Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pickJustice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.
The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Trump, reacting to the news, called Kennedy a "great justice" and said he'd begin the search for a replacement immediately.
Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy's moderate-conservative views often left him the "swing" -- or deciding -- vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.
A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.
That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.
But Democrats are expected to try and transform the court opening into a broader political referendum on Trump's leadership, and the future of social issues like immigration, gun rights and race.
Republicans, for their part, hope Kennedy's replacement helps them in the November elections.
Kennedy was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and sworn in the following year.
While often voting with the court’s conservative bloc, he has been a key swing vote in a number of cases and occasionally sided with the court’s liberal wing, particularly on issues such a gay rights an abortion. Most notably, he wrote the 2015 ruling on Obergefell v Hodges, which found that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
His retirement had been rumored in recent years, with several of his former clerks having said they thought he was considering stepping down.
While it is not clear whom Trump will nominate, the eventual nominee is likely to face resistance from Senate Democrats -- who are still bristling from Senate Republicans’ blockade of Obama-pick Merrick Garland in 2016 and would balk at the possibility of Trump hardening the conservative bloc on the court.
Kennedy’s retirement comes as both Gorsuch and Kennedy were key votes in two controversial decisions this week -- upholding Trump's 'travel ban' and ruling against union's 'fair share' fees.
Both decisions were 5-4.
The one I was expecting to retire was Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This was unexpected. And of course, if Ginsberg retires, Trump will get to have selected at least 3 justices during his term as president.
It was often rumored that Kennedy wanted to retire during a Republican presidency.
Ginsberg would die before she let a Republican pick her successor.
Hell, if she does die while Trump is in office, the unhinged left will "Weekend at Bernies" her until the corpse is mummified.
I wonder what you, as a lawyer, think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a Supreme Court justice.
As we touched on in a previous topic, I (as a non-lawyer) see her as a USSC justice who is a partisan and a liberal activist on the Court, rather than a justice who rules based on legal precedent and preservation of the true intent of the Constitution.
A few examples I can think of offhand.
1) Ginsberg ruled on gay marriage a few years ago, and it turned out that just a few weeks before the ruling, Ginsberg had conducted the ceremony at a gay wedding! Manifesting a certain bias in her ruling, where she should have recused herself.
and
2) Where some African country was forming a new government, she said that forming a nation's constitution now, she wouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model for forming a new government. Which was quite alarming to me, since it is her job to judge laws that conform to that U.S. Constitution, that she seemed to have an ironic contempt and disregard for!
Her and Sotomayor are the two weak links on the Court, that seem (my opinion) the most prone to rule on their own biases and personal liberal advocacy, rather than the Constitutionality of the law.
If rumors/alleged insider leaks prove true, Ginsberg is going to be next very soon.
None of this is by coincidence. The chickens are finally coming home to roost for that corrupt, pedo-cunt (see also: she advocated for lowering age of consent to twelve years old).
I wonder what you, as a lawyer, think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a Supreme Court justice.
As we touched on in a previous topic, I (as a non-lawyer) see her as a USSC justice who is a partisan and a liberal activist on the Court, rather than a justice who rules based on legal precedent and preservation of the true intent of the Constitution.
A few examples I can think of offhand.
1) Ginsberg ruled on gay marriage a few years ago, and it turned out that just a few weeks before the ruling, Ginsberg had conducted the ceremony at a gay wedding! Manifesting a certain bias in her ruling, where she should have recused herself.
and
2) Where some African country was forming a new government, she said that forming a nation's constitution now, she wouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model for forming a new government. Which was quite alarming to me, since it is her job to judge laws that conform to that U.S. Constitution, that she seemed to have an ironic contempt and disregard for!
Her and Sotomayor are the two weak links on the Court, that seem (my opinion) the most prone to rule on their own biases and personal liberal advocacy, rather than the Constitutionality of the law.
I see her as very intelligent, quite collegial, but extremely partisan.
And if she passes away while a republican is president, you're going to see liberals driving their kids out to the desert for mass murder suicides.
And if she passes away while a republican is president, you're going to see liberals driving their kids out to the desert for mass murder suicides.
That was funny to read, but I'm not entirely sure you're joking.
Ginsberg has been in poor health, so it's a very real possibility that she could either resign or die in office.
It does seem that Republicans look for a justice who will rule according to precedent and the Constitutional rule of law, even if it contradicts their own political views on issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control and Obamacare. Whereas Democrats seem to want liberal advocates who will vote the party line as a liberal advocate creating new precedents, rather than respecting the true intent of the law, and past precedent.
The one ruling that bothered me as a conservative Republican was over Obamacare, and that was because John Roberts, who clearly said Obamacare
is unconstitutional should have been the vote to overturn it, but voted to keep it, because "it is not the job of the Court to overturn bad law" but is instead something to be decided in popular elections. Which was both voting on political considerations and not the law, and also passing the buck, on what it is the U S Supreme Court's job to do. And Roberts did it in two different rulings on Obamacare!
And of course, liberals loved that ruling, because by whatever circumnavigation of the law, it allowed the Democrat political victory of Obamacare to stand (the only legislative victory of Obama's entire 8 years.)
In any case, Trump will announce his new court nominee tonight.
The opposition by Democrats is allegedly a grudge match because of the
Republican opposition to Obama replacing Scalia in the concluding months of his presidency (even though Democrats did the same in previous replacement battles). If not for the Gorsuch appointment, Democrats would find some other manufactured pretext to oppose any Republican court replacement pick.
Trump will announce his pick within a few hours, at which the
field of four nominees will narrow to one.
It's hilarious to me that the left has already arranged to have angry protests to coincide with the announcement. They don't even know who the nominee is, but they still arrange in advance to create the spectacle of a large protest, NO MATTER WHO the nominee is!
They did the same with the Gorsuch nomination.
A great question by Lou Dobbs tonight on his program, speaking with Ed Rollins (Reagan's campaign manager).
Dobbs asked: Why didn't Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in failing health, retire from the Court while Obama was president, to assure a liberal would replace her on the court?
To which Dobbs himself answered: "Because she didn't trust the man!"
Ginsberg likely was confident Hillary Clinton would win the election, and would be the one to appoint her replacement. But it's an interesting thought, that she didn't trust Obama to appoint her replacement.
It was announce at 9PM last night. Hannity's program included Trump's announcement, Brett Kavenaugh's speech immediately after, and commentary on the nomination:
President Trump announces Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court pickhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSRkCAWpMzEThe left's kneejerk protests and backlash were, of course, instant. And insane. The guy clerked for Justice Kennedy, and if Kennedy had selected his own replacement it likely would have been Kavenaugh. He has a reputation as an impeccable and impartial judge by both conservatives and liberals who worked with him, was hired by Justice Elena Kagan to teach law at Harvard, his mom taught at predominantly black schools and taught him to appreciate the underprivileged, and he devotes holidays to helping the pastor of his Catholic church in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless. And his family is like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting.
I mean geez, how do you condemn this guy?
Great commentary also by Laura Ingraham as well, who is a lawyer, and who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. So she had a lot of insightful firsthand legal opinion of the Supreme Court.
Laura Ingraham, July 9 2018https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtrEU_x-XwQAnd just for laughs, the petty and mean commentary I saw on CNN with Don Lemon. They literally couldn't bring themselves to say
anything nice about the guy or Trump's selection of him.
Don Lemon, July 9 2018https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJioBv8KfIQIt's unintentional comedy.
At this point it's whoever controls the senate gets whatever they want when it comes to this. Just remember that won't change after your party loses it.
At this point it's whoever controls the senate gets whatever they want when it comes to this. Just remember that won't change after your party loses it.
Maybe someone should've told Harry Reid that before he nuked the filibuster
He made the right choice. The GOP would have just had more vacancies to fill if Reid had continued letting them obstruct.
At this point it's whoever controls the senate gets whatever they want when it comes to this. Just remember that won't change after your party loses it.
I'm very aware of that. And it frankly terrifies me that your party could
ever regain power, given the Democrat Central Committee's escalating propensity for abuse of power, weaponizing of federal agencies, and complete lawlessness.
Lois Lerner, and all the other federal agencies that coordinated abuse of Tea Party and religious conservative groups.
Frank Vandersloot, who had to spend $80,000 to defend himself against vindictive IRS audits, just to prove he did nothing wrong.
The EPA used to shut down Gibson Guitars, again because they were Republican supporters. All the wood seized to prevent them from producing guitars, the exact same wood a number of other companies use as well (NOT Republican donors), who were never raided, never subjected to the same seizure.
And needless to say, the whole FBI/DOJ Hillary exoneration, despite overwhelming evidence, immunity handed out to her underlings and evidence destroyed with FBI/DOJ's blessing, then FBI/DOJ's rush to defame and indict Trump despite no evidence. Using the fraudulent Russia Dossier to get FISA warrants from a judge. Using FBI agents and subcontracted Russians as bait to entrap Trump campaign officials.
Then opening a Meuller investigation on false pretenses, and stacking it with 17 Democrats, 13 of whom are Democrat campaign donors. One of whom, attorney Jeannie Rhee (mind-blowing conflict of interest!) was just prior employed by the Clinton foundation to suppress FOIA requests, and now she is tasked with getting records from the Clinton Foundation she is a loyal zealot to. Andrew Weissman, Meuller's prosecutor, was at Hillary's election night victory party, and has Facebook-posted his contempt for Trump, who he is investigating.
Conflict of interest up the ying yang.
Your party is dangerous, M E M. They practice the ruthless tactics of Lenin and Stalin. Precisely because those are their heroes. And I have posted articles and video of their quoted words over and over to prove that. These are people who worship Mao, Castro, Hugo Chaves, the Sandinistas, and Che. In addition to William Ayers and Saul Alinsky, who are next generation Marxist radicals. Your party has become antithetical to the Constitution that the rest of us vow to preserve, protect and defend.
You can't even pretend the Democrats respect the law anymore. All you can do is look the other way as they trample on it.
Just in case you've forgotten:
Discoverthenetworks listing, Barack Obama:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511Discoverthenetworks, Hillary Clinton:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18William Ayers, the benefactor who sponsored Obama's political development, and first campaign fundraiser:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169An FBI agent who infiltrated Willam Ayers' Weather Underground:
[youtube]VlN2t0oERHk&t=57s[/youtube]
Ayers and Dohrn envisioned a joint occupation of the U.S. by the Russians, Chinese and Cubans, and the "liquidation" of about 10% of the U.S. population who were too capitalist to be "re-educated" to a Marxist ideology and government.
Valerie Jarrett:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2418Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor from age 10 till college, and a Stalinist who was under FBI surveillance his entire life. Who also had close ties to both Valerie Jarrett's parents, and to Barack Obama's mother, with whom he shared radical ideology, as well as a sexual relationship:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2323The ties between all these people is just TOO coincidental to be coincidence. Obama was cultivated since at least his time at ACORN to be a Manchurian candidate by Ayers and Jarrett to advance their revolution.
Oh. I forgot Bernie Sanders:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266Who has praised Soviet Russia, Castro's Cuba, the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, Mao's China, and even displayed a Soviet flag in his office for 10 years while mayor of Burlinton, Vermont, out of solidarity.
So yeah, I'm very aware the Democrats will likely at some point return to power. And it is not the slightest bit hyperbolic to say they are dangerous radicals, increasingly more so, and it terrifies me.
Events over the last two weeks during the Senate hearings for the Kavenaugh nomination, and the vile bomb unleashed on the last day by Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) just continue to manifest that the Democrats are the party of chaos, slander, and contempt for the rule of law.
THE LYNCHING OF BRETT KAVANAUGH by Wayne Allyn Root
I told you so. Once the GOP allowed Judge Roy Moore (Alabama U.S. Senate candidate) to be publicly lynched with zero evidence, zero witnesses, based on “he said, she said” charges 40 years old, it would never end. This would become a tool of the left.
I was right.
By the way, if Judge Roy was really a “pervert,” how come we’ve never heard a word about it, ever again? Where did all the victims go? Why no lawsuits against Judge Moore? They appeared out of thin air. As soon as he lost, they all disappeared into thin air.
Anyone can make up anything, anytime, without proof, or witnesses. Any desperate liberal who wants to stop a fine conservative from being elected, or becoming a Supreme Court Judge can invent, out of thin air, any fantastic fiction they want.
And never forget about the money factor. Anyone can be bribed to falsify a story by committed liberal billionaires like George Soros, with $1 million deposited into a Swiss bank account.
All of that is in play here with accuser Christine Blasey Ford and the public lynching of Brett Kavanaugh. The story is unbelievable. It’s clearly a last-minute Hail Mary by the left. It’s not even original. It’s almost an exact copy of the lynching of Clarence Thomas, another GOP Supreme Court nominee forced to defend himself against slanderous, unprovable charges. It’s a liberal gameplan, taken right from the previous script.
Ford can’t prove Kavanugh was there. She can’t prove he was in the room. She doesn’t remember key details. It happened 36 years ago. She has no idea how she got to the party, or how she got home. The only witness says it never happened. She reported it to no one- not parents, friends, or police.
Then there’s the absurd “coincidences” and “connections.” The accuser hates Trump. She is an ultra-liberal Bernie Sanders donor. She marched in the “I hate Trump” parade in DC filled with liberal feminists, wearing pink vagina hats. Her social media was filled with hatred for Trump. She scrubbed it clean in the past few days.
Her parents were in foreclosure proceedings in 1996. The presiding judge? Judge Kavanaugh’s mother. Liberals argue it doesn’t matter because they didn’t lose the home. Of course, it matters. It’s a massive red flag.
And the accuser’s lawyer just happens to be major donor to the DNC, Obama, Hillary and George Soros’ MoveOn.org.
But here’s the real clincher. US Senator Feinstein has known about the charges leveled against Kavanaugh since late July. She interviewed Kavanagh personally and never said anything about…rape? Her fellow Democrat Senators submitted thousands of questions, but never thought to mention…rape?
This is a purposeful, desperation frame job. This is a liberal conspiracy- just like the DNC fixing the Democrat primary for Hillary; and Obama conspiring with the DNC, Hillary and FBI to spy on Trump and fix the general election against Trump.
This is a national disgrace. Even I never imagined Democrats could go this low. It doesn’t get any lower than the public lynching of a fine All-American gentleman like Brett Kavanagh.
How All-American is Judge Brett Kavanaugh? Forget the fact he’s a loyal husband. Forget the fact he’s a wonderful father of two young daughters. Forget the fact he’s a girl’s basketball coach. Forget that his record is spotless. Forget all he’s accomplished in life. This guy is such a gentleman and boy scout that his ex girlfriends have publicly come forward in support of him. Do you have former girlfriends or boyfriends willing to vouch for you?
This guy is a cross between Jimmy Stewart and Mother Teresa.
This is the guy every father wants to marry his daughter. This is the guy everyone wants to coach your daughter’s basketball team. This is the guy everyone wants on the Supreme Court.
Except Democrats suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” They want to lynch Kavanaugh. After all, they believe he deserves it. He’s a white, straight, male Republican.
____________________________________
Wayne Allyn Root is the host of “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV, nightly at 8 PM ET, found on DirecTV channel #349, or at http://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/The-Wayne-Allyn-Root-Show He is also a nationally syndicated radio host of “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” found at http://usaradio.com/wayne-allyn-root/
65 women defend Kavanaugh as 'a good person' amid allegationsMore than five dozen women came forward Friday to defend Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh against an alleged high school incident, calling President Trump’s pick for the high court “a good person.”
