Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2018, 02:33:06 PM
-
Let's give Kavanaugh his own thread:
This from an attorney friend
====================================
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/brett-kavanaughs-journey-to-becoming-a-supreme-court-nominee
We know that Toobin is a hack. He’s also wrong about this:
“Under the Constitution,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.” This is an extraordinary view. It is courts—not Presidents—who “deem” laws unconstitutional, but not, apparently, in Kavanaugh’s view. President Trump’s sabotage of the A.C.A. comes right from Kavanagh’s approach to the law.
My friend comments:
"Every branch has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. Toobin almost certainly knows better, but loves Marbury v. Madison a little bit too much. Like most liberals who view the courts as super-legislatures."
This is an interesting point and good on Kavanaugh for making it.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-mueller-insurance-trump-no/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-07-11&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
-
At the moment, this is my take on things:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/supreme-court-predictions-brett-kavanaugh-careful-narrowly-tailored-decisions/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-07-11&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
-
http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/heller-v-district-of-columbia-670-f-3d-1244-us-app-d-c-2011/
Search down to "Dissent by: KAVANAUGH"
-
Hugh Hewitt in Washington Post this morning, I can't bring up the story.
For Chief Justice Roberts to have a 4th conservative associate changes the dynamic on the court in terms of what cases they will hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four
-
Good point!
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57079-kavanaugh-a-strong-defender-of-americans-2a-rights
-
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07/12/justice-elena-kagans-scholarly-connection-with-brett-kavanaugh/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURNM1ltVmlaVFUxTkRobCIsInQiOiJrWmxJUHc4TmFDRVVTRVp5TkQ0RUlGcXF5QzQ4YzFyeEJ5RDNaMHVrMTNtMFptNlFOVCtEODgySmU1QlMybk5EZU1hZkhSU0YyVjhcL1h1S3FFK3RmVnl4d3dyWUxzYWFlYnVjRGFRSjg4bk5mcEpOYUd0dU04a2M3K3RqQzVMZ1gifQ%3D%3D
-
The Brett Kavanaugh - Elena Kagan connection blows the Left narrative that this pick is out of the mainstream. Did she hire him to teach Constitutional Law, or a course on far-right extremism?
From the article:
“I teach that the Constitution’s separation of powers protects individual liberty, and I remain grateful to the dean who hired me, Justice Elena Kagan,” Kavanaugh said, prompting an audible gasp or two in the East Room, according to one account.
Is it starting to emerge that Kagan is the intellectual heavyweight of the liberal Justices? She also had a friendship with Antonin Scalia. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2016/08/31/supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-antonin-scalia/89676192/ She sided with the cakeshop in the religious freedom case. http://www.newsweek.com/liberal-leaning-justices-side-majority-masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-957351 Soon she will have one more constitutionalist trying to pull her away from liberal outcome decision making.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-politicos-split-by-party-over-kavanagh-pick/487779201/
Tina Smith, [who sits in Al Franken's Senate seat] sees a threat to many progressive ideals if Kavanaugh sits on the high court. Standing on the Supreme Court steps at a Monday night rally, Smith accused Trump of picking the D.C. federal appellate judge from a list drawn up by “far right ideologues” who believe he’ll cast the deciding vote to overturn legalized abortion under Roe v. Wade.
- Roe v Wade was already shrunk by Casey v Planned Parenthood, Tina Smith's former employer. What we have on the far Left is projection. They want a certain outcome, their outcome, not a proper constitutional process unless it favors their outcome, so they accuse their opponents of exactly that.
Senator Smith is declaring she represents only the far left in an evenly divided state. Kavanaugh doesn't need her vote and we are better off having her own radical agenda exposed.
-
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07/10/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-democrats-tried-to-deny-kavanaugh-a-court-seat/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldNMk1ERmlNRFE0TURkaiIsInQiOiJDeU9VVmJLYW9paXhpdkkraFdVK0xEV3IzdGdJdW1OYjk5bDc2TmFHbmU1dG9FdjZjeVVPeVJUMTcwakVFeDNYa0F4UkdBVFVPXC9LQW9WbWxFOTU5bFM3NjRkZjF3V2dnaFE5b2pKajV1cjF1YWxtbWdhQml4bUZNU1NiWVlNb00ifQ%3D%3D
-
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
-
second post:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/26/heres-real-reason-democrats-are-so-scared-about-kavanaugh-joining-supreme-court.html
-
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/ben-sasse-for-the-win.php
PhD in history from Yale, when he is not busy fighting with Trump he is quite wise and articulate. Well worth 15 minutes of your time! Share with those who could benefit from this.
https://youtu.be/IlAHS6pT5A4
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=4LuWxtqs6bY
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=4LuWxtqs6bY
100's of school shootings with assault weapons? Really?
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dianne-get-your-gun-1536191440
-
G M: 100's of school shootings with assault weapons? Really?
Right. There are probably lots of mass shootings in schools with assault weapons in the US every year that the media doesn't get around to reporting. Not.
-
G M: 100's of school shootings with assault weapons? Really?
Right. There are probably lots of mass shootings in schools with assault weapons in the US every year that the media doesn't get around to reporting. Not.
Well; I’m sure the professional journalists and fact checkers have made sure the public is informed that this is an utterly bogus number.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406925-kavanaugh-accuser-breaks-silence-about-sexual-misconduct-allegations-detailed
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406925-kavanaugh-accuser-breaks-silence-about-sexual-misconduct-allegations-detailed
:roll:
-
https://blogstupidgirl.wordpress.com/2018/09/15/fake-rape-history-repeats-itself-first-as-cock-and-bull-story-from-the-uva-campus-then-as-cock-and-bull-story-from-high-school/
Fake-rape history repeats itself: first as cock-and-bull story from the UVA campus, then as cock-and-bull story from high school
September 15, 2018
Rape on Campus
Photo Illustration: John Ritter/Rolling Stone
Rolling Stone, 2014:
“Shut up,” she heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to the party.
“Grab its motherf–king leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.
She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement. She remembers how the spectators swigged beers, and how they called each other nicknames like Armpit and Blanket. She remembers the men’s heft and their sour reek of alcohol mixed with the pungency of marijuana. Most of all, Jackie remembers the pain and the pounding that went on and on.
The New Yorker, 2018:
The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result….
Well, at least no broken glass table in the Kavanaugh story. Although there was a “sour reek of alcohol.”
Still, the wheels of innuendo continue to spin. From Politico:
The decades-old sexual misconduct charge detonated at the most critical juncture of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle — sending Republicans into damage control mode and leaving Democrats unsure how or whether to capitalize.
And this from Slate’:
The system made certain that whatever this woman had to say, or didn’t have to say, would be evaluated by people with partial information and an agenda, even if she didn’t want to share it in the first place. The system is still sitting in this room. The system kind of is this room. The system keeps asking why women in trauma didn’t come forward earlier or later or publicly or privately or anonymously or with evidence or without evidence. The system is why women don’t talk, and even when they do, why things don’t change.
From Vox:
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — who now faces allegations of attempted sexual assault when he was a teenager — was asked directly about the issue of personal sexual misconduct during his confirmation hearing last week.
When pressed on the matter, Kavanaugh said he had not sexually harassed anyone and had not dealt with any settlements related to such allegations. The way it was framed, however, the question at the September 5 hearing — by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) — only asked Kavanaugh to detail any incidents that had taken place after he had become a legal adult.
Mmm, yeah, they really do write this stuff with a straight face.
At least this is more interesting than last week’s burning scandal: Why did Kavanaugh pay for baseball tickets with a credit card?
Update: Thanks for the shout-out, Instapundit!
Posted by Charlotte Allen
-
IIRC Anita Hill first tried zapping Clarence Thomas anonymously and then there was a drip, drip of pressure on her to come forward , , ,
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-claims-totally-baseless/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202018-09-16&utm_term=VDHM
-
IIRC Anita Hill first tried zapping Clarence Thomas anonymously and then there was a drip, drip of pressure on her to come forward , , ,
The left will do anything to control the Supreme Court. It's how they impose their will when they can't get it any other way.
-
I dunno.
I don't think for even a second she is not being offered lots of cash or some sort of payback to come forward
we need a forensic financial expert and her records reviewed from hear on in.
No doubt she will start appearing on LEFT wing propaganda stations soon to plead her case the Brett is a monster who ruined her life and she still has nightmares and relationship and trust issues due to him.
Bottom line : just confirm the guy for an exemplary life.
-
I dunno.
I don't think for even a second she is not being offered lots of cash or some sort of payback to come forward
we need a forensic financial expert and her records reviewed from hear on in.
No doubt she will start appearing on LEFT wing propaganda stations soon to plead her case the Brett is a monster who ruined her life and she still has nightmares and relationship and trust issues due to him.
Bottom line : just confirm the guy for an exemplary life.
Funny how 6 prior background Investigations never found anything like this. If it’s so credible, why have the dems been sitting on this for months?
-
ok now we know who it is
a clinical psych prof at a liberal university in California
odds 95% + she is a lib
and the story even IF true does not disqualify anyone from anything
All cans better stand up to this BS
and again I state - follow the money
she ain't just doing this for free
-
I bet the Goolag and other social media entities got the heads up prior to her disclosure and scrubbed the hard left crazy postings from this operative.
-
I read that confirmed anti-Trumper Sen. Flake of AZ (R) is on the judiciary committee. He has already made "this needs to be looked into" noise and may well abstain or not vote on passing the nomination out of committee in which case the vote goes to the Senate floor without endorsement from the Judiciary Committee.
-
I read that confirmed anti-Trumper Sen. Flake of AZ (R) is on the judiciary committee. He has already made "this needs to be looked into" noise and may well abstain or not vote on passing the nomination out of committee in which case the vote goes to the Senate floor without endorsement from the Judiciary Committee.
Flake is a sh*tstain of the first order.
-
So ... the Senate Judiciary Committee is now going to "investigate" a woman's claim of unsuccessful clothing removal by the current nominee for Supreme Court justice that allegedly occurred 36 years ago during a high school era party when all principals were juveniles and when lots of kids danced "The Bump" to such classic songs as "Brickhouse" by the Commodores, "Superfreak" by Rick James, and "Disco Duck." It was such an innocent time. :-o
-
It's about time that I come forward. I was attacked by Kavanaugh too. I'm still afraid he might inadvertently kill me.
-
It's about time that I come forward. I was attacked by Kavanaugh too. I'm still afraid he might inadvertently kill me.
Jeff Flake will be your white knight, just as long it harms republicans!
-
Jeff Flake -> McCain derangement syndrome.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-serious-but-not-solid/
All I know is Kavanaugh better be a Justice BEFORE the election which IS the goal and likely the reason they waited till now.
The Dems asked over a thousand questions made all sorts of charges and then when case finally nearly closed then this gets publicly sprung with their beltway buddies in the media
Why do Repubs always try to be honorable like , David French when the other side is not.
This is not a "gentlemen's duel" or Queensberry rules boxing match. This is outright civil war. No prisoners. A UFC fight that has the rules from the 1990s.
Besides look at the lawyer who represents Ford. She looks like a lesbian castrating take no Republican prisoners lib to me.
More dangerous then Kevanaugh ever was.
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58294-democrats-assault-the-constitution-over-kavanaugh?mailing_id=3743&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3743&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
-
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-ford-foreclosure/
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377091.php
September 17, 2018
Democrats Refusing to Cooperate in Scheduling Follow-Up Calls With Kavanaugh's Accuser
For some reason they don't seem to want their 11th-Hour Accuser participating in an investigation.
Because they don't want an investigation. They just want Republicans to fold. And as soon as one Republican folds, that gives Trump State Democrat Senators permission to vote "no" as well.
And of course, Flake and Corker are already making all kinds of noise about folding.
They're exactly who we thought they were.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Byron York
✔
@ByronYork
New statement from Judiciary chairman Grassley. Short version: Procedure is to hold calls with Ford, Kavanaugh. So far, Dems are refusing to participate. GOP still trying. Extremely unhappy Feinstein withheld information.
9:56 AM - Sep 17, 2018
1,804
1,426 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Any of you Democrats troubled that Feinstein basically became a face on a milk carton over the weekend? She drops this bomb, then goes into hiding and refuses to answer questions or perform the most basic duties. You're all cool with that?
Byron York
✔
@ByronYork
New statement from Judiciary chairman Grassley. Short version: Procedure is to hold calls with Ford, Kavanaugh. So far, Dems are refusing to participate. GOP still trying. Extremely unhappy Feinstein withheld information.
