What Did You Say?

Tagged with:

TIME’S UP Co-Founder Resigns Over Ties To Cuomo Investigation

Reported by MARY MARGARET OLOHAN, SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER | August 09, 2021

Activists Rally Against Brett Kavanaugh Nomination In Washington DC — **Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images**

TIME’S UP co-founder Roberta Kaplan has resigned after an investigation into Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo found her implicated in helping discredit Cuomo’s accusers.
“I therefore have reluctantly come to the conclusion that an active law practice is no longer compatible with serving on the Board at Time’s Up at this time and I hereby resign,” said Kaplan, who is representing Cuomo secretary Melissa DeRosa in the attorney general’s inquiry.
A report on the investigation released Tuesday said that both Kaplan and TIME’S UP co-founder Tina Tchen helped Cuomo’s team craft an op-ed discrediting accuser Lindsey Boylan.
The letter was part of larger efforts by Cuomo and his aides to discredit the governor’s accusers, according to the report, in which the Cuomo administration not only sought help from Kaplan but also from Human Rights Campaign co-founder Alphonso David and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

TIME’S UP co-founder Roberta Kaplan has resigned after an investigation into Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo found her implicated in helping discredit Cuomo’s accusers.

“Robbie Kaplan, board co-chair, has stepped down from the board,” TIME’S UP said in a press release Monday. “We and she agree that is the right and appropriate thing to do.”
“We hold ourselves accountable,” the TIME’S UP statement continued. “The events of the last week have made it clear that our process should be evaluated and we intend to do just that. We need more transparency about our vision of change-making, and we need a more inclusive process to engage the broader survivor community, many of whom have spent years doing the noble work of fighting for women.”

Kaplan also submitted a letter Monday announcing her resignation from TIME’S UP, a prominent non-profit established at the height of the #MeToo movement, The New York Times reported. The TIME’S UP co-founder said her work as an attorney prevented her from openly answering questions about her dealings with both Cuomo and his secretary Melissa DeRosa, who resigned late Sunday night.

A report on the investigation released Tuesday said that both Kaplan and TIME’S UP co-founder Tina Tchen helped Cuomo’s team craft an op-ed discrediting accuser Lindsey Boylan. The op-ed “denied the legitimacy of Ms. Boylan’s allegations, impugned her credibility, and attacked her claims as politically motivated,” according to the New York attorney general’s report.

The investigation released Tuesday found that the governor had “sexually harassed a number of State employees through unwelcome and unwanted touching, as well as by making numerous offensive and sexually suggestive comments” and that this conduct “was part of a pattern of behavior that extended to his interactions with others outside of State government.”

The letter was part of larger efforts by Cuomo and his aides to discredit the governor’s accusers, according to the report, in which the Cuomo administration not only sought help from Kaplan but also from Human Rights Campaign co-founder Alphonso David and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, the governor’s brother.

Tchen has vigorously denied involvement in discrediting any Cuomo accusers.

Boylan originally accused Cuomo of sexual harassment in an early December tweet thread. She later shared details of her allegations in a Medium post, describing Cuomo’s behavior and workplace as riddled with “pervasive harassment,” and accusing him of kissing her on the lips without her consent.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks during a press conference at One World Trade Center on June 15, 2021 in New York City. (Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

After she came forward with her allegations in December, Cuomo “and a group of advisors worked on a draft letter or op-ed” which attempted to discredit Boylan by tying her, among other items, to supporters of former President Donald Trump.

“The various drafts of this letter included complaints against Ms. Boylan that were part of the Confidential Files,” the report said. “The drafts also discussed alleged interactions between Ms. Boylan and male colleagues other than the Governor.”

Cuomo asked DeRosa to send a draft of the letter to Kaplan, who is an attorney for Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, the report said. Kaplan also represents E. Jean Carroll, the journalist who accused Trump of sexual assault, as well as Trump’s niece, Mary Trump.

Kaplan shared the letter with Tchen, according to the report.

“According to Ms. DeRosa, Ms. Kaplan read the letter to the head of the advocacy group Times Up, and both of them allegedly suggested that, without the statements about Ms. Boylan’s interactions with male colleagues, the letter was fine,” the report said.

Cuomo’s advisers could not find factual support for parts of the letter and suggested it was an “overreaction,” the report said, but DeRosa told the governor that Kaplan and the Tchen reportedly thought the letter was “okay with some changes.”

Tchen serves as president and CEO of both TIME’S UP and the TIME’S UP Foundation, though TIME’S UP reportedly does not have control over the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund operations.

The TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, which has committed over $10 million to support #MeToo allegations in the workplace, told Biden accuser Tara Reade in February 2020 that its charitable status would be put at risk if it financially supported her because Joe Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. TIME’S UP strongly backed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Ford throughout the justice’s contentious confirmation hearings in September 2018.

Category:

Tagged with:

A Short History Of Democrats’ Vicious Tactics For Controlling The Judiciary

As the courts have become hyper-politicized over the past few decades, the judicial nomination process has deteriorated. With this presidential term drawing to a close, we should note the new depths of obstruction that have become a part of the Senate Democrats’ playbook these past four years.

Origins of Obstruction

Matters were already bad when a Democratic Senate rejected Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 with such notorious vilification that “bork” was added to the dictionary as a verb denoting such unfair and harsh tactics. Four years later came personal vilification for Clarence Thomas before he squeaked by the Senate on a 52–48 vote.

Thomas nonetheless made it through a Democratic Senate that had not entirely shaken a long tradition of bipartisanship on judicial nominations. In fact, from the government’s establishment in 1789 through 2000, 97 percent of Senate-approved judges faced no recorded opposition, and 96 percent were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent as opposed to roll-call votes.

Recorded votes tended to be lopsided. When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, instead of Republicans retaliating for past treatment, the nominees were confirmed respectively by margins of 96–3 and 87–9. This was despite a number of known controversial positions Ginsburg had taken during her career that Republicans chose not to highlight.

During George W. Bush’s administration, Democrats engaged in wholesale filibusters of circuit court nominees, a tactic that resulted in the defeat of several. Previously, only one judicial nomination fell apart after coming up short on a vote on cloture — the procedure by which senators, with a supermajority vote, could end debate and force a confirmation vote. That was the fate of Justice Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon B. Johnson tried to elevate to chief justice in 1968.

Whether Fortas could garner the simple majority of senators required for confirmation was unclear. His unusual case included bipartisan opposition and ethical questions — he actually resigned from the Supreme Court the following year — and did not leave even the most strident opponents of Bork and Thomas with a sense that they had the filibuster in their procedural toolbox.

In 2005, early in Bush’s second term, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed to change the supermajority requirement for cloture on nominations (then at 60 votes) to a simple majority, an idea known as the “nuclear option,” which would have effectively ended judicial filibusters. Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid threatened to retaliate with an unprecedented level of obstructionism that would freeze most Senate business. This scenario did not play out after a compromise, engineered by the “Gang of 14,” derailed any change to cloture.

Eight years later, however, Reid was majority leader, and with the shoe on the other foot, he orchestrated by parliamentary maneuver the very rule change that had once evoked his threats of senatorial Armageddon, essentially ending the filibuster for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court in 2013.

Unprecedented Partisanship During the Trump Era

Gorsuch Filibuster

That exception for filibusters on Supreme Court nominations was quickly put to the test after Donald Trump became president in 2017 and Democrats launched a filibuster of the new president’s first judicial nominee to reach the floor, Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to Reid’s handiwork in 2013, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell garnered support for adding Supreme Court nominations to the others that were subject to simple majorities to invoke cloture.

Abuse of Cloture Motions

Although Democrats were in the minority in the Senate throughout Trump’s term, they used the tools in their arsenal more than any Senate minority before them. While the simple majority threshold made it easier than before to invoke cloture, even when a cloture motion succeeded, a confirmation vote was not immediate but subject to a limit of 30 hours of further consideration.

That time notoriously went by with little-to-no actual debate on the nomination at issue, but of course, actual deliberation was not the goal. By forcing votes on cloture, Democrats could take up more of the Senate’s time and make it that much more difficult to process nominations, not to mention other business.

This the Democratic minority did indiscriminately. All three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were subjected to cloture votes. Adding Samuel Alito (a George W. Bush appointee) to those three, four of the six sitting Republican-appointed justices have faced cloture votes, in contrast to all four of the justices nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats have also regularly forced cloture votes for even noncontroversial nominees to circuit courts, district courts, and even the non-life-tenured courts of federal claims. Eight district court nominees who had previously been nominated by Obama before Trump renominated them were subjected to cloture votes despite a lack of meaningful opposition; five of them received between 95 and 100 votes for confirmation and zero against, and another was confirmed by a voice vote.

It was only after the cloture rule was broadened in 1949, during Harry Truman’s presidency, to cover any pending matter that nominations could be subject to a cloture motion. Since then, there were a total of 136 cloture votes on judicial nominees through the end of the Obama administration. Trump’s nominees have considerably more than that entire total, at 192 and counting.

The Disintegration of Bipartisanship

The bipartisanship that used to attend most judicial nominations is also falling apart. According to the Heritage Foundation, more confirmed judges received more than 30 percent opposition votes during the Trump administration than during all previous administrations combined, from George Washington to Obama. Moreover, the majority of negative votes cast against judicial nominees in American history were against Trump nominees.

The three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices were confirmed with almost total Democratic opposition. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, one to confirm Kavanaugh, and none to confirm Barrett, making her the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without any votes from a major minority party since 1869.

In Kavanaugh’s case, Democrats employed kitchen-sink tactics of obstruction that included repeated interruptions during his hearings and deluging him with more written questions for the record than the combined number of such questions to prior Supreme Court nominees in American history. All other tactics were eclipsed by the disgraceful last-minute attempt to destroy Kavanaugh, when Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault allegation, after being buried for six weeks by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was sprung on the committee after the initial hearings, a desperate tactic that flouted the process for handling sensitive matters.

Weaponization of the Blue Slip

On top of everything else, Democrats tried, in the words of long-serving Senate Judiciary Committee member (and former chairman) Orrin Hatch, to “weaponize the blue slip” tradition for circuit and district courts. That was the courtesy established in approximately 1917 in which a nominee’s home-state senators receive blue pieces of paper on which they could express their views about the nomination to the committee. It was a tradition (as opposed to a rule) intended to encourage pre-nomination consultation, but Democrats during this administration routinely withheld positive blue slips, especially for circuit nominees, as a workaround in the absence of a true filibuster.

“Today, Democrats are trying to turn the blue-slip process into a de facto filibuster,” Hatch charged in 2017. “They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chaired the committee during the first two years of the Trump administration, noted that only two of 19 Judiciary Committee chairmen who served over the span of a century treated the blue slip as a strict veto that would preclude a hearing in the absence of two positive blue slips, and he was not going to allow Democratic obstructionism to prevent him from proceeding with hearings for circuit nominees. Still, the blue slip has impeded the advancement of district court nominations through committee, and many trial court judgeships in states with Democratic senators remain vacant due to the withholding of blue slips or the threat of doing so.

It is thanks to current Republican leadership in the Senate and specifically the Judiciary Committee that so many nominees have been processed and made their way to confirmation. As the repeated operation of the 30-hour rule took its toll on nominations, McConnell garnered a majority to reduce the post-cloture clock to two hours for district court nominations.

To date, the Senate has confirmed 229 Article III (life-tenured) judges nominated by Trump. That total includes 53 circuit court judges, which ranks second among all four-year presidential terms to that of Jimmy Carter, who, boosted by the creation of 35 new seats on the courts of appeals in 1978, holds the record at 56. For several months this year, there was no room for Trump to increase his appointments to the courts of appeals because every vacancy had been filled.

Historical Support for Lame-Duck Confirmations

There are now two more appellate nominees, Thomas L. Kirsch II for Barrett’s former seat on the Seventh Circuit and Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach to fill the First Circuit vacancy created by the death of Juan Torruella on Oct. 26. There is no reason they cannot be confirmed before Inauguration Day. Kirsch already had his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, as have 11 pending nominees to district or federal claims courts.

While any nomination that is not processed by Jan. 3, the end of the current congressional term and beginning of the next, is automatically returned to the president, it can be resubmitted and processed without the need for a new hearing. There is ample precedent for lame-duck judicial confirmations, from John Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as chief justice after his re-election defeat, to Carter’s appointment of Breyer to the First Circuit after his loss to Ronald Reagan.

There is an unmistakable dissonance between Joe Biden’s calls for national unity and his party’s judicial obstructionism over the past four years. As a Judiciary Committee chairman, Biden helped to lay much of the groundwork for this sorry state of affairs. For his Democratic successors in the Senate, obstructionism is an ongoing project that seems to find no limit.

Consider the exception that proved the rule: When leftist interest groups criticized Feinstein after she praised Graham’s handling of Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings and gave the chairman a hug — never mind that every Democrat voted against the nominee — Feinstein’s party compelled her to step down as the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat. Is there any level of malevolence toward judicial nominations that would satisfy today’s Democratic leadership?

Frank Scaturro served as counsel for the Constitution on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee between 2005 and 2009, in which capacity he worked on the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit. He is the author of, among other titles, “The Supreme Court’s Retreat from Reconstruction” (Greenwood Press, 2000). Follow him on Twitter at @FrankScaturro.