The 65 women, who claim to have known Kavanaugh for more than 35 years, penned a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vouch for his character.
“We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” the letter read.
“We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time.”
The women wrote that while Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys high school in Bethesda, Maryland, they knew him through “social events, sports, church, and various other activities.”
“Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” they wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”
They added: “The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.”
The letter comes amid a controversy ignited by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who released a statement this week saying that she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation, and Republicans accused her of trying to orchestrate a last-minute smear.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Senator Feinstein said in a surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
Fox News confirmed that the letter involved an allegation about Kavanaugh while in high school in the 1980s. A woman who was also in high school at the time, accused Kavanaugh of holding her down and trying to force himself on her during a party, before she got away. The details were first reported by The New Yorker.
The woman also claimed Kavanaugh was joined at the time by a friend who turned up music to conceal her protests. The unnamed classmate, quoted in the New Yorker article as having "no recollection of that," is Mark Judge, Fox News confirmed. His identity was first reported by The Weekly Standard.
"It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge said, adding that he still does not know the identity of the woman who made the allegations.
Kavanaugh denied the allegations Friday.
“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement.
The White House blasted the charges on Thursday.
“Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him,” White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.
The accusations come after Kavanaugh’s Capitol Hill confirmation grilling, and ahead of the committee vote on sending his nomination to the full Senate.
The FBI conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees.
“Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” the FBI said in a statement.
Fox News has learned that the White House would need to request that the bureau follow up on the letter for the matter to be investigated further.
Despite the controversy, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said there is no plan to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Grassley set the panel’s vote on Kavanaugh for Sept. 20 and Republicans hope to confirm him by the start of the new court session on Oct. 1.
No one too important, just
every woman in his personal and professional life since high school. Every legal colleague, every subordinate, every past girlfriend.
Broaddrick: FBI Probe Ford Allegation? Then ‘Investigate My RAPE Allegations’ Against ClintonCNSNews.com) -- Commenting on Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a beer party some 36 years ago and that the FBI must investigate the matter now before she will testify about the supposed incident, Juanita Broaddrick tweeted that if the FBI goes back that far then it must also "investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too."
"If you want the FBI to go back that far @HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford's allegations .... let's investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair," Broaddrick tweeted on Sept. 18.
Juanita Broaddrick, a retired nursing home administrator, has long maintained that Bill Clinton, when he was the Arkansas Attorney General, raped her -- a "forcible, brutal rape" -- in a hotel room in Little Rock, Ark., on April 25, 1978. At the time, Broaddrick was 35, Clinton was 31.
Democrats didn't (and still don't) give a damn about Juanita Broaddrick. They wouldn't even take her statement into the congressional record. Or any of Bill Clinton's other assault victims.
Democrats don't care about Keith Ellison's assault on a former girfriend either. Who they likewise don't even want to listen to.
Or the indiscretions of Ted Kennedy and so many other Democrats. Hey, all he did was drive a car off a bridge and leave a girl in the car to drown, which she did. If he had reported the incident, the woman could have been rescued instead of dying in the submerged car.
Democrat Senators' concern about women, and about sexual assault of women, is very selective. Basically, if a woman's assailant is a Democrat, they don't believe you and won't even listen to you.
Actually I think Ellison is going to lose but don't let that interrupt your tantrum
If a "tantrum" is posting three articles. I think your accusing me of a tantrum is
your tantrum, and an attempt to distract from the facts presented.
And if Keith Ellison loses his current election, it won't be because the Democrats did the right thing. Quite the opposite, it will be because the Democrats did their damnedest to pretend Ellison's abused ex-girlfriend doesn't exist (her own words), the polar opposite of the Democrats' call for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be believed.
VERY CLEAR: the Democrats just want Blasey-Ford to be believed, scouts' honor, without any investigation of the facts. They portray asking her to testify as victimizing her again. Because the "facts" are a house of cards that will collapse on investigation. Sen. Diane Feinstein gambled that the
mere accusation would destroy Kavanaugh's nomination, but now that there are calls for an actual hearing under oath, both Blasey-Ford and the Democrat leadership are panicking.
But Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser.
Blasey-Ford thought she could throw daggers and destroy Kavanaugh from the shadows, now she is being forced into the light. As are Senator Feinstein and the rest of her evil minions. Their deception is exposed.
Alinsky-style Cultural Marxism. That which serves the revolution is moral, that which doesn't is immoral.
No standards or ethics whatsoever.
Lawlessness and chaos, the Democrat way.
Or as FBI deep-state agent labelled "FBI Attorney 2" (revealed as 36 year old Kevin Klinesmith) said in texts while plotting against Trump:
"Viva La Resistance!"
Actually I think Ellison is going to lose but don't let that interrupt your tantrum
Whether or not the voters reject Ellison is in no way relevant to the double standard being demonstrated by the DNC here.
A double standard made especially egregious by the fact of the evidence against Ellison is stronger and involves an incident much more recent in time then "he said she said" from nearly 40 years ago when people were in high school
If a "tantrum" is posting three articles. I think your accusing me of a tantrum is
your tantrum, and an attempt to distract from the facts presented.
And if Keith Ellison loses his current election, it won't be because the Democrats did the right thing. Quite the opposite, it will be because the Democrats did their damnedest to pretend Ellison's abused ex-girlfriend doesn't exist (her own words), the polar opposite of the Democrats' call for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be believed.
VERY CLEAR: the Democrats just want Blasey-Ford to be believed, scouts' honor, without any investigation of the facts. They portray asking her to testify as victimizing her again. Because the "facts" are a house of cards that will collapse on investigation. Sen. Diane Feinstein gambled that the
mere accusation would destroy Kavanaugh's nomination, but now that there are calls for an actual hearing under oath, both Blasey-Ford and the Democrat leadership are panicking.
But Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser.
Blasey-Ford thought she could throw daggers and destroy Kavanaugh from the shadows, now she is being forced into the light. As are Senator Feinstein and the rest of her evil minions. Their deception is exposed.
Why are you assuming Ford is lying? I understand why you would want to but you really don't know.
And g trying to rape somebody doesn't become more okay because it happened x years ago.
If a "tantrum" is posting three articles. I think your accusing me of a tantrum is your tantrum, and an attempt to distract from the facts presented.
And if Keith Ellison loses his current election, it won't be because the Democrats did the right thing. Quite the opposite, it will be because the Democrats did their damnedest to pretend Ellison's abused ex-girlfriend doesn't exist (her own words), the polar opposite of the Democrats' call for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be believed.
VERY CLEAR: the Democrats just want Blasey-Ford to be believed, scouts' honor, without any investigation of the facts. They portray asking her to testify as victimizing her again. Because the "facts" are a house of cards that will collapse on investigation. Sen. Diane Feinstein gambled that the mere accusation would destroy Kavanaugh's nomination, but now that there are calls for an actual hearing under oath, both Blasey-Ford and the Democrat leadership are panicking.
But Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser.
Blasey-Ford thought she could throw daggers and destroy Kavanaugh from the shadows, now she is being forced into the light. As are Senator Feinstein and the rest of her evil minions. Their deception is exposed.
Why are you assuming Ford is lying? I understand why you would want to but you really don't know.
1) Because it has been a consistent
vicious last-minute Democrat tactic, going back to at least the 1991 Clarence Thomas nomination.
And unleashed on Trump as an October surprise in 2016.
And unleashed again on Roy Moore earlier this year. I'm probably forgetting the names of several other Republicans who withdrew their candidacy and immediately caved in to these tactics.
Last-minute vile and baseless sexual allegations are a consistent Democrat tactic, from a Democrat leadership that is fiercely cynical, destructive to the nation, ruthlessly seizing whatever gives them political advantage, with absolutely no ethics or moral restraint.2) Sen. Diane Feinstein knew about this allegation since mid/late July, and waited till the 2nd week of September to unleash it. That is not the mark of someone who is pursuing the truth wherever it leads, but of someone calculating a slanderous ambush to destroy a nominee, giving Kavanaugh the minimum recovery time to defend himself. And a deceitful delay tactic, to stall Kavanaugh's confirmation as long as possible.
If Feinstein believed the charges and were an honest broker, she would have investigated in July, and either publicly or in closed hearings given Kavanaugh the chance to respond.
3) Diane Feinstein just yesterday hummed and hawed before an interviewer, and said she "can't vouch" for the truthfulness of the allegation Ford is making. As Tammi Bruce ( a lesbian conservative, and former leader in NOW in their California branch, who abandoned liberalism
precisely because of this kind of vicious liberal hypocrisy and deceit) said that Diane Feinstein gambled that the allegation alone would be enough to destroy Kavanaugh's candidacy, that she promised Ford she wouldn't have to testify. And now that it is coming down to Ford no longer being able to hurl her knives from the shadows, that her name is in the national media, that she is being compelled to face the man she accused and testify under oath for things
she knows are slanders and not true, Ford is now panicking. She doesn't want to perjure herself. And now Feinstein is panicking, because her slander campaign is crumbling, hence Feinstein hums and haws that she "can't vouch" for Ford's allegations. Ford blinked. Feinstein blinked. Because it is a lie.
3) And from the outset, and for 3 months, it has been clear that the Democrat leadership has been hell-bent on destroying Kavanaugh's confirmation, despite Kavanaugh's impeccable personal and legal record.
For no reason other than he is Trump's nominee. Schumer, Durbin, Hoyer, Gillibrand, Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, you name it,
NONE of these Senators were
EVER going to vote yes for Kavanaugh. Or even fairly weigh the evidence before deciding to vote no. And clearly, not because Ford's rape allegation has any whiff of truth, but just because it has the potential to rationalize rejecting Kavanaugh, they are leaping on it.
This is way beyond politics, the malice with which they attempt to destroy Kavanaugh. And your vicious party does it over and over. Destroying so many people. Contrast their eagerness to believe this Ford woman with their eagerness to kick down and destroy Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who they WOULDN"T EVEN LISTEN TO, WOULDN"T EVEN READ THEIR ACCOUNTS INTO THE CONGRESIONAL RECORD! Oh, the irony.
And beyond that, looked the other way while these Clinton accusers were publicly destroyed and their lives ruined. Juanita Broaddrick talked about being directly threatened back in 1978 by Hillary Clinton, in an interview a few days ago, and described that encounter as "the first time I became afraid of that woman." 40 years these women's lives have been destroyed. Not the slightest Democrat interest in knowing the details of their assaults, or the threats and intimidation they've endured for four decades after.
So why don't I believe Ford?
Because it didn't follow a natural path of discovery and investigation.
Because of Dems' selective double-standard.
Because the sexual allegations are typical of orchestrated Democrat character assassination, across multiple campaigns and nominations.
And because your party has proven itself consistently capable of this kind of destructive evil.
And because both Ford and Feinstein have already blinked. Because even they
know it's a lie.
As I understand it Ford has confided in people about this as far back as 2012. She took and passed a lie detector test. And she had to have known coming forward was going to earn her a lot of death threats from your side. You want to assume she's lying but in reality she very well could have had a drunken Kavanaugh with buddy try to rape her.
You do know that we don't elect Federal Judges precisely because we don't want them subject to the political whims of the voters, don't you?
Voters do pick the ones who pick the judges though and you would be foolish if you think your pols are not concerned about what their constituents think.
Because of the lying propaganda of Democrats on the selection committee, and of their allies in the 80% liberal media who are hell-bent on destroying Kavanaugh's nomination.
I think like Clarence Thomas, his best revenge is to endure it and be confirmed, and serve 40 years on the Court. That's the dignified professional man's fuck you to the Democrat/Left.
As I understand it Ford has confided in people about this as far back as 2012. She took and passed a lie detector test. And she had to have known coming forward was going to earn her a lot of death threats from your side. You want to assume she's lying but in reality she very well could have had a drunken Kavanaugh with buddy try to rape her.
Aside from being a far-Left college professor who rabidly hates Trump (and deceitfully scrubbed her social media of the angry anti-Trump propaganda there before making her allegations against Kavanaugh), Ford comes across as a coward who is too fagile and neurotic to follow through on her allegations. She comes across as someone who can't follow legal procedure, precisely because she is not telling the truth, and will end up nationally shamed when the truth comes out, and possibly jailed for perjury when deposed about it under oath.
She took and passed a lie detector test.
Performed in her attorney's office by an examiner hired by her attorney.
Putting aside that lie detectors are so unreliable that they aren't allowed as evidence in court, do you really believe one conducted under the above circumstances would be dispositive?
If so, then let's have Trump perform one about "Russian collusion" at Rudy Guiliani's office and put that whole matter to rest.
Well since we know it doesn't work on sociopaths that would be a nonstarter to begin with. While lie detector test are not used as evidence (never claimed otherwise btw), law enforcement and our intelligence agencies do use them. It is also better than say a partisan just claiming somebody is lying because the allegations are from a dem.
Well since we know it doesn't work on sociopaths that would be a nonstarter to begin with. While lie detector test are not used as evidence (never claimed otherwise btw), law enforcement and our intelligence agencies do use them. It is also better than say a partisan just claiming somebody is lying because the allegations are from a dem.
Two words, M E M: Keith Ellison.
The lying Democrat/Left are trying to pretend his abused girlfriend (for whom there are far more witnesses, police reports, medical documentation and supporting evidence than Ford's politically motivated lies.)
KEITH ELLISON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACCUSER SAYS DEMOCRAT PARTY DOESN'T BELIEVE HER, WON'T LISTEN The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.
Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet.
Ellison has denied the accusations, saying he “never behaved this way.” He did acknowledge he was in a relationship with the woman.
The allegations didn’t lead to any immediate action against the congressman, except for the announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would review the accusations. He went on to win the Democratic primary election for Minnesota attorney general.
Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.
“No, they don't,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories. “I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”
She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed.”
Her comment came after another user pointed to comments made by Peter Daou, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who wrote in a tweet that the Kavanaugh accuser will be “attacked, smeared, and demonized” and that people must “believe women.”
Many other Democrats and progressives – who stayed silent when the accusations against Ellison emerged – came out in support of Ford, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, chairman of the DNC, who urged to investigate the claims and Kavanaugh.
i think the accusations against Ellison will cost him his election. It certainly would finish him off as ever being considered for a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court. Here's where we're different again, I'm not calling his accuser a liar automatically like you do when there's a republican to protect. Nor attacking the press for reporting on it.
i think the accusations against Ellison will cost him his election. ...
Again, that is wholly irrelevant to the fact that the democrat party has circled the wagons around him and treated the allegations against him completely different than the allegations against Kavanaugh.
i think the accusations against Ellison will cost him his election. It certainly would finish him off as ever being considered for a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court. Here's where we're different again, I'm not calling his accuser a liar automatically like you do when there's a republican to protect. Nor attacking the press for reporting on it.
As G-man partly just said, the difference is that the Republican leadership (unlike me, for my clearly stated reasons above) are willing to give Ford a chance to be heard and reserving judgement until she tells her side.
In contrast, the Democrat leadership WON'T EVEN LISTEN to Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend's abuse allegations, and are pretending they don't exist. Likewise the Democrat-aligned liberal media. They won't even allow the issue to be debated.
And likewise the Democrat leadership and liberal media wouldn't (and still won't) listen to Bill Clinton's accusers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willie and Juanita Broaddrick. To this day, 40 years later, no hearings, no expressions of sympathy or overtures that they should be believed, no televised interviews, from either the Democrat leadership, or from the liberal media.
