I’ve been too busy at the AIAA conference in Orlando to blog, and I drove down to West Palm Beach last night to get back to work on the house. But I have to say I’ve never seen anything as hypocritical and cynical as what the Democrats are doing now.
As I tweeted yesterday, if I were Grassley, I’d call Karen Monahan as a witness on Monday, to show the Democrats what a woman with a real story looks like, then watch the scum like Schumer and Feinstein howl in rage.
[Friday-afternoon update]
Yes, Dianne Feinstein should be censured.
[Bumped]
[Update a while later]
Know who I would never in a thousand years hire as my defense attorney? This woman. You’d have to be monumentally incompetent to not get your client off with a charge and (lack of) evidence like this. Telling a client with such a situation to not go to trial would be legal malpractice.
[Late-afternoon update]
Yes, rejecting Kavanaugh for this would disgrace him for life. But it would keep him off the court, which is all they care about, not her or him.
[Saturday-morning update]
Yes, let’s end the confirmation-hearing circus. It certainly isn’t required by the Constitution, and as Glenn notes, it originated in anti-Semitic opposition to Brandeis.
Actually, Rand, I think that this charade may very well come back to bite old Di-Fi and the rest of the Dems in the backside.
They already had energized their base, using the media to stir up every slight, both real and imagined, committed by Trump. They were all coming out.
Now, though, they have reminded the GOP folks just who the Dems are and what they are really about. If Ford does not testify, I think there will be many upset GOP and moderate voters who see this as just a last minute political ploy and decide to vote. Time will tell.
Yes first withObama speeches and now this..the Dems are reminding the voters why they picked rump in the first place and why giving power to those slimy bastards is a yuge mistake
“. If Ford does not testify, I think there will be many upset GOP and moderate voters who see this as just a last minute political ploy ”
Ford is a human being, you know, with emotions and feelings and so forth. Did you ever get butterflies in your stomach before a presentation? Did you ever just not show up for something because it was scary? I’m sure the answer to my first question is yes. Maybe for you, the answer to the second question is no, but for lots of people, the answer to second question is yes. Regardless of “who the Dems are and what they are really about”, I don’t think you should jump to any conclusions and let it all hinge on the emotions of a human being who might or might not want to do something scary. Talking about whatever it is she wants to talk about to a therapist might be scary for her — talking about it, even privately, in a political context while she is receiving unexpected death threats might be just too much. Why not have a little sympathy?
I have more sympathy for her than your scumbag political party does. She’s nothing but a tool for them.
Re Bob-1’s scumbag political party, Instapundit has an appropriate quote from Jim Treacher re the alleged rape:
“The Democrats don’t care whether or not Brett Kavanaugh actually did this. They don’t care about him, his family, the accuser or her family… anybody. They’re just desperately scrabbling to maintain their grip on power. All other concerns are secondary.”
Or to put it in other words: “The Hive uber alles!”
She’ll get sympathy when she proves that the event happened.
Up til now all she has done is allege and incident and accused a person but she cannot remember where, when, what time, what house.
We have Duke Lacrosse UVA and Mattress Girl liars. THEY caused skepticism by lying.
Why don’t you have any sympathy for Kavanaugh? So far as you know he is innocent. Even if the event did happen to Ford, no one has proven that Kav was involved.
I think being a nice person means having sympathy for many sorts of troubled people, including people who believe things which aren’t true, so I don’t think it matters whether her allegations are true or not, with respect to having sympathy for the challenge of being asked to testify before Congress about something scary.
Regarding the Duke case, etc, I wonder if the following is true:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
According to various academic studies over the past 20 years, only 2-10% of rape accusations are fake (Prof Ford’s lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape).
Two to 10% is too many, but it is not a big proportion of the total. Fake rape accusations get a lot of attention.
Both the Duke Lacrosse team case in 2006 and the alleged University of Virginia gang rape in 2014 were widely covered by the media. They were terrible miscarriages of justice – but they were not representative.
And yes, as far as I know, Kavanaugh is innocent. I never stated any lack of sympathy for Kavanaugh, but
1) My sympathy for him is moderated by my knowledge that he sought to become a public figure.
2) I think his conduct in the Starr report was obnoxious and facing questions about his sexual conduct does seem a bit like poetic justice. Look at this memo: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-5810-d47f-a5f5-5a3c9a020001
He recommended that Starr asked whether Lewinsky attained an orgasm, and other irrelevant but personal questions. Seriously, follow my link if you don’t believe me. Figuring out whether a president lied under oath seems quite important to me. Worrying about where the cigar went or whether a young woman had an orgasm or not indicates a character flaw on Kavanaugh’s part and it makes me bit less sympathetic to him. To his credit, Kavanaugh later acknowledged that he went way too far.