View image on Twitter
10:07 AM - Sep 17, 2018
291
209 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
EducatédHillbilly™
@RobProvince
Then hold the vote.
Wired Sources
@WiredSources
JUST IN: Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley says Sen. Dianne Feinstein is refusing to cooperate in setting up follow-up calls with Dr. Ford and SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh
9:51 AM - Sep 17, 2018
490
188 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
-
There will be a public hearing on Monday, September 24th at which both Judge Kavanagh and his accuser will testify.
I believe the genesis of the accuser's belief is Mark Judge's essay published in Huffington Post years ago about his high school experiences. (I'm looking for the link to that story.) A fictional character named in that essay was Bart O'Kavanaugh, Judge's fictional best friend. Judge named his high school Loyola Prep (instead of Georgetown Prep) and he joked about all of the Irish last names of the students in his high school class. The name of his fictional friend was a parody of the large number of his Irish named classmates.
A likely explanation is that because of Mark Judge's essay, the accuser began to believe that Judge Kavanagh was the other high school student with Judge at that party at which she claims to have been assaulted. And that her "memory" comes from that story - not from her actual memory of the incident.
This is why Feinstein's tactics are despicable. Instead of seeking the truth, the Dems are seeking to benefit politically from the mere accusation. As it turns out, the accuser may have a reason for naming Kavanagh - but the reason is a fictional short story written by the only other person she has named.
-
Well, I'd say Feinstein is despicable for quite more reasons that the motivations/confusions of the accuser.
-
Fienscum sat on this for months because she knew it’s garbage. This is how the left works, there is nothing they won’t do to push their agenda down our collective throats.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-attacks-aim-to-brand-him-illegitimate/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-09-17&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
-
IMO, if you are trying to learn why this woman suddenly came forward with Judge Kavanaugh's name in 2018, the previous articles concerning Mark Judge's novel about his high school years offer a reasonable explanation.
Her anti-Trump animus is the motivation. And the fictional Bart O'Kavanaugh is the means to her end. There are three possible explanations here.
1. She did experience the incident about 36 years ago, but: a) only knew Mark Judge; or, b) did not know either of the boys. In 2017, when Kavanaugh's name begins to percolate as a possible replacement for Scalia, articles about Judge and the fictional Bart O'Kavanaugh begin to appear in some publications. This triggers a false memory in the woman about the identity of the boys. This is no different than a bad line-up by the police when trying to get a witness to identify the crook.
2. She made up the incident in couples' counseling to justify some of her behavior towards her husband. As resistors to all conservatives, especially Trump, after she and her husband remain together, they decide to embellish the story using the Mark Judge fictional story as proof that Judge Kavanaugh is the ficitional Bart O'Kavanaugh. (BTW, that is the left wing storyline now.)
3. She made up the entire story in June-July when Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump as a committed member of the Bernie Sanders resistance knowing about Judge's book and knowing that she could use the fictional character to justify her "memories."
But the use of Mark Judge's name is telling. Why would she remember his name if she cannot remember when and where the party occurred? Why would the therapist not write down the name of her assailant if she actually provided the name? Those names would be important to use to help the woman recover. Why would the woman say she received medical treatment when her story only includes counselling? She has a PhD and teaches in the field of psychology. You learn the difference between psychology and psychiatry in Psych 101. Why would she claim that she only came forward because of last week's leaks when she hired counsel in August and underwent a lie detector exam in August? And why would she make the same claim when she wrote to Feinstein that she wanted to remain confidential until she had a chance to speak with DiFi? All of this suggests a pattern of embellishments and lies. Just because a woman's claim sounds plausible does not make it believable. And I dislike how journalists interpose the word credible for plausible.
One more thing. I am very attuned to this type of witness behavior due to a case in which, as court-appointed counsel, I represented successfully a young man accused of criminal sexual conduct (used to be called rape). This case was tried in the early 1980s. The woman took a consensual sexual relationship and made a false rape claim to protect herself when she got back together with her boyfriend who had been away from home. That woman exhibited many of the same inconsistencies in her testimony as this professor has exhibited to date. This experience makes me much more skeptical of many #MeToo claims than the average pandering politician. My increased skepticism makes me look for things like the factors I have listed above.
-
Rick has this right, in my view. She connected something from her past with something she read, energized by her pussy hat activism and the Leftist belief that ends justify means.
Senator Grassley revealed this morning that she has not yet agreed to testify under oath Monday. This pretend Scandal could have a short life.
If she does eventually testify, it is because of the weakness of senators like Flake, Corker and Collins that she gets a week to prepare instead of being put under oath on the Senate's schedule.
Rick lays out the important distinction between credible and plausible. Like the best, award-winning actors, if she tells a perfectly credible story or in a public hearing 36 years later, that doesn't mean those events are plausible. The alleged incident does not fit with anything else we know about the man going back to his childhood and through six previous FBI background checks. This ugly chapter, however, fits perfectly with the Democrat strategy of delay, delay, delay for any and all reasons.
Who else feels like they've seen this movie before?
-
As a primary care doctor I have heard many stories of rape . Indeed when ever I have a patient tell me of hard to explain or confusing physical or mental symptoms I routinely ask , "have you ever been mentally physically or sexually abused?" Been doing this since the early 90's long before "Me2". I have heard numerous stories of rape from stepfather's uncles neighbors baby sitters workers at orphanages and once a psychiatrist .
One of the most monstrous cases was a long term patient who would tell me of verbal and control abuse by her husband. At one point she told me he suddenly got her a tracking device and she thought is was another example of his control over her.
Then one day she came in and told me she found out why he made her carry it. Whenever she was not home he would be raping her eleven y.o. daughter (his stepdaughter). He needed to know in advance when she might be coming back.
Now compare a few stories like this to the alleged one the MSM is running all over the air waves . Need I say more.
This is all political and nothing more from what I can tell. I still think there is financial carrots involved too.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-double-standard-for-high-profile-sexual-misconduct-accusations/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/)
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/
Democrats, Kavanaugh, and ‘The End of Civilization’
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
September 18, 2018 3:25 PM
A camera takes a photo of Sen. Dianne Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the DOJ Inspector General’s report, June 18, 2018. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
If they get away with this, the only decent people in politics will be decent progressives.
Judge Robert Bork used to tell a prescient and darkly humorous story about watching Clarence Thomas’s Senate confirmation hearings — etched in pre-hashtag history as the “Thomas–Hill hearings,” in homage to Anita Hill’s role as the Left’s heroic accuser.
At the time, Thomas was a judge of the same eminent D.C. Circuit federal appeals court on which Bork had served. As he viewed Thomas’s “high-tech lynching” in horror, Bork recalled, a friend of his, the iconic Irving Kristol, approached and asked him what was happening.
“The end of civilization,” the judge sadly quipped.
“Of course it is,” Kristol deadpanned. “But it’ll take a long time. Meanwhile, it’s still possible to live well.”
It was a poignant story coming from Bork. A scholar of great breadth, the late judge was a man from another time: a patriot who’d enlisted in the Marines at 17 during World War II and been called back to duty when the Korean War broke out, even as he embarked on a legendary life in the law. In 1987, four years before the Thomas–Hill hearings, the slide from civilization he so lamented — the slouch toward Gomorrah — had started when he himself was mugged by Senate Democrats. This libelous character assassination, derailing Bork’s nomination by President Reagan to the Supreme Court, had been led by Ted Kennedy.
Democrats and Women
Back in 1969, Senator Kennedy had recklessly caused the death of a young woman, not his wife, by driving her off a rickety bridge on Chappaquiddick Island as they sped away from a booze-soaked bacchanal. Kennedy managed to save himself by swimming to safety. He then abandoned the scene for hours, failing to alert police and rescue workers while Mary Jo Kopechne, submerged in the car, eventually drowned.
Ms. Kopechne did not live to see “Me Too.” That “movement,” in which the Left is front and center, was not forged until long after leftists had raised the notoriously lecherous Kennedy to “Lion of the Senate” status. Indeed, it was not forged until 20 years after Democrats, prominently including women’s-rights advocates, closed ranks around President Bill Clinton, Kennedy’s equally lascivious political ally.
According to the victim’s credible accusation, Clinton had raped Juanita Broaddrick in 1978. That was before Brett Kavanaugh could even have pondered hitting underage beer parties. Clinton, at the time, was the 32-year-old attorney general of Arkansas.
His sexual assault against Ms. Broaddrick came to light during the investigation of Clinton’s obstruction of a sexual-harassment suit filed against him by another woman, Paula Jones. She alleged that, while governor of Arkansas, Clinton had exposed himself to her, demanding oral sex. She declined and fled from the room.
There was no Twitter back then but, in the face of Jones’s entirely credible allegation, a top Clinton White House aide set the narrative: “Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find.” President Clinton eventually paid $850,000 to settle the matter out of court.
The president was later held in contempt of court by a federal judge for providing perjurious testimony. That testimony was about Monica Lewinsky. It was also through Ms. Jones’s case that we discovered that Clinton, while the 50-year-old president of the United States, had arranged Oval Office sexual liaisons with the then-22-year-old White House intern.
These were just some of the many sexcapades in which Clinton leveraged his physical and political muscle against vulnerable women. He did it because he felt immune, the women having been intimidated into silence. In this regard, his enabler-in-chief was his political partner and wife, Hillary, who took charge of the jihads against her husband’s bevy of potential accusers. Think of them as a Me Too precursor, strangled in the cradle lest Democrats be separated from power.
And how did Democrats respond to this outrageous affront against all that Me Too stands for? Why, by nominating Mrs. Clinton for president and championing her bid to return to power as — what else? — a symbol for women everywhere who challenge our sexist, predatory, Good Old Boy society.
Democrats and Judges
Some more not-so-fun facts. Not that long after Clarence Thomas’s nomination was very nearly defeated, and within easy memory of Bork’s character assassination, President Bill Clinton got to nominate two Supreme Court justices. How did Republicans react? They couldn’t leap on the confirmation bandwagon fast enough. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were confirmed by the lopsided margins of 96–3 and 87–9, respectively.
See how this works?
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were well qualified. But, of course, so had been Bork and Thomas. Because they were Democrats, however, Ginsburg and Breyer sailed through. The two things Democrats and Republicans have in common are 1) abiding respect for the personal integrity and legal acumen of Democratic judicial nominees and 2) effective acceptance of the Democrats’ claimed prerogative to “Bork” any Republican court nominee, no matter how impeccably credentialed, no matter their obvious integrity.
Republicans have defeated Democratic nominees, but they never Bork them. They never demagogue Democratic nominees as sex offenders, racists, or homophobes. There are no “Spartacus” moments.
Even when Republicans are put off by a Democratic nominee’s progressive activism, they seem apologetic, quick to concede that the progressive in question adheres to a mainstream constitutional philosophy — one that is championed by leading American law schools and bar associations because it effectively rewrites the Constitution to promote progressive pieties. Old GOP hands then typically vote “aye” while mumbling something about bipartisanship and some “presumption” that the president is entitled to have his nominees confirmed (a grant of deference that Democrats do not reciprocate, and that actually applies only to offices in the executive branch that exercise the president’s own power, not to slots in the independent judicial branch).
Even in 2016, when Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, President Obama’s late-term gambit to fill the vacancy created by the titanic Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, there was no besmirching of Judge Garland’s character. It was pure political calculation and exactly what Democrats would have done if roles had been reversed (minus the character assassination).
The Constitution did not require Republicans to conduct hearings or vote on the president’s nominee — something of which Democrats were well aware, having stonewalled on President George W. Bush’s nominees, saving slots for his Democratic successor to fill. This time, with the 2016 election looming, Republicans had the votes to block Garland and allow the American people, in the 2016 election, to determine whether they wanted the court vacancy filled by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. It was a rare show of backbone by the GOP, and it undoubtedly won the election for Trump.
No one, however, questioned Garland’s sterling character, patriotism, or legal acumen. These attributes, in fact, created real political risk for Republicans. For the GOP, Garland — then a 63-year-old moderate progressive with a strong law-enforcement background — was as good as it gets (which is why Obama, as a lame duck with no leverage, nominated him). Trump was expected to lose. Had Mrs. Clinton won the presidency, Obama might well have retracted Garland’s nomination. A President Clinton would then have tried to fill the seat with a young leftist firebrand. Do you think Republicans, with the thinnest of Senate majorities in the first year of America’s first woman president, would have blocked such a nomination? I think she (it would have been a she) would have cruised to confirmation.