Photo PBS Newshour/YouTube

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating

Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | October 12, 2020

The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating. Monday is the start of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings.

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is “well qualified” for a position on the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, DC Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy shared the letter on Twitter, writing, “The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is ‘Well Qualified’ on the eve of the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.”

A portion of the letter reads, “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by the President to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

“As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” the letter continues. “A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is ‘Well Qualified,’ and a minority is of the opinion that she is ‘Qualified’ to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The letter concludes, “The majority rating represents the Standing Committee’s official rating.”

As noted by the Daily Wire, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2001 referred to the American Bar Association’s judicial ratings as the “gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.”

On Sunday night, Barrett released the opening statement she plans to issue on Monday morning.

A portion of her remarks read:

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

You can read the remarks in their entirety here and below.

Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing greeted by rival protests outside Supreme Court

by Mike Brest, Breaking News Reporter | October 12, 2020 11:00 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the Senate Judiciary Committee was set to begin the confirmation process for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, rival protests took place outside the White House and the Hart Senate Office Building on Monday morning. One group, Refuse Fascism, an anti-Trump group who doesn’t want Barrett to be confirmed, started their day at the steps of the Supreme Court. Many were dressed in full hazmat suits and chanting, “No COVID test, no hearing!” which was a nod to Chairman Lindsey Graham’s refusal to make it mandatory for senators to be tested for COVID-19 before the hearing.

They held up signs supporting the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats believe is in jeopardy if she is on the highest bench, and one protester held up a sign of a clothes hanger with the phrase “Never Again,” a nod to Roe v. Wade, the prevailing law on abortion. Democrats are fearful that Barrett, who is pro-life, could swing the court the other direction if the case comes in front of the court again.

They left the Supreme Court and began marching toward the Hart Senate Office Building when they briefly encountered a larger group of pro-life protesters who want Amy to “fill the seat.”

“No confirmation until inauguration!” the anti-Trump group chanted as they passed by the pro-life organizers. Most protesters in both groups were wearing masks, but neither was actively trying to keep six feet between themselves and others.

The group in favor of Barrett’s confirmation, which included many young adults, walked around the Hart Senate Office, and they congregated outside one of the entrances to the building. With protesters holding up Barrett versions of Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, and others waving signs reading, “I am the pro-life generation,” they chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go!”

Barrett’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee will go on until Thursday. The senators on the committee and Barrett herself are set to testify on Monday, while lawmakers will then question her on Tuesday and Wednesday with outside witnesses both in her favor and against her speaking on Thursday.

Senate Republican leadership plan to get Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court before Election Day.

‘In a category of excellence’: Graham praises Barrett and warns Democrats against Kavanaugh repeat

by Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent | October 12, 2020 09:27 AM

Sen. Lindsey Graham opened the historic confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett by praising her as academically gifted and admired for integrity and by warning Democrats against repeating the process that dragged out the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday outlined the Senate schedule to usher Barrett through the confirmation process and advance her to the Supreme Court, likely before the Nov. 3 election.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, described Barrett as “in a category of excellence” that should make the nation proud but warned that the confirmation will take place in an election year.

“My Democratic colleagues will say, ‘This has never been done,’” he said, countering, “The Senate is doing its duty, constitutionally,” even though no justice has been confirmed so close to an election.

Graham said there have been 19 justices confirmed in an election year, 17 of them when the White House and Senate parties were aligned.

Monday’s hearing will be composed of opening statements by senators and Barrett, who is now a court of appeals judge for the 7th Circuit, having been confirmed to that bench by the Senate in 2017. Senators will question Barrett on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Graham said the hearing is not about “persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens,” but said it would give Democrats a chance to “dig deep into her philosophy” and serve the same purpose for the GOP.

“Most importantly, it gives you, the American people, the chance to find out about Judge Barrett,” Graham said. “Find out for yourself.”

Graham warned Democrats that Barrett “doesn’t deserve” the treatment of Kavanaugh, who was scrutinized in an additional hearing to air accusations by a former high school acquaintance who said he sexually assaulted her.

“Let’s remember — the world is watching,” Graham said.

Category:

Tagged with:

Senators Who Fought Kavanaugh Found Stumping for Biden Morning After Allegation Evidence Discovered

Commentary By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published April 26, 2020 at 6:41am

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/senators-fought-kavanaugh-found-stumping-biden-morning-allegation-evidence-discovered/

It was a shocking news-break Friday as reports indicated evidence had emerged supporting former Senate aide Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential primary nominee Joe Biden. Potentially more shocking, however, were Saturday morning developments that seemed to suggest that — just like that — the American left’s zero-tolerance, “Believe All Women” approach to sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the D.C. political establishment had been put to rest.

According to The Intercept, video was found this week in the archives of CNN’s “Larry King Live” revealing an on-air phone call in 1993 in which a female caller complained that her daughter had had nowhere to turn for help with unspecified “problems” while working for a “prominent senator.” The caller is believed to have been Reade’s now-deceased mother.

Receiving incredibly little attention from the establishment media, Reade came forward in March with allegations Biden had, while she was a staffer in his office in 1993, forced himself upon her in private in a hallway in the Capitol complex, kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers.

Confirmation the “Larry King Live” caller was, in fact, Reade’s mother would support Reade’s claims that she had confided in others and considered coming forward shortly after the alleged assault would have taken place.

Still, the news about the phone call wasn’t enough to stop Democratic senators, and former bitter primary opponents, from expressing support for Biden just 24 hours later on social media. Likely still vying for a vice presidential nod, the senators were eager Saturday morning to kiss the boots of their good friend Biden, joining him in promoting a campaign event titled S.O.U.L. of the Nation Saturday.

Coming on the one-year anniversary of Biden’s campaign announcement, “SOUL Saturday” — for service, outreach, unity and leadership — is described as a day dedicated to celebrating American “communities’ heroes” in a time of crisis.

Coincidentally, the event also plays on Biden’s running narrative regarding his candidacy — which he describes as an attempt to “reclaim” the soul of America from the hands of mean, old President Donald Trump.

And wouldn’t you know it, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker had no problem slapping on fake smiles, painting their former opponent with rehearsed compliments and quoting his campaign slogans.

“I’m so grateful to be teaming up with [Joe Biden] to recognize all of the heroes fighting for us on the front lines,” Booker wrote in a Twitter post alongside a promotional video. “The biggest thing you can do today is a small act of kindness for someone else — so please, join us in this day of service.”

“Today I’m joining my friend [Joe Biden] and people across our nation who are coming together to take part in #SOULSaturday,” wrote Harris, whose most notable moment of campaign popularity came from insinuating Biden was an old racist.

“Let’s use this moment to show our appreciation for those on the front lines and connect with our friends and neighbors. We’re all in this together.”

Of course, no such pleasantries were made regarding then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh by any of the aforementioned senators at the time of his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. In fact, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar were all clearly using their positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Kavanaugh proceedings as a springboard for their eventual failed White House bids.

This is not to say sexual assault allegations should be taken lightly or ignored. To the contrary, they should be heard and investigated with the utmost seriousness and empathy. But presumption of innocence and all manner of due process were flung to the wind when Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., came forward with consistently uncorroborated claims Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party in high school. One allegation led to more and more still, each one less credible than the last.

Stories of a high school-aged Kavanaugh taking part in methodically planned date-rape rings and thrusting his genitals upon an unsuspecting woman at a Yale University party were all welcomed by Democrats and the media as though they were equally valid — because, once again, you had to “Believe All Women.” That is why Gillibrand repeatedly told the media and the nation that Ford had “no reason to lie,” according to CNN. That is why Klobuchar used her time questioning the judge as an opportunity to grandstand, assassinating his character with implications that his collegiate drinking habits somehow made him a sex criminal as well.

But I guess it’s too much to ask the same level of scrutiny be applied to Biden, even hours after the allegations against him seem to have taken on teeth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Andrew J. Sciascia

Andrew J. Sciascia has been a news reporter with The Western Journal since 2019 and a regular contributor since 2018.

@AndrewJSciascia

Category:

Tagged with:

Gay Mayor Who Heavily Attacked Kavanaugh Now Desperate for Due Process

Reported By Ben Marquis | Published February 18, 2019 at 7:09pm

URL Of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/gay-mayor-heavily-attacked-kavanaugh-now-desperate-due-process/

During the contentious confirmation hearings of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in October 2018, countless officials and pundits on the left played the role of judge, jury and executioner in regard to vague and uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault lodged against the nominee.

One of Kavanaugh’s many outspoken critics was the Democratic mayor/city council member of West Hollywood, John Duran, who was sharply critical of the judge’s behavior during the confirmation hearings and seemed to have uncritically accepted at face value the unconfirmed allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made public.

West Hollywood media outlet WEHOville reported in Oct. 2018 that Duran had joined with the rest of the city council to officially condemn Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high court. Duran said, “Brett Kavanaugh’s display of rage and belligerence at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings proves that he does not have the temperament to be a judge — much less on the Supreme Court.”

“It is abhorrent to think we are placing our future, our equality, and our liberty in the hands of a drunken frat boy who sexually assaulted a teenage girl while his friend Mark Judge stood by and laughed. This is a sad moment in the history of our nation,” Mayor Duran added.

Fast-forward just four months and now the openly gay mayor of West Hollywood is singing an entirely different tune when it comes to the credibility of sexual misconduct allegations against individuals in positions of power, as he has come under fire in his own “#MeToo” scandal.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Duran stands accused of having sexually harassed at least three current or former members of the Gay Men’s Chorus in L.A. — of which Duran serves as chairman of the board — which consisted of his sticking his hand down their pants or making sexually suggestive comments.

The mayor also stands accused of using the gay dating app Grindr during public meetings, including in at least one instance of using the app’s messaging service to repeatedly make unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances toward an aide for a fellow council member.

On top of that, Duran has also been linked to the scandalous deaths of two gay black men at the home of prominent Democratic donor Ed Buck. Duran, who is also an attorney, used to represent Buck.

Despite calls for him to resign from several of his fellow council members, the unashamedly homosexual mayor stands defiant, and told the Times that it was all just a “culture clash,” and that, “If somebody expresses himself or herself sexually, that doesn’t make it harassment, per se.”

As to the use of Grindr to pursue sexual acts with the council member’s aide, that aide’s boyfriend — city events service coordinator Mike Gerle — filed a formal complaint against the mayor. Gerle said, “It’s about consent. … He has this sense of entitlement that because we’re gay, ‘I can do whatever I want with you because that’s our culture.’ He’s decided that’s our culture. He doesn’t understand that every gay man gets to decide what interactions he has. You don’t get a pass.”

For his part, Duran hypocritically sought to demand the due process he had denied Kavanaugh and defend himself from the accusations lodged against him in a lengthy statement posted to Facebook, a post that concluded with a vehement “HELL NO” in response to the demands that he resign.

Duran wrote, “SEXUAL HARASSMENT is a serious issue. Accusations must be taken seriously and addressed. This has been extremely painful for women for decades and decades. But once the allegations are made and received, there MUST be an investigation before conclusions are reached.”

“This is DUE PROCESS of law in the courts. And I know those rules do not apply in the court of public opinion,” he continued. “It’s much easier in this social media world for people to read something, ‘like’ it, retweet it and then move on.”

“But none of us (including me) wants to ever be accused falsely and have people jump to opinion and conclusion without any process in between. That is contempt prior to investigation,” he added, apparently oblivious to how differently he treated Kavanaugh versus how he demands to be treated.

After playing up all of the work he had done over the years on behalf of the gay community, Duran noted, “Now, I understand that the ground has shifted in a tectonic way with the ‘Me Too’ movement. I get that. But the pendulum swings too far when accusation is treated as truth, and mobs swirl around rumor and conclusions are drawn based on someone’s race, gender or sexual orientation and accusation alone. That leads to injustice.”

Too bad Duran didn’t apply that same standard to Kavanaugh just four months ago, while he hypocritically now demands it be applied to himself.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ben Marquis

Contributor, Commentary

Summary

Charlie Daniels Calls Out Leftist Hypocrisy over All-White Wardrobe: Believe All Women, Except Fairfax Accuser

Reported By Malachi Bailey | February 6, 2019 at 12:12pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/charlie-daniels-calls-leftist-hypocrisy-white-wardrobe-believe-women-except-fairfax-accuser/

Country music legend Charlie Daniels slammed Democratic women for wearing white to Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to show support for women while their party is noticeably silent about a high-profile sexual assault accusation against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

And he didn’t mince words.

“Democrat women are wearing white to the State of the Union address to signify support for ALL women (Except for the one who is accusing Lt Governor Fairfax of sexual harassment),” Daniels tweeted Tuesday night.

Many female Democratic members of Congress, including far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, wore white as a way to show solidarity on “women’s issues,” according to CNN. And while white was the color of the suffragette movement that won the right to vote for women in 1920, Democrats made it clear that the white on Tuesday applied went much further than gaining women the franchise a century ago.

“I’m looking forward to wearing suffragette white to #SOTU next week with all @HouseDemWomen!” Florida Rep. Lois Frankel wrote in a Twitter post last week. “We’ll honor all those who came before us and send a message of solidarity that we’re not going back on our hard-earned rights.”

But as Daniels pointed out, the bold statement of “solidarity” from the white attire contrasted sharply with the same women’s deafening silence regarding the allegation against Fairfax.