Both the Duke Lacrosse team case in 2006 and the alleged University of Virginia gang rape in 2014 were widely covered by the media.
Actually the accusations were widely covered. When it became clear they were complete fabrications the mainstream media coverage disappeared.
Yes, there are indeed some questions that are ultimately unanswerable.
so I don’t think it matters whether her allegations are true or not, with respect to having sympathy for the challenge of being asked to testify before Congress about something scary.
Oh, don’t worry. The Democrats have been carefully scripting this for months, at the very least. I am sure the practice will help her get over stage fright.
I also had sympathy for the people Democrats paid to instigate confrontations from inside Trump rallies during the election, at least one of them was disabled. How could Democrats abused a disabled person like that?
Then there are the women they paid to accuse Trump of sexual assault. I couldn’t believe how Democrats would use women in that manner.
We can’t really ignore the veracity of Ford’s claims when the Democrats have a very recent history of putting women forward to make false claims. Since nothing can be proved in this case, we should assume this is just another dirty trick by the Democrats to ruin a good man’s life.
“1) My sympathy for him is moderated by my knowledge that he sought to become a public figure.”
My sympathy for Ford is limited because she sought to become a public figure.
There is ONLY one reason she would come forward now – to stop the confirmation. That’s ok if she is telling the whole truth. But since she admits to not knowing the whole truth then it’s less ok.
But whether or not she’s telling the truth or even knows the truth, she had every reason to expect a thorough and aggressive cross examination. THAT is how our system is designed.
“so I don’t think it matters whether her allegations are true or not, with respect to having sympathy for the challenge of being asked to testify before Congress about something scary.”
That’s idiotic. If the allegations are not true then who cares if she’s scared to testify?
“He recommended that Starr asked whether Lewinsky attained an orgasm, and other irrelevant but personal questions.”
No, according to your link, that isn’t what he recommended. The clear implication is that Lewinsky divulged these items, and the questions were to search for inconsistencies.
“As I tweeted yesterday, if I were Grassley, I’d call Karen Monahan as a witness on Monday, to show the Democrats what a woman with a real story looks like, then watch the scum like Schumer and Feinstein howl in rage.”
I like Rand’s idea. How about you, Bob?
Well certainly bob would have sympathy for Karen Monahan as an accuser, right bob? Especially since she can name a time and place with actual medical records taken by a medical doctor.
I haven’t been following the story much, but yes I would have sympathy for Karen Monahan. Why wouldn’t I? Do you think I have some sort of personal loyalty to the Democratic Party leadership?!
Yes
“I like Rand’s idea. How about you, Bob?”
Ok, I’ll answer as if Rand was making a serious proposal.
Regarding Ford , Rand said “She’s nothing but a tool for them.” So lets look at Rand’s proposal of calling Karen Monahan to testify – would Monahan actually want to testify regarding the Kavanaugh nomination, despite having zero connection to Kavanaugh or Ford? I think Rand’s suggestion is an example of exactly of what Rand is accusing the Democrats of doing: using someone as a tool.
Yes, she would be, and given how she’s been treated by the Democrats, a willing one. Are you saying that Ford is not?
“There is no truth, only competing agendas.
All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.”
Quoting Eric Raymond — see http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260
I can’t believe that I am saying this but Bob-1 is right and we shouldn’t doubt Ford. People like Kavanaugh, Harvey Weinstein, and any man who drank alcohol in high school always have a clear pattern of behavior. It is disgraceful how the corporate media hasn’t reported on what everyone knows about Kavanaugh until now. Kavanaughs law clerks have come forward to describe in horrifying detail what it was like to work for this monster of a man who wants to take women back to the 1950’s, nay to the 1850’s!
It is amazing that Kavanaugh made it this far in life considering that everyone knows how he acted in pre-school. Actually, it isn’t because the old boys patriarchy club looks after their own, as long as they’re white, and will go through great lengths to cover despicable views on women, even if it means having two daughters just so that they can pretend to be a loving father who enjoys coaching girls basketball. Its a lot of work for a photo op but that just shows Kavanaugh has some really dark secrets to hide.
Had me going there for a minute.
Rand, you are certainly giving the Blasey allegations the priority they deserve, maybe too much if anything.