On the other hand, if Clinton had pressed Garland’s nomination, he’d have been confirmed with 80 or more votes.
That doesn’t happen for Republican nominees anymore. Fifteen years ago, with the Senate in firm GOP control at the start of George W. Bush’s second term, Judge John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice, 78–22. But just a year later, notwithstanding his stellar credentials, Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed by a historically slim 58–42 vote due to near-unanimous Democratic opposition.
In the Obama years, even as it finally dawned on some Republicans that unrequited solicitude might not be the best strategy, the question was still not whether Democratic nominees could be confirmed to the High Court but by how much — Judge Sonia Sotomayor by 68–31, Dean Elena Kagan by 63–37. Those were easy rides compared to last year’s 54–45 nail-biter for President Trump’s first nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch. Like Alito over a decade earlier, Gorsuch faced nigh-unanimous Democratic opposition despite being manifestly worthy, with a proven track record of high-caliber judicial work.
Democrats and Kavanaugh
Now, with Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, we appear to have reached the metaphorical end of civilization that Bork foresaw: when Republicans are disqualified based on unprosecuted, unprovable, and largely unremembered misconduct that allegedly occurred when they were in high school.
Judge Kavanaugh is as superbly qualified as any jurist ever nominated to the Supreme Court. In a dozen years sitting on the same distinguished appellate tribunal as Bork, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Garland, he has generated over 300 opinions. This prodigious jurisprudence is cited regularly by the Supreme Court, as well as by other circuit courts of appeal and federal district judges.
Kavanaugh’s hiring of clerks has been exemplary by any standard of not only scholarship but diversity (more women than men, a healthy percentage of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics). If you’re into this numbers game, as the Left surely is (at least when conservative judges are at issue), it’s worth noting that Justice Ginsburg hired no African-American clerks or administrators in 13 years on the D.C. Circuit and has hired only one African-American clerk during her ensuing quarter-century on the Supreme Court. Of course, she’s a good progressive committed to placing her judicial power in service to the March of History, so the matter is quietly tucked into the Left’s bulging “Not to Be Spoke Of” file. Meanwhile, clerks from Kavanaugh’s eclectic stable are coveted by Supreme Court justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum. He has, moreover, been a stalwart champion of women in the legal profession, as well as girls in his community.
Now, however, Kavanaugh’s nomination is imperiled because of a highly dubious, unverifiable allegation of bumbling, drunken sexual aggression when he was a high-school student: An assault the purported victim never told anyone about — not the police, not a friend, not her parents — until therapy sessions 30 years after the “fact.”
Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto University biostatistician and professor of psychology, is a Democrat — a Bernie Sanders contributor and an anti-Trump activist. Some 36 years ago, when she was 15, she says the 17-year-old Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her, clumsily trying to get her clothes off. A friend of Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, who had been watching, jumped on the two of them, allowing Ms. Ford to wriggle away and lock herself in a bathroom until the boys left.
There is no way to prove that this happened. That’s not just because Kavanaugh and Judge, the only witnesses besides Ms. Ford, vehemently deny it. Ford cannot even place it: She doesn’t recall in whose Maryland home it supposedly happened, what she did afterwards, how she got to or from the place. She never breathed a word of it at the time. When she finally told a therapist about it three decades later, notes indicate that there were four assailants — a discrepancy she blames on the therapist.
Then there is the studiously duplicitous way Democrats handled the unprovable allegation, even as they slandered Kavanaugh’s character. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, has known about the allegation for months, yet sat on it — all through personal interviews with Kavanaugh and hours of Senate testimony. On the eve of the committee vote on the nomination, she sprang it as an allegation she decided to refer to the FBI while maintaining the anonymity supposedly desired by the victim. As Feinstein knew would happen, Democrats began carping that the committee vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation could not go forward until the bureau ran down the hopelessly stale, impossible-to-verify claim. Meanwhile, the determined-to-remain-anonymous Ford came very publicly forward, after scrubbing her social-media accounts and retaining Debra Katz, a notoriously partisan Democratic lawyer.
This has all the hallmarks of a set-up. If the Democrats had raised the allegation in a timely manner, its weakness would have been palpable, it would have been used for what little it’s worth in examining Kavanagh during his days of testimony, it would be put to rest as unverifiable, and we’d be on to a confirmation vote. Instead, we’re on to a delay — precisely the Democrats’ objective. They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.
Republicans should not be rewarding this mendacious gambit by giving the perpetrators the start of what they calculate will be the delay they need. But alas, come Monday, the circus is scheduled to be in town: Anita Hill 2.0.
Or, as Bob Bork would say, “the end of civilization.”
President Trump says a lot of things that are not true and says a lot of other things that are foolish and unsavory. But his supporters are drawn to him, in large part, because he is willing to get into the muck with Democrats, fight them on their own demagogic terms — especially on things he cares about, like his nominees. They are tired of Republicans’ being caught flat-footed, continually underestimating how low Democrats are willing to go, how much they are willing to destroy reputations, institutions, and traditions in order to win.
We’re beyond the time when it’s still possible to live well. If Democrats get away with what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh, the only decent people in politics will be decent progressives; people who reflect the broader range of opinion and civility in the country will not participate in or pay much mind to our politics because it is too savage. The cut-throat operators who do not believe in the Constitution, pluralism, and civility will be running the country, until they inevitably push too far and provoke ugly pushback.
That’s what our politics is supposed to prevent. But you can’t go on forever under circumstances in which only one side of our politics gets the benefit of decorum and the presumption of good faith and rectitude. We can’t continually have judicial nominees — and everyone else — treated under different sets of rules depending on whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.
-
"Ford did not mention the incident to others by her own admission until 2012, according to The Washington Post, when her therapist recorded her claim that four individuals had committed the assault. Ford has since claimed that the therapist incorrectly recorded that detail, and that she had said there were only two people in the room."
Corroborates nothing. Was the professional therapist on a phone call or doing a crossword puzzle while she told the most traumatic story of her life? How do you get the number of attackers wrong? America now knows the number of attackers in her story, but her therapist did not? Her only attempt at corroboration had no names, dates or places and got the key details wrong. If any attack happened to her as a 15 year-old girl or at any other time, I'm sorry, but attempting to bring someone else down with an implausible, inconsistent and incomplete story is wrong.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/
By the way I'm reading that she posted on FB in 2016 "No more Scalias", wore a pink pussy hat, tried having her social media scrubbed, doesn't remember the month, whose house, blah blah blah.
-
By the way I'm reading that she posted on FB in 2016 "No more Scalias", wore a pink pussy hat, tried having her social media scrubbed, doesn't remember the month, whose house, blah blah blah.
FWIW , while every case can be considered unique . Perhaps the trauma was so great in theory they may be blocking it out so to speak but allthe women who were victims I have spoken to all remember everything - Usually a real traumatic event will seem just like yesterday.
I cannot imagine she does not remember even the year.
Maybe not the day or exact time but certainly the Freakin year !!!!
It is almost to make it more difficult for Kavanaugh to be able to clear his name. So he cannot verify he was not there because it could have any time he was within 10 minutes of the location.
BTW, we keep hearing the slimy Dems calling for FBI investigation .
Didn't Diane FineTIME "already send this to FBI" and they returned it.?
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377130.php
September 19, 2018
Kavanaugh News
—OregonMuse
Nina Tomasieski
@MAGANinaJo
SO NOW WE KNOW! Kavanaugh Accuser's Lawyer is Vice Chair of Soros Funded Org Opposing Kavanaugh. We knew Soros was behind this. $$ involved for sure! How low the Dems go to obstruct. .@ChuckGrassley, just get on with the vote. https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/271357/kavanaugh-accusers-lawyer-vice-chair-org-opposing-daniel-greenfield#.W6DaNkGh9Mo.twitter …
4:00 AM - Sep 18, 2018
Kavanaugh Accuser's Lawyer is Vice Chair of Org Opposing Kavanaugh
frontpagemag.com
3,712
3,508 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Mark Pantano
@TheMarkPantano
Kamala Harris says that Brett Kavanaugh's accuser should not be bullied into testifying.
Fine, then the rest of us should not be bullied into believing her.https://www.dailywire.com/news/36060/kamala-harris-kavanaugh-accuser-should-not-be-paul-bois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro …
10:11 AM - Sep 19, 2018
Kamala Harris: Kavanaugh Accuser ‘Should Not Be Bullied’ Into Testifying
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is playing along with the delay game by supporting Brett Kavanaugh's accuser in her decision not to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee unless a full-throated FBI...
dailywire.com
1,380
921 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Close it up
-
"Kavanaugh Accuser's Lawyer is Vice Chair of Soros Funded Org Opposing Kavanaugh. We knew Soros was behind this. $$ involved for sure! How low the Dems go to obstruct."
I have been saying follow the money since day one of this story.
As for the polygraph test I remember from my forensic days it is at best 80% accurate if done in good hands.
So who really knows who did it , how many times it was performed to get the *right * result.
-
"Kavanaugh Accuser's Lawyer is Vice Chair of Soros Funded Org Opposing Kavanaugh. We knew Soros was behind this. $$ involved for sure! How low the Dems go to obstruct."
I have been saying follow the money since day one of this story.
As for the polygraph test I remember from my forensic days it is at best 80% accurate if done in good hands.
So who really knows who did it , how many times it was performed to get the *right * result.
Polygraphs are pseudo-scientic garbage. There is a reason they are not admissable in court.
-
As far as I know they were never admissible in court
but I would say it is more then palm reading.
-
As far as I know they were never admissible in court
but I would say it is more then palm reading.
All it does is measure physiological responses to stress.That, combined with a skilled interrogator can sometimes elicit confessions, including at times false confessions with some subjects. Other subjects that are comfortable with deception, like lunatic leftist psych professors can potentially lie their asses off and feel no guilt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sldbKYyTU4
-
Agreed.
I am certain Hillary could pass a lie detector test with ease
as could Harris Pelosi Schumer Schiff Blumenthal etc
-
In the mid to late 1970's, my local prosecuting attorney's office was sued successfully by the ACLU and ordered to stop administering lie detector tests to women who made rape allegations that were unsupported by any other corroborating evidence.
In that vein, the following link takes you a 1996 NYT article discussing the same issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/06/nyregion/lie-detector-tests-are-banned-on-victims-alleging-rape.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/06/nyregion/lie-detector-tests-are-banned-on-victims-alleging-rape.html)
Gov. George E. Pataki signed legislation today that prohibits law enforcement officials from subjecting people who file rape complaints to polygraph tests.
The measure won approval in both the Senate and the Assembly last month after years of lobbying by victims' rights advocates, who argued that polygraph, or lie-detector, tests subject rape victims to unwarranted shock and humiliation.
In signing the bill, the Governor said the previous law did not adequately protect victims because it merely barred the authorities from requiring a polygraph test before they would investigate allegations of rape.
"Survivors of sexual assault should not be victimized a second time with frequent and grossly insensitive requests to take a polygraph test," Governor Pataki said during a signing ceremony in his Manhattan office at the World Trade Center. "This bill takes a long overdue step forward in protecting the rights of sexual assault victims."
Experts say that law enforcement officials rarely use polygraph tests in rape cases, partly because they usually have enough physical evidence to substantiate a victim's claim of rape.
But victims' rights advocates have long argued that the potential of being subjected to a polygraph test discourages victims from reporting that they were raped.
"Passage of the new polygraph law is one important step toward creating a new climate of respectful treatment for victims of sexual violence," said Maud Easter, the executive director of the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault. "Polygraph tests have symbolized the climate in which victims do not come forward because they do not expect to be believed."
Mr. Pataki said polygraph tests were particularly unreliable in rape cases because of the emotional turmoil victims experience.
"As empirical studies show," he said, "the emotional responses manifested by victims of sexual assault as they relive harrowing attacks during polygraph tests commonly result in false conclusions that they are lying."
(My emphasis added to the article.)
-
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/false-allegations-of-adult-crimes
-
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/false-allegations-of-adult-crimes
Great article. Another form of false allegation is false memory syndrome.
http://www.fmsfonline.org
-
I remember a women who claimed to have been raped by 3 men when I did a psychiatry rotation in medical school
I was not directly involved in her care but she was one of the cases we would discussed each morning with the teaching psychiatrists
It was determined she made the whole thing up as some sort of fantasy.
He will be confirmed when vote comes up soon - barring vengeful votes from Flake or who was the other one who will do almost anything to spite Trump , Cory?
ala the spiteful narcissistic self centered McCain.
