Month: September 2018

This is a good piece. Click over and read the whole thing.

Mollie Hemingway:

“…Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is a gang-raping attempted murderer who managed to live a public life of acclaim and honor. Maybe the devotion to his wife and two daughters, his respect for countless women and their careers, and his wisdom on the bench are parts of an elaborate plot to get away with it. Anything is possible.

But the idea that the country should convict him and destroy his life with no evidence other than recovered and uncorroborated memories and creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s say-so is quite insane…”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/the-smear-campaign-against-brett-kavanaugh-is-truly-evil/

Blue Wave?

Gallup:

“…Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September’s 36%. It is the party’s most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.

The parity in Republicans’ and Democrats’ favorable ratings marks a change from what has generally been the case since Barack Obama’s election as president in November 2008. Republicans have usually been rated less positively than Democrats over this time, with the Republican Party’s favorability rating for the last decade averaging 39%, compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%…”

https://news.gallup.com/poll/242906/republican-party-favorability-highest-seven-years.aspx

Alexandra DeSanctis:

“…The idea that we must “believe all women” is similarly reckless, and left-wing activists and abortion-rights groups are pushing it nearly nonstop. Far from being a way to support women, this argument means that the truth of an allegation matters not at all, a terrible development for real victims of assault — not to mention for men falsely accused.

All of this will add up to the average person, who naturally wants justice for survivors, being less inclined to take sexual-abuse allegations seriously, the exact opposite of what the Me Too movement has promised and until now largely delivered. Because these accusations against Kavanaugh have so clearly been weaponized as a partisan tool, it only makes sense that onlookers will dismiss stories presented by biased politicians or shoddy reporting.

When people become numb to outrageous claims launched without verification and wielded by those with no interest in the truth, they will close their eyes to real instances of abuse. This debacle is teaching onlookers to take the stories of victims with a grain of salt. How can the average person be expected to care about seeking justice when so many in the public square seem to care more about advancing an agenda than about discerning who has actually been mistreated or abused?

The Me Too movement has gained immense influence over the last year precisely because it has encouraged us to acknowledge the reality of sexual abuse and follow the truth wherever it leads. Now, the question of whether the accusations against Kavanaugh are true has been subjugated to a political endgame. That promises to destroy the cultural power of the Me Too movement…”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-nomination-circus-could-destroy-me-too-movement/

“…The cynics — or, perhaps more precisely, the realists — believed that the Democrats were playing for time in the hopes of finding another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. The cynics were right.

The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he was at Yale. The alleged incident occurred at a drunken party when both were in their freshman year. What’s extraordinary is that the woman making the charge, a fellow Yale student named Deborah Ramirez, admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory.

As the magazine puts it: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” She only decided to talk, it says, “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

Even after her new-found certainty — which happens to accord with her political interest as a Democrat — her story still contains gaps. She was drunk and didn’t directly see that it was Kavanaugh who put his penis in front of her face when she was on the floor. She says she heard someone yell out that it was Kavanaugh who had done this, and she saw him make a motion afterward that was consistent with pulling up his pants. So even she is making the charge as a matter of hearsay and interpretation.

The only other corroboration is an unidentified classmate who tells the magazine that he heard of the incident afterwards — in other words, more hearsay.

Otherwise, the authors write, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” a rather important lacuna if you are publishing a story that will contribute to an effort to destroy a man’s reputation. (Where’s William Shawn when you need him?) Two male students identified by Ramirez as being present at the party said they had no recollection of any such incident.

The New Yorker story comes on the heels of another blow to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s account. She has identified four other people who were present at the high-school party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her as a teenager. All have denied it, now including Leland Keyser, who is a long-time friend of Ford’s and a Democrat. She told the Judiciary Committee through her lawyer, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Clearly, the opposition to Kavanaugh hopes that the two stories — with perhaps more on the way — will support each other despite their inherent weakness. If Democrats take down Kavanaugh on the basis of these charges, they will have achieved the miraculous by stopping a Supreme Court nominee with two unproven and probably unprovable charges, in a smashing victory for garbage-pail politics.

Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent jurist who has earned his sterling reputation over decades of public service. If his career is going to be ruined and his reputation besmirched, it should require clear and convincing evidence. We are willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, but so far, they lead only to the belief that this is a disgraceful episode that makes Borking look above-board and responsible by comparison.

If Republicans surrender on the basis of what we know now, they will face the fury of their own voters — and rightly so…”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-republicans-should-fight/

The democrats delayed the Ford hearing to find more women willing to lie and debase a man’s character. It is a new low of despicability. 

“…1. Ramirez admits gaps in her memory and wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh

According to the article, “Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.”

In addition to her acknowledged memory gaps, she reportedly “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” What changed? Christine Blasey Ford. “Ramirez said that she hoped her story would support that of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has raised an allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh that bears several similarities to Ramirez’s claim.” So, Ramirez went from uncertain, to confident in order to support Ford’s claim.

Did I mention Ramirez is a Democrat?

2. The New Yorker tried to find eyewitnesses… and failed

Despite contacting “several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh” about the incident, they were unable to find any eyewitnesses to the alleged incident that supposedly occurred at a party with lots of Yale students present.

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.

None of the people who believe Ramirez’s story claim to have witnessed the incident, only to have heard about it.

Kavanaugh Ex-Classmate Denies Any Knowledge of the Party… or the Alleged Assault

3. Others alleged to have been involved deny it happened 

Remember how Christine Blasey Ford named three individuals who either witnessed her alleged assault, or were present at the party, and that none of them corroborated her story?  Well, Ramirez also mentioned witnesses involved in the incident who deny it happened.

According to the story, “One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. ‘I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,’ he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, ‘I have no idea.’” Another classmate Ramirez claims was involved said he has “zero recollection” of the incident.

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

Once again, we have no corroboration, and denials from people alleged to be involved.

4. Ramirez’s former best friend challenges the claim

The unnamed former friend said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” Ramirez and the unnamed friend were close all through their years at Yale, and said that Kavanaugh remained part of their “larger social circle.” According to the story, this friend of Ramirez initially suggested “that Ramirez may have been politically motivated” in coming forward with the allegation.

So, we have an incident lots of people allegedly witnessed and talked about, but her best friend at the time says she was never told or heard about it, and suggested possible political motivation.

We’ve seen this story before. It seems obvious now that once Christine Blasey Ford’s story fell apart the forces trying to stop Kavanaugh would convince someone else to come forward with an accusation in the hopes of establishing a pattern of behavior. Ramirez herself said that supporting Ford’s claim motivated her decision to name Kavanaugh.

Democrats will stop at nothing to stop Kavanaugh. They will destroy an innocent man if they have to. This is yet another dirty trick that should signal to the Senate GOP that the longer they wait, the more bogus accusations will be made to postpone Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the midterm elections…”

https://pjmedia.com/trending/four-reasons-the-new-accusations-against-kavanaugh-are-weaker-than-fords/

The democrats have reached a new despicable low.

Related

“…Most European countries (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium) if they joined the US, would rank among the poorest one-third of US states on a per-capita GDP basis, and the UK, France, Japan and New Zealand would all rank among America’s very poorest states, below No. 47 West Virginia, and not too far above No. 50 Mississippi. Countries like Italy, S. Korea, Spain, Portugal and Greece would each rank below Mississippi as the poorest states in the country…”

https://fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/?utm_content=76632080&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Ned Ryun:

“…This entire list of demands demonstrate that Ford, her lawyers, and the Democrats aren’t interested in the truth. You know why? Because this has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the Democrats and the Left’s collective meltdown over losing their favorite tool for expanding the administrative state: The Supreme Court.

By placing an originalist like Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, the Left is fully aware that we are in the process of shutting down their favorite route for achieving most of their extra-legislative victories over the past 50 years. It will be fore closed for perhaps a generation…”

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-and-the-metoo-terror/

.@AlanDersh weighed in on Judge Kavanaugh pic.twitter.com/Ohakn8UCki

— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) September 23, 2018

“…The press has underestimated the mothers of America who are watching this process of destroying a good man with horror and anger. What can we do as mothers to make sure this doesn’t happen to our sons? It begins with training them from a young age to protect themselves from unscrupulous girls. A long time ago the worst you had to worry about was a girl trapping your son by getting pregnant. Now it’s much worse. Here are a few ideas with which to move forward in this terrifying #MeToo era…”

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/how-christine-blasey-ford-proof-your-son/

Charles Cooke:

“…Well, we seem to have hit a brick wall. All four of the people named by Kavanaugh’s accuser have now given their accounts to the Senate. And all four of them have said either that Kavanaugh is innocent of all charges, or that they have no recollection of his doing anything — anything — wrong. Put as simply as can be, there is nothing in the testimony of any of the named witnesses that corroborates, supports, or even implies Dr. Ford’s allegations. Of the five people who were supposedly at the party, only the accuser has suggested misconduct.