Virginia is currently in the midst of a political crisis as Democrats try to distance themselves from Gov. Ralph Northam, who found himself embroiled in two controversies last week. In a radio interview on Jan. 30, Northam hinted at supporting post-birth abortion, a position that disgusted and infuriated members of the pro-life movement.

But Democrats are more angry about a racist photo from Northam’s medical school yearbook from 1984. With Northam’s relationship with Democrats in tatters, the party seemed poised to throw its support behind Fairfax if Northam eventually steps down. Unfortunately for Democrats, the lieutenant governor is currently facing an accusation from a woman who claims he sexually assaulted her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Fairfax, however, maintains the encounter was consensual. Virginia Democrats have been cautious at best about the accusation.

“The facts here are still being determined. Every individual deserves the opportunity to be heard, and we respect anyone who comes forward to share their story,” the state’s Democratic lawmakers said in a brief statement Tuesday.

“Governor Northam must end this chapter immediately, step down, and let Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax heal Virginia’s wounds and move us forward.”

We still haven’t heard the kind of widespread condemnation Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh received when he faced allegations that were undoubtedly less credible.

Quentin Kidd, director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, told The Washington Post that the silence from Democrats is “deafening.”

“They may be thinking, ‘We don’t want to throw our lieutenant governor under the bus while we’re also trying to throw our governor out of office,’” he said. “Republicans are probably eating all the popcorn they can find right now. It’s quite a show.”

To be clear, Fairfax deserves due process, but that’s not a principle that Democrats care about when Republicans are accused. Democrats are supposed to “believe all women,” but it’s not a good look when they selectively believe women based on politics.

Daniels had a point. For a party that supposedly supports women, Democrats are awfully silent about Fairfax’s troubling accusation.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Malachi Bailey

Contributor, Commentary

Summary

Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping

Reported by Paul Bedard | October 12, 2018 08:43 AM

URL of the original posting site: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

The Trump administration’s often overlooked list of achievements has surpassed those of former President Ronald Reagan at this time and more than doubled since the last tally of accomplishments after his first year in office, giving President Trump a solid platform to run for re-election on.

As Trump nears the two-year mark of his historic election and conducts political rallies around the country, during which he talks up his wins in hopes it will energize Republican voters, the administration has counted up 289 accomplishments in 18 categories, capped by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

They include 173 major wins, such as adding more than 4 million jobs, and another 116 smaller victories, some with outsize importance, such as the 83 percent one-year increase in arrests of MS-13 gang members.

“Trump’s successes in reducing the cost of taxes and regulations, rebuilding our military, avoiding wars of choice and changing the courts rival those of all previous Republican presidents,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

“Trump has an advantage over Ronald Reagan: He has a Reagan Republican House and Senate while Reagan had a [Democratic Speaker] Tip O’Neill House and a pre-Reagan Republican Senate. Reagan and [former GOP Speaker] Newt Gingrich were the ice breakers that allowed Trump’s victories to grow in number and significance,”he added.

Unlike the Year One list which included many proposals and orders still to be acted on, the new collection includes dozens of actions already in place, signed legislation, and enforced executive orders.

For example, while the Year One list bragged about the administration’s efforts to rewrite the much-maligned NAFTA trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the Year Two list said: “Negotiated an historic U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement to replace NAFTA.”

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 8.31.47 AM.png — In December, Secrets reported on the first list of White House accomplishments.

And shockingly the NAFTA achievement is presented as a sidebar to the larger achievement that reads, “President Trump is negotiating and renegotiating better trade deals, achieving free, fair, and reciprocal trade for the United States.”Under that umbrella are eight trade deals cut with Japan, South Korea, Europe and China.

“President Trump is a truly unique leader in American history. He’s a kid from Queens who became an international business leader and made billions by getting things when no one said he could,” said Trump’s 2016 campaign pollster John McLaughlin.

“They told him he couldn’t be president and beat the establishment and he did. For two years the establishment is telling him he can’t do things in Washington and he’s succeeding in spite of them. He never retreats. He doesn’t back up. He’s relentless. He just wins,”he added.

Comparing the two years shows that the latest has an expanded group of economic achievements while the pro-life category was folded into the health care section. Along the way, there have been some disappointments, such as failing to replace Obamacare, fund a big infrastructure plan, and build the border wall.

But the White House believes that despite a lack of media coverage of his accomplishments, supporters know about them and will head to the voting polls to help the GOP maintain control of the House and keep the president on what CNN dubbed a “winning streak.”

In the Washington Post Friday, former Bush speechwriter and columnist Marc Thiessen agreed and said that Trump has proven to be successful at keeping his campaign promises. He wrote, “The fact is, in his first two years, Trump has compiled a remarkable record of presidential promise-keeping.”

The list:

Economic Growth

4.2 percent growth in the second quarter of 2018.
For the first time in more than a decade, growth is projected to exceed 3 percent over the calendar year.

Jobs

4 million new jobs have been created since the election, and more than 3.5 million since Trump took office.
More Americans are employed now than ever before in our history.
Jobless claims at lowest level in nearly five decades.
The economy has achieved the longest positive job-growth streak on record.
Job openings are at an all-time high and outnumber job seekers for the first time on record.
Unemployment claims at 50 year low
African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American unemployment rates have all recently reached record lows.
- African-American unemployment hit a record low of 5.9 percent in May 2018.
- Hispanic unemployment at 4.5 percent.
- Asian-American unemployment at record low of 2 percent.
Women’s unemployment recently at lowest rate in nearly 65 years.
- Female unemployment dropped to 3.6 percent in May 2018, the lowest since October 1953.
Youth unemployment recently reached its lowest level in more than 50 years.
- July 2018’s youth unemployment rate of 9.2 percent was the lowest since July 1966.
Veterans’ unemployment recently hit its lowest level in nearly two decades.
- July 2018’s veterans’ unemployment rate of 3.0 percent matched the lowest rate since May 2001.
Unemployment rate for Americans without a high school diploma recently reached a record low.
Rate for disabled Americans recently hit a record low.
Blue-collar jobs recently grew at the fastest rate in more than three decades.
Poll found that 85 percent of blue-collar workers believe their lives are headed “in the right direction.”
- 68 percent reported receiving a pay increase in the past year.
Last year, job satisfaction among American workers hit its highest level since 2005.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans rate now as a good time to find a quality job.
- Optimism about the availability of good jobs has grown by 25 percent.
Added more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since the election.
- Manufacturing employment is growing at its fastest pace in more than two decades.
100,000 new jobs supporting the production & transport of oil & natural gas.

American Income

Median household income rose to $61,372 in 2017, a post-recession high.
Wages up in August by their fastest rate since June 2009.
Paychecks rose by 3.3 percent between 2016 and 2017, the most in a decade.
Council of Economic Advisers found that real wage compensation has grown by 1.4 percent over the past year.
Some 3.9 million Americans off food stamps since the election.
Median income for Hispanic-Americans rose by 3.7 percent and surpassed $50,000 for the first time ever in history.
- Home-ownership among Hispanics is at the highest rate in nearly a decade.
Poverty rates for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have reached their lowest levels ever recorded.

American Optimism

Small business optimism has hit historic highs.
- NFIB’s small business optimism index broke a 35 year-old record in August.
- SurveyMonkey/CNBC’s small business confidence survey for Q3 of 2018 matched its all-time high.
Manufacturers are more confident than ever.
- 95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future, the highest ever.
Consumer confidence is at an 18-year high.
12 percent of Americans rate the economy as the most significant problem facing our country, the lowest level on record.
Confidence in the economy is near a two-decade high, with 51 percent rating the economy as good or excellent.

American Business

Investment is flooding back into the United States due to the tax cuts.
- Over $450 billion dollars has already poured back into the U.S., including more than $300 billion in the first quarter of 2018.
Retail sales have surged. Commerce Department figures from August show that retail sales increased 0.5 percent in July 2018, an increase of 6.4 percent from July 2017.
ISM’s index of manufacturing scored its highest reading in 14 years.
Worker productivity is the highest it has been in more than three years.
Steel and aluminum producers are re-opening.
Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and NASDAQ have all notched record highs.
- Dow hit record highs 70 times in 2017 alone, the most ever recorded in one year.

Deregulation

Achieved massive deregulation at a rapid pace, completing 22 deregulatory actions to every one regulatory action during his first year in office.
Signed legislation to roll back costly and harmful provisions of Dodd-Frank, providing relief to credit unions, and community and regional banks.
Federal agencies achieved more than $8 billion in lifetime net regulatory cost savings.
Rolled back Obama’s burdensome Waters of the U.S. rule.
Used the Congressional Review Act to repeal regulations more times than in history.

Tax Cuts

Biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history by signing the Tax Cuts and Jobs act into law
- Provided more than $5.5 trillion in gross tax cuts, nearly 60 percent of which will go to families.
- Increased the exemption for the death tax to help save Family Farms & Small Business.
- Nearly doubled the standard deduction for individuals and families.
- Enabled vast majority of American families will be able to file their taxes on a single page by claiming the standard deduction.
- Doubled the child tax credit to help lessen the financial burden of raising a family.
- Lowered America’s corporate tax rate from the highest in the developed world to allow American businesses to compete and win.
- Small businesses can now deduct 20 percent of their business income.
- Cut dozens of special interest tax breaks and closed loopholes for the wealthy.
9 in 10 American workers are expected see an increase in their paychecks thanks to the tax cuts, according to the Treasury Department.
More than 6 million of American workers have received wage increases, bonuses, and increased benefits thanks to tax cuts.
Over 100 utility companies have lowered electric, gas, or water rates thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Ernst & Young found 89 percent of companies planned to increase worker compensation thanks to the Trump tax cuts.
Established opportunity zones to spur investment in left behind communities.

Worker Development

Established a National Council for the American Worker to develop a national strategy for training and retraining America’s workers for high-demand industries.
Employers have signed Trump’s “Pledge to America’s Workers,” committing to train or retrain more than 4.2 million workers and students.
Signed the first Perkins CTE reauthorization since 2006, authorizing more than $1 billion for states each year to fund vocational and career education programs.
Executive order expanding apprenticeship opportunities for students and workers.

Domestic Infrastructure

Proposed infrastructure plan would utilize $200 billion in Federal funds to spur at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment across the country.
Executive order expediting environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects.
Federal agencies have signed the One Federal Decision Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) streamlining the federal permitting process for infrastructure projects.
Rural prosperity task force and signed an executive order to help expand broadband access in rural areas.

Health Care

Signed an executive order to help minimize the financial burden felt by American households Signed legislation to improve the National Suicide Hotline.
Signed the most comprehensive childhood cancer legislation ever into law, which will advance childhood cancer research and improve treatments.
Signed Right-to-Try legislation, expanding health care options for terminally ill patients.
Enacted changes to the Medicare 340B program, saving seniors an estimated $320 million on drugs in 2018 alone.
FDA set a new record for generic drug approvals in 2017, saving consumers nearly $9 billion.
Released a blueprint to drive down drug prices for American patients, leading multiple major drug companies to announce they will freeze or reverse price increases.
Expanded short-term, limited-duration health plans.
Let more employers to form Association Health Plans, enabling more small businesses to join together and affordably provide health insurance to their employees.
Cut Obamacare’s burdensome individual mandate penalty.
Signed legislation repealing Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, also known as the “death panels.”
USDA invested more than $1 billion in rural health care in 2017, improving access to health care for 2.5 million people in rural communities across 41 states
Proposed Title X rule to help ensure taxpayers do not fund the abortion industry in violation of the law.
Reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy to keep foreign aid from supporting the global abortion industry.
HHS formed a new division over protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom.
Overturned Obama administration’s midnight regulation prohibiting states from defunding certain abortion facilities.
Signed executive order to help ensure that religious organizations are not forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs by complying with Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate or shutting their doors.

Combating Opioids

Chaired meeting the 73rd General Session of the United Nations discussing the worldwide drug problem with international leaders.
Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse and Reduce Drug Supply and Demand, introducing new measures to keep dangerous drugs out of our communities.
$6 billion in new funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
DEA conducted a surge in April 2018 that arrested 28 medical professions and revoked 147 registrations for prescribing too many opioids.
Brought the “Prescribed to Death” memorial to President’s Park near the White House, helping raise awareness about the human toll of the opioid crisis.
Helped reduce high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent in 2017.
Opioid Summit on the administration-wide efforts to combat the opioid crisis.
Launched a national public awareness campaign about the dangers of opioid addiction.
Created a Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis which recommended a number of pathways to tackle the opioid crisis.
Led two National Prescription Drug Take Back Days in 2017 and 2018, collecting a record number of expired and unneeded prescription drugs each time.
$485 million targeted grants in FY 2017 to help areas hit hardest by the opioid crisis.
Signed INTERDICT Act, strengthening efforts to detect and intercept synthetic opioids before they reach our communities.
DOJ secured its first-ever indictments against Chinese fentanyl manufacturers.
Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement (J-CODE) team, aimed at disrupting online illicit opioid sales.
Declared the opioid crisis a Nationwide Public Health Emergency in October 2017.