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/cory-booker-bragged-about-fondling-woman-after-she-pushed-away-his-hand/
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/cory-booker-bragged-about-fondling-woman-after-she-pushed-away-his-hand/
Unfortunately, hypocrisy does not shame people who cannot experience shame. Most Democrat accusations are based on projection, projecting what they do onto others.
The GM post regarding Kennedy , Kopechne is even more telling. He didn't know how to spell her name when he finally reported it. She died of asphyxiation, not drowning, meaning that there was time to attempt a rescue while he was traveling to town, working the alcohol out of his system and meeting with powerbrokers to discuss his political future . Did it disqualify him from running for president as a Democrat or serving as senator for life? No.
For some reason, in our double standard political universe, what Democrats do do is of no matter for judging Republicans for what they didn't do.
What is most shameless to me in the Kavanaugh confirmation debate is that the left is openly pursuing an outcome based judiciary and admitting every step of the way that all means justify that end. The Cornerstone of that end is the right to slaughter their young, a practice that afflicts black babies at five times the rate of whites, while pointing out the disparity of race at every other turn.
With 93% of media messaging behind them, they can still never move above 50% support because of false facts and bad ideas.
-
Doug posted "The GM post regarding Kennedy , Kopechne is even more telling. He didn't know how to spell her name when he finally reported it. She died of asphyxiation, not drowning, meaning that there was time to attempt a rescue while he was traveling to town, working the alcohol out of his system"
From Wikipedia the diver who recovered the body thought she more likely died as Doug reports, from running out of air in an air pocket and not drowning:
John Farrar[57] was the captain of the Edgartown Fire Rescue unit and the diver who recovered Kopechne's body. He alleged that Kopechne died from suffocation rather than from drowning or from the impact of the overturned vehicle. This hypothesis was based upon the posture in which he found the body and the body's relative position to the area of an ultimate air pocket in the overturned vehicle. Farrar also asserted that Kopechne would have probably survived if a more timely rescue attempt had been conducted.[58][59][60] Farrar located Kopechne's body in the well of the backseat of the overturned submerged car. Rigor mortis was apparent, her hands were clasping the backseat, and her face was turned upward.[61] Farrar testified at the Inquest:
It looked as if she were holding herself up to get a last breath of air. It was a consciously assumed position.... She didn't drown. She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die. I could have had her out of that car twenty-five minutes after I got the call. But he [Ted Kennedy] didn't call.
— diver John Farrar, Inquest into the Death of Mary Jo Kopechne, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Edgartown District Court. New York: EVR Productions, 1970.
Later at the inquest, Farrar testified that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted that to mean that Kopechne had survived in the air bubble after the crash, and he concluded that
Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car.[31]
Farrar believed that Kopechne "lived for at least two hours down there."[62]
The victim wore a blouse, bra, and slacks, but no underwear.[63] The medical examiner, Dr. Donald Mills, was satisfied that the cause of death was accidental drowning. He signed a death certificate to that effect and released Kopechne's body to her family without ordering an autopsy; the funeral was on Tuesday, July 22, in Plymouth, Pennsylvania.[64][65][66] Later, on September 18, District Attorney Edmund Dinis attempted to secure an exhumation of Kopechne's body to perform a belated autopsy,[67] citing blood found on Kopechne's long-sleeved blouse and in her mouth and nose, "which may or may not be consistent with death by drowning."[68] The reported discovery of the blood was made when her clothes were given to authorities by the funeral director.[69]
Judge Bernard Brominski, of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, had a hearing on the request on October 20–21.[67] The request was opposed by Kopechne's parents.[67] Forensic pathologist Werner Spitz testified on behalf of Joseph and Gwen Kopechne that the autopsy was unnecessary and the available evidence was sufficient to conclude that Kopechne died from drowning.[70][71] Eventually, Judge Brominski ruled against the exhumation on December 10, saying that there was "no evidence" that "anything other than drowning had caused the death of Mary Jo Kopechne."[72]
-
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: Faculty Approved Racism, Binge Drinking and Promiscuity
On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.
And it would be an accurate headline. That’s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.
These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbooks are fair game, so are these.
And you will wonder while reading them, why the hell did the faculty approve of these yearbooks? Why did the parents take out paid ads in these yearbooks? Animal House had nothing on the infamous “Holton party scene”.
The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up. There’s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It’s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a “look the other way” faculty. And now it’s available for historical/evidentiary review.
It is to this wild Holton culture we must look in order to shed light on the last minute accusation by Christine Blasey. And in the official high school chronicles of this era, we find many names of people who can provide relevant evidence.
Christine “Chrissy” Blasey alleges she cannot recall the exact date, place or names of people who were at the party in question. This research is intended to refresh her recollection and the recollections of others who may recall key facts. (In this report, last names have been redacted and faces obscured, other than the picture of Chrissy Blasey seen below.)
The yearbook title is SCRIBE. The relevant issues are SCRIBE 82, SCRIBE 83 and SCRIBE 84, corresponding to Blaseys’s sophomore, junior and senior years, when she and her classmates (and Kavanaugh) were 15-17 year old juveniles.
While preparing this report, I came across a biased viral article from Heavy.com that portrays Christine Blasey and Holton-Arms as the very essence of high school purity. As for the school itself, when Blasey attended it, nothing could be further from the truth, as you will see below.
Brett Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Prep, graduating in the class of ’83. Blasey graduated from Holton-Arms in the class of ’84. The Georgetown Prep boys are mentioned affectionately multiple times in these brazen yearbooks.
HOLTON FACULTY APPROVED BINGE DRINKING
Scribe 84 is the yearbook for her senior year. Her name was Christine Blasey in high school, often referred to as “Chrissy”. In the image below, Blasey is pictured at a Halloween party in her junior year. The caption on the right says:
“Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.”
The Halloween party pictured above would have taken place within sixteen weeks of the alleged assault, which Blasey claims happened in the Summer of ’82, after her sophomore year.
10th grade seems to have been a ritual initiation into the “Holton party scene”. Another sophomore girl threw multiple all night benders, the highlight of which featured a male erotic dancer in gold g-string:
[SCRIBE 84, pgs. 144-145, looking back on Blasey’s sophomore & junior years ]
1982 was a particularly wild year and Scribe 82 published multiple pictures of minors drinking heavily, beer cans stacked up, liquor repeatedly glorified, "boys, beer and “the ‘Zoo’ atmosphere”. The caption on the right side of the image mocks the faculty and parents, “Come on, you’re really too young to drink.”
[Scribe 82]
[Scribe 82]
Numerous passages in the yearbooks discuss the drunken keg parties held while parents were away from home:
[Scribe 84]
Scribe 83 joyfully recalls partying with the boys from Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh’s high school. The editors captioned a collage of alcohol themed photos as follows:
“In case you weren’t into the Holton party scene, here is a brief glimpse at one of the calmer get-togethers.”
FACULTY APPROVED RACSIM AT HOLTON-ARMS
Another disturbing aspect of these yearbooks is evidence of overt racism therein. I debated long and hard as to whether to include the following pages. But it’s important that we closely examine the privileged Holton-Arms culture while Christine Blasey was a student there.
Seeing such insensitive racism in action at this prestigious girls academy, attended by mostly white rich girls, provides context of the very privileged attitude exhibited by the Holton-Arms all female student body. That the Holton girls got these yearbooks approved by faculty and paid for by their parents shows just how powerful they were in their own right at such a young age.
And the fact that Holton-Arms had these yearbooks scrubbed from the web - just as Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her allegation against Brett Kavanaugh - proves that they still know how to dominate. In doing so, they prevented the nation from weighing relevant facts. This is why I have chosen to include the following ugliness in the report.
The image below is taken from Scribe 84, Blasey’s senior year edition of Scribe. There are two very disturbing examples of racism in it. Bottom right hand corner:
“At Cheryl’s multi-class party…[Redacted name] came as an uncanny Buckwheat, although she washed the makeup and afro off before the guys showed up.”
[Scribe 84, pg. 150]
You may be thinking that it was just one mean girl being insensitive, not reflective of the greater Holton-Arms society at large. But when we expand the page the caption was taken from, at the top is a black girl with an afro. This is one of the very few images found in those yearbooks featuring an African-American. It does not seem like a coincidence, but rather a probative example of Holton culture.
[Scribe 84, pg. 150]
Now scan the previous caption from pg.150 of Scribe 84, this time down the left side. The editors discuss a house party where, “we were confronted by…a pair of veiled terrorists, [two redacted names], were the guns real or did you just want to get served first?”
Then turn back to pg. 148, where the two Holton girls are pictured in makeshift burqas, holding automatic pistols:
[Scribe 84, pg. 148]
Also note that at the bottom of the caption above, the girls mention their male conquests with great pride:
“No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.”
FACULTY APPROVED SEXUAL PROMISCUITY
Scribe 82, pg. 260, shows racy images, including three minors dressed provocatively as Playboy bunnies. The caption states:
“Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…”
Read the whole page. It has some weird Hitler jokes as well.
[Scribe 82, pg. 260]
Now we turn to the final sentiments from Scribe 84, Chrissy Blasey’s senior year at Holton-Arms. Page 261 gives the parting sentiment of her six-year Holton experience. There are two relevant quotes. The first characterizes the senior girls as sexual predators upon younger boys:
“Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.”
The Holton girls clearly portray themselves as the sexual predators here.
LET’S TALK ABOUT MEMORY
In conclusion, please look again at the page above. In the final passage, the joy of passing out and forgetting everything you did the night before is praised:
“And there were always parties to celebrate any occasion. Although these parties are no doubt unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”
_______________________________________________
Published September 19, 2018 by CULT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
-
GM,
I don't understand this phrase "scrubbed"
Who is doing the scrubbing and how can that be done?
-
GM,
I don't understand this phrase "scrubbed"
Who is doing the scrubbing and how can that be done?
The website hosting the images took them down. Just like the social media of the operative has been wiped. Also, the Goolag can deliberately not find items it wishes to hide. As an example, I found an image of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan posing together during Obama's first election campaign. It quickly disappeared. Never to be seen again.
-
"The website hosting the images took them down. Just like the social media of the operative has been wiped. Also, the Goolag can deliberately not find items it wishes to hide. As an example, I found an image of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan posing together during Obama's first election campaign. It quickly disappeared. Never to be seen again."
The modern version of Fahrenheit 451 which I read ~ `68 to 79 somewhere
Even Ray Bradbury didn't see this coming
no need to even start fires
no spectacle - just cover control of all the news
THIS IS Stalinist
-
Some of you may remember when we were first developing this forum, I placed a positive value on pasting the actual content in case the URL subsequently were deleted , , ,
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-stop-stalling-and-vote/
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-published-eight-studies-about-abortion-pill-and-worked-for-company-that-produces-it/
-
Christine and abortion pill ties.
Now you know CD we ARE NOT allowed to question her motives.
She had NO reason to lie or make this up.
Why would she "go through all this " if it were not true. :wink:
And I know that concept itself is truth because CNN (democrat operatives - like mario's kid) told me so.
-
https://eagleactionreport.com/articles/believe-women-is-baloney-stuff-it?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=9267&utm_content=20180921145412
-
Michelle Malkin from above ling:
"No matter! Bush campaign hack-turned-ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd doesn't need any data to analyze. "Enough with the 'he said, she said'" storyline," he declared this week. "If this is he said, she said, then let's believe the she in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the he in these scenarios. Enough is enough."
Unless of course the man is a Democrat like Cory Booker, Keith Ellison...............
Obviously as we speak the "doctor"
is being trained on her verbiage, answers to expected questions, body language, and acting skills 24/7 by Democrat operatives.
Of course the ideas of a book deal , exclusive interview with someone from MSNBC or CNN and more will come her way. Probably a job as consultant with Soros or psych consultant with the one of the Democrat network or even an honorary degree from HaVard for her courage . She will also get to hang out with the stars.
-
Patti Reagan, President Reagan's daughter has written a piece about letting a coked up record executive fuck her and reasons from her experience that Dr. Ford's memory is reasonable.
-
I recall many girls chasing all the jocks and making the rounds in the 70s.
To think of the outrage that Kavs frat raised a flag of women's underwear - how disgusting - criminal .
certainly grounds to ruin his life for life
-
shows he gets it!
shows some guts!
we need out party to stand up like this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-stop-stalling-and-vote/
-
In the linked Malkin blog, she mentions the University of Michigan Law School's false conviction and exoneration project. Sexual assault convictions are the second most prevalent cases of wrongful convictions leading to exoneration. Here is the link to the map and an interactive graph with cases by State, crime and other criteria.