Her own witnesses aren't corroborating her story.
This needs to end now.
If the Republicans don't just hold a vote and get this over with and they deserve to lose
Not sure who your referring to. I know the guy she accused of turning up the music to cover up the sounds of a sexual assault denies it but that wouldn't be a surprise really. Given that this is a lifetime appointment I think rushing it through is a mistake. And apparently McConnell and others have been saying it doesn't matter and Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
Rushing it ?!?
Ford had 36 years to report the incident.
She had 6 years since it allegedly came out in therapy, from allegedly supressed memories.
She had 10 or 12 weeks since Kavanaugh's supreme court nomination was announced.
She had every day last week to meet publicly or privately with Senate committee members. The extended deadline was supposed to be tomorrow (Monday, 9-24-2018) and it has been extended BY REPUBLICANS to Thursday, 10 AM at the sensitive neurotic Trump-hating college professor's request.
Who exactly is "rushing" it? Certainly not the Republicans who have bent over backward to accomodate Ford, and let >>>HER<<< change the rules of a Senate subcommittee confirmation.
And this second "accuser", announced in the last 2 hours, is precisely what I expected. It perfectly fits the Democrat pattern of past slanderous sexual allegations against a Republican candidate or nominee.
Herman Cain.
Donald Trump.
Roy Moore.
1) At the last minute toward the end of a confirmation cycle or election cycle, an accuser comes out of nowhere and an allegation is made, lone accuser hangs on front page news for about a week, the denials pile up.
2) After a week or so, a second accuser comes forward and says it happened to her too. Then one or more additional accusers pile on in rapid succession.
Clarence Thomas partly follows the same last-minute accuser formula, except that the Democrats have improved the slander plot, to include a second or more accusers to pile on and crush any public recovery in the polls. A perfected one-two punch.
Keep in mind:
Ford is RABIDLY anti-Trump, and her social media was filled with anti-Trump propaganda. Ford scrubbed her social media of Trump attacks and venting, just before going public against Kavanaugh. Ford TOOK A LIE DETECTOR TEST. If she was not ever planning to go public, why would she set up that DNC talking point in advance? If she were serious about her allegation, if Sen. Diane Feinstein and other Democrat Senators were serious about investigating these allegations, why did they just sit on them from late July until now, no investigation, no questionig of Ford or Kavenaugh?
Because it is a lie and a deception.
Its sole purpose is to obstruct Kavanaugh's confirmation by any deceptive means available.
A political blitzkreig.
Not sure who your referring to. I know the guy she accused of turning up the music to cover up the sounds of a sexual assault denies it but that wouldn't be a surprise really.
- Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party.
On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford's at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.
Rushing it ?!?
Ford had 36 years to report the incident.
She had 6 years since it allegedly came out in therapy, from allegedly supressed memories.
She had 10 or 12 weeks since Kavanaugh's supreme court nomination was announced.
She had every day last week to meet publicly or privately with Senate committee members. The extended deadline was supposed to be tomorrow (Monday, 9-24-2018) and it has been extended BY REPUBLICANS to Thursday, 10 AM at the sensitive neurotic Trump-hating college professor's request.
Who exactly is "rushing" it? Certainly not the Republicans who have bent over backward to accomodate Ford, and let >>>HER<<< change the rules of a Senate subcommittee confirmation.
And this second "accuser", announced in the last 2 hours, is precisely what I expected. It perfectly fits the Democrat pattern of past slanderous sexual allegations against a Republican candidate or nominee.
Herman Cain.
Donald Trump.
Roy Moore.
1) At the last minute toward the end of a confirmation cycle or election cycle, an accuser comes out of nowhere and an allegation is made, lone accuser hangs on front page news for about a week, the denials pile up.
2) After a week or so, a second accuser comes forward and says it happened to her too. Then one or more additional accusers pile on in rapid succession.
Clarence Thomas partly follows the same last-minute accuser formula, except that the Democrats have improved the slander plot, to include a second or more accusers to pile on and crush any public recovery in the polls. A perfected one-two punch.
Keep in mind:
Ford is RABIDLY anti-Trump, and her social media was filled with anti-Trump propaganda. Ford scrubbed her social media of Trump attacks and venting, just before going public against Kavanaugh. Ford TOOK A LIE DETECTOR TEST. If she was not ever planning to go public, why would she set up that DNC talking point in advance? If she were serious about her allegation, if Sen. Diane Feinstein and other Democrat Senators were serious about investigating these allegations, why did they just sit on them from late July until now, no investigation, no questionig of Ford or Kavenaugh?
Because it is a lie and a deception.
Its sole purpose is to obstruct Kavanaugh's confirmation by any deceptive means available.
A political blitzkreig.
I think if you compare it to when it's a democrat being accused the same thing happens. Somebody isn't usually just naughty once but it's part of their character. One victim coming forward also makes it easier for others to come forward. If Kavanaugh was a democrat would you really be calling these women liars?
I think if you compare it to when it's a democrat being accused the same thing happens. Somebody isn't usually just naughty once but it's part of their character. One victim coming forward also makes it easier for others to come forward. If Kavanaugh was a democrat would you really be calling these women liars?
Ohh, really?
There is a Democrat right now, who is getting a complete free pass that Kavanaugh's attackers in the House and Senate won't even mention:
Rep. Keith Ellison, SEXUAL ABUSERNo one too important, just the second highest ranking member in the Democrat National Committee!
Democrats eager to lynch Kavanaugh based on no police report, no specific account, no corroborating witnesses, no medical reports of injuries, no psych evaluations as a result of the alleged attack,
won't even listen to Ellison's accuser, won't even acknowledge she exists! Despite that SHE has documentation in all these categories that Kavanaugh's accusers don't have a shred of.
Ellison does have a pattern (that the DNC and liberal media largely ignore), while Kavanaugh does not. Just two partisan liar women who tried to attack him from the shadows, with absolutely no evidence, just emotion and demagoguery calculated to destroy Kavanaugh's nomination.
You should be ashamed of what your party is doing to Kavanaugh, M E M.
Comparable to Kafka's
The Trial or Orwell's
1984. Convictimg Kavanaugh without a trial based on absolutely no evidence.
Not a shred.
Tucker Carlson broadcast, September 24, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvlkhzG6lHICarlson lays down the constitutional crisis issues, of how Demcorats are frighteningly and unapologetically abandoning due process and the rule of law.
The Ingraham Angle, September 24, 2018https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGchjvemlpoIngraham details the tactics of deception and obstruction, how Senate Democrats have manipulated Republicans' overtures of sympathy and fairness in delaying Senate confirmation a few days, Democrats manipulating that to prolong the nomination hearings, with the objective of demanding ever more delays, toward the ultimate goal of ending them altogether.
Igraham details how, far from the two Kavanaugh accusers randomly "just coming forward" (Christine Blasey-Ford and Deborah Ramirez, both rabid ultra-Left Trump-hating Democrats, both committed social justice warriors, both represented by very prominent members of the ultra-Left Democrat Trump resistance) that they really
didn't simply come forward, they WERE APPROACHED AND SOLICITED to provide dirt on Kavanaugh, and in both cases neither witness even have a lucid halfway credible story, they are still endeavoring to put one together.
I think that was a big part of the delay tactics, for Senate Democrats to get their second duck in a row and give both Blasey-Ford and Ramirez time to fully construct their on-the-fly specious narratives.
Ingraham beautifully deconstructs step by step the manufactured narratives, and how it truly originated from the liberal media and Democrat Senators,
not from the two manufactured witnesses. If Dems and the media were really interested in giving voice to victims of sexual abuse, Kathleen Willie and Juanita Broaddricck are still waiting for a callback. 40 years later.
I think if you compare it to when it's a democrat being accused the same thing happens. Somebody isn't usually just naughty once but it's part of their character. One victim coming forward also makes it easier for others to come forward. If Kavanaugh was a democrat would you really be calling these women liars?
Ohh, really?
There is a Democrat right now, who is getting a complete free pass that Kavanaugh's attackers in the House and Senate won't even mention:
Rep. Keith Ellison, SEXUAL ABUSERNo one too important, just the second highest ranking member in the Democrat National Committee!
Democrats eager to lynch Kavanaugh based on no police report, no specific account, no corroborating witnesses, no medical reports of injuries, no psych evaluations as a result of the alleged attack,
won't even listen to Ellison's accuser, won't even acknowledge she exists! Despite that SHE has documentation in all these categories that Kavanaugh's accusers don't have a shred of.
Ellison does have a pattern (that the DNC and liberal media largely ignore), while Kavanaugh does not. Just two partisan liar women who tried to attack him from the shadows, with absolutely no evidence, just emotion and demagoguery calculated to destroy Kavanaugh's nomination.
You should be ashamed of what your party is doing to Kavanaugh, M E M.
Comparable to Kafka's
The Trial or Orwell's
1984. Convictimg Kavanaugh without a trial based on absolutely no evidence.
Not a shred.
The DNC is looking into the Ellison allegations. He isn't being rushed through for a lifetime position for the nation's highest court. Kavanaugh now has a third woman that is coming forward. Confirming him now while women are still coming forward doesn't really make sense does it?
Christine Blasey-Ford finally is appearing today before a Senate committee. I caught a little bit of it over the lunch hour. It's surprisingly lacking in fireworks, and remarkably gentle and polite in questioning her.
But some glaring inconsistencies are visible, even in the brief bit I listened to.
1) She was supposedly afraid of flying, but despite delaying her testimony a week to drive, she actually finally took a plane to Washington. And it turns out she flies a lot, both with her work, and to islands throughout the South Pacific.
2) Blasey-Ford took a lie detector test, she couldn't say why she took it, who arranged it, whether it was her or someone else, or even if there was a fee paid for it by her or someone else. If I ever took a lie detector test, these are things I would definitely remember. I found that highly suspicious.
3) At least in the part I watched, she hasn't discussed her political zeal to the point that she protested against Trump's presidency, her comments that Trump needs to be stopped as president, her comments on social media, and how she scrubbed her social media of these references before she came forward.
If you know to look for these things, they are obvious. I feel like the Republican attorney questioning her is not challenging her enough on these inconsistencies, on Blasey-Ford's outright untruths, and her partisan-Democrat motivation for attacking Trump and his nominee.
The DNC is looking into the Ellison allegations. He isn't being rushed through for a lifetime position for the nation's highest court. Kavanaugh now has a third woman that is coming forward. Confirming him now while women are still coming forward doesn't really make sense does it?
With all due respect, Keith Ellison is the second most powerful person in the Democrat party. And the allegations against him are far more backed by police reports, recorded messages, medical reports of injuries from his battery, and witnesses. Absolutely none of which can be produced against Kavenaugh, and Ellison's case as well has urgency because it is just prior to his election for Minnesota Attorney General in a month or so.
But the same Democrats railing daily about Kavanaugh's absolute guilt, based on no evidence, are absolutely silent about Keith Ellison. And Ellison has a history of abuse with other women. But total silence.
I think your grasp of what the actual evidence is is flawed. There was a claim of a recording but I don't think it actually materialized. And Ellison is not being accused by several women of sexual assault. Kavanaugh is though. And his is a lifetime appointment being decided by a small elite group.
Well...Hell is freezing as I'm kind of rolling with G and Wondy on this one. This is political theater meant to gin up the women votes for democrats in November. But, I will admit to being partial after watching the most vocal and agitating wing of the progressive nerd side of things go absolutely batshit after Chris Hardwick this summer. I think this year is going to be the high water mark of the poundmetoo movement and I don't mind saying it like that because the left has done nothing to keep less scrupulous types from using the movement as bludgeon.
So you think the Dems got several woman to make accusations up?
I think, so far, no one has been able to corroborate the most plausible of the three to come up. No one seems to know who Swetnick is and the second accuser's case seems without corroboration so, yeah, it doesn't add up.
The 3rd accuser just came forward so it's not surprising not much is known.
I don't have enough information to disparage the authenticity of the accounts, though I think Kavanaugh was already a poor choice for other reasons. That said, I think this is less the Democrats manufacturing a crisis than the Democrats never letting a good crisis go to waste. The degree of grandstanding is bad optics though; just a brief perusal of social media reveals that a number of voters who are otherwise sympathetic to the Democrat cause are getting increasingly vocal about how inauthentic some of the reps and Senators are starting to sound. As one guy put it, it was like most of the Dems were so busy already running for office that they forgot the victim they were apparently so concerned for a moment ago. People see through that fairly easily. Attempting to force an October surprise rarely ends well for either side.
I don't have enough information to disparage the authenticity of the accounts, though I think Kavanaugh was already a poor choice for other reasons. That said, I think this is less the Democrats manufacturing a crisis than the Democrats never letting a good crisis go to waste. The degree of grandstanding is bad optics though; just a brief perusal of social media reveals that a number of voters who are otherwise sympathetic to the Democrat cause are getting increasingly vocal about how inauthentic some of the reps and Senators are starting to sound. As one guy put it, it was like most of the Dems were so busy already running for office that they forgot the victim they were apparently so concerned for a moment ago. People see through that fairly easily. Attempting to force an October surprise rarely ends well for either side.
A prime example is how Senator Hirono (D-HI), on top of her other absurd rhetoric about how all men should just "shut up and step off", used the most acrimonious moments of the Kavanaugh debate to launch a fundraising campaign.
A pundit on Charles Payne's Fox Business program an hour ago said that Senator Flake and Dems' proposal to give 7 more days to an FBI investigation to go one more extra mile, shows that Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed (multiple Senators on the D and R sides have conditioned their "Yes" vote on the 7-day investigation). He said that the additional investigation (the 7th), after 6 previous FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, for multiple previous higher court appointments, is unlikely to yield any new information, but gives additional cover for Dem and Republican Senators to give their approval in blue and semi-blue states.
I could argue for or against that.
FOR: It shows a flexible willingness by Republicans to allow further investigation, allowing one more FBI investigation to resolve all remaining doubt. It is more to get Independents and Democrats to overcome their final doubts, and possibly increase support among those resistant to Trump in 2018 and 2020, and gain a little more support among them by the bipartisan concession.
AGAINST: It could result in more outrage and loss of support among Trump's (and the broader GOP's) Republican base, who will
definitely vote Republican, than it will gain among Independents and Dems who are far less likely to vote Republican. Democrats and Never-Trump RINO's could also ask for another delay after the 7 days, based on any new allegations or discoveries over the next 7 days(i.e., that it's just another delay tactic, to delay it to the point of never allowing Kavanaugh to be confirmed.)
But I think momentum at this point is for confirming Kavanaugh. That yesterday's Senate committee antics with Blasey-Ford, and with Kavanaugh, made the Democrats look mean and petty, and this compromise 7th FBI investigation gives Dems a way out, to look tough but willing to compromise with a conditional final investigation to eliminate remaining doubt. And gives Never-Trumper Republicans that same way out to support Trump's nominee after forcing concession of a final investigation.
So you think the Dems got several [women] to make accusations up?
I think Blasey-Ford and Ramirez are both, though confused and sad women who might honestly
believe they were attacked, both have a fog of uncertainty to their stories, where they were intoxicated and with defective memory after 35-plus years they (at best, and assuming they're being honest) are simply mis-remembering Kavanaugh as their assailant, in honest error.