Number one, Ford didn’t have to give the letter to Feinstein. If she wanted the committee to consider the allegation she could have sent a letter to everyone on the committee. And she could have done it the day after Trump nominated BK.
No…she gave it to DiFi and made DiFi the Gatekeeper of the info. That smacks of politics not justice.
Secondly lots of pundits are saying she wouldn’t have done this and submitted herself to public scrutiny if she wasn’t telling the truth.
Codswallop – tell that the the Duke Lacrosse team and the UVA frat boys. Those accusers were NOT telling the truth yet they submitted themselves to public scrutiny. Fortunately they got found out
Next we’re hearing that if BK is innocent he has nothing to fear from an investigation. Number one BK never said he didn’t want an investigation. It’s not his call. Number 2, the FBI has already refused the case. More codswallop. Not to mention the fact that when the comment (if you had nothing to fear from an investigation…) was said to Dems they howled with indignation.
Next, it’s not unheard of a lawyer urging a potential client to “remember” things they really don’t remember and downplaying the impact of going public. It’s a no-lose scenario for the lawyer.
Next one of Ford’s lawyers is in record saying that Ford does not have to prove her accusation. Horse Hockey.
The whole thing stinks. Maybe Ford did have a bad experience – or maybe not. Maybe a kid tried to get to first base and she’s now a “victim” with all the shrieking insanity that comes from Lefty victimhood.
But if you are going to make an accusation that can ruin someone’s life you better be ready to face the defense. And you cannot whine if strong aggressive questioning comes your way. That’s the legal system.
I’m trying to figure out why Blasey Ford didn’t mention this when her parent’s home was being foreclosed upon and it was Judge Kavanaugh, mother of Brett, that handled the case? It was only 15 years after the incident, so there might be more people who could recall the party.
I think that claim has been debunked but I don’t have the particulars
Well, the NYT and Snopes claimed it false. Except what I wrote is completely true, according to what they found.
Blasey’s parents home was being foreclosed. Martha Kavanaugh was the judge presided over the case. The Blasey’s settled with the bank and asked the court to dismiss the case. Judge Kavanaugh did dismiss the case, and apparently the Blasey’s kept their home. So back to my question, why didn’t Blasey Ford mention this to Brett’s mother and ask for a recusal? She is a Ph.D and a grown woman at this time. Certainly she knew how this works.
We know the answer. Blasey Ford has already admitted in writing that in 1996, she didn’t consider the events of 1982 or 1983 or sometime in the past, to be an issue. It would be 15 more years before she decided an incident did occur and that she would vividly remember the name of her attackers and what they did. Yet not so vividly as to when, where, and a few other things necessary to even start an investigation.
That answer is important, since we already have had “classmates” come in to support Blasey Ford by claiming they to recall an incident at the time being discussed in the hallways of their school. Except then Blasey said she never discussed the event with anyone, and she was the only one who could have started the story at the school about her event. It could be that Blasey, as a teen, also heard such a story, and now as an adult Blasey Ford is using an event that happened to someone else to explain her emotional problems today. But that’s speculation. We’d need to investigate her past, but she doesn’t want to that to happen.
By the way, click the link to the NYT and look at what lengths they go to claim things as myths even though they there is truth. There’s my point, that they claim is false, but do so by using people quoted as claiming the home was foreclosed. Only the last part is untrue.
Later they claim mostly false that Blasey Ford is a democrat activist, but then have to admit a photo of her holding a “he’s not my President” sign at anti-Trump rally is actually her. There are plenty more pictures of her at such rallies.
The last myth is labelled only as misleading, but I hadn’t heard it before. Blasey Ford’s brother worked at a law firm that hired Fusion GPS to look into Russian money-laundering. The actual quotes the NYT puts up about the incident are exactly true. It’s only the NYT sub-headline for the topic that is misleading. The quotes says Blasey’s brother works for a law firm with ties to Fusion GPS which is involved in the Russian meddling case. The NYT headline misleads by paraphrasing “Blasey’s brother works at a law firm with ties to the Russian investigation”.
By the way, click the link to the NYT and look at what lengths they go to claim things as myths even though they there is truth.
It is a lot like Ronan Farrow’s new article about a new accuser. Someone who overheard two random people say something at a party is portrayed as a credible witness. He was a doctor or a Silicone Valley CEO, so must be right?
Everyone who supported the accuser is given a high prestige job title but people who said it never happened just had their names given. Even the lawyer they say instigated the article was a civil rights lawyer.