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx (http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx)
-
Please post that on the Crime and Punishment thread as well. TY.
-
Last night I kept hearing on lib channels the now claim "why not one more day" (like mario's kid)
after 36 yrs of such a supposed traumatic event she needs one more day? I mean is she not a women with a PhD in psychology?
No it is the LEft getting their talking points down on the embellished and exaggerated story to in unison scream their destruction of Kavanaugh around the world.
The WASH Comnpost today - she moved 3,000 miles away to get away from Kavanaugh ............ here we go.
Got to get the women all riled up before the election........
-
Got to get the women all riled up before the election........
Bingo!
-
https://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2018/09/george-soros-is-funding-anti-kavanaugh.html
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/
-
Third named witness denies.......
It will be Interesting to see what the LEFt can dig up or make up to spring on the Right in coordination with their operatives (hat tip to GM for the adjective!) in the media . Another reason for delaying every minute they can.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaugh-faces-new-accusations-avenatti-claims-evidence-of-targeting-women-for-gang-rape/ar-AAAxZey?ocid=spartandhp
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36216/watch-sen-mazie-hirono-says-she-doubts-kavanaughs-emily-zanotti
-
Who , Soros ? behind this Avanetti charletan?
some one is funding him and supplying him with road work etc.
-
Who , Soros ? behind this Avanetti charletan?
some one is funding him and supplying him with road work etc.
The FBI? Well, I'm sure some that worked on clearing Hillary might be available...
-
Redacted transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee interview with Judge Kavanaugh dated yesterday. This covers all accusations known as of 10 pm EDT on Sept 26.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted).pdf (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted).pdf)
In addition, Avenati's accuser has been subjected to a restraining order for threatening an ex-boyfriend after she broke up with him.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348)
Today's WSJ writes:
"In 1993, she filed a criminal harassment complaint with state prosecutors in Maryland against a podiatrist and his wife, alleging repeated phone calls, according to court records, but the case was withdrawn two months after it was filed.
In 2001, Ms. Swetnick was the defendant in a domestic-violence case filed by Richard Venneccy in Miami-Dade County, Fla. The case was dismissed when both parties failed to appear in court in March of that year, according to court documents reviewed by the Journal.
Roughly a decade ago, Ms. Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual-harassment complaint she filed, according to people familiar with the matter. Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer currently representing Dr. Ford. The company ultimately reached a financial settlement with Ms. Swetnick, the people said."
-
Here's my theory of what may have occurred.
She went out with a classmate of Kavanaugh who lives very close to Columbia Country Club. He was Chris Garrett, the person identified by Ed Whelan as looking like Kavanaugh. Today, she admitted that Garrett was the person who introduced her to Kavanaugh and the group of people that he ran with at Georgetown Prep. For some reason, they stopped going out together. Maybe he did the things she has blamed upon Kavanaugh. Maybe, he lost interest in her. Who knows? Garrett has remained friends with Judge to this day. Maybe Garrett and Judge did this to her at Garrett's house. Maybe it is all fiction.
In 1997, the other person she named, Mark Judge, writes a book about his alcoholism. In the book, he talks about his heavy drinking while at Georgetown Prep. He uses his full name "Mark Gavreau Judge." In the book, he says that a fictional friend, Bart O'Kavanaugh, got so drunk with him that he threw up in a car.
When Blasey writes her letter to Feinstein, she says that Brett Kavanaugh and Mark G. Judge were drunk, belligerent, and forced her into this room at this unknown house near Columbia Country Club. Why does she use Judge's middle initial and not Kavanaugh's middle initial in her letter?
My theory: she learned about Judge's book, "Wasted. Confessions of a Gen-X ..." Probably heard about it from friends. And she replaced Garrett with Kavanaugh in her memory because of the book.
-
Here's my theory of what may have occurred.
She went out with a classmate of Kavanaugh who lives very close to Columbia Country Club. He was Chris Garrett, the person identified by Ed Whelan as looking like Kavanaugh. Today, she admitted that Garrett was the person who introduced her to Kavanaugh and the group of people that he ran with at Georgetown Prep. For some reason, they stopped going out together. Maybe he did the things she has blamed upon Kavanaugh. Maybe, he lost interest in her. Who knows? Garrett has remained friends with Judge to this day. Maybe Garrett and Judge did this to her at Garrett's house. Maybe it is all fiction.
In 1997, the other person she named, Mark Judge, writes a book about his alcoholism. In the book, he talks about his heavy drinking while at Georgetown Prep. He uses his full name "Mark Gavreau Judge." In the book, he says that a fictional friend, Bart O'Kavanaugh, got so drunk with him that he threw up in a car.
When Blasey writes her letter to Feinstein, she says that Brett Kavanaugh and Mark G. Judge were drunk, belligerent, and forced her into this room at this unknown house near Columbia Country Club. Why does she use Judge's middle initial and not Kavanaugh's middle initial in her letter?
My theory: she learned about Judge's book, "Wasted. Confessions of a Gen-X ..." Probably heard about it from friends. And she replaced Garrett with Kavanaugh in her memory because of the book.
You assume she has some measure of good faith in her actions. I do not. She is leftist true believer, who is willing to do anything to "resist" the lawfully elected president. Abortion is the one true holy sacrament of the left, and the left perceives Kavanaugh as a threat to their holy sacrament. This was planned and staged managed by offstage players. Blasey is just a willing cog in a much larger machine. Who paid for her polygraph is a good place to start pulling threads.
-
" Who paid for her polygraph is a good place to start pulling threads"
The FBI agent who gave the test was on Laura Ingraham last night. He stated Katz et all lawyers paid him.
When I looked it up it appears he was on Shannon Bream too:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5840717756001/?#sp=show-clips
-
" Who paid for her polygraph is a good place to start pulling threads"
The FBI agent who gave the test was on Laura Ingraham last night. He stated Katz et all lawyers paid him.
When I looked it up it appears he was on Shannon Bream too:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5840717756001/?#sp=show-clips
Who paid Katz? Who made the calls to set up the polygraph? Who called Feinscum's office? Who are the offstage players?
-
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
Follow Follow @paulsperry_
More
BREAKING: Ford's polygraph expert has been a subcontractor of the Democrat law firm representing Ford in DC. Hanafin's a "progressive" from Boston who says that when administering polygraphs on "victims" like Ford u automatically "believe them" & don't ask them specific questions
-
Good questions
Mostly all leads have seem to have so far led to one man - Soros. Certainly others would so the same in financing but...........
How ironic this survivor of the holocaust has become the poster boy for a stereotype of a rich Jew meddling and profiting from pulling strings everywhere behind the scenes that affects so many other people without their consent.
-
Benny
Verified account
@bennyjohnson
Follow Follow @bennyjohnson
More
We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Date/who paid for her polygraph
- Grandmother's funeral date?
But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago
10:08 AM - 27 Sep 2018
-
We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Date/who paid for her polygraph
- Grandmother's funeral date?
But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago
you forget to mention she knows she had "one " beer
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4
This bad.
I award Ms. Lindsey the Rudy slow clap for actually being something other than a rino for once!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dU68enUUwU
-
Democrats made this the biggest stage and Lindsey Graham called them out for what they are and what they did. more so than any party line conservative, he had the Rhino credentials to express this. When I am this mad I try to keep out the swear words and make sure everything I say is true. He did it.
People say Ford was credible for what she didn't know, but she also faced zero cross-examination. It was a strange but probably good strategy for Republicans to hire the so-called prosecutor to do the questioning. The goal appeared to be to just fill the time and make no new news.
Another discrepancy came up, see Gateway pundit. This recollection came back to her when they were doing a building permit in 2012 but that happened in 2008, oops. They needed a second front entry because Brett Kavanaugh caused her claustrophobia. Besides getting the decade wrong, it was a part of the unit that they rented out, not where she lived.
From reports of others, both were so called credible. When that happens you look for the corroborating evidence and all of that sides with him.
The call for an FBI investigation is a delay tactic as was everything else they've done.
Call the vote. Swear in the Justice. And we live with all the collateral damage.
-
Just two questions:
1) what right dose Lynne Brooks have to be a CEO when she was a drunk in college?
2) What right does Elizabeth Swisher have to be a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology when she was a drunk in college?
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/lynne-brookes-liz-swisher/
-
https://i.imgur.com/4k9I1yL.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/4k9I1yL.jpg)
-
Does anyone think Ford's political persuasion had NOTHING to do with this?
Dershowitz I read made a double edged point about delaying to have th FBI investigate
But he then added so that SHE can be cross examined and really put to the test . Not simply go in front of the nation to tell what is nothing more then a story.
Sadly we will never know Flake's motivations
To be like Mclame and simply stick it to Trump? Strange that someone who ran as a Republican would deny a seat to a conservative judge to get even with the President but revenge is a strange thing.
Was he bribed - this is his last term ?
Was he threatened? Did they find someone who would accuse him of gang rape in junior high school?
-------------
If only I could tell the government my story about how crooked middle men in the music / intellectual property business has and is stalking my wife and myself to steal hundreds of music lyrics over maybe 2 decades in ways that we never have evidence (or if we did they simply steal that) and we could get justice. Without evidence it is nothing more then a story and nothing ever happens.
-
Pravda on the Potomac says the ABA warned the Reps about K. 12 years ago but I cannot access it without paying , , ,
Working from memory, K's second accuser says he showed his penis to her during a drinking game in freshman year at Yale , , , or at least she thinks it was him but she was too drunk to be sure.
And now for a moment of irony: https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/23/cnns-chris-cuomo-wants-tolerance-of-naked-men-in-womens-restrooms/
-
Does anyone think Ford's political persuasion had NOTHING to do with this?
Dershowitz I read made a double edged point about delaying to have th FBI investigate
But he then added so that SHE can be cross examined and really put to the test . Not simply go in front of the nation to tell what is nothing more then a story.
Sadly we will never know Flake's motivations
To be like Mclame and simply stick it to Trump? Strange that someone who ran as a Republican would deny a seat to a conservative judge to get even with the President but revenge is a strange thing.
Was he bribed - this is his last term ?
Was he threatened? Did they find someone who would accuse him of gang rape in junior high school?
-------------
If only I could tell the government my story about how crooked middle men in the music / intellectual property business has and is stalking my wife and myself to steal hundreds of music lyrics over maybe 2 decades in ways that we never have evidence (or if we did they simply steal that) and we could get justice. Without evidence it is nothing more then a story and nothing ever happens.
Flake is looking for a job with the MSM to play the token "Muh conservative principles" NeverTrumper on one of their news clown shows.
-
That is entirely plausible , , ,
-
The Hill's article explaining the WaPo.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/409089-american-bar-association-questioned-kavanaughs-professional-experience-freedom (https://thehill.com/homenews/news/409089-american-bar-association-questioned-kavanaughs-professional-experience-freedom)
In 2006, when Senate Republicans finally hoped to advance Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after three years of Democratic opposition, the ABA downgraded its endorsement of the George W. Bush nominee.
The group’s judicial investigator had interviewed dozens of people in the legal field who had worked with Kavanaugh, some of whom raised concerns regarding “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness," the ABA said in its May 2006 report.
One judge remarked about the nominee's "sanctimonious" presentation in court, arguing that Kavanaugh showed "experience on the level of an associate." One particular lawyer argued that Kavanaugh "dissembled" in a different court proceeding.
The result was a downgrading of the group's previous "well qualified" endorsement — its highest rating — to “qualified,” meaning he met the ABA’s standards to be a federal judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.
The Washington Post, which first highlighted the ABA's move 12 years ago compared to this week, noted that a day after the ABA downgraded its endorsement in 2006, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for Kavanaugh to appear before them again.
Senators gathered to discuss how seriously they should weigh the new endorsement, with Democrats saying it should be taken seriously while Republicans accused the ABA of bias or downplayed the importance of the endorsement.
Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 2006 and eventually reclaimed a “well qualified” endorsement, which he has maintained throughout his tumultuous nomination to the Supreme Court. He touted the endorsement during his appearance before the Judiciary panel on Thursday.
The ABA weighed in again on Kavanaugh's nomination late Thursday after a rollercoaster day on Capitol Hill when Christine Blasey Ford delivered gripping testimony before the Senate panel about her allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, followed by the nominee forcefully defending himself.