Or, more likely, both Blasey-Ford and Ramirez (and lawyer Avenatti's third potential even less reputable "gang-rape" client-accuser) are all registered Democrat liberal-progressives who despise Trump and operate with a mentality that Trump "has to be stopped", and are therefore participating as loyal social justice warriors toward any deceit that allows them to do so and damage/stop Trump.
1) Blasey-Ford and Ramirez are both Democrat/left radicals with a partisan axe to grind. Blasey-Ford had her social media filled with angry anti-Trump propaganda that was suspiciously scrubbed right before she went public attacking Kavanaugh. She also participated in "not my President" protests, and was photographed in a pink plastic vagina hat in one of the feminist/#metoo protest rallies. She is a far-left California college professor, and rabidly anti-Trump, and therefore has every reason to lie, as a social justice warrior sacrificing for The Cause.
Likewise, Ramirez as well is a liberal-progressive who works professionally for various social justice causes. And in an actual trial, a defense attorney would rip her to shreds, because she was drunk at the time of her alleged attempted rape, and it took her several weeks of phone-calling friends to ask if they could remember and identify Kavanaugh as the one, that she herself could not be certain of.
2) Blasey-Ford alleged she could not travel on a plane because of fear resulting from her attack 35 years ago. But in fact travels frequently by plane. She alleged that she couldn't fly to Washington to testify, and delayed Senate hearings so she could drive. That turned out to be a complete lie, she previously
flew to Delaware and has been there for three weeks! Everyone thought she was driving cross country there from California, when she had
already flown to the Washington area, and her basis for delaying Senate hearings was a completely false.
3) As I pointed out in above posts, this follows the same pattern of multiple sexual allegation slander campaigns against previous Republican nominees, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Roy Moore, now Kavanaugh, and Donald Trump. All beginning at the very last minute with a single sexual allegation, followed by multiple additional accusers a week or so later, piling on. THE EXACT SAME BATTLE PLAN.
Many Republicans and conservative pundits are more kindly saying that while these Kavanaugh accusers are wrong, they are confused sympathetic women who believe what they are alleging, despite being wrong.
I am of the opinion that they are committed leftists who are consciously lying and deliberately slandering Kavanaugh, as part of an orchestrated Machievellian smear campaign to advance their far-left cause. Just the latest of multiple such Democrat smear campaigns.
Who is Christine Blasey Ford, the professor who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct? Ford is a college professor
Ford is a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. A biostatistician, she “specializes in the design and analysis of clinical trials and other forms of intervention evaluation,” according to the university.
Her work has also been published in several academic journals, covering topics such as 9/11 and child abuse.
Ford has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, according to a Holton-Arms’ alumni magazine, the Bethesda, Maryland, school from where she graduated, The Wall Street Journal reported. She teaches at both schools in consortium, according to the newspaper.
The magazine also noted she is an “avid surfer, and she and her family spend a great deal of time surfing in the Santa Cruz and San Francisco areas.”
Her husband has backed her allegations
Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged assault during a couple’s therapy session in 2012. During therapy, he said his wife talked about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.
He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh’s name. She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Ford provided a copy of the therapist’s notes to The Washington Post, which detailed her recollection of being assaulted by young men “from an elitist boys’ school” who would become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”
Additional notes from a later therapy session said she discussed a “rape attempt” that occurred when she was a teenager, The Washington Post reported.
But suspiciously, Kavanaugh's name never appears in her therapists report of the 2012 account. And I'm sure her husband is another Democrat leftist radical committed to The Cause, who would say anything to advance his wife's allegations in an effort to cripple Trump.
She’s a registered Democrat
Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.
She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.
She is also among the thousands of medical professionals who signed onto a Physicians for Human Rights letter in June decrying the practice of separating children from their parents at the border and urging the Trump administration to stop it.
Ford already took a polygraph test
Once it was clear that Kavanaugh was President Trump’s pick to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Ford contacted The Washington Post’s tip line, according to the newspaper.
She also contacted her representative in Congress, Democrat Anna Eshoo. She sent a letter to Eshoo’s office about the allegations that was passed onto Feinstein.
After she retained the services of Debra Katz, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney [and committed Democrat partisan leftist radical], she took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. According to the results shared with The Washington Post, the test concluded that Ford was being honest.
I still find it suspicious (1) that if she never planned to go public, and was only forced to go public by Senator Feinstein's office leaaking her name... why would she get a polygraph beforehand, if she never planned to go public?
And also suspicious (2) that her first call was to a Washington Post tip line, not to political leaders or lawyers.
And (3) once received by Feinstein, not shared by Senate Democrats with the Republican side. And (4) Feinstein, while not sharing information with Republicans, recommended a radical-left bulldog attorney IN AUGUST, to get ready to unleadh a blitzkreig at the end of the Senate hearings.
There are other allegations I've seen about Christine Blasey-Ford family members working for the CIA, and a lawyer brother employed by Fusion GPS. If I can find links to those, I'll post them.
https://www.infowars.com/cia-honeytrap-set-kavanaugh-accuser-has-cia-ties/Christine’s Father Has Worked, and Still Works, For the CIA.
In addition to the other info that has recently surfaced, an article from the site ImpiousDigest states that Christine’s father, Ralph G Blasey Jr. had worked for the CIA and was a vice president, at one time, for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” allegedly known for funding CIA deep state operations.
The article does cite numerous articles for this claim, stating:
Linked to Dr. Blasey’s SVR file of known and/or suspected CIA operatives, this report notes, is that of her father Ralph G. Blasey Jr.—a proven CIA operative who, from June-1962 to January-1974, was the Vice President of National Savings and Trust of Washington, D.C.—a CIA black budget bank best known for being 100 paces from the White House, and whom, in 1998, was taken over by SunTrust Bank—whose majority share owner is the CIA-linked investment fund BlackRock.
The importance of noting the CIA banking connections of Ralph G. Blasey Jr., this report explains, is due to the outbreak of what is now known as the “CIA Bank War”—and whose start of, in 1982, a CIA seized from publication news report (Declassified in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/05: CIA-RDP90-00965R00150010-7) describes as: “This is Wall Street, the center of the international banking system, a system on the edge of a crisis so severe that the Central Intelligence Agency is preparing drastic measures. Something must be done to avert the breakdown of the Free World’s monetary system.”
The article also states that Blasey JR. is still a Vice President for a security guard corporation that provides protection to Deep state entities. The article elaborates:
CIA black money operative Ralph G. Blasey Jr. remains secure, too—and who, today, is the Vice President of Business Development of Red Coats, Inc.—whose Admiral Security Services provides armed security for “Deep State” elites in Washington D.C.—that is overseen by Red Coats, Inc. co-founder and Vice Chairman William F. Peel III—and whose Datawatch Systems, Peel III also controls, has US government contracts extending till 23 June 2023 under the category of 246.42.1 to provide US defense and intelligence agencies with facility management systems to include accessories and repair parts, computerized systems for surveillance, monitoring, controlling, signaling and reporting multiple functions
Whether or not this is 100% accurate cannot be said, but it does give some insight on potential motivations on why Ford decided to come out now, instead of earlier. It is also important to note that Blasey Jr. did, in fact, know of a reaarcher while at the CIA, Stanford University Psychiatric Professor Dr. Frederick T. Melges, who helped craft the highly publicized and widely controversial MKUltra Program. Christine, to reiterate, is a professor at the same university working in psychotherapy, espeically the affects of psychotropic drugs on children.
An intriguing in-depth new Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that a Stanford University Psychiatry Professor named Dr. Christine Blasey has become the latest centerpiece of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plot to harm President Trump with her last-minute allegation, just days prior to US Senate confirmation, that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had attempted to sexually assault her over 30 years ago when they were teenage school children—while being kept from the American people about Dr. Blasey is that she currently oversees the CIA Undergraduate Internship Program Stanford University developed by the notorious CIA-connected Stanford University Psychiatric Professor Dr. Frederick T. Melges—who himself, in 1985, took into his care the homeless woman Lois Lang who assassinated CIA paymaster Nick Deak—and that afterwards saw the CIA’s black operations monies being controlled by Ralph G. Blasey Jr.—who, not so mysteriously, just happens to be the father of Dr. Christine Blasey.
Of course, this theory is perfectly, logically, and legally impossible to prove, as the CIA operates under the explicit cover of national security, which is the end all and be all of the Shadow Government.
What this means is just simply this is another cut in the death by a thousand cuts approach taken by deep-state Democrats and crooked Clinton supporters which will do anything to justify their own means, to avoid restoration of ‘rule of law’ and defend and/or cover up their own illegal acts in any way possible.
A bit rambling and unpolished, but it does reveal another motivation for Christine Blasey-Ford's testimony against a Trump nominee.
God help me, I actually looked at a MediaMatters piece that came up on the subject in a google search on the subject:
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/0...tied-cia/221505It seems to me it's undeniable Blasey-Ford's father worked for the CIA and was positioned as a bank executive for the bank that funds CIA black operations.
And that Blasey-Ford works for a university, and even in the department that does recruitment and internship programs for the CIA. So MediaMatters seems to be saying, the bulk of the allegation is true, but you still shouldn't believe it.
Some of the details might be in error, but it seems to me even the most partisan Media Matters spin can't disprove the thrust of it.
I'm not a Michael Savage viewer. the few Youtube clips I've looked at, years ago, he's on the Right doing exactly the kind of factless emotional hate that I despise coming from the Left.
Infowars I'll at least look at. But don't fully buy without confirmation.
This article...
KAVANAUGH ACCUSER'S BROTHER WORKED FOR LAW FIRM THAT HIRED FUSION GPS [FOR "RUSSIA DOSSIER"]...puts the lie to what MediaMatters alleges.
The brother of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, worked for a law firm that hired Fusion GPS, which produced the fake dossier on President Donald Trump, Lifenews.com reported.
The website cited blog sites PacificPundit.com and TruePundit.com, which are reporting that Ralph Blasey III, once worked for the law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP. He left the firm in 2004.
The Daily Caller reported in 2017 that Baker & Hostetler LLP paid Fusion GPS several payments, totaling more than a half million dollars in 2016.
Fusion GPS was also hired by Planned Parenthood to use fake forensic analysis debunk the undercover videos that the Center for Medical Progress made in 2015 showing the abortion providers’ executives discussing the sale of aborted baby body parts.
Furthermore, Ford’s lawyer, Deborah Katz, is vice president of Project on Government Oversight (POGO), FrontPageMag.com reported.
“POGO is funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, according to Forbes.com,” Lifenews.com reported.
While Ford's brother left the firm in 2004, the Baker & Hostetler law firm continued to fund Fusion GPS right up through at least 2016. It is not disclosed what her brother, Ralph Blasey III, is currently doing professionally, and if he might still have interactions and knowledge of Baker & Hostetler transactions, or political enthusiasm for them.
Clearly his sister fully supports the attacks on Trump. If he shares her politics, he could not only share those politics, but influence them professionally through old connections. Although I'll concede his participation is unlikely in even this remote way, if he left Hoestetler in 2004, and Hoestetler contracted Fusion GPS in 2015-1016.
And of course, Soros' fingerprints are all over this. Not only as listed in the article, but also in many front groups in the astroturfed grassroots, leftist activist groups, and media, all attacking Kavanaugh.
From what I'm reading the FBI probe is going to be very limited and staying away from the third woman. Quite different from what Trump is claiming. Im sure Kavanaugh will be pushed though but he'll always be tainted and hopefully a rallying point for the nation. His rant full of Trump styled partisan accusations shredded any illusion of somebody that was even going to be a nonpartisan umpire.
From what I'm reading the FBI probe is going to be very limited and staying away from the third woman.
That's probably a blessing to her and her attorney. She has issues.
And just a reminder, this will be the SEVENTH FBI investigation of Kavenaugh. So M E M, it's not like he is slipping by without full investigation and scrutiny. That is just your party's vile attempt to slime him.
The bottom line is, there is no lucid verifiable allegation against Kavanaugh, so no reasonable basis to deny him a position on the U S Supreme Court.
Joe DiGenova Breaks down the Kavanaugh-Ford hearingshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pIrCSrNRrMDiGenova speaks as someone with integrity in Washington, who knows a lot of the players, including Kavanaugh, and is enraged and grieved by how someone with the dedication and integrity of Kavanaugh, AND HIS FAMILY, can be destroyed by a Democrat party that has completely abandoned ethics in the tacticss unleashed on Kavanaugh. And Trump. And Roy Moore. And Herman Cain. Literally the exact same scorched-earth battle plan unleashed on all of them.
And M E M is perfectly OK with all this.
The Senate is controlled by republicans. I don't fall into every accusation against a republican must be true group but there are multiple women in this case. I can't imagine if Kavanaugh was a democrat of even having a chance of being confirmed at this point to be honest.
There is not a single shred of evidence against Kavanaugh. If anyone wants to get a promotion or have their rival fired at work, do they only need to have some woman accuse him, and the woman has to be believed? Where the mere accusation is proof of guilt?
Everyone but Democrat partisans can plainly see it is a set-up, a fraudulent smear campaign. The EXACT same smear technique used on Roy Moore, Herman Cain, and even Donald Trump. And in a less evolved smear technique, on Clarence Thomas as well. As I cited above.
Democrat Senators, starting yesterday, just three days after they agreed to the Jeff Flake "compromise" (where Republicans conceded a confirmation vote, and Democrats conceded nothing) , that they would agree to vote "yes" for Kavanaugh on condition of a 7th Kavanaugh FBI background investigation after 7 days. And now, 3 days into the 7, Senate Democrats are already saying that's not enough time.
Wow, I'm so shocked.
"If you listen closely, you can hear the goalposts actually moving."
--Carrie Severino
When asked whether new information from the FBI investigation would cause a change of Democratic votes,
Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy quipped, “If you think it’s gonna change the mind of any Democrat, put down the bong, man. Put down the bong.”
“Our democratic colleagues have accused Kavanaugh of being a rich, drunk, lying sexual predator and the six FBI investigations he’s been through don’t support that. I don’t think this one will either," Kennedy said.
The Senate is controlled by republicans. I don't fall into every accusation against a republican must be true group but there are multiple women in this case.
Ford comes off as sincere but confused. Sweynik comes off as batshit crazy and a liar. Ramirez couldn't even say it was Kavanaugh until prodded by her attorneys.
None can produce any credible evidence to support their allegations, other than "Kavanaugh drank in college."
I've noticed that the coverage has shifted in that regard, G. The media is back off of the sexual assault part of this and seem to be trying to pivot to him lying about drinking and the importance of truth. Makes it seem as if their narrative is slipping away.
RED STATE DEMS FACE NIGHHTMARE SCENARIO ON KAVANAUGHSenate Democrats up for reelection this year in deep-red states face a nightmare decision on how to handle Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Vulnerable Democrats are hoping Republicans will force him to withdraw his nomination, allowing them to avoid politically divisive votes.
The Democrats in the toughest position are Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), and Joe Manchin (W.Va.)
Heitkamp and Manchin are undecided, and both are seeking another six-year term in states that Trump won by double digits in 2016. Donnelly is in much the same boat but said on Friday that he would vote "no" on Kavanaugh.
All three voted for President Trump’s first Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, in 2017.
But this time around the partisan divide is much more bitter: The seat Kavanaugh has been tapped to fill will likely determine the balance of the court for years, and a confirmation vote is slated to take place a month before Election Day.