Law and Order

More U.S. Circuit Court judges confirmed in the first year in office than ever.
Confirmed more than two dozen U. S. Circuit Court judges.
Followed through on the promise to nominate judges to the Supreme Court who will adhere to the Constitution
- Nominated and confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Signed an executive order directing the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who commit crimes against law enforcement officers.
Launched an evaluation of grant programs to make sure they prioritize the protection and safety of law enforcement officers.
Established a task force to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across Signed an executive order to focus more federal resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations such as drug cartels.
Signed an executive order to focus more federal resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations such as drug cartels.
Violent crime decreased in 2017 according to FBI statistics.
$137 million in grants through the COPS Hiring Program to preserve jobs, increase community policing capacities, and support crime prevention efforts.
Enhanced and updated the Project Safe Neighborhoods to help reduce violent crime.
Signed legislation making it easier to target websites that enable sex trafficking and strengthened penalties for people who promote or facilitate prostitution.
Created an interagency task force working around the clock to prosecute traffickers, protect victims, and prevent human trafficking.
Conducted Operation Cross Country XI to combat human trafficking, rescuing 84 children and arresting 120 human traffickers.
Encouraged federal prosecutors to use the death penalty when possible in the fight against the trafficking of deadly drugs.
New rule effectively banning bump stock sales in the United States.

Border Security and Immigration

Secured $1.6 billion for border wall construction in the March 2018 omnibus bill.
Construction of a 14-mile section of border wall began near San Diego.
Worked to protect American communities from the threat posed by the vile MS-13 gang.
- ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations division arrested 796 MS-13 members and associates in FY 2017, an 83 percent increase from the prior year.
- Justice worked with partners in Central America to secure criminal charges against more than 4,000 MS-13 members.
- Border Patrol agents arrested 228 illegal aliens affiliated with MS-13 in FY 2017.
Fighting to stop the scourge of illegal drugs at our border.
- ICE HSI seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics in FY 2017, including 2,370 pounds of fentanyl and 6,967 pounds of heroin.
- ICE HSI dedicated nearly 630,000 investigative hours towards halting the illegal import of fentanyl.
- ICE HSI made 11,691 narcotics-related arrests in FY 2017.
- Stop Opioid Abuse and Reduce Drug Supply and Demand introduced new measures to keep dangerous drugs out the United States.
- Signed the INTERDICT Act into law, enhancing efforts to detect and intercept synthetic opioids.
- DOJ secured its first-ever indictments against Chinese fentanyl manufacturers.
- DOJ launched their Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement (J-CODE) team, aimed at disrupting online illicit opioid sales.
Released an immigration framework that includes the resources required to secure our borders and close legal loopholes, and repeatedly called on Congress to fix our broken immigration laws.
Authorized the deployment of the National Guard to help secure the border.
Enhanced vetting of individuals entering the U.S. from countries that don’t meet security standards, helping to ensure individuals who pose a threat to our country are identified before they enter.
- These procedures were upheld in a June 2018 Supreme Court hearing.
ICE removed over 226,000 illegal aliens from the United States in 2017.
- ICE rescued or identified over 500 human trafficking victims and over 900 child exploitation victims in 2017 alone.
In 2017, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested more than 127,000 aliens with criminal convictions or charges, responsible for
- Over 76,000 with dangerous drug offenses.
- More than 48,000 with assault offenses.
- More than 11,000 with weapons offenses.
- More than 5,000 with sexual assault offenses.
- More than 2,000 with kidnapping offenses.
- Over 1,800 with homicide offenses.
Created the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office in order to support the victims and families affected by illegal alien crime.
More than doubled the number of counties participating in the 287(g) program, which allows jails to detain criminal aliens until they are transferred to ICE custody.

Trade

Negotiating and renegotiating better trade deals, achieving free, fair, and reciprocal trade for the United States.
- Agreed to work with the European Union towards zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsides.
- Deal with the European Union to increase U.S. energy exports to Europe.
- Litigated multiple WTO disputes targeting unfair trade practices and upholding our right to enact fair trade laws.
- Finalized a revised trade agreement with South Korea, which includes provisions to increase American automobile exports.
- Negotiated an historic U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement to replace NAFTA.
- Agreement to begin trade negotiations for a U.S.-Japan trade agreement.
- Secured $250 billion in new trade and investment deals in China and $12 billion in Vietnam.
- Established a Trade and Investment Working Group with the United Kingdom, laying the groundwork for post-Brexit trade.
Enacted steel and aluminum tariffs to protect our vital steel and aluminum producers and strengthen our national security.
Conducted 82 anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations in 2017 alone.
Confronting China’s unfair trade practices after years of Washington looking the other way.
- 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods imported from China and later imposed an additional 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods.
- Conducted an investigation into Chinese forced technology transfers, unfair licensing practices, and intellectual property theft.
- Imposed safeguard tariffs to protect domestic washing machines and solar products manufacturers hurt by China’s trade policies
Withdrew from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Secured access to new markets for America’s farmers.
- Recent deal with Mexico included new improvements enabling food and agriculture to trade more fairly.
- Recent agreement with the E.U. will reduce barriers and increase trade of American soybeans to Europe.
- Won a WTO dispute regarding Indonesia’s unfair restriction of U.S. agricultural exports.
- Defended American Tuna fisherman and packagers before the WTO
- Opened up Argentina to American pork experts for the first time in a quarter-century
- American beef exports have returned to china for the first time in more than a decade
OK’d up to $12 billion in aid for farmers affected by unfair trade retaliation.

Energy

Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete construction.
Opened up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration.
Coal exports up over 60 percent in 2017.
Rolled back the “stream protection rule” to prevent it from harming America’s coal industry.
Cancelled Obama’s anti-coal Clean Power Plan and proposed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule as a replacement.
Withdrew from the job-killing Paris climate agreement, which would have cost the U.S. nearly $3 trillion and led to 6.5 million fewer industrial sector jobs by 2040.
U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level in American history
United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the world.
U.S. has become a net natural gas exporter for the first time in six decades.
Action to expedite the identification and extraction of critical minerals that are vital to the nation’s security and economic prosperity.
Took action to reform National Ambient Air Quality Standards, benefitting American manufacturers.
Rescinded Obama’s hydraulic fracturing rule, which was expected to cost the industry $32 million per year.
Proposed an expansion of offshore drilling as part of an all-of-the above energy strategy
- Held a lease sale for offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico in August 2018.
Got EU to increase its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States.
Issued permits for the New Burgos Pipeline that will cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

Foreign Policy

Moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Withdrew from Iran deal and immediately began the process of re-imposing sanctions that had been lifted or waived.
- Treasury has issued sanctions targeting Iranian activities and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force
- Since enacting sanctions, Iran’s crude exports have fallen off, the value of Iran’s currency has plummeted, and international companies have pulled out of the country.
- All nuclear-related sanctions will be back in full force by early November 2018.
Historic summit with North Korean President Kim Jong-Un, bringing beginnings of peace and denuclearization to the Korean Peninsula.
- The two leaders have exchanged letters and high-level officials from both sides have met resulting in tremendous progress.
- North Korea has halted nuclear and missile tests.
- Negotiated the return of the remains of missing-in-action soldiers from the Korean War.
Imposed strong sanctions on Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro and his inner circle.
Executive order preventing those in the U.S. from carrying out certain transactions with the Venezuelan regime, including prohibiting the purchase of the regime’s debt.
Responded to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.
- Rolled out sanctions targeting individuals and entities tied to Syria’s chemical weapons program.
- Directed strikes in April 2017 against a Syrian airfield used in a chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians.
- Joined allies in launching airstrikes in April 2018 against targets associated with Syria’s chemical weapons use.
New Cuba policy that enhanced compliance with U.S. law and held the Cuban regime accountable for political oppression and human rights abuses.
- Treasury and State are working to channel economic activity away from the Cuban regime, particularly the military.
Changed the rules of engagement, empowering commanders to take the fight to ISIS.
- ISIS has lost virtually all of its territory, more than half of which has been lost under Trump.
- ISIS’ self-proclaimed capital city, Raqqah, was liberated in October 2017.
- All Iraqi territory had been liberated from ISIS.
More than a dozen American hostages have been freed from captivity all of the world.
Action to combat Russia’s malign activities, including their efforts to undermine the sanctity of United States elections.
- Expelled dozens of Russian intelligence officers from the United States and ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle, WA.
- Banned the use of Kaspersky Labs software on government computers, due to the company’s ties to Russian intelligence.
- Imposed sanctions against five Russian entities and three individuals for enabling Russia’s military and intelligence units to increase Russia’s offensive cyber capabilities.
- Sanctions against seven Russian oligarchs, and 12 companies they own or control, who profit from Russia’s destabilizing activities.
- Sanctioned 100 targets in response to Russia’s occupation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine.
- Enhanced support for Ukraine’s Armed Forces to help Ukraine better defend itself.
Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.

Defense

Executive order keeping the detention facilities at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay open.
$700 billion in military funding for FY 2018 and $716 billion for FY 2019.
Largest military pay raise in nearly a decade.
Ordered a Nuclear Posture Review to ensure America’s nuclear forces are up to date and serve as a credible deterrent.
Released America’s first fully articulated cyber strategy in 15 years.
New strategy on national biodefense, which better prepares the nation to defend against biological threats.
Administration has announced that it will use whatever means necessary to protect American citizens and servicemen from unjust prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
Released an America first National Security Strategy.
Put in motion the launch of a Space Force as a new branch of the military and relaunched the National Space Council.
Encouraged North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to increase defense spending to their agree-upon levels.
- In 2017 alone, there was an increase of more than 4.8 percent in defense spending amongst NATO allies.
- Every member state has increased defense spending.
- Eight NATO allies will reach the 2 percent benchmark by the end of 2018 and 15 allies are on trade to do so by 2024.
- NATO allies spent over $42 billion dollars more on defense since 2016.
Executive order to help military spouses find employment as their families deploy domestically and abroad.

Veterans affairs

Signed the VA Accountability Act and expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
Delivered more appeals decisions – 81,000 – to veterans in a single year than ever before.
Strengthened protections for individuals who come forward and identify programs occurring within the VA.
Signed legislation that provided $86.5 billion in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest dollar amount in history for the VA.
VA MISSION Act, enacting sweeping reform to the VA system that:
- Consolidated and strengthened VA community care programs.
- Funding for the Veterans Choice program.
- Expanded eligibility for the Family Caregivers Program.
- Gave veterans more access to walk-in care.
- Strengthened the VA’s ability to recruit and retain quality healthcare professionals.
- Enabled the VA to modernize its assets and infrastructure.
Signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act in 2017, which authorized $2.1 billion in addition funds for the Veterans Choice Program.
Worked to shift veterans’ electronic medical records to the same system used by the Department of Defense, a decades old priority.
Issued an executive order requiring the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to submit a joint plan to provide veterans access to access to mental health treatment as they transition to civilian life.
Increased transparency and accountability at the VA by launching an online “Access and Quality Tool,” providing veterans with access to wait time and quality of care data.
Signed legislation to modernize the claims and appeal process at the VA.
Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, providing enhanced educational benefits to veterans, service members, and their family members.
- Lifted a 15-year limit on veterans’ access to their educational benefits.
Created a White House VA Hotline to help veterans and principally staffed it with veterans and direct family members of veterans.
VA employees are being held accountable for poor performance, with more than 4,000 VA employees removed, demoted, and suspended so far.
Signed the Veterans Treatment Court Improvement Act, increasing the number of VA employees that can assist justice-involved veterans.

Category:

Tagged with:

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh

Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Bryan Chai

Social Media Editor

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Category:

Tagged with:

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed

Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Category:

Tagged with:

Teacher Learns Harsh Lesson After Calling for Kavanaugh Assassination

Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 9, 2018 at 6:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/teacher-learns-harsh-lesson-calling-kavanaugh-assassination/

A Minnesota teacher who called for the death of Brett Kavanaugh on Twitter has been suspended with pay after the threat was reported to the FBI, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. The unnamed teacher, who goes by the Twitter handle @lookitsSammm, got her fifteen minutes of viral infamy after the minatory tweet on Saturday, according to the Star Tribune.

“So whose (sic) going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” @lookitsSammm wrote.

As expressing political rage goes, this wasn’t a particularly great idea, particularly when it happened just hours after Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate:

The not-good-idea-iness factor of this whole thing was significantly heightened by the fact that the tweeter was a Rosemount, Minnesota, educator — and there are bigger issues with that than the fact a teacher doesn’t know the difference between “whose” and “who’s.”

“The teacher, listed as an instructor at the Intermediate School District 917’s Alliance Education Center, has since deleted her Twitter account but her tweet was captured and shared by scores of users who said they reported it to the FBI and U.S. Secret Service,” the Star Tribune reported.

As an aside here, I can understand deleting a tweet after it becomes clear you’ve said something cretinous (or possibly illegal). No, it’s not going to stop the whirlwind of problems you’ve invited upon yourself, but I suppose it at least shows some good sense. Deleting your account, however, just makes you look very guilty. For every soi-disant Twitter politics expert who could see themselves typing out something this addle-pated in the future, please keep this in mind when you eventually decide to say something profoundly asinine and/or felonious.

So, back to @lookitsSammm. Mark Zuzek, the superintendent of Intermediate School District 917, acknowledged they’d received a complaint regarding her social media musings and that she was “on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation,” according to a statement on the center’s website.

“Pursuant with the data practices act, we are limited to providing additional information regarding this matter,” Zuzek added in the statement.