After Ford and Kavanaugh testified in back-to-back appearances, the ABA called for the Judiciary Committee to postpone a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until the FBI could investigate assault claims against him, drawing new questions about his nomination.
“We make this request because of ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” ABA President Robert Carlson said in a letter to the committee.
"The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI."
President Trump on Friday ordered the FBI to open a weeklong, "supplemental" investigation into the allegations after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and others threatened to withhold their final confirmation vote if such an investigation wasn’t opened.
The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary noted in a letter to committee leaders on Friday that the group's "well qualified" rating for Kavanaugh remains unchanged.
Here is a link to the actual ABA report from 2006.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/scfedjud/statements/kavanaugh.authcheckdam.pdf (https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/scfedjud/statements/kavanaugh.authcheckdam.pdf)
********************************************************************
Remember, this was back in the day when the ABA's committee on the federal judiciary was decidedly anti-Bush. And was still anti-Ken Starr. What they said was that Kavanaugh was not a good litigator. They spoke to the fact that he had never tried a case to verdict, and was young and inexperienced when he tried cases. Others called him "insulated" due to his 2006 position as staff secretary to Pres GW Bush. They were concerned that he would remain partisan or would he remain fair and balanced as a judge. However, the reports notes his superior writing skills. The 2006 ABA was split, but the majority thought him Qualified versus a minority that thought him Well Qualified.
Now, forward to 2018, 12 years later, and the same committee of the ABA reiterated its Well Qualified rating even after the President of the ABA wrote individually to ask for an FBI investigation into the womens' allegations.
-
Thank you very much Rick.
-
"Flake is looking for a job with the MSM"
He will be perfect for that, sounds articulate and makes almost no sense.
-
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/
-
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/planned-parenthood-hopes-to-scare-liberals-with-la
-
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/planned-parenthood-hopes-to-scare-liberals-with-la
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151139134689639&set=a.189478844638.126579.8934429638
-
"Flake is looking for a job with the MSM"
He will be perfect for that, sounds articulate and makes almost no sense.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen-jeff-flake-called-hero-global-citizen-festival-n915106
:roll:
-
https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2018/09/julie_swetnick_one_of_kavanaug.html
-
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-police-and-state-s-attorney-response-to-montgomery-county-house-delegation-s-request-to-open-crimina-20180928-htmlstory.html
-
Well if the ABA is going to criticize Kavanaugh about bias what about them?
Lawyers tend to be liberals and 3/4 or more probably Democrats
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/analyst-gauges-the-political-bias-of-lawyers/
No political bias with Ginsberg or Sotomayor? No coincidence CNN does this loving show and "RGB". Got to get the girls excited to vote for liberals.
Just another talking point to sway public opinion against - his "temperament" which the entire LEFT is stating every opportunity they can since his defending himself.
-
may want to take an anti nausea medicine and have a shot of tequila before viewing this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen-jeff-flake-called-hero-global-citizen-festival-n915106
And of course I read he is going to be on the ultra liberal 60 minutes tonight . Talking about "bipartisanship" "democracy " and all the other phony Leftist talking points buzz words.
Doug wrote:
"Flake is looking for a job with the MSM"
Yup!
-
Well if the ABA is going to criticize Kavanaugh about bias what about them?
Lawyers tend to be liberals and 3/4 or more probably Democrats
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/analyst-gauges-the-political-bias-of-lawyers/
No political bias with Ginsberg or Sotomayor? No coincidence CNN does this loving show and "RGB". Got to get the girls excited to vote for liberals.
Just another talking point to sway public opinion against - his "temperament" which the entire LEFT is stating every opportunity they can since his defending himself.
Anything other than complete passivity to the left's destruction of one's personal character and career is evidence of a lack of judicial temperament.
-
Why did Blasey name "Mark G Judge" as one of the two attackers if she had never read his book before writing her July 30th letter to Feinstein?
-
Why did Blasey name "Mark G Judge" as one of the two attackers if she had never read his book before writing her July 30th letter to Feinstein?
One of many questions that the FBI investigation should cover. I am very skeptical it will though.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/09/30/nolte-fox-news-cowards-spread-fake-news-christine-blasey-ford-credible/
Apparently the Rs are just too terrified of the girl vote to stand up and fight back.
I don't believe Ford either. It did not happen as stated with Kavenaugh or she is exaggerating .
Again as I posted, if he were a Democrat we would never have heard anything about this .
Another thing about leftist lawyers , is in not REMARKABLE how the whole main legal concept of "innocent to proven guilty" is thrown completely out the window for political reasons - and yet they accuse Kavanaugh of being biased.
He better be voted in next week.
-
Heh heh heh
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/cotton-feinstein-ford-leaked-letter-854019
-
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/branches.png)
2018 and this is where we are.
-
The memo from Rachel Mitchell to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mitchell is the prosecutor hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Blasey.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf)
-
Much here with which I do not agree, but at least he takes on, eventually, the actual substance of K's record:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation
-
The memo from Rachel Mitchell to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mitchell is the prosecutor hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Blasey.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf)
Important document. Great analysis. Mitchell was hired and instructed to not conduct a vigorous cross-examination on the stand for political and visual purposes. It is great to see that she was paying attention and wrote up this very compelling, factual analysis summarizing why there is no case against the judge. So many voids and inconsistencies are identified, plus the point that she never named Kavanaugh until after he was publicized as a likely Supreme Court pick.
The Supreme Court started work today on very important cases with only 8 justices seated. What is the harm of waiting a week? We'll measure that later.
What are the strangest parts of this to me is that if all of this was true, attempted rape in that time and in that jurisdiction was only a misdemeanor - with a one-year statute of limitation. Add to that, the accused was a juvenile and the purpose of treating juveniles differently in the justice system is to not have a youthful mistake limit how high you may rise for the rest of your life.
Kavanaugh's denial is current and disqualifying if proven wrong, but it is impossible to prove wrong and doesn't fit any pattern. Ford's accusations are uncorroborated, and were always uncorroboratable, likely by design.
The nation focused on the shiny object while the national discussion of constitutional law goes fully untouched - one more time.
-
I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.
1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.
2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.
4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.
5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.
6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.
Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.
But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.
Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.
-
Second post of the day:
In response to a meme averring various things concerning the CIA, GPS Fusion, and her family I asked for citations. So far we have:
I asked for citations for the facts averred above, here's this about her grandfather:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Deak
Here's this about her dad:
https://www.bloomberg.com/.../stocks/private/person.asp...
A friend comments "Fact checkers say he didn't work for Baker & Hostetler when they were employed by Fusion GPS. However, they conveniently fail to mention he did work for them prior."
https://www.reddit.com/r/DrainTheSwamp/comments/9jwldq/ralph_blasey_jr_vice_president_of_agency_that_is/
-
Rick:
Would love to get your take on the CIA conspiracy theory in my previous post. My friend is now working on running down whether Dr. Ford applied to this program:
https://haas.stanford.edu/students/cardinal-careers/fellowships/cia-undergraduate-internship-program
-
Charles "Chad" Ludington
who now accuses Kavanaugh of being a heavy drinker and has written some books
including this one :
*******'The Politics of Wine in Britain': A New Cultural History (2013, paperback 2016), used wine consumption as a window onto English, Scottish, and British political culture from Cromwell to Queen Victoria. ***********
Just the fact he is a university professor means it is 90 % likely he is a lib. He certainly knows how to use alcohol as a political weapon does he not?
https://history.ncsu.edu/people/faculty_staff/ccluding
-
I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.
1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.
2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.
4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.
5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.
6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.
Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.
But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.
Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.
That this doesn't destroy his life is BS. Good luck getting a girls basketball coaching job when a simple internet search of his name brings up a googolplex of writings about his alleged sexual assaults.
The Kavanaugh haters are correct that innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is not the standard to apply here. But they go from that to applying no standard, which is obviously wrong.
Presumed Innocent, due process and right to confront your accusers are concepts of our civilized society that go far beyond the criminal code. Presumed guilty is the standard being applied here by the left.
Preponderance of the evidence might be a better description of the standard to apply here, or just use common sense.
They should look at the entirety of the Rachel Mitchell letter which seems to be the best recap of the facts known. There are no facts and no corroboration that fall against the accused. Whoever would run with that lack of a standard to destroy a man would be the ones unfit to serve in our constitutional process.
The stated objective of the Democrats to stop and to delay this nomination at all costs. What is happening here is not a secret or a mystery. False allegations are a tradition in their playbook and they only have to open their mail to find them.
-
1. I don't think one has to get to CIA conspiracies to cast doubt on Blasey's accusation. What doe she not want us to see about herself in her therapist's notes? What did she not want us to see about her interests, boas and prejudices in her social media posts?
2. While the rules of criminal procedure do not apply strictly to this issue, the federal government is acting in its official capacity with the Senate engaged in its constitutionally mandated advice and consent function after the President has appointed an associate justice to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article II, Section 2. Amendment V states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This amendment suggests that a basic form of due process should be applied to any action of the federal government taken against an individual. In other words, this is not merely a job interview. It involves the use of power by the legislative branch of the federal government.
3. There are certain basic principles of due process that apply to official government actions. In a case where someone alleges that a nominee for a federal office or judgeship committed a crime, basic due process principles still apply. Thus, it is still proper to analyze any accusation lodged in this process by 5th Amendment due process standards. In that regard, it is proper to determine if the allegation is believable under certain standards of weighing competing claims.
4. This is also true if the evidence produced in this process could be used against the nominee in a different governmental process.
5. Kavanaugh admits: 1) that he drank a lot in high school and college; 2) that he sometimes drank too much; and 3) that he sometimes did or said things back then that make him now cringe as an adult. I did similar things in college. I probably still think that I was not as drunk as frequently as others may recall. I probably was loud and argumentative. During college, I threw a slice of pizza at a guy in a bar once who was acting like a jerk. But I know that I never blacked out and I know that I never sexually assaulted any women. And when I became an adult, I cut out that stuff. But I still drink. But not anywhere as frequently as I did in college.
-
Going on a tangent here, and when I have a moment I will move or paste the relevant posts here to the Conspiracy thread, but this is rather interesting about how Dr. Ford's grandfather was killed:
https://pando.com/2015/07/15/apa-cia/
-
another post
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/christine-blasey-ford-and-the-hillary-clinton-connection/
-
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/read-chad-ludington-statement-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-confronted-flake-in-elevator-runs-soros-funded-organization/
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-confronted-flake-in-elevator-runs-soros-funded-organization/
I'm sure the MSM will be sure to inform the public about this!
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/ford-caught-in-major-lie-city-remodeling-permits-show-project-she-linked-to-kavanaugh-was-in-2008-not-2012/
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-fords-own-family-has-been-nearly-silent-amid-outpouring-of-support/2018/09/26/49a3f4a6-c0d6-11e8-be77-516336a26305_story.html?utm_term=.c952af2c60b0
-
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/msnbcs-morning-joe-shocked-ex-fbi-official-reveals-white-house-limits-kavanaugh-probe/
-
I wonder if the insider connections to the LEFT and DEEP state is any reason
-
I'm guessing he is persuaded by Kelly Ann to not piss off the women's vote. With his rep as a pig that could be a concern , , ,
-
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/msnbcs-morning-joe-shocked-ex-fbi-official-reveals-white-house-limits-kavanaugh-probe/
It was Jeff Flake who called for an FBI investigation llimited in time and limited in scope. The executive branch through Trump agreed to the legislative branch request. The Democrats don't have the power to force a witch hunt fishing expedition on a highly qualified nominee. Having the hosts of MSNBC in their hip-pocket did not win them control of any of the three branches, thankfully.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
-
Brookings is not non partisan like they claim
I did not believe her testimony at all - it was politically driven
-
Seeing him beaming all over the airways with his narcissism and self import I guess no surprise:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/jeff-flake-criticizes-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh/571915/
:? :-( :x :cry:
He prefers to be hero of CNN then a Republican
How do we elect such back stabbing pricks.............with his smiling face all over the lib airways .......
He had to have been bribed with fabulous carrots and also a stick stuck at his back
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/02/lindsey-graham-brett-kavanaugh-renominate/1498449002/
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/2j8xp7.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/2j8xp7.jpg)
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377395.php
October 02, 2018
Blasey's Ex-Long-Term Boyfriend: I Personally Saw Blasey Coach a Friend on How to Take a Polygraph Test
Note: Shannon Bream will almost certainly be discussing this at 11 EST.