The article was one of the most unethical abuses of writing as a craft I have ever read. How could journalists read that and not feel it is an abuse of their profession? How could anyone who writes not see how it was crafted?
She has nothing to gain, except controlling who gets a seat on the most powerful court in the country and becoming a celebrated celebrity with all the perks that come along with it.
…and $$$ (books and tv appearances and articles) and her 15 minutes of fame and massaging of her Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Which doesn’t prove she is or is not telling the truth.
What about Anita Hill? Another almost certain put-up.
Everyone should be skeptical of accusations like this because they are a tactic that has been used throughout history. For some reason, every time someone makes an allegation of a sexual nature people act as if it is the first time ever rather than one of the most common political attacks.
The modern Democrat party got its start with Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828. Would it shock anyone to know that Jackson ran a populist campaign and accused Adams of giving a servant girl a Russian Czar to be sexually abused?
It was during this campaign that Democrats got their mascot. Many people think the mascot is a donkey but this is just because people try and be polite. The mascot is a jackass. Why a jackass rather than a donkey? Because Jackson and the Democrats were acting like jackasses. So, they adopted the mascot out of pride and for the next 172 years acted like their spirit animal.
The Jackasses are now demanding that the Bill of Rights get thrown out and Kavanaugh be treated as guilty until proven innocent. This includes having him testify first, having him leave the room during her testimony, not allowing him to have a lawyer, not allowing him to confront the witness, and all this will occur at a time convenient for the accuser.
Because she’s a fragile abused victim; that also happened to live a privileged childhood, attended the best party prep school, obtain a PhD, but because she’s a woman, we should have sympathy for her.
It goes beyond “guilty until proven innocent” because they’re resisting all attempts for Kavanaugh to challenge her accusation. Effectively, the Democrats want the accusation to be the verdict unless the accusation is against a prominent Democrat like Bill Clinton or Ellison.
The sad part is Bob Menendez is one of the committee votes.
Those silly demands – BK testifies first, has to leave the room etc come from Ford’s lawyers who know VERY WELL why we don’t do that in civil or criminal court – because it’s hugely unfair to the defendant.
How do you defend against a charge you have not seen?
They are doing that to:
1) Attempt to cause more stall and,
2) Provide a pretext for saying the hearings (if they happen) are tainted or – if they don’t happen because the conditions weren’t met – to accuse the GOP of silencing Ford.
It’s all a game with them.
“How do you defend against a charge you have not seen?”
To them (the lefty Dems) this is less about a legal procedure as it is political theater. The template is more analogous to something like an accusation at work of sexual harassment (or of sexual assault at a college). That is they can handle it as they see fit; the normal rules of law/due process don’t apply. After all no one is talking about bringing charges or anything (yet) this is just a fact finding hearing sort of thing. Of course if he (Kavanaugh) testifies under oath they could at some later date decide he committed perjury by denying the allegations.
When they want the FBI to investigate but not the local law enforcement that can bring charges, it looks like a farce. Same with when they say it is serious enough to prevent a person from being on SCOTUS but not serious enough for Kavanaugh to hire a lawyer or for a standard of reasonable doubt.
The accusation is the verdict as far as they’re cncerned.
Sen Dianne Feinstein
Verified account @SenFeinstein
“President Trump, Dr. Blasey Ford did not want her story of sexual assault to be public. She requested confidentiality and I honored that. It wasn’t until the media outed her that she decided to come forward. You may not respect women and the wishes of victims, but I do.”
Wait a minute:
Feinstein said that only SHE (her team) was given the document. If the media got a hold of it then Feinstein gave it to them.
It was FIENSTEIN who leaked the info..not the media
There is no depravity to which these slimeballs won’t sink
Yes, rejecting Kavanaugh for this would disgrace him for life. But it would keep him off the court, which is all they care about, not her or him.
The accusation disgraces him for life. The next best thing to preventing him being confirmed is tarnishing his reputation and de-legitimizing SCOTUS as an institution. It is win win for the Democrats whether he is confirmed or not.
Contrary to their sudden claims of a common American ethos, Democrats have been doing all they can to tear down our public institutions. You can’t build up a new country, culture, and society without first tearing down the old one.
So yesterday Ford suddenly announces that she is afraid to fly and needs to drive to Washington to testify.
Now for a lot of this I was willing to blame her lawyers and Feinstein because I didn’t know what Ford knew when other delaying tactics (like BK must testify first) were thrown out there.