In an ideal universe, that “investigation” would consist of this:

Superintendent Zuzek: So, uh, did you tweet this garbage?

@lookitsSammm: That depends on what the definition of “tweet” is.

Superintendent Zuzek: Is there any possible way I can verbalize an ellipsis? No?

@lookitsSammm: [heavy sigh] I have my First Amendment rights, Superintendent Zuzek. I, for one, believe all survivors, and you should, too. I was merely–

Superintendent Zuzek: Good luck with your next job.

My ideal world, alas, is one where teachers unions aren’t 100 percent insane and that clearly isn’t going to exist anytime soon. That being said, one can likely guess that once the wearisome process concludes, it’ll probably conclude with @lookitsSammm @lookingforanewjob.

Of course, our unidentified educator has a bit more to worry about than her employment status. There’s also a law enforcement investigation to consider.

“It is unclear whether the teacher will be charged with a crime or what law enforcement agency is responsible for investigating the tweet,” the Star Tribune noted.

“While Twitter users wrote that they reported the tweet to the FBI and Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for protecting the federal judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court also has a small federal police force in Washington, D.C.”

An FBI spokesman for the Minneapolis office said that the bureau was aware of the remarks, the Star Tribune reported. While this could end up resulting in absolutely nothing, I’ve found it’s generally not good to have federal authorities aware of anything you happen to be doing, particularly if it involves encouraging assassination.

Regardless, the federal attention is going to make a harsh lesson in itself. Combined with complications at work, it all just might be enough to teach this teacher something to remember.

Yes, I get that this was supposed to be a joke and that nobody is likely to be goaded into taking a shot at a Supreme Court justice in 280 characters or less, especially from a random Minnesota teacher.

With that in mind, nobody finds jokes about murdering people particularly funny. Much more importantly for @lookitsSammm, that includes both her employer and law enforcement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Category:

Tagged with:

Lindsey Graham Pulls Out Piece of Paper, Issues Incredible Challenge to Chuck Schumer

Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 7, 2018 at

7:19pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/graham-issues-challenge-schumer/

Lindsey Graham is on a roll. For years, he was seen by many Republicans as sort of “conservative lite,” a fairly moderate politician who wasn’t particularly passionate or exciting. All that seems to have changed with the Brett Kavanaugh kerfuffle. The South Carolina senator appears to have taken a few classes in cool, and his heartfelt defense of the embattled Supreme Court nominee caught the attention of conservatives everywhere.

On Sunday, Graham kept that energy going. During an appearance on Chris Wallace’s much-watched program, the senator issued a direct challenge to his Democrat counterpart in the Senate.

As the cameras rolled, Graham held up a piece of paper that listed all of the names on President Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court.

“There are twenty-something people on this list,” the Republican challenged Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Name five, name three, name one that would be okay with you.”

His point was clear: The last-minute attempt to block and smear Kavanaugh had nothing to do with that nominee specifically. Instead, Democrats are intent on obstructing any of Trump’s potential nominees, all of whom are well-respected names. Kavanaugh just happened to have drawn the short straw.

The senator pushed back against liberals who are pretending that the newest Supreme Court member is some sort of far-right radical.

“Brett Kavanaugh was a mainstream judge,” Graham explained, according to The Daily Caller.

“I would’ve chosen him if I had been president, Bush supported him, everybody running for president on our side believe that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch were outstanding conservative jurists,” the senator continued.

Graham was just getting warmed up. He pointed out that when Democrats held the White House, Republicans didn’t try to derail all of their Supreme Court picks … yet that is exactly what the left is doing now at every opportunity.

“So, Chuck, if you want someone new? Look at this list and see anybody you agree to, but what you want to do, Senator Schumer, is to overturn the election,” the Republican challenged.

“If you want to pick judges, then you need to win the White House. When Obama won, I voted for two judges that he picked,” Graham continued.

Those two judges, of course, were Kagan and Sotomayor, both women. A number of Republicans, including Graham, voted for them.

“So Chuck Schumer, name one person on this list you think is acceptable,” Graham challenged.

The South Carolina senator is right: Liberals want to have it both ways. They whine about civility and bipartisanship, but then act shockingly uncivil and refuse to extend olive branches at every turn.

Dragging a family man and widely-respected judge through the mud for political reasons may be a new low point in American politics. The American people are paying close attention … and like Senator Graham, they’re quickly losing patience for these antics.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Category:

Tagged with:

Scalia’s Daughter-in-Law Goes Nuclear on Democrats over Kavanaugh

Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 6, 2018 at

7:17am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/scalias-daughter-law-goes-nuclear-democrats-kavanaugh/

Democrats desperately hoped that their antics surrounding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh would keep him off the Supreme Court … but their actions seem to have seriously backfired. Instead of stopping the conservative judge, liberals appear to have unified the right.

Recent polls show that voters are re-energized to support Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections, and a majority of citizens of all backgrounds disapprove of how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in particular, handled the unproven accusations against Kavanaugh.

Now, it looks like the left’s treatment of Kavanaugh may be repelling political moderates and independents. That’s the message of Adele Scalia, the daughter-in-law of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in early 2016.

The former justice may have been known as a conservative, but Adele Scalia is not.

“I’ve always considered myself politically moderate: I am unapologetically pro-life, but my views on affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, and gun control made me sympathize strongly with Democratic perspectives and occasionally led to arguments with my husband and father-in-law,” she wrote in an Op-Ed piece published by The Federalist.

Scalia checks many of the identity politics boxes revered by modern liberals. She’s a female, of course, and is also a “person of color” who immigrated from Trinidad and Tobago. As she pointed out herself in her article, she was never completely comfortable with the Republican party for a variety of reasons.

All that changed thanks to the appalling treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats, and their rejection of evidence or presumption of innocence in favor of a political witch hunt.

“I have become a unicorn,” Scalia wrote.

“All it took was Democrats’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh over the last few weeks to turn me into that elusive creature: a minority, immigrant woman who supports Republicans,” the former attorney and stay-at-home mother said.

Mincing no words, Scalia declared that what she saw happen over the last few weeks “convinced me that Democrats are not who they claim to be.”

“The party that established itself as a champion for the voiceless, powerless, and wrongfully accused, betrayed its values and launched a vicious attack on Kavanaugh that left him voiceless, powerless, and completely incapable of defending himself,” she wrote.

Scalia pointed out something that a few others have also noticed: Despite constantly pretending to stand for the rights of the accused when it comes to urban minorities, the left betrayed those principles when it came to a conservative white male.

“Against all logic and good faith, they released uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct to the public, counting on the backdrop of the ‘Me Too’ movement to make them that much harder to criticize or ignore. I still cannot reconcile these actions with the social and criminal justice reform platforms that Democrats campaign on,” she wrote.

Then she revealed something that should be a red alert to Democrats: For the first time since legally entering the country, Scalia feels compelled to officially become a full citizen so she can vote … for Republicans.

“These events opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party,” Scalia declared, summarizing the problem.

The left just created a new minority, female immigrant conservative voter — and there could be many more previously undecided voters who have been motivated by the kangaroo court of last two weeks.

Well done, Democrats.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Category:

Tagged with:

Ford Ex-Boyfriend Devastates Her Testimony. Alleges Fraud, Polygraph Coaching

Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 3, 2018 at

7:36am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ex-boyfriend-devastates-testimony/

Tables have certainly turned on the left.

If the Democrats’ strategy was to manufacture a past that comes back to haunt opponents, their game plan to derail the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should have included accusers and witnesses who had untainted histories of their own.

Unfortunately for chief accuser Christine Blasey Ford, a man from her own past has gone public to allege some major holes in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those digging deep into Kavanaugh’s personal history to unearth any kind of scandal may have just been thwarted by a page from their own playbook.

Fox News reported late Tuesday that a man has come forward to contradict many of the statements Ford made in her testimony last week.

The man, an ex-boyfriend of Ford, said she never told him of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in all of the six years that they dated.

Further, in the sworn statement, the man contradicts Ford’s testimony that she never helped anyone prepare for polygraph examinations or had a fear of flying or tight spaces and limited exits.

“In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination,” Fox News reported.

“The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her ‘life-long best friend’ prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

“He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a ‘very small,’ 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door — apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh’s alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.”

All of those statements contradict, or cast serious question on, Ford’s testimony to the committee deciding Kavanaugh’s fate.

In particular, during her testimony, Ford was questioned about her experience with polygraphs several times by the prosecutor hired by committee Republicans. She denied ever helping anyone prepare to take a polygraph.

According to Fox, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorneys demanding they release: “therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday’s dramatic Senate hearing.”

This isn’t the first time differing statements have come from friends of Ford who knew her back in the day.

On Sept. 22, as Mairead McArdle noted at National Review, longtime Ford friend Leland Ingham Keyser denied statements that she attended the party in which Ford alleges the assault by Kavanaugh took place.

Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser said in a written statement: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Perjury is a serious crime, and at this point I would wonder if Ford isn’t getting a little nervous as figures from her past emerge to shoot down her testimony and paint a picture of a very non-credible individual.

As speculation surrounds the coming conclusion of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavenaugh, I wonder if there will be any consequence toward those who came forward with such questionable accusations against the judge.

It shouldn’t be so easy to lie under oath. And the left shouldn’t assume that their obstruction tactics will go unchallenged anymore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Lisa Payne-Naeger

Contributor, Commentary

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Category:

Tagged with:

Kavanaugh Accuser Getting Serious Cash from Allegations, Over $700k After Hearing

Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 29, 2018 at

1:32pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/kavanaugh-accuser-getting-serious-cash-allegations-700k-hearing/

Christine Blasey Ford answers questions at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. (Melina Mara / Getty Images)

Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford has been making serious money off of crowdfunding since Thursday’s hearings, with nearly $700,000 from just two of 17 separate accounts on GoFundMe.

“During Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, under questioning about how she was paying security and legal costs, Ford said some of it could be covered by GoFundMe accounts that have been started to help her,” MarketWatch reported Thursday.

“Her mention of the crowd-funding website caused the authenticated GoFundMe webpage helping her to take off. It jumped from about $179,000 to $305,000 and counting merely 30 minutes later, according to the publicly displayed funds counter.”

That authenticated campaign has now collected over $528,000 — enough that the family is “officially turning off this campaign.”

“A statement of gratitude from the family will be forthcoming in the next 48 hours with a fuller explanation, but in the meantime, do keep your comments coming,” a statement on the page reads. “I am sharing them with her.”

On the fundraising site, the Ford family said the money was necessary to counter the “right wing smear machine” and the “serious threats” it claims is directed at her.

“This is all really expensive and she needs our help. We need to protect the voices of brave people who speak out – especially when they are part of our community,” the page reads.

“Christine is Palo Alto mom (sic), a beloved professor and mentor and friend. This fundraiser is sponsored by her neighbors and colleagues. She is truly grateful for your support!”

A second GoFundMe campaign, which has garnered over $200,000, was set up to “(c)over Dr. Blasey’s security costs.”

“Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (who uses ‘Dr. Blasey’ professionally) and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security,” the page, apparently created by a Georgetown professor, reads.

“Let’s create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks. If we raise more than Dr. Blasey needs, extra funds will go to women’s organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations.

“I do not know Dr. Blasey personally but will contact her via her former high school, Holton Arms, to inform her of this fundraising appeal and to make arrangements to transfer funds to Dr. Blasey.”

How the aim of this account differs from that of the official account is a mystery to me, but it’s certainly taken in a fair amount of cash. Of course, it’s not as if Ford won’t be needing money; since she came forward as the writer of the once-mysterious letter, a number of Democrat-linked heavyweights have entered her orbit. According to the Daily Wire, however, Ford doesn’t even know how to use the site.

“I’m aware that there’s been several GoFundMe sites,” she said during her testimony.

“I haven’t had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I’ve never had one.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Category:

Tagged with:

Identity of Woman Who Screamed at Flake in Elevator Revealed, Soros Connection Uncovered

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/identity-woman-screamed-flake-elevator-revealed-soros-connection-uncovered/

The woman who yelled at Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona while he was in the confines of an elevator Friday has also been vocal since then, revealing her name to be Ana Maria Archila. She and another woman in the elevator, Maria Gallagher, have been dubbed “heroes” by many on the left.

But Archila is an experienced activist with ties to George Soros. She is co-executive director of the left-wing Center for Popular Democracy, a New York-based organizing group that gets much of its money from the liberal billionaire.

“George Soros is one of the largest funders to the CPD,” The Washington Free Beacon reported in 2017. “Soros provided the CPD with $130,000 from the Foundation to Promote Open Society in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros provided an additional $705,000 from the Open Society Policy Center in 2016.”

On Friday morning, Flake made his way to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing after announcing that he intended to vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Archila and Gallagher were among the women who confronted him while blocking the door to the elevator he was on.

“This is not tolerable!” they screamed at him.

“You have children in your family. Think about them! I have two children. I cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the Supreme Court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?!” Archila shouted at Flake.

An aide asked her if she would talk to a staffer outside, to which Archila snapped, “No. I want to talk to him. Don’t talk to me.”

Gallagher said Flake’s decision had personal significance for her, telling Flake that she was sexually assaulted and nobody believed her.

“I didn’t tell anyone, and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them you are going to ignore them. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what you are telling all women in America, that they don’t matter,” Gallagher said in the emotional confrontation.