Update: Ed Henry reports that Bob Corker, who is no TruCon or Trump fan, predicts Kavanaugh will be confirmed "no later than Saturday."
flaming_skull2a.gif flaming_skull2a.gif
And also, he says, they flew in Hawaii on a propeller plane -- you know, the little planes that cause even people without aviaphobia to go into panic.
Oddly enough, she didn't mention her apparently late-onset fear of flying.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Shannon Bream
✔
@ShannonBream
BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”.
6:12 PM - Oct 2, 2018
15.9K
12K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Note that bit about being unfaithful -- and Blasey's nonsensical claims that she was seeing a marriage therapist over her husband's slight resistance to adding a second door to the home, years after they'd already installed it.
And notice her absolute refusal to turn over her therapist notes.
Sean Davis' article here:
"During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be be her life-long best friend," the ex-boyfriend, whose name was redacted from the statement he gave to the Senate, wrote. "During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office."
"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," he said. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."
Davis notes that Rachel Mitchell asked about precisely this during Blasey's testimony -- and she denied ever having even given "tips" about taking a polygraph.
"Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?" Mitchell asked.
"Never," Ford responded.
"And I don’t just mean countermeasures,” Mitchell said, "but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that."
"No," Ford said.
"[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?" Mitchell continued.
"Never," Ford replied again.
Is Blasey going to claim her old stand-by, Tactical Amnesia, yet again to explain away this contradictory testimony?
ONT below -- but I thought you'd want this up right away, instead of waiting for JJ.
Update: A commenter sends this old record along, a sworn statement by one Monica McLean, who identifies herself as an Assistant District Counsel for the FBI in the LA office in 2000.
The document itself isn't interesting, but it does seem to indicate that there was indeed a Monica McLean hunting for lawyer jobs in the FBI at about the time Blasey's boyfriend discusses.
More: Grassley re-demands Blasey's therapist's notes and information about her polygraph -- including the videotape of it that she was cagey about pretending she didn't know existed -- noting that he has already demanded this before and her lawyers have baselessly refused.
Then, on page 2, he says the polygraph information is especially urgent given the statement made by her boyfriend that she's coached at least one person in taking a polygraph.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-told-senate-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/#.W7Ql2gJJLnc.twitter
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-02/kavanaugh-carnival-continues-exposing-fords-paper-creating-artificial-memories
-
The judicial temperament argument is silly. First, it’s an appellate court. Everything is done by writing except strictly regulated oral argument in front of the Supreme Court. Second, if Kavanaugh had a temperament issue, it would have already surfaced at the DC Circuit which, again, is an appellate court panel of 3 judges presiding over strictly regulated oral argument. Third, I’ve heard a lot worse temperament by federal district judges and magistrates than what Kavanaugh displayed in his testimony last Thursday.
Kavanaugh is the accused in this process. As the subject of a constitutionally mandated Senate process, Kavanaugh is entitled to 5th Amendment Due Process and to 9th Amendment due process and fairness as well as statutory guarantees of fairness in congressional hearings that are contained in the various laws and regulations on the books. Blasey is not immune from applicable false statement laws.
The fact that this politics are intertwined with this advice and consent process does not deprive Kavanaugh of his enumerated rights contained in the 5th Amendment and federal statutes and regulations. Also, it does not mean that Kavanaugh is deprived of his unenumerated rights guaranteed by the 9th Amendment plus any unenumerated unalienable rights not delineated in our Declaration of Independence.
And he has the absolute right and duty to point out these violations to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
-
Kavanaugh was part of the Vince Foster cover-up in the 90s, link at Drudge, and removed the do not remove tag on his mattress in the 80s per Treacher at PJ media.
Let's hold the vote before we find out he didn't rewind rental VCR tapes.
-
Rick writes :
"The judicial temperament argument is silly. First, it’s an appellate court. Everything is done by writing except strictly regulated oral argument in front of the Supreme Court. Second, if Kavanaugh had a temperament issue, it would have already surfaced at the DC Circuit which, again, is an appellate court panel of 3 judges presiding over strictly regulated oral argument. Third, I’ve heard a lot worse temperament by federal district judges and magistrates than what Kavanaugh displayed in his testimony last Thursday. "
Chuzpah is it not for 500 attorneys to thus claim he has a temperament and thus bias problem when they themselves display political bias in their attempted character assassination of him .
GM writes :
" Blasey's Ex-Long-Term Boyfriend: I Personally Saw Blasey Coach a Friend on How to Take a Polygraph Test"
I do believe we have all been played by this "Dr" Ford
-
60 percent of voters are in favor of confirming the judge to the nation’s highest court if no supporting evidence of sexual assault turns up.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/02/kavanaugh-numbers-confirmation-democrats/
No big deal but that's higher support than Trump, Obama, Trudeau, Theresa May, Merkel, Macron or Schumer.
Democratic senators in red states are suddenly falling, Heidi heitkamp down by 10, Claire McCaskill trailing in a poll.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/christine-blasey-fords-lawyers-release-polygraph-test-about-assault-2018-9
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6233249/Ex-Kavanaughs-accuser-said-wanted-sex-one-guy-time.html
-
The FBI report is complete. The White House and the leadership of both parties on the judicial committee have read it. All senators and none of their staff will have access to read it today. McConnell has already filed foreclosure. Vote is expected Saturday. Kavanaugh starts work on Monday morning. Unless of course some Republican turns on him for no good reason.
I wonder how many phony Dem candidates for Senate in red States will vote for him after they know their vote has no consequence. What word do you put on that? Whatever is the opposite of courage and adhering to core principles. Something way more corrupt and diabolical than just spineless.
-
Just the fact the NYT is NOT reporting on the contents of the report means it was not favorable to Fyord.
If it was we would be reading all over jurnolisters airways and media.
Thus once the Dems then try to spin the report finally Republicans will be forced to leak it to prove the Leftist lies again .
-
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/dopl3btvaaa3deq.jpg)
-
70 false rape accusations listed
https://twitter.com/i/moments/1047653996486426624 (https://twitter.com/i/moments/1047653996486426624)
-
WSJ this morning.
Leyland Keyser, Blasey's friend who was allegedly at the party, showed the FBI text messages from Blasey's retired FBI agent friend and fellow Holton-Arms classmate, Monica McLean, urging her to "clarify" her statements.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=djemalertNEWS&mod=article_inline (https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=djemalertNEWS&mod=article_inline)
Now, where this gets interesting. McLean is the same person to whom, according to the written statement of Blasey's former boyfriend/partner, Blasey gave tips on how to pass her initial FBI polygraph when she was applying to the Bureau for employment.
It gets even more interesting when it is learned that McLean was Preet Bharra's FBI press liaison in SDNY. Bharra was the US Atty for SDNY who was fired by Trump in early 2017 along with other US Attys. Bharra himself has waged a virulent war against Trump on Twitter and in other public statements. He is aligned with Comey and the other insider members of the resistance.
McLean retired from the FBI in 2016. She lives in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. That happens to be the same town that Blasey testified in which she was vacationing while also preparing her letter to Feinstein. And where she was for most of the time before she took her own polygraph on August 7th.
What also gets interesting is that Blasey's initial texts to the WaPo about this claim in early July were sent on an encrypted texting app. Now, who is most likely to know about encrypted texting apps? A retired FBI agent or a professor of psychology? Just asking.
-
WSJ this morning.
Leyland Keyser, Blasey's friend who was allegedly at the party, showed the FBI text messages from Blasey's retired FBI agent friend and fellow Holton-Arms classmate, Monica McLean, urging her to "clarify" her statements.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=djemalertNEWS&mod=article_inline (https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=djemalertNEWS&mod=article_inline)
Now, where this gets interesting. McLean is the same person to whom, according to the written statement of Blasey's former boyfriend/partner, Blasey gave tips on how to pass her initial FBI polygraph when she was applying to the Bureau for employment.
It gets even more interesting when it is learned that McLean was Preet Bharra's FBI press liaison in SDNY. Bharra was the US Atty for SDNY who was fired by Trump in early 2017 along with other US Attys. Bharra himself has waged a virulent war against Trump on Twitter and in other public statements. He is aligned with Comey and the other insider members of the resistance.
McLean retired from the FBI in 2016. She lives in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. That happens to be the same town that Blasey testified in which she was vacationing while also preparing her letter to Feinstein. And where she was for most of the time before she took her own polygraph on August 7th.
What also gets interesting is that Blasey's initial texts to the WaPo about this claim in early July were sent on an encrypted texting app. Now, who is most likely to know about encrypted texting apps? A retired FBI agent or a professor of psychology? Just asking.
Very interesting!
-
And here is a link to a screen shot from Blasey's testimony showing McLean conferring with Blasey at witness table during the hearing.
https://twitter.com/1catherinesiena/status/1047849263064129536 (https://twitter.com/1catherinesiena/status/1047849263064129536)
Remember that Preet Bharra was also an aide to Chuck Schumer before he landed the SDNY US Atty gig.
-
" McLean was Preet Bharra's FBI press liaison in SDNY "
Wow!!!
What a coincidence!!!
Here we go again . We need an investigation into Ford.
SDNY comes out just at this moment prior to election with stolen and released tax documents to NYT .
So is Ford part of the Deep State?
No wonder Trump came out and bashed her.
I personally think her testimony was not convincing and was contrived with staged emotions
as a PhD in psych she would know how to do.
I don't know if any of her accusations have any truth or not but she OBVIOUSLY has a motive other then being courageous and "telling her story to keep this from happening again".
-
51-49, Manchin voted yes, also Flake and Collins, Murkowski voted no. Steve Daines will be walking his cute daughter down the aisle Saturday and voting later if necessary. I think this gets done Saturday without Daines. One more step.
I understand why the process makes this difficult, it should be. I don't understand why an up-or-down choice on this nominee is difficult for any Senator to make. He is perfectly qualified. I like the chart G M made on the attack series. They blew no holes in a 300 decision appellate court record. Never a temperament issue in court or with any aide at any time. He was chosen by Elena Kagan to teach at Harvard Law School, that's a pretty good credential. Justice Kennedy, who they all admire, hired him too.
Seven FBI background checks. No evidence whatsoever that he has ever been anything but an upstanding guy.
Who would want to put someone else through this right away?
If Republicans can't perform the basic functions of government, they won't be in power long, even if everyone knows the alternative is worse.
---
The original, despicable leak was by Schumer, New York Senator to the New York press, this information alleged to be in the FBI report.
-
It is now getting even more interesting.
Monica McLean is being represented by David Laufman.
In February 2018, Laufman stepped down from his position in DOJ where he was chief of the department that oversaw the Clinton email probe and the Russian interference investigations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-official-who-helped-oversee-clinton-russia-probes-steps-down/2018/02/07/ab19f24e-0b69-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.7b142810309e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-official-who-helped-oversee-clinton-russia-probes-steps-down/2018/02/07/ab19f24e-0b69-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.7b142810309e)
-
It is now getting even more interesting.
Monica McLean is being represented by David Laufman.
In February 2018, Laufman stepped down from his position in DOJ where he was chief of the department that oversaw the Clinton email probe and the Russian interference investigations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-official-who-helped-oversee-clinton-russia-probes-steps-down/2018/02/07/ab19f24e-0b69-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.7b142810309e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-official-who-helped-oversee-clinton-russia-probes-steps-down/2018/02/07/ab19f24e-0b69-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.7b142810309e)
Sounds to me like Monica McLean is in a big heap of trouble and that the Democratic powers want to limit the damage flowing upstream.
Do I have this right, the original letter that they withheld from investigation, supposed to be dr. Ford's first Contact to Feinstein and her congresswoman, refers to Leland, a she, as a he. This is not a mistake you make about your lifelong, closest friend.
Strangest part of it all is that it was Democrats calling for the FBI to investigate. Bad call.
Everyone is waiting for former director James Comey to say what a thorough and professional job the FBI did on the final investigation.
-
Speaking now. Well written speech on her thoughtful decision. Please link and post text as it becomes available.
-
OUTSTANDING WORK RICK!!!