The Democratic base is much more fired up about Kavanaugh than it was about Gorsuch, who was confirmed in April 2017.
Liberal activists staged a sit-in Monday at Manchin’s campaign office in West Virginia in an effort to pressure him to vote against the nominee.
One Democratic senator, who requested anonymity, said there’s hopeful talk within the Senate Democratic Caucus that Kavanaugh will drop out, even though he has adamantly vowed to stay.
The lawmaker said Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is urging undecided centrist Democrats to wait until three undecided Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski(Alaska), and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — make their positions known.
“He’s telling them, ‘Keep your powder dry.’ That means you don’t have to decide this — wait and see how it plays out. There’s some speculation that Kavanaugh may not last,” the lawmaker said. “They always vow to stay right until they don’t.”
A second Democratic senator said there’s widespread disbelief in the caucus that Kavanaugh is holding on.
“I just had a conversation with a colleague who said they couldn’t believe he hasn’t dropped out yet,” the second lawmaker said Monday evening. “There was a time he could have done it gracefully and could have protected the Supreme Court.”
The lawmaker said whether Kavanaugh keeps fighting “depends on what else the FBI finds and where the votes are” but observed that “public opinion is trending against him after his testimony Thursday.”
A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill on Monday found that 37 percent of registered voters want their senators to give Kavanaugh’s nomination the thumbs up, while 44 percent want them to vote down Trump’s nominee.
Eighteen percent of respondents were undecided in the survey conducted from Sept. 29 to 30, two days after Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to give testimony regarding her allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982, when they were both in high school.
One previously undecided Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.), who is up for reelection in a state Trump won by 20 points, came out against Kavanaugh the day after the nominee’s angry rebuttal of Ford’s allegation.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), however, said he will force vulnerable Democrats to vote on the nominee.
“The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close,” he said on the floor Monday. “We’ll be voting this week.”
Kavanaugh vowed last week to stick it out, no matter what.
“I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process,” he declared in his opening statement to the Judiciary Committee.
A day after his testimony, Senate GOP leaders agreed to a request from Flake to delay a Senate floor vote on Kavanaugh to give the FBI time to investigate the allegations against him. That probe is expected to be completed later this week.
Heitkamp suggested at a campaign stop Friday in North Dakota that Trump and GOP leaders could defuse the situation by finding another nominee, who would have just enough time to be confirmed before Congress adjourns for the year.
“There’s a lot of lawyers in America who can sit on the court,” she said in Grand Forks, according to The Associated Press. “I think this idea that there’s only one person that can do this job, we all need to recalibrate.”
Senate aides see Heitkamp as less likely to support Kavanaugh than Manchin because she has a stronger record defending abortion rights. His confirmation could tip the court’s balance against Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that established abortion rights nationwide.
Heitkamp may also feel more pressure to believe Ford’s allegation, which has exposed a significant gender divide among the electorate.
A recent USA Today–Ipsos Public Affairs poll showed that 35 percent of women nationwide believe Ford’s accusation, while only 21 percent of men do. Women oppose Kavanaugh 43 percent to 23 percent, while men support him 40 percent to 36 percent.
The Senate is controlled by republicans. I don't fall into every accusation against a republican must be true group but there are multiple women in this case.
Ford comes off as sincere but confused. Sweynik comes off as batshit crazy and a liar. Ramirez couldn't even say it was Kavanaugh until prodded by her attorneys.
None can produce any credible evidence to support their allegations, other than "Kavanaugh drank in college."
I've noticed that the coverage has shifted in that regard, G. The media is back off of the sexual assault part of this and seem to be trying to pivot to him lying about drinking and the importance of truth. Makes it seem as if their narrative is slipping away.
A rare moment of RKMB universal agreement!
Yes, their rape narrative is crumbling. And I think the Senate Democrats and their allies in the liberal media are desperately trying to keep the slander alive with a flood of new allegations, however unsubstantiated.
I don't agree and I think I've been pretty clear about that. I think you guys might be guilty of wishful thinking. I'm hearing people that normally don't get to upset by the daily Trump crap not being okay with this. And the couple of republican senators that basically forced this investigation probably are hearing it from their constituents too.
I've noticed that the coverage has shifted in that regard, G. The media is back off of the sexual assault part of this and seem to be trying to pivot to him lying about drinking and the importance of truth. Makes it seem as if their narrative is slipping away.
Another take on that is it's a new development and lying under oath besides being a federal crime and an impeachable offense would be normally a big story by itself.
I've noticed that the coverage has shifted in that regard, G. The media is back off of the sexual assault part of this and seem to be trying to pivot to him lying about drinking and the importance of truth. Makes it seem as if their narrative is slipping away.
Presactly. They've gone from "Kavanaugh is a serial rapist" to "Kavanaugh threw an ice cube at a guy in college." It's also as if Thanos snapped his fingers and their narrative is crumbling to dust before our eyes.
Michelle Malkin: "Sincere" Christine Blasey Fordhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV019fkNOqsIn a 6-minute video, Malkin deconstructs what Blasey-Ford does professionally in the psychology research field, and how Ford's tesstimony doesn't gel truthfully with those facts.
Three new false assertions exposed in Blasey Ford's testimony:
1) she doesn't have a fear of flying./ She routinely flies all over the country, and all over the Pacific region.
2) she has past experience with lie detectors, to the point that she coached a friend how to beat a lie detector for a job interview.
3) the second door added to the front of her home that allegedly triggered her 2012 repressed-memory breakthrough, was actually renovation work done in 2008, and therefore was not a factor in her couples therapy.
It's all falling apart. And I'm starting to hear calls for all three accusing women to be indicted on perjury charges, and damages lawsuits for deliberate slander. And for submitting knowingly false testimony to a U.S. Senate hearing.
Body Language: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Christine Blasey Ford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPIAn absolutely riveting 26-minute deconstruction of Blasey-Ford's body language during her Senate testimony.
From what I'm hearing the FBI didn't question Kavanaugh or Ford. I suspect they were not allowed to. If that's the case it really was a sham investigation. Btw I do agree lying under oath is a serious crime. You might want to recognize that the law applies to everyone though
From what I'm hearing the FBI didn't question Kavanaugh or Ford. I suspect they were not allowed to. If that's the case it really was a sham investigation. Btw I do agree lying under oath is a serious crime. You might want to recognize that the law applies to everyone though
I actually just finished watching Trump's most recent press conference, M E M:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTHFOUMBcAThe last 45 minutes or so were press questions. Trump made very clear, repeatedly, he left FBI investigation scope to the Senate Judicial committee. He said the FBI have free reign to ask whatever questions they want to whoever they want, with only the Senate committee narrowing the scope, not narrowed by Trump.
The simple fact is, there have already been 6 previous FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, and there isn't much left to explore. In addition, Kavanaugh was interrogated in Senate hearings for 31 hours, and Blasey-Ford also testified and answered questions for about 10 hours.
I would like FBI to thoroughly question Kavanaugh's three accusers. And if there is any falseness in their stories, I hope they are nailed to the wall on perjury for deliberately providing false and malicious statements to the Senate committee hearings.
I've noticed that the coverage has shifted in that regard, G. The media is back off of the sexual assault part of this and seem to be trying to pivot to him lying about drinking and the importance of truth. Makes it seem as if their narrative is slipping away.
Presactly. They've gone from "Kavanaugh is a serial rapist" to "Kavanaugh threw an ice cube at a guy in college." It's also as if Thanos snapped his fingers and their narrative is crumbling to dust before our eyes.
My new favorite is "I categorically want to make it clear that I can't say she was upset or angry about Kavanaugh or his junk, but I remember one time in college where Deborah came to me and was very upset."
Thanks, guy...that really clears a lot up...
From what I'm hearing the FBI didn't question Kavanaugh or Ford. I suspect they were not allowed to. If that's the case it really was a sham investigation. Btw I do agree lying under oath is a serious crime. You might want to recognize that the law applies to everyone though
Trust me. The last thing Ford wanted was to be questioned by the FBI after already testifying under oath. Any further changes in her story would have set up for perjury rap.
From what I'm hearing the FBI didn't question Kavanaugh or Ford. I suspect they were not allowed to. If that's the case it really was a sham investigation. Btw I do agree lying under oath is a serious crime. You might want to recognize that the law applies to everyone though
I actually just finished watching Trump's most recent press conference, M E M:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTHFOUMBcAThe last 45 minutes or so were press questions. Trump made very clear, repeatedly, he left FBI investigation scope to the Senate Judicial committee. He said the FBI have free reign to ask whatever questions they want to whoever they want, with only the Senate committee narrowing the scope, not narrowed by Trump.
The simple fact is, there have already been 6 previous FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, and there isn't much left to explore. I would like FBI to thoroughly question Kavanaugh's three accusers. And if there is any falseness in their stories, I hope they are nailed to the wall on perjury for deliberately providing false and malicious statements to the Senate committee hearings.
Lol, as I said before I agree perjury is a serious crime but the GOP isn't going to pursue it because Kavanaugh probably committed it himself. I don't see them being able to pursue just the ones they want without exposing Kavanaugh.
as I said before I agree perjury is a serious crime but the GOP isn't going to pursue it because Kavanaugh probably committed it himself.
Please tell me you're not one of those nut jobs who sits around trying to parse the meaning of "Devil's Triangle" and "boof"...
From what I'm hearing the FBI didn't question Kavanaugh or Ford. I suspect they were not allowed to. If that's the case it really was a sham investigation. Btw I do agree lying under oath is a serious crime. You might want to recognize that the law applies to everyone though
Trust me. The last thing Ford wanted was to be questioned by the FBI after already testifying under oath. Any further changes in her story would have set up for perjury rap.
Actually she's made it clear that she did want to be questioned. It was Trump that didn't allow for that to happen. Kavanaugh will be confirmed with more people thinking he tried raping somebody than not. And Trump didn't want her or his guy questioned by the FBI?
Actually she's made it clear that she did want to be questioned...
Kind of like how she wanted to be questioned before but then delayed it for days or weeks while she set conditions. Surrrrre...
In any event, my point was that anyone who has already testified, guilty or innocent, should not want to be requestioned by the police (or, in t his case, the FBI), especially if they have as many problems with memory as she seems to have. If she changes her story yet again, even innocently, she could conceivably end up charged with perjury or lying to the FBI.
That may have been your point but you misrepresented what she actually wants with your phrasing and perhaps influenced by your bias. And as I touched on before Trump kept her from being questioned by the FBI. That's what he wanted. Does anybody think that had anything to do with concern for Ford?
To be clear, M E M:
1)Christine Blasey-Ford can't remember anything. Where the house was, what year it occurred, how she got to the party, how she got home. There is no case. Other than she's a liberal partisan vagina-hat-wearing nut who thinks "Trump has to be stopped." Who scrubbed her social media of anti-Trump political vitriol just before accusing Kavanaugh. THERE IS NO CASE.
2) Deborah Ramirez likewise alleges some guy thrust his exposed penis in her face, but can't even say it was Kavanaaugh. And actually called around to her friends to see if any would identify Kavenaugh. They wouldn't. THERE IS NO CASE.
3) Julie Swetnick alleged she attended parties where 10 gang-rapes had occurred, and said Kavanaugh was nearby waiting in the hall and filling cups with spiked punch. Interesting how NO ONE can attest that even ONE of these gang rape parties has occurred, no verification, no one even heard a rumor it happened. THERE IS NO CASE.
The last two have retracted some of the lurid details of their slanderous accounts. And may ultimately find themselves convicted of perjury, and deliberately presenting false evidence to a Senate Committeee.
How you could still believe Kavanaugh is guilty of anything at this point, M E M, strains credibility.
Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement: A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford's account.
Hmmmm....add witness tampering to the charges against the good doctor?
Well...that was a pointless temper tantrum on the left for believing things with no evidence...
Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement: A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford's account.
Hmmmm....add witness tampering to the charges against the good doctor?
Just quoting the last major post before the spam hit...
Every day there's more evidence that ALL the allegations against Kavanaugh were completely manufactured, many of whom have walked back or completely retracted their allegations to avoid perjury charges.
There are numerous contradictions and PROVEN false statements:
1) Blasey Ford's familiarity with lie detectors, to the point of coaching a friend how to beat a lie detector test for a government job.
2) Ford's alleged claustrophobia and fear of flying, despite frequently flying all over the U.S., and all over the Pacific.
3) Her hatred of Trump and political activism.
4) Her knowledge of psychology and how to manipulate people with it, and her testifying in the demeanor of a helpless little girl in Senate hearings.
And as you say, G-man,
5) Ford's lawyers pressuring a friend to lie and change her statement.
My favorite today was liberal activists shouting at Senator Joe Manchin after his yes-vote for Kavanaugh, shouting "Shame, shame, shame..."
People who have absolutely no shame, using tactics of intimidation, accuse the Senator of acting shamefully.
KAVANAUGH CONFIRMED TO SUPREME COURT, 50-48Completed about 4:35 PM, and Kavanaugh is on his way now to be sworn in.
After all the slanders, all the uncivil liberal-activist shouting over proceedings at every stage, and attempting every dirty trick in the book to obstruct Kavanaugh's confirmation, despite every attempt to corrupt the process and win by mob rule on the part of Democrats, Brett Kavanaugh is now on the U.S. Supreme Court.
All of which only serves to demonstrate there is nothing more undemocratic than the Democrat party.
Kavanaugh's best revenge for his mistreatment (like Clarence Thomas before him, likewise savaged) is to just quietly serve 30 or 40 years on the Court. Honorably serving the rule of law, administering impartial justice that the Democrats attempted to deny them at every turn.
Oh, the salt. The fragrant, delicious salt.
Pete Hegseth on Fox and Friends this morning, drinking his coffee, joked that it was a cup of liberal tears.
Related...the reason they are crying today is because they bring it on themselves with this shit...is there nothing more important for white liberals to comment on than one African's twitter disdain for Melania's god damned hat?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/melania-trump-pith-helmet-africa/index.html
Ginsburg is next. What a glorious day that will be.
In addition to other mistakes the left made on this one, they ignored the fact that Kavanaugh isn't some poorly-educated Trumpster crony but,rather, a member of the mainstream GOP with ties to the Bush family, to retiring Justice Kennedy and even to Senate Majority Leader McConnell. Trrying to smear him was exactly the kind of thing that would unite all factions of the GOP
Is Christine Blasey Ford actually a Phd, doctor, or researcher?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJMAanHztEHer name doesn't appear in the registry of CA licensed practitioners. Potential perjury and fraud. As well as research by Ford that described how to produce (or imitate) precisely the type of manufactured repressed memories she alleges of Kavanaugh.
A PHD isn't a licensed title, but if she holds one she is authorized to call herself Dr
It's been a while, but I think in testimony she represented herself to be a practicing psychologist. The argument is that she perjured herself by representing herself to be something she's provably not. While she may be a practicing psychology university professor, she is not a practicing clinical psychologist seeing patients.
It could be argued that she's still a psychology professor.
Or it could be argued that she's not, as she testified before the Senate, a practicing psychologist.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/st...kavanaughs-lifeIn a social media post on Saturday, a writer for CBS's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" seemingly celebrated the damage done to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's reputation during his bruising and bitterly partisan confirmation battle.
"Whatever happens, I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life," the writer, Ariel Dumas, posted on Twitter. Dumas later briefly made her account private, preventing others from viewing her posts without her approval.
