During Wednesday's edition of MSNBC Live With Velshi and Ruhle, the eponymous co-hosts and their panel reacted to Jeff Flake's speech on the Senate floor with regards to the Kavanaugh nomination. The panel contrasted Flake's approach with that of Senator Lindsey Graham, who Ruhle criticized for saying "I find it curious that these charges were not brought until 2018." Ruhle responded to Graham's comments with a "come on!" before turning it over to Kate Snow, who criticized Graham for urging people to be "highly suspicious of the allegation because why would she go to ten parties? Why would any reasonable person, I'm quoting, continue to hang around people like this?" According to Snow, "if you talk to...the people that advocate for victims of sexual violence, sexual assault, they call this victim blaming." Velshi expressed disbelief that Graham would say such a thing, asking "Can you imagine?"
Snow then invoked a comparison of the Kavanaugh allegations to the allegations surrounding comedian Bill Cosby, even though she said "I'm not saying they're similar. They may not be at all." Completely discounting what she just said about the two cases not being similar, Snow pointed out what she saw as all the similarities between the two cases:
But Bill Cosby's defense team in that courtroom in the spring when he was convicted, that was their argument. And some of the women involved in the Cosby case said to me, it was an old-school 1970s, 1980s kind of argument. Why would you keep going back? In other words, why would Andrea Constand have, continue to have a relationship with Bill Cosby even after he had assaulted her? The jury didn't buy that argument. The jury went with the prosecution and they convicted Bill Cosby. And yesterday he was led away in handcuffs. Again, I'm not saying they're the same but that argument of why didn't she report it and why would she keep going back has been sort of, in the community of people that deal with this, psychologists, social workers, people who deal with trauma... have said again and again that that is not a reason to doubt someone.