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377464.php
October 05, 2018
There Is No Deep State, Continued
Sean Davis
✔
@seanmdav
The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford's "beach friend"-- the one who worked for the FBI in the office of former Schumer staffer Preet Bharara--just so happens to be the FBI official who oversaw the Clinton e-mail and Trump Russia probes. What a coincidence! https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-official-who-helped-oversee-clinton-russia-probes-steps-down/2018/02/07/ab19f24e-0b69-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.753b7b6987a9 …
6:51 AM - Oct 5, 2018
Justice Dept. official who helped oversee Clinton, Russia probes steps down
David Laufman, a target of far-right bloggers, headed the counterespionage section and stepped up enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
washingtonpost.com
4,231
3,476 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Sean Davis
✔
@seanmdav
· 7h
The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford's "beach friend"-- the one who worked for the FBI in the office of former Schumer staffer Preet Bharara--just so happens to be the FBI official who oversaw the Clinton e-mail and Trump Russia probes. What a coincidence! https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-official-who-helped-oversee-clinton-russia-probes-steps-down/2018/02/07/ab19f24e-0b69-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.753b7b6987a9 …
Justice Dept. official who helped oversee Clinton, Russia probes steps down
David Laufman, a target of far-right bloggers, headed the counterespionage section and stepped up enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
washingtonpost.com
Sean Davis
✔
@seanmdav
And it's just a coincidence that one of Ford's lawyers just so happens to be fired former FBI official Andrew McCabe's lawyer. So many fun coincidences!
6:53 AM - Oct 5, 2018
2,254
1,121 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Even more unexpected connections revealed in this thread.
See also Tom Maguire's interesting evidence suggesting that Blasey might have been coached on what to say by her lawyer galpal McLean.
Somewhat related: House subpeonas Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.
You know, a lot of people suspect that Fusion GPS might have somethin'-somethin' to do with this latest political op. Remember, a Dianne Feinstein aide took over as the manager/donation-bagman of Fusion GPS' ongoing "investigation" of Trump.
Oh, and: Mr. President, we are real news. Compare the videotape to what this Atlantic "journalist" claims is on the videotape.
-
Where will J
Sessions be in all of this?
Probably recused himself already and we have Rob Rosenstien who hopefully will be the next "your fired!"
out the door
We need another AG after the election who will fight back .
screw the MSM ; they won't support us no matter what.
-
https://media1.tenor.com/images/fb42102e9af76b598768f214d5f3a96f/tenor.gif?itemid=10344637
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gUnwZG3QF8
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36774/walsh-why-fbi-should-investigate-christine-ford-matt-walsh?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=100718-news&utm_campaign=position1
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-assault-reports-not-rare-reported-studie/
-
New Yorker article by Jeff Toobin who came out and expressed his disagreements with Justice Kavanaugh (has a nice ring to it no?)
but back in 2012!!
The year suddenly the "courageous " Dr Ford started hinting about Kavanaugh :
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/holding-court
Despite everyone else speaking about Kavanuagh's qualifications ( prior to the last month's hit job) Toobin already found reason to bash him.
-
With associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh now sworn in, I would just like to lament for a moment what a lost opportunity this was. A lost opportunity to learn from what seems to be a great constitutionalist, how to interpret the Constitution.
One side wants to quietly appoint and confirm justices that believe in the Constitution and try to find its original meaning and apply it to today's context. The other side thinks this is a political policy board and very openly advocates selecting an outcome-based judiciary to win what they cannot achieve at the ballot box.
It may be that the Republicans won in this process because the Democrats made fools of themselves, and that one senator in Maine decided that it is more likely than not that Brett Kavanaugh is not a serial, gang rapist. The real issues, it seems, were hardly ever mentioned or discussed.
I don't want to be ruled by a liberal or a conservative politburo disguised as a Supreme Court. I only want what the Founders wanted, constitutional limits on government powers that can be amended from time to time by following a difficult and rigorous constitutional process.
Brett Kavanaugh promised to faithfully interpret the Constitution to the best of his unbiased ability, but all the senators seem to care about was his high school drinking, yearbook entries and whether or not he personally Cher's their support for specific stands on current political issues.
A lost and wasted opportunity.
-
and most of H wood .
Doug ,
with the media being 90% +++ left wing the messages from the Right never gets out.
It only gets trashed
and the Dem Party identity and grievance politics gets never ending front page headlines
To be honest sometimes I wonder how the Republicans win as much as they do.
-
One mystery of the Kavanaugh debacle what's the Democrat's call for an FBI investigation. In one sense it was obvious that it was for the delay, that was their only goal in the first place. Then you wondered if they knew something that we don't. And nothing came out of that. They risked that they're lying accuser would be caught and that their committee members would be busted for how it was handled. Likely they were. Apparently it was Schumer or staff that leaked this and her radical lawyers who did not act in her best interest at any point along the process unless she was complicit in all of that.
Now some of them call for impeachment. But the impeachment process might expose their accuser as a bald faced liar. See Andrew McCarthy's column today.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/410345-trying-to-impeach-kavanaugh-will-only-raise-questions-about-ford
-
ccp, It IS quite amazing that the country is 50/50 divided when the messaging is 93 to 7 slanted. As I understand it, the country would have the politics of Texas if not for the Leftist takeover of media and Academia. Every time that the left takes a step forward to cement their permanent majority, they seem to take two steps backward. Lately it seems no one is even calling the Republicans the stupid party - at least for the moment.
We've got five pretty good justices right now, reasonably young, and they've got two of theirs in their 80s. I'm not pulling for anyone to have bad health, but we haven't seen what going berserk truly means until Trump gets to fill one or two more vacancies. Imagine if he leaves his first or second term with a 7-2 Court and government powers once again have constitutional limits that didn't rely on individual justices whose core principles bend with the direction of the wind.
-
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/aftermath-as-prologue/
-
Larry Elder: "To those who say [Brett] Kavanaugh disqualified himself as an 'impartial jurist,' consider the 'judicial temperament' of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a heroic figure to the left. In a July 2016 interview with The New York Times, Ginsburg said of candidate Donald Trump: 'I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president' and that her late husband would have said it was 'time for us to move to New Zealand.' Undaunted, Ginsburg later told CNN she considered Trump a 'faker,' adding: 'He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.' How's that for bias, judicial temperament and a blatant disregard for the expectation of impartiality? Ginsburg later apologized: 'On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised, and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future, I will be more circumspect.' ... Liberals see no basis for Ginsburg to recuse herself from cases involving Trump, despite her partisan attack. Will they extend Kavanaugh the same courtesy?"
-
agreed with Garland 93% of time :
https://townhall.com/columnists/gilgutknecht/2018/10/14/soutered-again-n2528233
-
"agreed with Garland 93% of time"
https://townhall.com/columnists/gilgutknecht/2018/10/14/soutered-again-n2528233
[/quote]
Maybe it's the other 7% that shapes the nation.
"Merrick Garland really is anti-gun:
Supreme Court nominee had 4 chances to vote against gun rights, and he took them all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/01/merrick-garland-guns-supreme-court-second-amendment-column/83670044/
Merrick Garland was not a flaming liberal. From what I know he would have been mostly great compared to Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg. Obama's people saw McConnell's move coming before it happened.
[Kavanaugh] "exactly what kind of a Justice he will become remains an open question." - True
-
Judicial Watch Files Major Ethics Complaint Against Christine Blasey Ford’s Lawyers
The Kavanaugh confirmation process was a travesty which saw the rules and the rule of law violated by the left for political gain. Even though Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court, there must still be accountability for these abuses.
To that end, Judicial Watch just filed a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals alleged that Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich for violating the rules of professional responsibility in their representation of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during the hearings on the nomination of the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh.
We note that by not informing their client Dr. Ford that Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee offered in a letter to “fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford … in California, or anywhere else, to obtain (her) testimony,” Katz, Banks, and Bromwich violated the following District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule l.4(a) – A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Rule 1.4(b) – A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
I’ve inserted our full complaint for you below (with the citations omitted):
To the Office of Disciplinary Counsel:
Judicial Watch hereby files a disciplinary complaint against District of Columbia bar members Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich in connection with their representation of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee [the “Committee”].
Rule l.4(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct [“DC Rules”] states: “A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” Rule 1 .4(b) provides: “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”
In this case, Dr. Ford made well-publicized allegations of sexual misconduct involving Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was before the Committee. Her identity was first revealed in connection with these allegations on September 16, 2018. The next day, September 17, 2018, Ms. Katz went on several television shows asking that the Committee hold a public hearing so that Dr. Ford could offer her testimony.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, honored that request. In a letter sent on September 19, 2018, he informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the Committee was scheduling a hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for September 24, 2018, in order to “give Dr. Ford an opportunity to tell her story to the Senate and, if she chooses, to the American people.” Letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman, S. Judiciary Comm., to Debra S. Katz and Lisa J. Banks (Sep. I 9, 2018) (available at https://goo.gl/ce3SVv).
He informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the hearing could be public or private, and that Dr. Ford could also choose to have a public or private staff interview with Committee staff, either by phone or in-person. “To that end,” Chairman Grassley continued, “Committee staff has attempted to contact you directly by phone and e-mail several times to schedule a call at a time convenient for you and your client. We thus far have not heard back from you with regard to that request.” He reiterated that “my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”
On September 21, 2018, Chairman Grassley wrote another letter to Ms. Katz, where he stated that “[t]he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. Press Release, Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford ‘Wasn’t Clear’ Committee Offered California Interview in lieu of Public Washington Hearing (Oct. 2, 2018) (available at https://goo.gl/6dmNJd). The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”
When the hearing finally took place on September 27, 2018, however, the following exchange took place between Dr. Ford, under oath, and counsel for the Committee, Rachel Mitchell:
“MITCHELL: May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?
FORD: In an airplane.
MITCHELL: OK. It’s – I ask that, because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is – is that true?
FORD: Well, I was willing – I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.
MITCHELL: It would’ve been a quicker trip for me.
FORD: Yes. So that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane, but I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.”
Nomination of the Honorable Brett M Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5): Hearings before the Comm. on the Judiciary., 115th Cong. (2018) (emphasis added).
Mitchell’s questioning at the hearing continued:
“MITCHELL: Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that – that they offered to come out to California to do so?
BROMWICH: We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford. It’s a privileged conversation …
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: Would – could – could we – could you validate the fact that the offer was made without her saying a word?
BROMWICH: (OFF-MIKE)
GRASSLEY: Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?
FORD: Can I say something to you – do you mind if I say something to you directly?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
FORD: I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you – had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.
Thus, it is clear, by Dr. Ford’s own testimony, that her attorneys did not communicate the Committee’s multiple offers to take her testimony in California, despite the fact that this was Dr. Ford’s preferred option. In fact, Dr. Ford testified that she “wasn’t clear on what the offer was” and regarded the possibility of investigators taking her testimony in California as “unrealistic”-when in fact it had been specifically offered. [Emphasis added]
Despite knowing of Dr. Ford’s strong preference to not travel to Washington, D.C., it was inexcusable that Dr. Ford’s attorneys should have neglected to inform her of the fact that the Committee investigators were willing to meet her in California. Dr. Ford was thus deprived of the ability to “participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued.” D.C. Rules of Prof I Conduct r. 1.4(b) cmt. 1.
The misconduct of Ms. Katz, Ms. Banks, and Mr. Bromwich noted above has been widely reported. It appears likely that they knowingly subordinated their client’s interest in avoiding the publicity of a Senate hearing and avoiding travel to Washington, D.C. to the desire of Democratic Senators on the Committee to have such a hearing take place in Washington, D.C. Their failure to inform their client of the offer to have Committee staff investigate Dr. Ford in California was dishonest at worst and careless at best. Either way, it is inexcusable, and raises substantial questions about their character and fitness to practice law. It warrants a full investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
We are concerned that ethics rules were violated by Dr. Ford’s attorneys during the Kavanaugh confirmation and have taken action to get accountability. We already filed a Senate ethics complaint against Sen. Cory Booker over his admitted rule breaking and are considering additional steps to address the misconduct committed by Justice Kavanaugh’s opponents.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/29/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-rakes-in-1-million-several-book-offers/
Like I said follow the money
Here is some of her payoff for the soldier she has been.
The attorneys who worked for her for free also of course are making out well from this through the back end
That said who in tarnation would want to spend 5 minutes reading a book from her?
-
https://outline.com/TXW6L8
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/?fbclid=IwAR1fYBhTXEYgdJQC1GkU55E2VbgvlJon4jX5vA7Ctrcum8Haux5IRyodNxc
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/678004085/federal-panel-of-judges-dismiss-all-83-ethics-complaints-against-brett-kavanaugh?fbclid=IwAR3zC6nSCnNRo2x6zWWMp1zsJEWR_DE0ZxwHbp3VNUAtRdxQZkdQDlAMj40
-
most allege he made false statements over 10 yrs ago:
http://www.uscourts.gov/courts/ca10/10-18-90038-et-al.O.pdf