Her tweet came as the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by a 50-48 vote, with Republicans saying that the several allegations of decades-old sexual misconduct brought against him simply lacked sufficient corroboration and credibility.
You really can't make up how truly mean they are on the Left.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/12/witches-plan-curse-brett-kavanaugh/Occultists in Brooklyn are inviting practitioners of witchcraft to place a hex on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the patriarchy.
Catland, an establishment that describes itself as “Brooklyn’s premiere occult bookshop & spiritual community space,” recently issued an invitation on Facebook which read, “Please join us for a public hex on Brett Kavanaugh, upon all rapists and the patriarchy at large which emboldens, rewards and protects them.”
“We are embracing witchcraft’s true roots as the magik [sic] of the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised and it’s [sic] history as often the only weapon, the only means of exacting justice available to those of us who have been wronged by men just like him,” the statement, noticed by CNS News, continued. (RELATED: Anti-Trump Witch Compares Casting Hexes To Singing The National Anthem, Saluting The Flag)
“He will be the focal point, but by no means the only target, so bring your rage and and all of the axes you’ve got to grind. There will also be a second ritual afterward – ‘The Rites of the Scorned One’ which seeks to validate, affirm, uphold and support those of us who have been wronged and who refuse to be silent any longer.”
...The group hex is the latest attempt by some to magically “bind” President Donald Trump and his administration. Shortly after the 2017 presidential inauguration, the content of the ritual purportedly used by members of the “#MagicResistance” was published online, according to the BBC. Its author, a self-described “magical thinker” named Michael M. Hughes, recently published a book called “Magic for the Resistance: Rituals and Spells for Change”.
Hughes continues to post content online for those hoping to magically frustrate the president’s agenda.
Gee, why does WB despise Democrats and think they are malicious and evil?
Hey, they're just the party that calls on Satan to help them out and curse the president and his appointees. In addition to the Democrats' other lies, slander, imtimidation, violence and corruption.
There should be ads for that before election day. The party of covens and Satan, cursing their opponents.
Phil Bredesen (D-TN), former Tennessee governor, now campaigning to be Senator.
Exposed:
"We don't say that out of these walls." Bredesen Staff Says He Is Lying About Kavanaugh Vote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bjb46FtG0 Oct 10, 2018 :
Project Veritas Action Fund has released a second undercover video from campaigns during this 2018 election season. This report exposes Tennessee staffers from Phil Bredesen's U.S. Senate campaign revealing his willingness to court moderate voters through deceit. This was especially evidenced by Bredesen's recent statement suggesting he would, if he was already in the Senate, vote to confirm now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Saying that if he were the Demcorat Tennessee Senator, he would have voted to confirm Kavanaugh. But his staff is admitting that is a lie, and he truly would have voted against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_BredesenPhilip Norman Bredesen Jr. (born November 21, 1943) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 48th Governor of Tennessee from 2003 to 2011. A member of the Democratic Party, he was first elected in 2002 with 50.6% of the vote and reelected in 2006 with 68.6%. He previously served as the 66th Mayor of Nashville from 1991 to 1999. Bredesen is the founder of the HealthAmerica Corporation, which he sold in 1986.
Since 2011, he has been chair of a firm that develops and operates solar power stations. On December 6, 2017, Bredesen announced he would run for Bob Corker's open seat in the United States Senate, as Corker is not seeking reelection in 2018.[1] On August 2, 2018, he won the Democratic primary and will face off against Republican nominee Marsha Blackburn.
Bredesen has been widely characterized as a moderate Democrat who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
Yes, truly evil.
Bredesen exposed as just another lying Democrat snake in the grass.
I just watched a clip of "never-Trumper" Senator Ben Sasse, and even he could acknowledge there were "real core problems" with Christine Blasey Ford's story, that came unraveled under FBI investigation.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...estigating.htmlIf anyone has any doubt Christine Blasey Ford was lying, they need to watch this video again on Youtube:
Body Language: Christine Blasey Ford at Kavanaugh hearing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPIAt least Senator Sasse could acknowledge that much. As a pundit said in the week after the Kavanaugh confirmation, this may be the straw that finally broke the "Never Trump" wing of the GOP and finally brought the party together, just before the mid-term election.
This nomination made clear that even a moderate Bush appointee like Brett Kavanaugh would be savaged by Democrats. And if Kavanaugh can be savaged, there is no moderate Republican the lying Democrats WOULDN'T savage, no hope of compromise or cooperation with the Democrats.
So Democrats have done what Republicans couldn't, they have sucessfully united the Republican party. Under the reality that unless they band together, they will all hang separately in the Democrats' Bolshevik revolution.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), courtesy of Project Veritas:
PART 2: McCaskill Campaign Hides Planned Parenthood Contributions "to get the moderate voters" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPFE9jTByBELying about gun control and abortion donors to her campaaign.
This is reminiscent of the "double wall" of secret Hillary-campaign donations to liberal activists in 2016, paid secretly to infiltrate Trump campaign rallies and start violence. Caught only because they boasted about it on video unknowingly to Project Veritas.
More Project Veritas exposure of Democrats lying to their voters, this time Oregon governor Kate Brown :
#SecretsAndLies: Oregon Governor Kate Brown, Former Campaign Manager Details "Graft & Corruption" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOJCUnq1Fg8My point being, not only with the mid-term election, but these are the consistent deceitful tactics used by Democrats. As Democrat leaders are doing to their voters, likewise their vile orchestrated slanders of Kavanaugh. There are no ethics or consideration of acting lawfully. This is how they will govern. Like the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks.
False Rape Allegations Compilation Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE8sPzZsWnkSome prime examples of why "innocent until proven guilty" is the law, not lynching a guy with the first allegation, with no investigation of the facts.
The allegations of Christine Blasey Ford, just like those of Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick who folded immediately, are increasingly proven false by the known factss, and should result in perjury charges.
In addition to other mistakes the left made on this one, they ignored the fact that Kavanaugh isn't some poorly-educated Trumpster crony but,rather, a member of the mainstream GOP with ties to the Bush family, to retiring Justice Kennedy and even to Senate Majority Leader McConnell. Trrying to smear him was exactly the kind of thing that would unite all factions of the GOP
I partly missed this when you posted it.
What ties does Kavanaugh have to McConnell?
KAVANAUGH FALSE RAPE ACCUSER REFERRED TO DOJ, SENATOR GRASSLEY'S OFFICE ANNOUNCES
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Friday referred a woman who'd accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of raping her “several times” in the backseat of a car to the Justice Department for “materially false statements” and “obstruction.”
Kavanaugh, confirmed to the high court on Oct. 6, was infamously accused by multiple women of sexual assault and misconduct before the confirmation.
Judy Munro-Leighton, according to Grassley’s office, “alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her ‘several times each’ in the backseat of a car.”
Those accusations were made via a "Jane Doe" letter provided to Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat and committee member, Grassley’s office wrote.
Upon further investigation, however, inconsistencies in the story emerged.
“Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky,” Grassley’s office wrote.
“Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by ... Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe’ letter,” Grassley’s office wrote in a Friday referral to the DOJ.
“When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the ‘Jane Doe’ from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: ‘No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”
“In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a ‘ploy,’ and a ‘tactic,’” Grassley’s office wrote. “She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”
Friday’s referral to the DOJ was not the first time Grassley has asked for an investigation into Kavanaugh’s accusers.
Last week, Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and client Julie Swetnick -- who'd accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct -- for criminal investigation regarding a potential “conspiracy” to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation.
Avenatti is also a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and works as the attorney for adult film star Stormy Daniels, who maintains she had a sexual encounter with President Trump years before his election. Avenatti represented Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh during confirmation proceedings of being involved in or present at “gang” and “train” rapes at high school parties in the 1980s.
Kavanaugh denied all the claims against him.
Good.
I hope after the election, there are further perjury referrals for Deborah Ramirez and Christine Blasey Ford.
As I said in phone calls and letters to both my Florida senators, this is a pattern of slander that began with the Clarence Thomas nomination, that has been viciously refined on Herman Cain, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and now Brett Kavanaugh. And it will not stop until there a deterrance of criminal prosecution to make these evil zealots think twice about doing so in future elections and nominations.
Another manifestation that Democrats are the party of Evil. There is no vile tactic, no innocent person they wouldn't destroy, to score a political win.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee revealed the fraud in a letter to the FBI and Justice Department Friday, asking them to prosecute Judy Munro-Leighton for lying to and obstructing Congress.
Mr. Grassley said Ms. Munro-Leighton is a left-wing activist who hijacked another “Jane Doe” anonymous report about a backseat rape and claimed it as her own story, calling it a “vicious assault.”
“I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA — Kavanaugh raped me,” Ms. Munro-Leighton wrote in an Oct. 3 email claiming to have been a victim of the judge.
Mr. Grassley’s investigators tried to reach her for a month but were unsuccessful until this week, when they spoke to her by phone and she confessed that she was not the original Jane Doe, and “did that as a way to grab attention.”
This Washington Times account of the same story gives a little more clarity.
Judy Munro-Leighton, a longtime resident of Kentucky, found an anonymous Jane Doe rape allegation in Oceanside, California from the same period as the other allegations. And despite that she has never lived in Oceanside, CA, pretended she was the one who made the anonymous rape allegation to falsely accuse Brett Kavanaugh to destroy his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Since she has never lived in Oceanside, CA and has admitted she made a false accusation against Kavanaugh for clear and admitted political assassination reasons, I don't know how this could possibly not result in her conviction on perjury charges.
Tucker Carlson The Second Accuser Confesses To Lying About Kavanaugh 11-5-2018 broadcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MamzWgMvTY
AVENATTI ARRESTED OVER ALLEGED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORTSMichael Avenatti, the lawyer representing adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Trump, was arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence on Wednesday, according to Los Angeles police.
Bail was set at $50,000, according to the LAPD.
Avenatti denied the allegations in a statement to The Hill.
"I wish to thank the hard working men and woman of the LAPD for their professionalism they were only doing their jobs in light of the completely bogus allegations against me," he said in the statement released by his office. "I have never been physically abusive in my life nor was I last night. Any accusations to the contrary are fabricated and meant to do harm to my reputation. I look forward to being fully exonerated.”
After he was released on bail Wednesday night, Avenatti again denied the allegations, stating that he would not be "intimidated" from advocating for women's rights.
"I have never struck a woman. I never will strike a woman," Avenatti told reporters according to video posted by KABC. "I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I'm going to continue to be an advocate. "I'm not going to be intimidated from stopping what I'm doing."
"I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated," he added.
An attorney for Avenatti's wife told BuzzFeed News in a statement that she did not make the alleged report. TMZ reported that a woman, originally identified as Avenatti's estranged wife, filed a report with the LAPD after an alleged incident on Tuesday.
"My client and I have reviewed the TMZ article alleging that my client, Lisa Storie-Avenatti, has been injured and that Michael Avenatti has been arrested as a result of some incident that occurred between them. This article is not true as it pertains to my client," the statement to BuzzFeed read.
"Ms. Storie-Avenatti was not subject to any such incident on Tuesday night."
"Further, she was not at Mr. Avenatti’s apartment on the date that this alleged incident occurred," the statement added. "My client states that there has never been domestic violence in her relationship with Michael and that she has never known Michael to be physically violent toward anyone."
Avenatti's first wife, Christine Avenatti Carlin, also tweeted about the allegations, writing that her ex-husband had never been abusive to her "or anyone else."
"I have known @MichaelAvenatti for over 26 years we met when he was 21 years old and we were married for 13 years. Michael has ALWAYS been a kind loving father to our two daughters and husband to me. He has NEVER been abusive to me or anyone else. He is a good man," she wrote on Twitter.
Avenatti has floated challenging the president in 2020. An arrest on such a charge could derail his aspirations for launching a presidential bid.
The Vermont Democrats on Friday canceled the two events they planned to hold with Avenatti this weekend and will refund ticket holders, the party's communications director told The Hill.
"It has been widely reported by ABC News and other outlets that Michael Avenatti has been arrested in Los Angeles, California on charges of suspected felony domestic violence," R. Christopher Di Mezzo said in a statement.
“We have not heard from his people, but while there is some kind of arrest and investigation to ensue, we’re not going to step into that arena with him," Di Mezzo told the Burlington Free Press.
Avenatti is facing other hurdles, including investigation into his actions during the confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) first referred Avenatti to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation into whether or not he and his client, Julie Swetnick, made false statements to Congress about Kavanaugh.
The next day Grassley referred the lawyer a second time, saying that an NBC report led him to believe that Swetnick consistently denied "the key allegations Mr. Avenatti attributed to her."
"She stated she was clear and consistent 'from day one' with Mr. Avenatti that those claims were not true," Grassley wrote. "And she said Mr. Avenatti 'twisted [her] words.' "
It couldn't have happened to a more deserving and unpleasant S.O.B.
Much has been said that the guy who led specious gang-rape charges (client Julie Swetnick) out of nowhere from 35 years ago against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who wanted to see Kavanaugh destroyed just on the allegation with no investigation or proof, that maybe the same standard should be applied to judging Avenatti's guilt.
Wow, he might have to pull a Trump and switch parties. As a republican one unproven allegation wouldn't even stop you from becoming President. (Or 10 or 15, lol)
Wow, he might have to pull a Trump and switch parties. As a republican one unproven allegation wouldn't even stop you from becoming President. (Or 10 or 15, lol)
In the case of Bill Clinton, he was
proven guilty and paid an $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones, raped and assaulted Kathleeen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, was impeached, was disbarred as a lawyer and fined an additional 90,000 for perjury testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And none of the U.S. Supreme Court attended his State of the Union addresses after, because Clinton had shown such contempt for the law that as chief executive he was sworn to uphold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandalM E M, you yourself demonstrate contempt for the law. You not only don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but you also believe guilt isn't really guilt if you're a Democrat, and that any scandal involving a Democrat should be swept under a rug.
As I said before about the sexual allegations against Trump:
1) Ivanna Trump fully retracted her allegations, and admitted that they were spiteful allegations as payback from her bitterness of Trump divorcing her. And listing this with current "sexual allegations" against Trump, for statements that were retracted 30 years ago, puts the lie to every other allegation it is falsely listed with.
2) Many of the women making allegations against Trump during the 2016 campaign (a last-minute October Surprise calculated to end his presidential campaign, which unsuccessfully didn't) were by women who were rabid leftist Democrats who openly said "Trump has to be stopped" with a clear political motive.
3) Many others were Miss America contestants who just said "He looked at us in a creepy way", which is not sexual assault and is just perception, but the liberal media bias is clear in their attempt to smear Trump, in their grouping these statements with actual sexual allegations.
4) A few were former business partners of Trump, who praised Trump during their business partnership, and when they didn't get what they wanted financially, obviously trashed Donald Trump with sexual allegations as payback.
So I don't put a lot of stock in the UNPROVEN allegations against Trump. You obviously put more stock in them than the
proven allegations against Bill Clinton and other Democrats. For blatantly partisan reasons.
Like Trump has done in the past, Clinton settled out of court with Jones. Actually out of all that he was proven to being guilty of lying about having a consensual affair. If he was a republican I'm sure you would just accuse Broadrick and Wiley as liars. It's what you do.
All Trump admitted to was being shaken down by Stormy Daniels, and not in court but privately through his lawyer, Trump made a non-disclosure business agreement with Stormy Daniels in a cash transaction. Which Daniels broke a year after the agreement.