“Look at me when I’m talking to you,” she demanded. “You are telling me that my assault doesn’t matter, that what happened to me doesn’t, and that you’re going to let people who do these things into power. That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him. Don’t look away from me.”

Flake listened to their shouting silently, occasionally nodding in response. When the women finished and allowed him to pass, he continued to the committee hearing.

“I wanted him to feel my rage,” Archila said in an interview Friday with The New York Times. Her opportunity to express it to him came after she had spent all week in Washington protesting Kavanaugh’s nomination.

After private meetings with Senate Democrats, Flake told the panel that he would only vote for Kavanaugh on the condition that the Senate vote be delayed and another FBI investigation be conducted.

Archila claimed responsibility for Flake’s request to delay the vote. “His reaction shows the power that we have, together, when we chose to tell our stories and stand up for our vision of an inclusive society,” she wrote in an Op-Ed for USA Today on Saturday. “When we take action, we breathe new life and possibility into our democracy.”

It seems that there was more at play for the protesters than just rallying around in support of sexual assault survivors. Archila may have been as much against Kavanaugh for his politics as for the allegations. In her USA Today commentary, she revealed her political views, writing, “Brett Kavanaugh is not fit to serve.”

“Much of his record on civil rights, worker protections, health care and reproductive justice is an abomination. So, too, is his personal history of treating women as less deserving of respect and control over our lives, as these accusations against him have shown,” Archila wrote.

It doesn’t come as much of a surprise that the activist had political motives for the confrontation, but the revelation of her ties to Soros falls in line with concerns that many Kavanaugh protesters are paid players in the political arena.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Karista Baldwin

Contributor, Commentary

Karista Baldwin has studied constitutional law, politics and criminal justice at the University of Dallas and the University of Texas at Dallas.

Category:

Tagged with:

Ford’s Friend Who Was Allegedly at Party Issues Statement on FBI Investigation

Reported By Savannah Pointer | September 29, 2018 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fords-friend-issues-statement/

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Melina Mara / AFP / Getty Images)

A statement from the attorney representing a friend of Christine Blasey Ford’s indicated once again that she has no recollection of the event that Ford testified to in the Senate on Thursday.

Ford claimed that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and attempted to rape her at a party 36 years ago. That accusation put Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote on hold until the FBI can further investigate her claims.

Thus far, the only evidence that Ford has brought in the case is her own testimony. All of the individuals who she claimed attended the party with her and Kavanaugh deny any knowledge of the event taking place.

One of those people is Ford’s close friend Leland Keyser. Last week, Keyser said in a statement from her attorney, on penalty of a felony, that she didn’t attend such a party and didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” attorney Howard Walsh III said.

Walsh spoke out again Saturday, saying that Keyser doesn’t have any helpful information.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said, “Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

Walsh went on to stipulate that “as my client as already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Keyser does, however, believe Ford, she said.

“Notably Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Walsh said.

Her belief in her friend didn’t keep Keyser from conveying that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

The president’s stamp of approval on the controversial supplemental investigation came with some limitations.

“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file,” Trump said in a statement.

“As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

During Thursday’s questioning, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called out his colleagues for what he called the “charade” and for victimizing both Ford and Kavanaugh.

An earlier version of this article accidentally referred to Ms. Leland Keyser as “he” and, in one instance from her lawyer’s transcribed statement, as “Mr. Keyser.” We corrected these mistakes within a few minutes of their being pointed out by a reader, but failed to issue a correction in accordance with our own Ethics and Editorial Standards. We apologize to Ms. Keyser and our readers for these errors.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Savannah Pointer

Contributor, News

Savannah Pointer is a constitutional originalist whose main goal is to keep the wool from being pulled over your eyes. She believes that the liberal agenda will always depend on Americans being uneducated and easy to manipulate. Her mission is to present the news in a straightforward yet engaging manner.

@SavannahPoint

Category:

Tagged with:

Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart

Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at

5:25am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/sex-investigator-issues-report-absolutely-takes-ford-apart/

For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here. The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Category:

Tagged with:

Classmate Comes Forward, IDs Frat Brother as Guilty Party, Not Kavanaugh: Report

Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at 7:52am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/classmate-comes-forward-ids-frat-brother-guilty-party-not-kavanaugh-report/

A New York Post writer claims that a former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s has identified a fraternity brother of his as the person who likely exposed himself to Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez during a dormitory party in the early 1980s.

Ramirez, who was Kavanaugh’s second accuser, went public in a New Yorker piece published Sept. 23.

“She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” The New Yorker reported.

“After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

Ramirez was to be interviewed by the FBI as part of the bureau’s one-week re-investigation of the background of the Supreme Court nominee. However, a new wrinkle may have presented itself in the form of a report about an alleged letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Paul Sperry is best known nowadays as a writer for the New York Post, although he’s appeared in a number of different publications over the years. On Sunday afternoon, he tweeted about the existence of a letter from “(a) classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale has sent a tip into the Senate Judiciary Committee identifying a fraternity brother known for exposing himself as the likely boy who exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez.”

So, what does this mean? As for the existence of the letter, while Sperry has made it clear both on his Twitter account and his writings for the New York Post that he doesn’t believe the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, he’s also usually not blatantly wrong on these sorts of things. The likelihood is better than not that such a letter has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by someone.

As for the truth of the letter? Well, that’s the problem with almost every piece of testimony in the Kavanaugh case: It’s sketchy at best, usually uncorroborated and could likely be contradicted by other testimony the committee’s already received.

Take the case of Dabney Friedrich, a former girlfriend of Kavanaugh’s. In an anonymous letter to Colorado GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, a woman claimed her daughter witnessed a low-level assault against Friedrich by Kavanaugh in the late-1990s.

“Her friend was dating him, and they left the bar under the influence of alcohol. They were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually,” the letter read.

“There were at least four witnesses, including my daughter.”

And that letter was almost immediately contradicted by the former girlfriend in question. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Friedrich — now a judge — said “(t)o the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend [who] was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd.

“At no time did Brett ever shove me against a wall, including in an ‘aggressive and sexual’ manner. When we dated, Brett always treated me with the utmost respect, and we remain friends to this day. I have never observed (nor am I aware of) Brett acting in a physically inappropriate or aggressive manner toward anyone.”

And then we have a Rhode Island man who is now under investigation for making false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault he initially said Kavanaugh perpetrated in the mid-1980s. He has since repudiated the story.

So, this new letter — should it exist — could be materially false. It could be the result of memories corrupted over the process of 35 years. It could be politically motivated. It could be some combination thereof; those aren’t mutually exclusive categories, after all.

But that’s the problem with the entire case against Kavanaugh: At no point have we received concrete corroboration of anything. Christine Blasey Ford can’t remember where the house was where Kavanaugh assaulted her or how she got home.

None of her witnesses can corroborate her story. The same questions linger over the Ramirez case. That makes this letter pretty much the equal of anything that’s been brought against Kavanaugh. Why should we believe one over the other?

This is the problem of throwing these unverifiable cases against a public career that has been unmarred by personal or professional misconduct. We’ve been asked to treat the former as a condition that negates the latter when it ought to be the other way around.

If these are the standards we’re holding ourselves to in 2018, God help us all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Category:

Tagged with:

After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation

Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 28, 2018 at

11:49am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/feinstein-threw-ford-accusation/

If you had the stout constitution to sit through every moment of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings Thursday, I’m both envious and curious. The envy stems from the fact that you could watch a room of craven politicians preen for the camera and donor-email clips and not lose interest. The curiosity stems from the fact that I get paid to do it, while most of our readership does not.

If you waited until the end, however, you got to glimpse the guiding spirit of the whole affair — or what a certain anonymous Op-Ed writer might have called the “lodestar” that directed the proceedings — in a line from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After being accused of leaking the letter that set this whole thing rolling, the California senator denied either she or her staff released it. Instead, she blamed the leak on a woman who was now utterly disposable to her — Christine Blasey Ford.

The exchange began after Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz questioned the leaking of the letter, which had been passed on to Sen. Feinstein.

“We also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process,” Cruz said.

“The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for sixty days, that was sixty days ago, the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation.

“This committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford’s privacy,” Cruz continued.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter, were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress.

“And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people who could have released the letter were either the ranking member (Sen. Feinstein) and her staff, or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

“That is not a fair process,” Cruz said.

There were two options for Sen. Feinstein in this situation: a) apologize or b) deny. If she chose option b), however, there wasn’t the obligation to take path c): throw Christine Blasey Ford under an entire Greyhound station of buses.

That’s what she decided to do, however.

“Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story, she asked me to keep it confidential and I kept if confidential as she asked,” Feinstein said in response.

“She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear was realized,”Feinstein continued.

“She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home.”

After blaming the Republicans for their investigation, which she called “a partisan practice,” she continued to talk up the possible imperilment Ford was in.

Advertisement – story continues below

“I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential, and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward,” Feinstein said.

She was then asked if her staff had leaked the letter by Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican.

“I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe — the answer is no,” Feinstein responded. “The staff, they did not.”

“Well, somebody leaked it if wasn’t you,” Cornyn said.

Advertisement – story continues below

“I did not, I was asked to keep it confidential, and I’m criticized for that too!” she said.

“It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public, and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked, and she had been asked by press.

“But it did not leak from us,” Feinstein concluded. “I assure you of that.”

Yes, the letter leaked because this woman, who thought she was in grave jeopardy, leaked the whole thing to the press by telling her friends, who were willing to put her in that grave jeopardy by passing it on.

It had nothing — nothing — to do with the Democrats who would have benefited most from this and would have had the motivation to pass it on.

Right.

Every single problem with this entire process can be, in some way, traced back to Dianne Feinstein. She’s the one who sat on the letter, refusing to bring it up when it should have been addressed. She’s the one whose cryptic statements helped stoke the embers of curiosity. She’s the one who would call for an FBI investigation even though the FBI added the letter to Kavanaugh’s background file and moved on. She’s the one who helped oversee the circus we witnessed Thursday.

And, once Christine Blasey Ford was finally disposable to her, she was tossed to the tigers as an encore.

Category:

Tagged with:

Ford Polygraph Results Released. Did They Just Blow a Huge Hole in Her Story?

Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 26, 2018 at

3:37pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ford-polygraph-results-released-just-blow-huge-hole-story/

The narrative that liberals have hung their hopes on to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. There are now so many holes in the story, it’s incredible Democrats are still running with it.

Christine Blasey Ford is the woman who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly groping her at a party way back when he was 17 years old, but she has been largely unable to produce solid evidence or witnesses to back up her serious claims.

One of the only points in her favor was that she took a “lie detector” polygraph test, which was widely reported by the media as supporting her story by showing that she wasn’t lying.

That is, until now. On Wednesday, the actual details from that polygraph were released to the public — and they make her already-flimsy story seem downright unbelievable.

The biggest problem with the so-called “lie detector” results are that the examiner never actually asked questions about Kavanaugh during the polygraph test.

Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

Those two questions were: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either.

And, to make matters worse, the statement from Ford that she was then asked about by the polygraph examiner directly contradicts different versions of the alleged event that the accuser has also given.

“Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein,” pointed out Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of The National Review.

“Polygraph letter says ‘4 boys and a couple of girls’ were at party. Letter to Feinstein says ‘me and four others,’” he continued. “No way to reconcile the two — irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

It’s important to remember that fundamental facts such as how many people witnessed the alleged incident and what their genders were have been up in the air already. Even journalists from the left-leaning Washington Post are seemingly unable to keep the details straight.

“July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people. August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls. September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl,” The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted to Twitter, summarizing the inconsistencies.

Here’s another huge point: The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Contrary to how it’s shown in the movies, a polygraph can’t actually determine if a person is lying or not. All it can do is indicate how calm or stressed somebody is compared to a baseline. It can be used to indicate deception, but a completely delusional person can also “pass” a polygraph.

In other words, Ford may believe that something happened at a party four decades ago, and she may be confident that some version of her story is true, but the vagueness and unscientific nature of this process proves absolutely nothing. The problems with this accuser’s story don’t stop there. Buried in the release of the weak polygraph results was the fact that Ford was in Maryland — on the other side of the country from her home in California — to take that test.

But the supposed reason she couldn’t appear to testify in front of the Senate and answer questions about her accusations was that she’s afraid of confined spaces, which means she won’t travel by plane.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” reported Politico just five days ago. “Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”

Yet the letter from Ford to Senator Feinstein made no mention of this difficulty, and casually mentioned that she planned to be back in California from the East Coast in less than three day’s time. It takes at least 42 hours of nonstop driving to go from Maryland, where the polygraph was administered, to Palo Alto, California, where Ford lives and teaches at a university.

This borders on being humanly impossible: Anybody who has done long road trips knows that a realistic daily limit is about ten hours of driving a day before exhaustion sets in. USA Today has recommended that people set aside between four and six days to do this arduous drive.

~~When none of the details add up or pass even the most basic sniff test, something is wrong.~~

This entire ordeal looks increasingly like a slimy and desperate effort to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at any cost. But the truth always has a way of coming out, and it doesn’t even need a polygraph.

HERE IS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Category:

Tagged with:

Report: Insider Grassley Emails Blow Apart Ramirez Accusations

Reported By Ben Marquis | September 26, 2018 at

1:36pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/report-insider-grassley-emails-blow-apart-ramirez-accusations/

A second accuser came forward against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over the weekend, a former Yale classmate named Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that a drunken Kavanaugh had exposed himself in her face at a dorm party in either 1982 or 1983.