Stranger still, Dr. Ford remains the only person within the saga who has not subjected herself to an oath. In various forms, everyone else has given written information that, if false, can lead to serious punishment. Dr. Ford has not — and, as of this writing, she is still doing everything she can to avoid changing that…”

William Jacobson:

“…Soon after Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court, Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced total war on Kavanaugh. That war would not just be procedural, it would be personal:

Schumer chose to fight the nomination aggressively. On the night of the nomination, his office released a statement saying that he would “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” In addition, it has been reported that Schumer is cautioning fellow Democrats that they will face a uproar from their base if they do not fight the nomination. According to this report, Schumer has instructed his caucus to focus on criticizing Kavanaugh specifically rather than raising procedural objections. Schumer’s own statement, which asserts that Kavanaugh’s record indicates that he “would rule against reproductive rights and freedoms, and that he would welcome challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,” reflects this strategy. [Emphasis added]

Everything that has played out since then reflects this total personal war on Kavanaugh. There were weeks of Democrat claims that Kavanaugh being elevated to the Supreme Court would kill millions of people and enslave minorities and women.

Democrats brought protesters into the hearing room to scream at Kavanaugh. His childrten had to be escorted out of the room.

Democrat Senators were unseemly in how they conducted themselves.

Senator Kamala Harris circulated a dishonestly edited video of Kavanaugh’s testimony as to contraceptives. Senator Cory Booker performed for the cameras, declaring himself to be Spartacus. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse talked over Kavanaugh and then trotted out large posters portraying the “dark money” backing Kavanaugh’s nomination. Senator Patrick Leahy falsely suggested Kavanaugh perjured himself at his 2006 confirmation hearing, and again at these hearings. That false claim of perjury was amplified throughout anti-Trump social media.

The confirmation hearings were a low point in a low political environment. And those were the good ol’ days compared to what has happened since then. Senator Dianne Feinstein knew that a woman had sent a letter claiming the Kavanaugh assaulted her in high school, but Feinstein said nothing. Not during the hearings, not during her consultations with fellow Senators, not during her private interview with Kavanaugh.

Instead, after the confirmation hearings were closed and a committee vote ready, it was conveniently leaked to The Intercept and Buzzfeed that the letter existed, and that Feinstein had forwarded it to the FBI. Days later the accuser was revealed in a Washington Post interview and story to be Christine Blasey Ford.

In the subsequent week, the personal attacks on Kavanaugh have escalated.

He is being portrayed regularly as a rapist and sexual predator, students at Harvard (where he teaches a winter course) and professors at his alma mater Yale Law School have demanded investigations into his relationship with the school. Sheldon Whitehouse has promised congressional investigations if Democrats regain control of either house of Congress, and others are promising attempts to impeach Kavanaugh either from his present Appeals Court position or his Supreme Court position.

In other words, Democrats have declared total war on Brett Kavanaugh the person…”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/democrats-total-personal-war-on-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-a-midterm-wake-up-call-for-republicans/

Mark Penn:

“…Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

That is the dilemma President Donald Trump faces as he decides whether to fire Rod Rosenstein following revelations that the deputy attorney general allegedly talked about taping the president and rounding up Cabinet officials to invoke the 25th Amendment. 

There were several people present at this meeting in the aftermath of the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Despite the fact that Rosenstein wrote the key memo trashing Comey for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, he reportedly was angry and uncertain after the president actually did it, using his memo as a justification. 

The prime source for this information appears to be none other than fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who faces investigation by a grand jury and whose memos are being declassified. McCabe appears to be even angrier at the Department of Justice (DOJ) brass who fired and humiliated him just for leaking and lying when he may have far worse on his comrades.

This is the deep state unraveling…”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/407908-donald-trumps-rosenstein-dilemma

Last night’s 10:00 pm deadline for Christine Blasey Ford’s team to agree to come to testify came and went, and unfortunately, Senator Chuck Grassley has given her yet another extension—until 2:30 pm ET today—to reach an agreement.

Personally, I don’t think Ford has any intention of testifying, and I don’t believe Democrats actually want her to either. Ford’s demands have been crazy and absurd, and the entire negotiation circus feels more like a stalling tactic than a negotiation in good faith on Ford and her team’s part.

One of her recent excuses was based on the claim that she couldn’t possibly make it to the hearing in time because Ford has a fear of flying (aviophobia) and would have to drive. Now, let’s put aside the fact that Republicans have literally offered to come out to California to accommodate her, and look into this claim. According to a report from ABC News, we get the following nugget of information.

Meantime lawyers for Ford are asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to schedule a hearing for her to be heard on Thursday, allowing time for Ford to make the drive from California to Washington D.C. Ford’s friend, Kate Devarney, told CNN this week that Ford’s fear of flying is directly related to her allegation of assault, and that an airplane is “the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.”

Isn’t that convenient? Not only does she have a fear of flying, but she’s basically claiming the alleged attack caused it. An interesting detail likely included to evoke sympathy and make it more difficult for people to question.

But, attributing the flying phobia to the attack is curious. Prior reports have only indicated that the alleged assault primarily impacted her ability to have healthy relationships with men—Ford first brought up the assault in couples therapy in 2012.

Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.

“I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years,” she said. She said she struggled academically and socially and was unable to have healthy relationships with men. “I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships.”

She also said she believes that in the longer term, it contributed to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms with which she has struggled.

One could argue that “anxiety” could cover a fear of flying, but a fear of flying (or confined spaces in general) for 35 years seems like an incredibly debilitating phobia that seems likely to have been called out specifically prior to this new fear of flying claim. Has Ford, for example, been unable to ride in an elevator for 35 years? Assaults in elevators are certainly more common than assaults on airplanes.  Further, Ford herself went to a private all-girls prep school. Her family must have been fairly well-to-do, and probably went on expensive vacations more than once during her teen years. If she suddenly developed a fear of flying because of the attack, are we expected to believe her family didn’t notice she suddenly couldn’t join them on a family vacation? Is it possible they never flew to go on vacation? Sure, but I consider that unlikely.

But, let’s give Ford the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume her family never went on vacation together requiring her to fly after the alleged assault, and concede that she may, in fact, have had a genuine fear of flying for the past 35 years. Well, clearly The New York Times didn’t get the memo. This was written in a profile of Ford on September 19th:

Dr. Blasey developed a passion for surfing, which she shares with her husband and two sons. “She’s been chasing waves,” said Beth Stannard, a friend and former co-worker, who said Dr. Blasey’s decisions to teach at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., and to complete an internship at the University of Hawaii were at least partly informed by the campuses’ seaside locations. She and her family live in Palo Alto — where she has volunteered for her sons’ schools and junior lifeguard training, has restored her midcentury modern home with an eye toward historical preservation, and has attended Stanford football and basketball games with her family. The family also has a house in Santa Cruz, famed for its beaches and breaks.

Did Ford swim to Hawaii for that internship? Did she ride a pontoon? Are we expected to believe she took a boat?

There are only two possible conclusions here: Either she’s lying about the phobia, or can (and has) successfully managed it with medication. Both conclusions here don’t reflect well on Ford’s credibility.

The bottom line here is that there is enough reason to believe that Ford’s claim of aviophobia was just another stall tactic, that Ford has no genuine desire to testify, and likely, Senate Democrats don’t want her to testify either. We’re being thrown all sorts of excuses that are either absurd (like her crazy demands for the hearing) or don’t hold up under scrutiny, like this fear of flying excuse. Grassley shouldn’t have given Ford this latest extension. We’ve been getting bogus stalling tactics for a week now. It’s time to stop the circus and confirm Kavanaugh now.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/poking-a-hole-in-professor-fords-fear-of-flying-excuse/