None of these women accusing Trump have ever taken Trump to court and formally filed sexual allegations, as Paula Jones did. Bill Clinton was taken to court, and settled to make the case go away.
Jill Harth in the 90's also received money from Trump after he allegedly tried raping her.
STATEMENT BY JILL HARTH TO THE HILL, TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE INCONSISTENCIES IN HER NARRATIVE ABOUT TRUMP (The Hill)
Jill Harth’s statement to The Hill concerning her efforts to get Donald Trump to hire her as a makeup artist and pitch her cosmetics products at the start of the 2016 race before her sexual assault allegations against him emerged during the campaign.
“The Hill's malicious attempt to malign me because I came out in support of Lisa Bloom is reprehensible.
“The Hill has insisted I explain how I could accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault, sexual harassment and attempted rape in a 1997 federal lawsuit, then send him an email volunteering to do his makeup during the 2016 election campaign. Well, a couple years of therapy helped me deal with Trump's sexual attacks and the mind games he had played on me for more than a year and move on with my life. In 2015 I was very excited about a new men’s cosmetic product line that I had developed and needed a prominent spokesperson. And after discussions with my business associate she thought Donald Trump would be ideal. I called Trump's executive assistant who asked me to put everything in writing by email with a formal proposal for Trump.
“The email was the first such contact with Trump in a long while and our relationship was still cordial even though I realized that I would be dealing with someone who acted like a ‘dog in heat’ then, who had ruined my marriage and had continued pursuing me through the years. Yes, I had moved on but had not forgotten the pain he brought into my life. I was older, wiser. Trump was married to Melania and I had hoped he was a changed man.
“I got no response so I abandoned the effort until I saw him on TV at a rally looking worse than ever. He looked like a clown with an orange face and white circles around his eyes. So, I sent another email volunteering to do his makeup for free. Still no response.
“It was all academic after Trump announced his run for President. Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen tried to get me to disavow the 1997 complaint when it resurfaced during the campaign. When I refused the threats and disparagement began with Trump calling me a liar. My last contact with Donald Trump was at a rally and the tickets were obtained by a friend. Trump's defense against the complaint's allegations was to send the media copies of my emails asking Trump to be the spokesperson for my new cosmetic line. The flattering nature of the emails were necessary to satisfy Trump's ‘huge’ ego.
“Moreover, there are other women casualties of Trump's sexually aggressive behavior that I knew about, including a then 20-something young contestant in the American Dream Calendar Girl competition mentioned in my 1997 complaint, who had just had a cosmetic surgery procedure and was sleeping in a bedroom at Mar-a-Lago when she was accosted by Trump in her bed, after Trump gained entry to her room through the club's secret passageways. She was terrified and brought it to my attention then.
“I firmly believe Trump should resign or be investigated and impeached. Leopards don’t change their spots.
“The Hill's blatant attempt at Fake News fails miserably and exposes it as an apologist for Trump and a rag for right-wing hit jobs."
__________________________________
The Hill’s response: The story The Hill ran was not in retaliation for any article involving Lisa Bloom. Harth herself alerted The Hill to the existence of emails showing her effort to win business from President Trump
at the start of the 2016 presidential campaign and she encouraged our reporter to obtain those emails, which we did. Our story is a factually accurate recounting of Harth’s contemporaneous emails, which she alerted us to and authenticated for us.
I'll just let that stand on its own. She alleges Trump tried to rape her, then remained friendly for 2 decades, and asked for the position as his makeup artist when he ran for president.
Would you remain "cordial" and still want to enter a daily business arrangement with a guy who actually tried to rape you? That doesn't pass the smell test.
The Hill asked obvious questions in honest objective journalism (unlike the liberal Democrat-PR-wing media, who just ran the allegation without testing it, to purposely damage Trump and support Hillary Clinton) about the blatant inconsistencies in her story.
She's yet another example of a false accuser who either is an opportunist looking to shake down Trump with false allegations, or a woman who is ideologically liberal and openly wants to destroy him politically, or used sexual allegations as payback when her business dealings with Trump ended. You make the call.
That's some incredible audacity, to accuse a guy of attempted rape, and then expect him to hire you and enter a mutual business contract.
None of which makes Avenatti's attempted shakedown with Stormy Daniels any more credible.
Or Avenatti's slanders against Brett Kavanaugh any less deceitful.
I hope he and Julie Swetnick are both convicted for perjury.
And Deborah Ramirez.
And Christine Blasey-Ford.
And Judy Munro-Leighton.
They all could have purposefully destroyed an innocent man's life, if they had been successful in their deception. They should suffer a criminal penalty equal to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Northam#Racist_yearbook_controversiesGiven the Democrat rush to convict Brett Kavanaugh on a mere allegation, no evidence, how much more so should there be a rush to judge Northam?
Allegations, and for a lifetime appointment there shouldn't have been a rush to seat him. And you might acknowledge that Dems are calling for the governor to step down.
If there were legitimate and credible evidence-based allegations, that might warrant a pending investigation of Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination. But at every stage, the attacks on Kavanaugh were clearly slanders and delay tactics, and given most of the allegations were immediately proven false, with the remainder (Christine Blasey-Ford) clearly having a partisan motivation for her allegationss, with abssolutely no evidence, and inconsistencies any third-rate lawyer could have ripped to shreds under cross-examination under oath. And Blasey-Ford should be in jail for perjury and lying to congress.
But of course, defendant-bankrupting trials for perjury are reserved for anyone loyal to Trump, to shake down false confessions out of them. Just ask Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and George Pappadapoulos. None of whom would have ever been tried, if not for their brief association with the Trump campaign. And convicted on
nothing related to Trump.
Having a "D" next to your name, in contrast, means immunity and no chance of prosecution by the Hillary/Obama-loyalist
comrade-commissar investigators of the FBI and DOJ, now matter how much evidence and clear guilt. And that includes both Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama (Obama for, at least, consciously communicating with Hillary Clinton on her illegal private e-mail server using a false name, which is the prosecutable federal crime of "gross negligence" and clear consciousness of guilt on Obama's part, to communicate under a false name.)
But FBI/DOJ are too busy manufacturing crimes for their ideological opponents, to try the
actual crimes committed by Obama, Hillary, and their personal mafia. Would that there were something even
slightly resembling equal justice under the law.
And it should be pointed out that only a fraction of Democrats initially asked for Gov. Ralph Northam's resignation, and most of them were opportunists with presidential ambitions in the 2020 election.
That doesn't even come close to compensating for all the Democrat hypocrisy on race issues, including the racist antisemitic remarks of Keith Ellison, newly seated Rep. Rashida Tlaib. And Rep Ilhan Omar, who routinely make racist/antisemitic, anti-Israel remarks, and yet still heads a House committee. The Democrats try to pretend they haaven't heard their remarks, and avoid comment, while simultaneously falsely accusing Republicans of being racist.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini...emitic-commentsThere was a comment about a week ago where Rep. Hakeem Jeffries in a speech called President Trump the "Grand Wizard in chief". That kind of incendiary rhetoric and false accusation from him and other Democrats (Sen Kamala Harris trying to get an ICE official to agree with her allegation that ICE are seen by "some people" as a terrorist group like the Ku Klux Klan) would make me delighted any day to read someday that they had been shanked to death in the street. That is clearly what their incendiary rhetoric is calculated to provoke.
http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2649Born on August 4, 1970 in Crown Heights, New York,
Hakeem Jeffries is the nephew of CCNY Black Studies professor
Leonard Jeffries. He earned a BS in political science at SUNY Binghamton in 1992, an MA in public policy at Georgetown University in 1994, and a JD at New York University Law School in 1997. In the early '90s, Jeffries was employed in the office of Washington, DC mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly. He subsequently clerked for federal judge Harold Baer (Southern District of New York) in 1998; was an associate at the New York law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison from 1999-2003; worked as the litigation counsel for Viacom and CBS from 2003-06; and served as a Democrat in the New York State Assembly from 2006-12.
During his years in state government, Jeffries favored race-based affirmative action preferences in public college admissions and public-sector hiring; supported increased government spending as a means of promoting economic growth; condemned what he called “the systematic civil rights abuses that result from the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program,” which he viewed as racist; advocated alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders; co-sponsored a Student Loan Fairness Act that advocated loan forgiveness to borrowers who made 120 monthly payments over the course of 10 years; maintained that citizens should not be permitted to carry concealed firearms; and called for the transformation of vacant luxury condominiums into “affordable homes” for low-income families.
Shortly before the decennial U.S. Census in 2010, Jeffries joined forces with Al Sharpton and State Senator Eric Schneiderman in an effort to end what they termed “prison-based gerrymandering” in New York State. Their goal was to require the state to count incarcerated persons as residents of their home communities—rather than of the locales where they were imprisoned—for purposes of tabulating the Census data upon which legislative district lines (and the districts' respective levels of political clout) would be based. In Jeffries' view, this was particularly important for communities with large black populations, given the disproportionate degree to which African Americans are incarcerated. Click here for a more detailed explanation of this issue and its ramifications.
In 2012 Jeffries was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he continues to represent New York's heavily Democratic, majority-black, 8th Congressional District covering sections of Brooklyn and Queens. He is a member of both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), and has received strong campaign support from the Working Families Party.
On October 27, 2013, Jeffries and fellow CBC member Yvette Clarke were among the guest speakers at a Civic Engagement Banquet arranged by the Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), which describes itself as a “faith-based Dawah and social service national organization.” The Muslim Brotherhood, in some of its documents, mentions MUNA as one of its component groups.
In 2014 Jeffries was one of 13 House Democrats who co-sponsored a bill requiring a government agency, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to study how hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones, television, and radio may “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate” against “vulnerable individuals.” “This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” said Jeffries.
Jeffries was angered by a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury's November 2014 decision not to indict a white police officer who had shot and killed an 18-year-old black male named Michael Brown in an August 9th altercation. Despite the wide circulation of wholly fraudulent reports suggesting that Brown had been shot while his hands were raised in compliant surrender, the physical, forensic, and legitimate eyewitness evidence showed conclusively that the young man was in fact shot after he had assaulted the officer and tried to steal his gun. (Click here for details of that case.)
On December 1, Jeffries took to the House floor to display the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that had become symbolic of a massive anti-police-brutality protest movement stemming from Brown's death. He characterized the gesture and its accompanying slogan as “a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence” and with “the injustice involved in continuing to see young, unarmed African-American men killed as a result of a gunshot fired by a law-enforcement officer.” “This is a problem that Congress can't run away from,” Jeffries declared.
Jeffries was outraged yet again on December 3, 2014, when a grand jury in New York chose not to indict a white police officer who, on July 17th, had been involved in a physical confrontation that resulted in the death of a 43-year-old black Staten Island resident named Eric Garner. (Click here for details of that incident.) According to Jeffries, the non-indictment “should shock the conscience of every single American who cares about justice and fair play.”
In 2013 Jeffries co-sponsored the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which called for raising the minimum wage for workers nationwide to $10.10 per hour. That same year, he voted against maintaining a work requirement for welfare recipients.
In June 2017, Jeffries stood on the House floor and said that "so many folks dripping in hatred flocked to [Donald Trump's 2016 presidential] candidacy," and that Trump's election represented a racist "backlash" against "eight years of progress" in America. "Why would people that worship at the altar of white supremacy [be] drawn to Donald Trump's campaign?" Jeffries asked. "That's not to say that every American who voted for Donald Trump is a racist," he added. "We do know that every racist in America voted for Donald Trump. That's a problem." Further, Jeffries said it was unlikely that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would prosecute hate crimes, because he was "straight out of central casting" for a "good ol' boy."
Rep. Jeffries is a poster-boy for the black grievance industry. And for stoking the worst divisive rhetoric in American politics.
But then... so are Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, on and on. It is a party of demagoguery over solutions.
Already heard the GOP talking points from the shit stain in the Oval Office. For those that were fine with Trump's birtherism, you simply have no credibility on this.
Already heard the GOP talking points from the shit stain in the Oval Office. For those that were fine with Trump's birtherism, you simply have no credibility on this.
No need for further comment, your apoplectic uncivility and hatred for Trump is clear, despite that he is
solving problems both parties have let metastacize for over 30 years. The guy you demonize is
solving those problems, despite obstruction from both sides.
And Trump did not invent the birther movement, Hillary Clinton and her campaign did in 2008. (And invented the same birther allegation against McCain in 2008.) All Trump said to Obama is if you have nothing to hide, show us your birth certificate. Which Obama finally did, because Trump's media exposure on the issue was hurting Obama in the polls. So again, where no one else could leverage Obama to release his birth certificate in over 6 years, Trump was able to make happen what no one else could.
And your demagoguery is not unique to Trump, you would use the same vile demagoguery for ANY Republican who was nominated or became president. EXAMPLES: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., Gingrich, George W. Bush, McCain, Romney, and now Trump, HAVE >>>>ALL<<< been demonized by the Democrat left as greedy, evil, elitist, rich, entitled white guys who are incompetent and only achieved office by entitled privelege. Trump is no different for you guys. Whatever Republican who replaces him will be THE NEW hated face of ultimate evil for you guys. Just like all these other Republicans were, for 50 years now.
Don't pretend otherwise.
LT. GOVERNOR FAIRFAX'S FIRST WORDS IN RESPONSE TO FEMALE ACCUSER TYSON'S DATE-RAPE ALLEGATION: "FUCK THAT BITCH"Wow, a true feminist and champion of women.
His first instinct was to rage at the accuser, rather than protest his innocence or express hurt over being misunderstood or falsely accused. I'm not a police investigator or a rape attorney, but that doesn't exactly scream innocence to me.
LT GOVERNOR FAIRFAX ADMITS TO "CONSENSUAL SEX", ACCUSER VANESSA TYSON GIVES MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF HER SEXUAL ASSAULTVANESSA TYSON ISSUES DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE SEXUAL INCIDENT(Washington Post)
Tyson says it was initially consensual kidding, then Fairfax started pushing her head "toward his crotch", and she was unaware till that point that his pants were unzipped.
I'd like to see interviews of all the prominent Democrat Senators who railed on Brett Kavanaugh, that from the jump "believed" Christine Blasey-Ford, that she HAS TO be believed, and if they hold the same standard for Vanessa Tyson.
Judging by the relative Democrat silence... they don't.
Twitter post:
"If you're a Virginia Democrat and have not worn black-face, please contact us."
N Y TIMES APOLOGIZES FOR OFFENSIVE TWEET DESCRIBING ALLEGED BRETT KAVANAUGH BEHAVIOR AS "HARMLESS FUN" The Democrat/Left never ceases to make clear they are the most unprincipled and vicious people on the planet. Even when trying to front themselves as responsible journalists, they just can't even pretend to hide how unprincipled they truly are.
There is nothing Brett Kavanaugh did to warrant this kind of treatment, the guy's record is absolutely spotless. You could go through mine or someone else's high school and college days and find some wild drunken escapades, or if you interviewed all the girls in my past maybe find one or two I got a little fresh with on a date (although most women I've run into years later actually told me I wasn't aggressive enough and didn't take the liberties that I could have.) I'm a really nice guy, but you could maybe find stuff in my past to smear my reputation if I were a public figure up for a Senate nomination.