But her allegations, published by The New Yorker when several other outlets reportedly passed on the story, were admittedly vague, and nobody alleged to have been at the party where this incident was said to have occurred have any recollection of such an event.

Still, Ramirez, her attorneys and the Democrats cheering them on have demanded that a full FBI investigation be opened and Kavanaugh’s confirmation be further delayed, prompting Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by chairman Chuck Grassley, to once again scramble to accommodate another accuser and arrange a time for her to present her evidence to them so it can be considered by the committee, the proper venue for an investigation into allegations against a judicial nominee.

Ramirez’s attorneys had asserted through the media that committee Republicans were giving them the run-around, but a pair of tweets from CNN’s senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju would seem to indicate that Ramirez’s attorneys aren’t exactly telling the whole story, at least in regard to the level of cooperation they’ve received and reciprocated with the committee.

“Internal emails show Grassley staff asking Debbie Ramirez’s attorneys six times for evidence of her claims to New Yorker on Kavanaugh,” Raju tweeted Tuesday. “They also show Dem aide raising concerns that GOP was seeking precondition before having a call – all while Ramirez’s counsel calls for FBI probe.”

A follow-up tweet from Raju summarized, “Basically this shows GOP at a standstill with Debbie Ramirez’s attorneys, as Rs say they haven’t been given any evidence to back her claims and her side saying they’re refusing to back an FBI probe. It’s a clear sign the committee won’t get to hear Ramirez’s story before votes.”

As previously noted, the FBI has no jurisdiction over this alleged crime — if any law enforcement agency does, it would be local — and the proper venue for an investigation of allegations against a judicial nominee — including to the highest court in the land — would be the Senate Judiciary Committee, meaning the calls for an FBI investigation are a distraction and irrelevant.

The fact Ramirez’s attorneys are insistent upon an FBI investigation and have refused repeated requests to provide any relevant evidence of the alleged incident to the committee would seem to suggest that there is little, if any, additional information they can provide that wasn’t already included in the New Yorker article.

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel delved even deeper into the matter and published several informative and explanatory tweet threads on Tuesday with regard to the developing situation around Ramirez’s allegations.

A short three-tweet thread highlighted why the demands for an FBI investigation were nothing more than a delay tactic, followed a few hours later by a 12-tweet thread that exposed the back and forth emails between Grassley’s staff and Ramirez’s lead attorney, John Clune.

Strassel noted that Clune had appeared on CNN and accused Republican committee members of “game playing,” but called that particular accusation “downright false” in light of the contents of the emails.

Starting Sunday evening, just hours after the New Yorker article was published, committee staff began to request a time when Ramirez could be interviewed so the committee could investigate. The attorneys responded by insisting on an FBI investigation and attempted to schedule conference calls for details on a potential hearing.

But the committee staff repeatedly asked for the provision of any actual “evidence” — outside of the disputed and gap-ridden article — Ramirez may have prior to there being any phone calls arranging a hearing or interview. Indeed, they asked for evidence no less than six separate times over the course of two days, all of which were avoided, ignored or summarily dismissed by Ramirez’s attorneys.

“This is a serious accusation. No law enforcement would commence investigation without such statement — this is basic request, in line with any committee probe. Yet every polite request for basic on record statement is ignored, rebuffed, delayed, denied. GOP has bent backwards,” Strassel tweeted.

To conclude her thread, Strassel wrote “Finally, as you can read, claim by Clune that GOP ‘blew off scheduled call’ (CNN headline) is flat out falsehood. Majority always said testimony/evidence first. Says something that an attny resorts to such deceptions. And that CNN (would) report w/o checking.”

So there you have it. Republicans have been begging Ramirez’s attorneys for any evidence in support of her claims, to no avail. Keep these facts in mind over the next several days as Democrats and the media caterwaul about Republican “games” or accuse them of not taking Ramirez’s allegations seriously.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ben Marquis

Contributor, Commentary

Writer and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.

Category:

Tagged with:

Grassley Borrows Trick from Dems, Unveils Game-Changer Hours Before Ford Appears

Reported By Joe Saunders | September 27, 2018 at

6:59am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/grassley-borrows-trick-dems-unveils-game-changer-hours-ford-appears/

Timing is everything.

On the eve of pivotal testimony scheduled to take place Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that could determine whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh rises to the high court, committee Republicans released word of a development that throws a new twist on the already tortured proceedings.

And Democrats are screaming that their own trick has been pulled against them.

According to Fox News, Judiciary Committee Republicans released a statement late Wednesday revealing that they had spoken with two men who have said it was possible that they were actually responsible for an alleged sexual assault in the early 1980s that Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford is blaming on Kavanaugh.

According to Fox, the statement revealed that the GOP had been in contact with one of the men since Monday. The Republicans, led by committee Chairman Charles Grassley, obviously opted not to share the information with Democratic colleagues.

In a statement to NBC News, an unnamed Democratic congressional aide was outraged.

“Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her,” the aide stated. “Democrats were never informed of these assertions or interviews, in violation of Senate rules.”

Seriously? This is the same party that kept quiet about a letter received by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein in July but didn’t see fit to reveal its existence to the country until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended.

Sen Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, pointed out the hypocrisy in a Twitter post.

“Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces,” he wrote.

The bombshell news from Wednesday night was the latest development in a tumultuous week that started when The New Yorker published an account of a second accuser against Kavanaugh in a barely believable piece that was essentially built on a hazy memory, rumor — and Democratic probes.

Then, publicity-hungry attorney Michael Avenatti went public on Wednesday with a tale of a client with a bizarre story that Kavanaugh was part of a “gang rape” ring in the early 1980s (Avenatti has publicly mused about mounting a 2020 presidential campaign, so Democrat politics are clearly a factor).

Both accusations — like Ford’s — were sprung out of the blue.

Now, Judiciary Committee Republicans have officially released word that there are yet more stories out there that could put the whole thing to rest.

As the New York Post reported:

“On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing ‘a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.’

Advertisement – story continues below

“The ‘encounter’ refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

“They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

“Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.”

No credible conservative has denied it was possible that Ford actually went through some kind of ordeal in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh himself said as much during an interview with Fox News on Monday.

“I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place,” he said, according to a transcript from USA Today. “But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life.”

Obviously, it’s too soon to tell where Wednesday’s developments will lead, but it’s possible that they could eventually show Ford’s story was correct to the extent that she actually did go through an ordeal at the hands of a male. It’s also possible they will show, even to Democrats and rabid liberals, that Kavanaugh is innocent of Ford’s accusations.

But considering how they came out, and the Democrats’ hypocritical reaction to them, they prove one thing for sure:

Timing is everything.

Category:

Tagged with:

Army Col. Awarded $8.4 Million After Woman’s Sex Assault Allegations Blown Apart

Reported By Jack Davis | September 24, 2018 at

6:01pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/army-col-assault-allegations-blown/

As official Washington is captivated by the drama surrounding decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a former soldier whose career was cut short by similar allegations is trying to get out a message that accusations are not the same as the truth.

Back in 2013, Wil Riggins was an Army colonel who had been nominated for general, when Susan Shannon wrote on her blog that Riggins raped her at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point back in 1986, according to the Daily Mail.

Four years later, after Riggins had been denied his promotion based on the claim, a jury heard Riggins’ suit against Shannon and awarded him $8.4 million in damages, according to The Washington Post.

With that as the background, Riggins has been using his Twitter account to remind those rushing to judgment in the Kavanaugh case that regardless of what an accuser says, the truth may be very different.

Most of his posts are retweets of others who cite his case as a cautionary tale against believing any accuser at face value.

Riggins said that even though he was exonerated, he still suffered irreparable damage from the false claim.

This journey we’ve been on the last four years,” Riggins said, “it’s been a nightmare. … The large dollar amount is meaningless. All I was looking for was the opportunity to be vindicated, to set the record straight, to take every action to get my reputation back to where it was before the 15th of July, when she published that false accusation.”

Shannon entered West Point in 1983 and resigned in 1986. She never mentioned being raped until 2013. In a blog post, she named Riggins as her rapist and said she was drunk at the time. Despite Riggins’s denials, she has maintained that she told the truth in her blog post.

“Frankly the day I started saying his name was the day I started blaming him instead of myself,” Shannon told WJLA.

Riggins admitted he and Shannon had a sexual encounter in 1983, but had no relationship after that time. Shannon called that “a compete fabrication” and said Riggins “smugly admitted he did indeed rape” her.

However, after the verdict she did take down the posts she made about Riggins.

Stephen Horvath, Riggins’s lawyer said Riggins was able to win because, “Everything in that blog post was provably false and could not have happened.”

Riggins said that his effort to fight back was aimed at sending a message to those who make false accusations.

“This will discourage other false accusations but would not discourage legitimate accusations of sexual assault,” he said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jack Davis

Contributor, News

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer. Writing as “Rusty” Davis, he is a Spur Award-nominated writer whose first two novels, “Wyoming Showdown” and “Black Wind Pass” were published by Five Star Publishing.

Category:

Tagged with:

Huge: Letter Shows Ford Wanted To Stop Sex Crime Prosecutor from Investigating

Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 25, 2018 at

6:12am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/huge-letter-shows-ford-wanted-stop-sex-crime-prosecutor-investigating/

A letter from one of Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys indicates that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wanted to dissuade the Senate Judiciary Committee from using an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, according to a tweet from NBC’s Frank Thorp V.

The letter from attorney Michael Bromwich, as Thorp notes, seems to indicate Ford’s testimony at the hearing “does not appear to be a done deal.”

It addresses several issues, including the fact that Kavanaugh’s background check from the White House won’t be provided and comments made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Ford’s account was part of a “smear campaign.”

However, perhaps the most puzzling detail was the fact that Ford’s team objected to an experienced sex crimes prosecutor being brought on in the case.

“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as (Senate Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for Nominations Michael) Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” Bromwich’s letter read.

“It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Bromwich said.

This is a curious development indeed. A prosecutor experienced in sex crimes would be utilized questioning not just Ford but Kavanaugh as well. Having a figure like that investigating through questioning at the scheduled hearing could be key. It would be someone who would know how to get down to the truth of the matter.

Yet, Bromwich contends that the hearing “is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Except that his client is accusing a Supreme Court nominee of a sex crime. That’s kind of a pertinent detail here.

Getting to the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations — if it can indeed be done — is vital, as it’s vital in the case of any sexual assault. The Kavanaugh case has a different dimension, however, in that it could literally decide whether or not a federal judge is morally fit to receive a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest bench.

If Brett Kavanaugh did what Ford is alleging, he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. That’s not debatable. However, she hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence or a single witness who’s able to back up her claims. That’s problematic, to say the least.

Even more problematic is the fact that Bromwich doesn’t feel that this should be treated anything like “a criminal trial” — where the accused in the United States gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence. One assumes that his client shares his view on this. This means, essentially, she wants the hearing to be as uncritical as possible.

The import of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee — the mere fact that a Supreme Court nomination and the reputation of a public figure hangs in the balance — apparently doesn’t register with either Ford or her team.

If you’re alleging a brutal rape attempt involving a man who’s poised to be one of the most powerful individuals in America, why would you not want an experienced sex crimes prosecutor investigating? One can think of several reasons, none of which are particularly complimentary to Christine Blasey Ford.

There is nothing in bringing in a prosecutor that gets in the way of the “fair and credible process” Bromwich seems so concerned about in the letter. On the contrary, it’s the only way we can ensure what happens before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be either fair or credible.

The fact that the Ford team is fighting this should be seen as a highly telling move.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Category:

Tagged with:

Reports: Kavanaugh Has Found 1982 Calendar, Detailed Entries Help Clear His Name

Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 23, 2018 at

5:26pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/kavanaugh-1982-calendar-entries/

The last-minute attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as the next Supreme Court justice has just hit a serious snag. Facing damaging but almost completely unsubstantiated claims that he acted improperly with a girl back when he was a teenager, the conservative nominee has dug into his personal archives to defend himself.

Up until now, the vague accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford had only resulted in a “he said, she said” stalemate. Liberals insisted that Blasey Ford’s story of a bad encounter at a drunken party be believed, while conservatives have pointed out that the nearly 40-year-old claim is impossible to verify.

Finally, Kavanaugh has presented tangible evidence that the accusation doesn’t hold up.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the judge has found old calendars from the period when the unproven groping allegedly took place — and they appear to support his claim that the incident didn’t happen.

“Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford,” explained The Times.

“The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents,” the newspaper continued.

Advertisement – story continues below

“When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.”

Here is perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin for Blasey Ford’s already-flimsy story: The calendar contains entries for parties, but none of the names included in those entries match the names Blasey Ford listed.

That any names were included in his calendar entries for parties shows Kavanaugh was remarkably thorough about recording his social schedule.

That fact is yet another point in favor of Kavanaugh and against his accuser. The woman behind the claim has admitted that she can recall almost nothing specific about the incident, including its location, time, or other people involved.

The few names brought up by Blasey Ford have refuted her story and indicated that they don’t remember a party with both her and Kavanaugh.

“Mr. (Mike) Judge has told the Judiciary Committee that he remembered no such incident and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in such a way,” explained The Times, referring to one alleged witness of the drunken party.