But THIS…this is something she Ford could have said a week or two ago when this broke. It’s a piece of personal data not crime scene info. The fact that it comes out at this late date and Ford didn’t deny it now tells me that Ford is also helping to delay the hearing.
I now no longer believe a word she says.
It’s over. Grassley is giving her deadlines, and even though he’s being flexible on them; it is just a guise. With each new revelation that causes a change in the deadline; it becomes even more obvious what this is all about.
Frankly, this has been well played by Republicans, as Kavanaugh will still be confirmed before First Monday, and we have yet another example of how Democrats will throw away protected rights in their quest for power.
I’m now excited to vote. Justice Kavanaugh means a chance at justice for Karen Monahan. And women, keep your distance from Spartacus when Top Gun 2 comes out; he gets touchy feely.
Definitely over now, as other woman supposedly at the party denies it happened.
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/breaking-christine-blasey-ford-s-female-eye-witness-doesn-t-remember-anything-vHwXAKtCgUWdX_jSGdb7mA/
Maybe she thought her besty would throw in with her. Guess she thought wrong.
So the party, according to Blasey Ford, was attended by 4 men and 2 women, which includes herself. To date, she has named 3 men and both women. Here’s what we know at this time:
Man 1: Brett Kavanaugh claims “this is a completely and totally false allegation” and has testified to this under penalty of perjury.
Man 2: Mark Judge says “I have no memory of this alleged incident” but is unwilling to testify to this.
Man 3: Patrick Smyth testified in writing “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”
Man 4: Unidentified to date.
Woman 1: Christine Blasey Ford claims it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her with Mark Judge in the room, but cannot identify time within a 1 year time frame and cannot identify location in area smaller than a county. She is unwilling to make these claims under oath.
Woman 2: Leland Keyser in sworn testimony claims “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
In the meantime, Keith Ellison accuses Karen Monahan of making up domestic violence claims which she has made with copies of 9-11 calls and released medical records of injury as evidence. Ellison also says it is possible other women might make similar claims against him.
To any one who cares to comment a question; what if the Dems take the House & especially the Senate (less likely)? What would prevent the current Senate I assume still in session from approving Kavanaugh anyway? The new post election Senate doesn’t seat until January of next year right? What’s to stop then the current Republican majority Senate from approving Kavanaugh as a final gesture of spite against the Dems on the way out?
I’m not sure, but what I have read seems to say there is a deadline of October 1, after which Kavanaugh’s nomination is no longer valid, and this is why the Dems are trying to delay, delay, while Republicans are determined to hold the vote before the end of the coming week.
“I’m not sure, but what I have read seems to say there is a deadline of October 1, after which Kavanaugh’s nomination is no longer valid”
Not according to this source:
A Timeline for the SCOTUS Confirmation Crisis
“If no one has been confirmed by October 1, which is beginning to look more and more likely, then the Court will convene with just eight justices, and more importantly, with the conservative and liberal “blocs” on the Court deadlocked with four justices each. Yes, a subsequently confirmed justice can ascend to the bench the moment she or he is cleared by the Senate.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/deadlines-for-kavanaughs-supreme-court-confirmatio.html
October 1st is just the start of the new SCOTUS year. I think the only thing that can be accomplished by delaying Kavanaugh’s confirmation to after that, is for Dems to continue the stalling process by demanding Kavanaugh not rule on topics that were discussed before taking the bench. I don’t think there is precedence for that, but then what does that have to do with the way Democrats are behaving?
Nothing………………………..
Well, it might guarantee that Democrats won’t move any of Trump’s nominations that require Senate confirmation. Then again, if Republicans went in believing that Democrats would do that; then hopefully they would always act accordingly.
So yeah, nothing.
How many posting here now feel that there is any possibility whatsoever of reaching a sane and reasonable agreement of any kind with the Democratic People’s Party? It may be time not only to gaze into abyss, but also to start thinking about how to get across it.
Zero chance because they are not negotiating in earnest. They are playing politics. If there was some real difference to be worked out you’d see far less angst and it would have been worked out in 20 minutes.
Grassley has to pick the point where cutting the negotiating off and holding the vote maximizes gain and minimizes (won’t be zero) Dem blowback.
They are not playing politics — they are playing football, complete with time-outs, complicated rules for when the clock stops and when it keeps running, coaches challenging rulings on-the-field, and the stupid ritual of a ref under a black curtain viewing a video replay that could result in reversing a decision.
The only way across the abyss is to persuade Murkowski and Collins that this is a political hit job. What would it take for them to be red pilled?