But Brett Kavanaugh is spotless. And that's why they have to manufacture this kind of lurid crap to even touch him. ALL FOUR of Kavanaugh's accusers have been exposed as liars with a clear Democrat partisan motive to destroy him. ALL FOUR. and it's a complete mystery to me why they haven't been tried for perjury. ALL FOUR.
What further pisses me off is how Democrats nationwide endorse these slander tactics, even after the last shred of plausibility has been wiped away.
Vicious pieces of excrement like Bill Maher who wish for a recession so the Democrats can beat Trump.
Or use nicknames like "Moscow Mitch" and call the Republican Senate majority leader a traitor and "Russian asset" based on absolutely no evidence, when it is in truth their party that has undermined U.S. national security and secretly conspired with the Russians for decades. Ted Kennedy and the Democrats were secretly negotiating behind Ronald Reagan's back in the 1980's to discourage them from making a peace deal and nuclear arms reduction with Reagan.
Since 1945, the Democrats have consistently been the "Russian asset"
party, enabled Russian spies during the FDR and Truman years, sided against the U.S. during the Vietnam war, sided against the U.S. during the Persian Gulf war, blamed the U.S. for 9-11-2001, sided against the U.S. during the Iraq and Afghan wars, and are currently siding with China as Trump attempts to stop their 30 years of fleecing the United States in economic trade and cyber-theft.
The same Democrats who would still have an incredibly corrupt Hillary Clinton over Trump. Hillary Clinton, who was already exposed as the most corrupt candidate before Nov 2016, and incredibly, they still favor her after all that's been revealed about her criminality over the last 2-plus years.
The same Democrats who would support any of the current crop of DNC Bolsheviks in 2020, to complete the destruction of U.S. sovereignty that Obama and Hillary began. Their policies are the equivalent of the Chinese cultural revolution, and would fling open our borders, cripple our economy and kill millions of jobs, and complete the destruction of our military.
The rhetoric they unleash on Kavanaugh is the same they unleash on 15 year old Nicholas Sandmann and his entire Covington Catholic High School class, as they increasingly reveal they would like to unleash on
all Republican/conservative Americans, as most recently exposed in the
twitter posts of Deborah Messing and co-star Eric McCormack they would if they could launch a Nazi-like purge of Republicans, deny them the ability to work, deny them the ability to eat in restaurants, and deny them police protection and the right to free speech, just because they disagree with their conservative views.
How do you reason with these people?
Again, I'm concerned this is leading toward a Kristallnacht-like purge. Certainly there is no obstacle in the liberal media, or in the Democrat leadership's rhetoric that encourages turning down the rhetoric. And by not calling for restraint only encourages
further escalation of liberal rhetoric, liberal intolerance and
liberal violence.
Why are you assuming Kavanaugh didn't do anything? Seems like these allegations were ignored and not investigated by the FBI. This will continue to follow him.
Why are you assuming Kavanaugh didn't do anything? Seems like these allegations were ignored and not investigated by the FBI. This will continue to follow him.
I'm not "assuming".
Based on the available facts, Brett Kavanaugh cannot be proven to have done anything wrong, and all four of his accusers are proven liars, with a
proven and clearly stated Democrat-partisan motivation to destroy his Supreme Court nomination. And failing in that, to put an "asterisk" of slanderous doubt to his professional and personal life from 2018 forward.
All four of these women are clearly guilty of perjury and slander. They should be prosecuted. Because only by prosecution are similar slanders deterred in the future.
Likewise the crimes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, John Brennan, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Sally Yates, James Clapper, Bill Priestap, Susan Rice, Robert Mueller, James Rybacki, Stefan Halper, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew Weissman, and possibly many others up to and including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Former CIA official Tony Shaffer said, in a previous interview I posted, that on far less significant FISA surveilance several years ago, Shaffer had to brief the White House on what he was doing. How much more authorization would be needed, to run surveillance on Trump and his officials during his presidential campaign, during the transition period as president elect, and surveillance that continued on during the early months of Trump's presidency?
Absolutely, beyond question, Obama was aware of the illegal FISA surveillance. What did he know and when did he know it?
Likewise Lois Lerner and the weaponization of the IRS against Tea Party, religious conservatives and other grassroots Republican groups in advance of the 2012 election. That IRS Koskinin visited the White House over 150 times to coordinate, leading up to the 2012 election.
To leave these crimes unprosecuted is just to invite the Democrat Bolsheviks to make even bolder abuses of federal power. The free pass Lois Lerner got (able to retire with a ridiculously generous 6-figure annual pension,
rewarding her crimes with tax dollars of those she abused!) is what further invited the coup attempt in 2016, with Democrat agentss in the FBI and DOJ boldly abusing the FISA court, falsifying evidence against Trump, planting spies in the Trump campaign, and obstructing the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation so Hitlery could remain a 2016 candidate.
It''s obscene, all these abuses have to be prosecuted.
This latest round of accusations involve more than four women. There are now a number of witnesses from his college days alleging behavior that should have made him ineligible for a lifetime appointment on the SC if true.
This latest round of accusations involve more than four women. There are now a number of witnesses from his college days alleging behavior that should have made him ineligible for a lifetime appointment on the SC if true.
The key words there:
if true.
Slanderous wild accusations, completely unsubstantiated. See what I linked above, about penises in faces and "harmless fun", from the New York Times, no less!
These are not serious allegations with anyone willing to go on the record against Kavanaugh. It's a pseudo-credible smear. Even less credible than the
proven lies of the four women who accused him a year ago.
The best revenge Kavanaugh can have is to, like Clarence Thomas before him, stay on the Supreme Court for 40 years. Thomas was even better, because he is a decisive hardline conservative.
You should be pleased with Kavanaugh, since he is a rule-of-law guy, who rules overwhelmingly in favor of the law, even when the law doesn't support his own conservative beliefs. Even the liberal clerks who served under Kavanaugh praise his nonpartisanship and respect for the rule of law.
As opposed judges like Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, whose ideological biases take a high priority for them above the rule of law. For example, Ginsberg when she participated in a ruling that advanced gay marriage nationally, was later revealed to have conducted a gay marriage herself within weeks of the ruling. With her bias, she should have recused herself from that decision. But she's a social justice warrior, which has a higher priority for her than being a neutral judge.
So we have multiple witnesses that remember Kavanaugh that are saying similar things. I suspect if he was a liberal you than would find that not slanderous but a pattern of behavior. And it's not about how he votes on the court WB. It was always going to be a conservative nominee given the President and the hard right controlling the Senate. Now when you lose the Senate the WH though Kavanaugh might end up being impeached.
That false narrative is already falling apart, M E M.
NY Times updates Kavanaugh 'bombshell' to note accuser doesn't recall alleged assaultThe New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.
The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.
The only firsthand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
The Times' revision says: "Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."
The update came only after The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway, who reviewed an advance copy of the book, first flagged the article's omission on Twitter — prompting other commentators to press the issue.
The Times did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News seeking comment.
The paper's editors' note, meanwhile, did little to stem a torrent of criticism late Sunday.
Should I be surprised at this point that the NYT would make such an unforgivable oversight?" asked RealClearInvestigations' Mark Hemingway.
Wrote the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy: "Crazy how the 'one element' that wasn’t included in the [New York Times'] original article was the part where the alleged victim’s friends said she doesn’t remember it happening."
"It’s important to point out that this correction almost certainly would have never occurred if conservative media folks like @MZHemingway and others hadn’t obtained the copy of the actual book itself the same day the excerpt/article was released," author James Hasson said.
Throughout the day on Sunday, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro, among others, declared that Kavanaugh "must be impeached," citing the allegation.
The revitalized, longshot push to get Kavanaugh removed from the high court came as Democrats' apparent effort to impeach President Trump has largely stalled. Trump, for his part, suggested Sunday that Kavanaugh should sue for defamation.
The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, "saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."
The Times did not mention Stier's work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier's legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a "respected thought leader."
According to the Times, Stier "notified senators and the FBI about this account" last year during the Kavanaugh hearings, "but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly."
However, the Times' article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly's book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.
"The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event," observed Mollie Hemingway. "Seems, I don’t know, significant."
The book reads: "[Tracy] Harmon, whose surname is now Harmon Joyce, has also refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it."
"Omitting these facts from the @nytimes story is one of worst cases of journalistic malpractice that I can recall," wrote the National Review's Washington correspondent, John McCormack, on Twitter.
McCormack wrote separately: "If Kavanaugh’s 'friends pushed his penis,' then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s 'friends,' not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual 'naked parties' would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his 'friends' to 'push his penis.'"
The Times went on to note in the article that it had "corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier," but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.
Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono -- who infamously said last year that Kavanaugh did not deserve a fair hearing because he might be pro-life -- said the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin an impeachment inquiry to determine whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.
Impeaching Kavanaugh would require a majority vote in the Democratic-controlled House, and a highly unlikely two-thirds vote in the GOP-majority Senate would then be needed to remove him from the bench. No Supreme Court justice or president has ever been convicted by the Senate, although eight lower-level federal judges have been.
The long odds didn't stop 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls from joining in on the effort.
"I sat through those hearings," Harris wrote on Twitter. "Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached."
During the hearings, Harris strongly implied that she knew Kavanaugh had improperly discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's then-ongoing probe with a Trump-connected lawyer.
Harris provided no evidence for the bombshell insinuation, which went viral on social media and sent the hearing room into stunned silence, even as she directly accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath.
Castro and Warren echoed that sentiment and said Kavanaugh had committed perjury.
It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath," Castro wrote. "He should be impeached. And Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter."
Warren wrote: "Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached."
O'Rourke claimed to "know" that Kavanaugh had lied under oath, and falsely said that the new accuser was not known to Senate Democrats or the FBI last year.
"Yesterday, we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh—one we didn't find out about before he was confirmed because the Senate forced the F.B.I. to rush its investigation to save his nomination," O'Rourke said. "We know he lied under oath. He should be impeached."
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted in part, "This new allegation and additional corroborating evidence adds to a long list of reasons why Brett Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court justice. I stand with survivors and countless other Americans in calling for impeachment proceedings to begin."
Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, "Let us never forget what courage looks like."
Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, said he backed getting rid of Kavanaugh by any legal means available: "The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable."
As the calls mounted, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shot back Sunday afternoon on Twitter -- and made clear that Kavanaugh wasn't going anywhere.
"The far left’s willingness to seize on completely uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegations during last year’s confirmation process was a dark and embarrassing chapter for the Senate," McConnell wrote.
He added: "Fortunately a majority of Senators and the American people rallied behind timeless principles such as due process and the presumption of innocence. I look forward to many years of service to come from Justice Kavanaugh."
The Times' piece also stated that well before Kavanaugh became a federal judge, "at least seven people" had heard about how he allegedly exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez at a party.
Ramirez had called classmates at Yale seeking corroboration for her story, and even told some of her classmates that she could not remember the culprit in the alleged episode -- before changing her mind and publicly blaming Kavanaugh "after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney," the New Yorker reported last year in a widely derided piece.
[][][]The Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in an executive summary of its investigation that it contacted Ramirez’s counsel "seven times seeking evidence to support claims made in the New Yorker," but that "Ms. Ramirez produced nothing in response and refused a Committee request for an interview."[][][]
Late Sunday, Grassley's office called out the Times for omitting key details in the story published this weekend.
"@NYTimes did not contact Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would've reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted," Grassley's team wrote. "Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement."
Additionally, the FBI separately reached out to nearly a dozen individuals to corroborate the allegations by Ford and Ramirez, and ultimately spoke to ten individuals and two eyewitnesses, but apparently found no corroboration.
The agency's investigation began after then-Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., called for a one-week delay in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings so an independent agency could look into the claims against him. Flake said the FBI's probe needed to be limited in length to avoid derailing the proceedings with endless claims and probes going back to Kavanaugh's high school years.
Kavanaugh, predicted by Democrats during his confirmation process to be a hardline conservative, often sided with liberal justices during the Supreme Court's last term.
The president, meanwhile, accused the media of trying to influence Kavanaugh. He also went on to say that Kavanaugh should go on the offensive and take on the media for false statements.
"Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!" he tweeted.
Grassley sent several criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to alleged lies submitted to Senate investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation process -- which could be what the president meant when he wrote Sunday that the DOJ "should come to [Kavanuagh's] rescue."
One of those referrals was for now-disgraced attorney Michael Avenatti and one of his clients, Julie Swetnick, regarding a potential "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation. Swetnick's credibility took a hit as she changed her story about Kavanaugh's purported gang-rape trains, and her ex-boyfriend went public to say she was known for "exaggerating everything."
Swetnick and Ramirez were just two of several women who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during his confirmation process. Christine Blasey Ford notably testified that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a party when they were teens, and dubiously asserted that the memory was "indelible" in her "hippocampus" -- although no witnesses could corroborate her ever-changing story -- even her close lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, who Ford said had attended the party.
Keyser, according to the Times reporters' new book, did not believe Ford's story -- and refused to change her mind, despite pressure from progressive activists and Ford's friends.
"It just didn't make any sense," Keyser said, referring to Ford's explanation of how she was assaulted at a party that Keyser attended, but could not recall how she got home.
Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, was quoted in a new book as saying that Ford was motivated to come forward in part by a desire to tag Kavanaugh's reputation with an "asterisk" before he could start ruling on abortion-related cases.
"In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court," Katz said. "He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.
"It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine."
The Federalist reported last week that Ford's father privately supported Kavanaugh's confirmation, and approached Ed Kavanaugh on a golf course to make his support clear.
Some claims that surfaced during Kavanaugh's confirmation fell apart within days. For example, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., received a call from an anonymous constituent who claimed that in 1985, two "heavily inebriated men" referred to as "Brett and Mark" had sexually assaulted a friend of hers on a boat.
The Twitter account belonging to the accuser apparently advocated for a military coup against the Trump administration. The constituent recanted the sexual assault claim on the social media site days later.
While a long piece, I chose to quote the complete article, because it demonstrates that allegation after allegation has proven with the slightest investigation to be outright lies, to have a Democrat-partisan malicious motive to slander and destroy Kavanaugh's nomination and ongoing reputation while on the Supreme Court, or "witnesses" who cannot substantiate what they are alleged to say, or
do not even recall the public allegations they are alleged to have made.
Bottom line with the new "bombshell" allegations:
1) Tracy Harmon-Joyce does not even recall the things she is alleged to have said about Kavanaugh, and neither her OR HER FRIENDS have any memory of the alleged incident.
2) Max Stier is a Democrat-partisan Hillary Clinton lawyer, who has animosity and a grudge toward Kavanaugh going back to their being on opposing sides in the Whitewater investigation.
3) Because of Mollie Hemingway and other reporters calling them on it, the New York Times is exposed as smearing Kavanaugh with easily disproven unsubstantiated "sources", and the N Y Times made a desperate attempt to salvage their bankrupted credibility with a revision of the story. But the N Y Times are already proven liars who clearly and deliberately got the story wrong. At a real newspaper, the reporter would be fired.
4) Every last one of the 2020 presidential Democrat primary candidates has leaped on this story and trashed Kavanaugh, most calling directly for Kavanaugh's removal, based on no facts. For me, their doing so,
*bypassing the constitutional rule of law* should disqualify them as presidential candidates. They've telegraphed the abuse of power they would engage in, if they ever gained presidential power.
Slander, intimidation, violence. The way of the Bolshevik party.
The way of the Democrat party.
Trump will win in a landslide both in the popular vote and the electoral college.
