunk. But she is responsible for acting in a naive and irresponsible fashion that made her helpless and an easy victim for predators. And that evokes less sympathy for the exact same reason as the other situations. If you put yourself in the position to be victimized, people will not be shocked that you were. And indeed will assign a certain amount of blame to you for indulging in behaviour that other, more responsible members of society, avoid so such things do not happen to them.

  32. Lance says

    I wonder if Senator Harris would hesitate to tell visitors to San Francisco not to lock up their belongings rather than display them openly in their car because that too would be victim shaming. How did we go so off the rails to think that reasonable caution and situational awareness was anything more than being smart?

  33. david of Kirkland says

    Or do what we used to do after a drunken night? “Say what? I did what while drunk last night?!” And then laugh and move on rather than decide to feel bad and make yourself lower and more victimized.
    Bad sex is just bad sex. Get used to it if you plan to be married (oops, sorry for sharing that). You have both agency for your actions, as well as agency for how you choose to respond to life. Of course, there are real crimes that take place, and those cannot be discarded easily, but most often these are just bad experiences that some believe they have some right to never experience, as if life is an ensured pleasant only, good eventful series of years.

  34. Pingback: Joni Ernst and the borking of Neomi Rao | TrumpsMinutemen

  35. Pingback: Joni Ernst and the borking of Neomi Rao | CauseACTION

  36. Julia says

    “Harris repeatedly asked Rao what steps she thought women should take “to avoid becoming a victim of sexual assault.””

    I’m curious what the “correct” answer is in her opinion. “There is nothing women can do”? ANY answer “women can do this and that” would be “blaming the victim”. It seems, Rao is already guilty answering this question.

  37. Pingback: Joni Ernst and the borking of Neomi Rao - NoPaperNews

  38. scribblerg says

    Hyenas, the Left are a pack of hyenas who smell blood. They are spinning further and further out of control. Every single issue is reduced to misogyny or racism or some kind of thought crime.

    We live in Orwellian times. Right now.

  39. scribblerg says

    Rao is only too right as well in her commentary. Anyone here remember that swimmer student, Brock Nelson at Stanford who was convicted of raping that girl? I wonder how many of you got the real story of that incident. I’ll summarize it here briefly. It makes only too clear just how dangerous the Kamala Harris’s and her crazy ideas are.

    That woman had graduated college a few years earlier. She was back visiting her little sister and while there, she planned to go to a fraternity part with her to have a wild night. She drank 5 drinks at home before getting to the party. She was also known to be a blackout drinker, to herself and her sister etc. So she knew exactly what she was doing.

    She hooked up with Brock early. The couple were seen kissing and petting and canoodling for hours before they both took it out side for a bang. They both were very drunk, she was more so and they both stumbled and fumbled and fell to the ground. She herself stated, in her own words that she wasn’t actually unconscious. Those stupid white knighting male Swedish students claimed she was not conscious, wrongly. It was dark, they overreacted.

    She was in and out of a black out drunk. Every moment up till then had been consensual.

    I got interested due to all the hysteria so I read the court transcript. It’s so unbelievable. The supposed victim clearly had seen the wisdom of playing the victim card, and was aided and abetted by much feminist support. But her testimony was absurd and not believable at times. But for the most part it was absurd because it confirmed everything that Brock said.

    Bad judgment? Sure, by both parties. But the way the media played this, you’d think he’d clubbed her on the head and dragged her out back to have his way with her. Nope, in fact, she went out with the intent of having sex with a random guy from the party.

    Yet he’d convicted. He just lost his appeal. He was an otherwise stellar young man. No history of any violence or issues with girls. He just got wild with the wrong girl. That’s it. And his life is ruined. Forever. Her? She’s probably got a book or movie in the works. Or is making money speaking.

    What a world.

  40. Let’s stop calling them progressives simply because they call themselves progressives. They’re a hysteria, just as the Red Scare was a hysteria. The supply of useful idiots never dries up. It just runs out of demand until the next demagogue comes along.

  41. Marian Hennings says

    Rao’s apparent willingness to overturn regulations which have helped to improve air and water quality over the last 40 years are of greater concern to me than her attitudes on drinking and rape. I think the senators’ questions should have emphasized that tendency of Rao’s instead, but the issue wasn’t as hot and sexy so they didn’t. Politics.

Comments are closed.