“The only other two people identified as being in the house at the time, but not the bedroom, have also said in recent days that they did not recall the incident. Patrick J. Smyth said he did not remember such a party or see any improper conduct by Judge Kavanaugh.”

“Leland Keyser, a former classmate of Dr. Blasey’s at Holton-Arms, said she did not know Judge Kavanugh or remember being at a party with him,” stated the newspaper.

Accusations of this type are of course serious, and conducting due diligence is part of the vetting process for anyone nominated for a powerful position. There comes a point, however, when weak and impossible to prove allegations need to be put to rest. Blasey Ford may genuinely believe that something like the incident she described did happen; she may be telling the truth about a teenage trauma affecting her for decades, too.

The problem is that there is zero evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh who did what she claims, and no way short of a time machine to prove her accusations.

By all accounts, Kavanaugh has been a responsible and thoughtful family man and legal scholar for the entirety of his adult life — and that record needs to stand far above one person’s increasingly shaky claim.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed that Judge Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendar does not contain any names identified in Christine Blasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh. The calendar does reference Mike Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh and, according to Blasey Ford, a witness to the alleged assault. Judge’s name, however, is not mentioned in reference to any parties, while other names are — none of which have been identified by Blasey Ford. We apologize for the mistake.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Contributor, Commentary

Category:

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “Haven Monahan To Testify In Kavanaugh Hearings”

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Sep 19,

2018 9:29 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/09/19/haven-monahan-to-testify-in-kavanaugh-hearings/

If this is what the left pulls against a sweet nerd like Brett Kavanaugh, I can’t wait for the hearings to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Observers of the passing scene were not surprised that the same lunatics screaming that Kavanaugh is going to impose “The Handmaid’s Tale” on America also announced that he had committed attempted rape and murder in high school.

His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, remembered this in a therapy session 30-plus years after the alleged incident — coincidentally, at the exact moment Kavanaugh was all over the news as Mitt Romney’s likely Supreme Court nominee.

She doesn’t remember the time or place of the assault, told no one for 30 years and has no evidence or corroboration. Maybe the party was at Haven Monahan’s house. (He was the instigator of the fraternity gang rape reported in Rolling Stone, which never happened and — luckily for Monahan! — who doesn’t exist. Otherwise, he was in BIG trouble.)

But the psychology professor at Palo Alto University — who recently signed a letter denouncing President Trump’s border policies (thank you, Attorney General Sessions!) — says a teenaged Kavanaugh threw her on a bed at a party and began groping her, trying to take off her clothes.

Here’s the kicker: “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

We went pretty quickly from drunken teenaged groping to manslaughter.

This is always my favorite part of any feminist claim: The leap from “he used a bad word” to “HE ADMITTED COMMITTING SEXUAL ASSAULT!” (That’s what the media lyingly said about Trump’s remarks on the “Access Hollywood” tape, as detailed in Chapter Two of my new book, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.”)

Kavanaugh emphatically denies that anything of the sort ever occurred at any party, but feminists are already off on, Maybe he’s one of these sick people who rapes corpses!

It’s also great how the media act as if attempted rape was perfectly acceptable in America, until we were educated by the #MeToo movement. No, the breakthrough of the #MeToo movement was that it was finally acceptable to call out liberal sexual predators.

Until recently, it was OK to rape and even murder girls — but only if your name was “Clinton,” “Kennedy” or “Weinstein,” et al. Then Hillary lost, and Teddy was dead, so there was no point in ferociously protecting the Democrats’ rapists any longer.

Thus, for example, The New York Times defended Blasey Ford’s failure to tell anyone about the alleged groping/manslaughter for 30 years, claiming things were different in the 1980s. “More likely,” the editorial explained, “a girl in the early 1980s would have blamed herself than report it.”

As proof, the Times linked to a Washington Post article citing the Times’ own treatment of a Kennedy victim. After Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape, the Times “reported on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredged up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a ‘little wild streak’ in high school.”

So the Times’ defense of the decades-old, therapy-induced recovered memory by Kavanaugh’s accuser is, Look at the way we abused a Kennedy accuser! We were horrible to her! OK, New York Times, you win.

Most hilarious is the media’s insistence that Kavanaugh’s accuser is putting herself at enormous risk by coming forward. Oh, cut the crap, media. In terms of press coverage, no one alive would prefer to be Kavanaugh than his accuser. Everywhere you look, someone is praising the “survivor” for her stunning, unprecedented courage as she viciously tries to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.

True, accuse a Clinton, a Kennedy or a Weinstein (et al), and you’ll be treated like dirt. You’ll get the Patricia Bowman treatment. Paula Jones was smeared and laughed at for three years, until Stuart Taylor’s 15,000-word article defending her in the American Lawyer. (That took courage.)

But accuse the elitist white male Duke lacrosse team, Haven Monahan or a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, and you can upgrade to a much better university and spend the rest of your life being showered with awards, fellowships, honorary degrees, media appearances and so on. Look up “Anita Hill.”

And, boy, was Hill right about Clarence Thomas! (Honorary white male.) He got confirmed, and now he issues conservative rulings. We warned you.

Following days of the entire media demanding that the victim (by which they mean the accuser) be allowed to tell her story, it turns out she’d really rather not. Blasey Ford spent an eternity deciding whether to accept the Senate’s invitation to testify, finally announcing on Tuesday night that she would appear only after a thorough and complete FBI investigation.

Tell me what an “investigation” of this matter involves. Do agents go door to door in Montgomery County, Maryland, asking everyone who went to high school in the early 1980s if they remember going to some kind of party?

Second: IT’S NEVER THE VICTIM WHO NEEDS AN INVESTIGATION! She knows what her story is. It’s the accused who wants an investigation to know exactly what he’s accused of.

Blasey Ford already knows what she thinks happened. I’ve been waiting my whole life to unburden myself about that night in 1981, 1982 or 1983 in a dark bedroom. Well, I’m not sure if it was a bedroom, but it definitely had a door. And a ceiling and a floor-ish kind of thing. And walls — I know I was surrounded by walls. I remember thinking, “OH MY GOSH, I’M IN A CLOSED SPACE!” On one hand, walls keep me warm, but that’s also why I’ve never enjoyed sex.

The only reason for the professor to insist upon an “investigation” is to delay having to give her story under oath until she knows what can be proved — and what can be disproved.

Of course, the main purpose of an “investigation” is to give the media time to browbeat Republicans into withdrawing Kavanaugh’s name and doing the honorable thing by nominating someone more suitable. Someone like Asia Argento.

Category:

The Washinton Post reports:

Tagged with:

Kavanaugh Accuser Is An Anti-Trump, Open Border, Leftist

Reported By K. Walker | September 17, 2018

URL of the original posting site: https://clashdaily.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-accuser-is-a-brain-pssy-hat-wearing-anti-trump-open-border-leftist/

The woman that is accusing SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, of sexual misconduct 35 years ago has come forward. Who this woman is — is quite revealing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sat on this story for months and tossed it out as a Hail Mary play. What took her so long to come forward? Probably a few things.

It’s not easy for someone to come forward and make accusations of sexual misconduct publicly, and coming forward will certainly impact not only the accuser, but her entire family, and even her workplace. Is that what happened in this case? Perhaps.

There are some troubling details in this particular case, though.

The allegation was 35 years old, and the woman hadn’t come forward until 2012. Interestingly, it was in 2012 that Kavanaugh’s name was dropped as one of the front-runners as the Supreme Court pick of the then-Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. It was in couple’s therapy that Blasey Ford mentioned Kavanaugh’s name and the incident.

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

In the Washington Post article that details Blasey Ford’s claim, she says that she was 15 attending a party with no parents in the home, and had been drinking. She also claims that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, were both there already quite drunk. She alleges that she was pushed into a bedroom and was groped by Kavanaugh, but managed to escape.

To take those accusations at face value, they are problematic. But both Kavanaugh and Judge deny the claim. It’s a classic he said/she said scenario.

There are reasons to believe that Blasey Ford may not be telling the truth. We’ve seen that with the Duke Lacrosse team, Mattress Girl at the Columbia University, the Rolling Stone article about the alleged rape that occurred at the University of Virginia, and women have been prosecuted for lying. ClashDaily has asked if women who lie about rape should go to jail.

There are discrepancies between the claims in the Washington Post article and other reports of actions taken by Blasey Ford. Here are a few of the head-scratchers:

The Post story says that she called a tip line, but Sen. Feinstein says that she wanted to remain anonymous.

She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Source: Washington Post

As the Post mentioned, she is a registered Democrat. She’s donated to several Democrat causes like the DNC, DCCC, and Friends of Bernie. She’s obviously pretty far left.

She has also deleted all of her social media accounts.

According to WaPo, she also hired Debra Katz as her attorney and had a polygraph test administered.

She engaged Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases. On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.

Christine Ford, who sometimes uses the name Christine Blasey professionally, is also a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University, specializing in statistical models for research. She also teaches at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is a visiting professor at Pepperdine University. She has had many published research articles.

If you look her up on RateMyProfessors.com, she doesn’t have a very good record. It seems that several former students think that ‘there’s something wrong with her.’

This student rated her as ‘Awful’:

Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced. Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has caught this. Also avoid fullerton’s MSW program as long as she is there.

So did this one:

Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her. She’s made comments both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad side. I fear to think of the poor clients that had to deal with her while she got her MSW and her LCSW. Absolutely the worst teacher I ever had.

This one gave her a ‘Poor’ rating:

Take her class and you will take antidepressant, start smoking or drinking again and gain 20lbs at your risk.

Yikes!

In April 2017, Blasey joined fellow scientists at what wasn’t so much a ‘March for Science’ as it was an anti-Trump march, wearing a knit hat made to look like a human brain. The hat was the ‘brainchild’ of a friend of hers, inspired by the pink kitty hats worn at the ~~Nasty~~ Women’s March.

“It’s a science party!” said biostatistician Christine Blasey, of Palo Alto, who will wear an elaborately knitted cap of the human brain — yarn turned into a supersized cerebral cortex — inspired by the “pussy hats” donned during the Women’s Marches.
Source: Mercury News

Blasey Ford also signed a letter by the ACLU opposing President Trump’s border control policies. In the letter, it specifically cites the Obama-era policy of separating children from their (alleged) parents, which has been blamed on Trump and called ‘racist.’ The letter claims that the zero-tolerance policy on border control was ‘violating human rights’ and the separation of families ‘traumatized children.’

Well, she seems like a peach. And of course, she has no political dog in this race, right?

Category:

Tagged with:

FBI Throws Cold Water on Feinstein’s Kavanaugh Scandal Claim

Reported By Randy DeSoto | September 14, 2018 at 11:16am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-throws-cold-water-feinsteins-kavanaugh-scandal-claim/

The FBI reportedly has no plans to investigate the possible sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stemming from his high school days in the early 1980s, which is believed to be contained in a letter Sen. Dianne Feinstein passed on to the bureau, according to The Washington Post.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further,” the California Democrat said in a statement released Thursday.

“I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she continued.

A woman first approached Democrat lawmakers in July, shortly after Kavanaugh’s nomination by President Donald Trump, reported Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer with The New Yorker.

In the letter, the woman alleged that during an encounter at a party while she and Kavanaugh were in high school, he held her down and 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,” according to The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh, 53, graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School in 1983.

The judge responded in a statement on Friday, saying, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Kavanaugh’s classmate told The New Yorker of the woman’s allegation, “I have no recollection of that.”

The woman declined to be interviewed by the paper.

Feinstein refused to share the contents of the letter — which was reportedly first given to her by Democrat Rep. Anna Eshoo of California — with fellow members of the Judiciary Committee.

“A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had ‘taken care of it,’” according to The New Yorker.

Seung Min Kim with The Washington Post reported the “FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the Kavanaugh matter; instead the bureau passed the material to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh’s background check.”

White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec called the letter a “smear” attempt, intended to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation, according to The Post.

“Throughout his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh has had 65 meetings with senators — including with Senator Feinstein — sat through over 30 hours of testimony, addressed over 2,000 questions in a public setting and additional questions in a confidential session,” Kupec said. “Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him.”

Kupec also noted that the FBI has “thoroughly and repeatedly vetted” the judge through his 25 years of public service, including 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and prior to that serving as an attorney and White House staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House.

Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Cornyn responded with apparent skepticism about Feinstein’s letter.

“Let me get this straight: this is statement about secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified person. Right,” the Texas Republican tweeted Thursday.

Cornyn told CNN that the move “smacks of desperation to me.”

George Hartmann, a spokesman for Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, said the senator is aware of Feinstein’s referral.

“At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality,” Hartmann said. “There’s no plan to change the committee’s consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

A committee vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination is slated for Thursday, Sept. 20, with a full Senate vote expected by the end of the month.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Randy DeSoto

Senior Staff Writer

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

@RandyDeSoto

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Kavanaugh Threatens the Left’s Right to Cheat”

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jul 11, 2018 7:20 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/07/11/kavanaugh-threatens-the-lefts-right-to-cheat/

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh.

Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement!

But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.”

If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.”

That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.”

What liberals call “rights” are legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California.

Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision!

Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

There was nothing America could do about it.

OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.”

It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter.

On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.”

Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling?

Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices.

A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.

And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.”

Category: