Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senate’

NYT Tries To Fact Check Trump’s Tweet on Abortion, Immediately Ends Up Backfiring on Twitter


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 1, 2019 at 1:21am

In light of the recent fierce discussion over late-term and even post-birth abortions, Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors and medical personnel to make all efforts to save the life of a baby that survived an attempted abortion, rather than kill it or stand idly by while it died naturally.

Incredibly, that bill failed to achieve the necessary votes for passage on Monday, according to The Daily Wire, after only three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote in favor of saving an abortion survivor’s life, while 44 other Senate Democrats heartlessly voted against the measure.

In response to that grotesque and disheartening outcome, President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats in a pair of fiery tweets Monday evening, calling the left “extreme” for being in favor of “executing babies” after they had been born.

Trump tweeted, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

He added, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

As if on cue, The New York Times set about the next day with an attempt to “fact check” the president’s outraged tweets, but that effort failed in rather stunning fashion — at least on social media.

Just scroll down through the overwhelmingly negative comments on the tweet from The Times.

The article from The Times glossed over what the bill would actually do — “require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion” — while highlighting criticism from opponents who falsely claimed the measure was “aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions.”

The article also argued that the bill was redundant due to a 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, though they failed to mention that prior law had no teeth for enforcement.

The Times article then quoted a couple doctors who insisted that babies surviving attempted abortions “hardly ever happens,” and provided various facts and figures about the age of infant viability to support the notion that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare — around 1 percent of all abortions — without mentioning that the 1 percent is still in the ballpark of around 10,000 such deadly procedures per year.

Yet, the Times admitted near the end of the article that aborted babies sometimes are born alive, and that doctors and patients will allow the baby to die naturally, all while being kept comfortable” — echoing what Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in early February.

The article also admitted in the eighth paragraph, “The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.”

The tweet-trackers at Twitchy compiled a couple dozen of the brutal responses they received from Twitter users to highlight just how enormously the “fact check” of Trump’s tweets had backfired on The Times.

Countless users wondered why Democrats would vote against the bill if the issue the bill addressed was truly so “rare” and uncommon, as if that were indeed the case, a vote in favor of it really wouldn’t matter.

One user referenced Gov. Northam’s despicable commentary, and tweeted, “How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news.”

Still another user hinted at Northam’s remarks and noted, “‘rarely born alive’ I guess that’s okay then! As long as they’re just rarely murdered after they’re already born and alive! Hopefully they’re kept comfortable!”

There isn’t near enough room here to include all of the saddened or snarky replies to The Times, but suffice it to say, the effort to “fact check” the president’s righteous and justified anger while defending Democrats voting against saving the life of newborn infants did not go over well, at all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

It’s Official: This Senate Vote Proves Dems Are Now ‘The Infanticide Party’


Written by Wes Walker on February 26, 2019

This will definitely become one of the defining issues of 2020. It should have been a non-controversial law, and it would have been had not the Democrats gone all-in and become the Party of Kermit Gosnell.

The entire argument about abortion until now hinged upon ‘my body my choice’. This vote proves that has been a lie all along. It has REALLY been about the right to kill the baby and avoid the parental responsibilities that go with it. How do we know this? Because this bill had nothing to do with the mother’s body. It had everything to do with a living, breathing infant that is born — despite the best efforts of an abortionist to kill it — being treated like one.

The logic of it should be uncontroversial: Not in her body. No longer her choice.

We can thank Virginia’s Governor Northam and his $3 Million in political donations from Planned Parenthood for bringing this issue to light. His infanticide statements are all-but-forgotten after the blackface/KKK yearbook photo and the Smollett Hoax, but they still have a legacy.

The GOP-led Senate only mustered 53 votes — seven shy of the 60 needed to overcome the Democratic filibuster. Three Democrats crossed the aisle to back the bill, while three Republicans missed the vote.

Backers said they were driven to act by recent state laws and bills they said would allow abortions up to the point of birth — and, in at least the case of one failed piece of legislation in Virginia, would have allowed a child born despite an attempted abortion to be left to die.

“It isn’t about new restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby. Period,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. He said it made him “uneasy” that such legislation was even considered controversial.
Source: Washington Times

In the lead-up to the vote, parties made their respective cases:

The Senate is currently debating the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on the floor and will vote on the legislation later this evening. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) requires that doctors provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell opened the session, saying of the bill, “It isn’t about restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period.”

“Can the extreme far-left politics surrounding abortion really have come this far?” McConnell added. “Are we really supposed to think that it’s normal that there are now two sides debating whether a newborn, whether newborn living babies deserve medical attention?”
Source: National Review

The answer, clearly, is ‘yes’.

Schumer stood up and lied to the public:

Shortly after McConnell’s remarks, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor that the born-alive bill “is carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers.” He also claimed the bill “would impose requirements on what type of care doctors must provide in certain circumstances, even if that care is ineffective, contradictory to medical evidence, and against the family’s wishes.”

In fact, the bill doesn’t mandate any particular type of care for infants, and the medical specifics are left up to the judgment of the physician in each case. Instead, it enacts a requirement that newborns delivered in the context of abortion be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.
Source: National Review

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does NOT extend to only SOME Americans. It extends to even the smallest among us. Our politicians are looking less and less like AMERICANS and increasing like ancient Romans and Greeks that would leave unwanted children in the wild to be devoured by beasts. Not long ago, Abortion activists would have denied wanting abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth — and now, to exercise their ‘choice’ to infanticide even after the baby is born.

Police Report Is Game-Changer in Case of Gay, Black Actor Attacked by ‘Trump Supporters’


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | January 30, 2019 at 9:29am

When gay black actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by white men who yelled some stuff about “MAGA,” it didn’t take long for the liberal rage machine to mobilize.

“The star of the tv show ‘Empire,’ Jussie Smollett, was attacked by two assailants early Monday morning in Downtown Chicago according to Chicago Police Department Spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi,” CNN reported.

“Smollett, 36, was walking on the 300 block of E. North Lower Water Street when two men approached him and ‘gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,’ Guglielmi says in a statement.

“Two unknown offenders — it is unknown if they were male or female — then attacked Smollett, hitting him in the face and then poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

“At some point during the scuffle, one of the offenders wrapped a rope around the victim’s neck and then both offenders fled the scene, the statement reads.”

Smollett took himself to Northwestern Hospital, where the incident was reported to police, according to CBS Chicago.

There was plenty of condemnation to go around, particularly after TMZ reported that the attackers had shouted “this is MAGA country.” Two of the outraged included black Democratic senators, who just by chance, happen to either be running for president or widely expected to be running for president.

There was one problem with this “modern-day lynching” narrative: None of that “MAGA country” stuff was originally mentioned to police and they’re having trouble corroborating the fact that the attack even happened.

“According to the victim, the offenders’ faces were concealed,” a police spokesman said, according to Reason. “We have no record indicating that (they shouted ‘MAGA’), we only have record of them shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him.”

A statement from Chicago Police confirmed that, Reason reported.

“We have no record of the ‘MAGA Country’ comment,” the statement said, according to Reason. “We have racial and homophobic comments documented.”

CNN reported that when police heard about the accusation and called the actor, he “relayed it to detectives in a supplemental interview.”

But then again, there’s some doubt as to whether the attack even happened.

In an area that has a “very high density” of surveillance cameras, according to the police spokesman’s statement, there is not a single image of an attack like the one Smollett described.

“A Chicago police spokesperson tells CNN that investigators canvassed the neighborhood where the reported attack occurred on actor Jussie Smollett and have found no still images or video from security cameras of the incident,” CNN reported.

“The only image of Smollett police obtained from security cameras was inside Subway Sandwich shop near the location of the reported crime, the actor was standing alone.”

For all I know, Smollett really was attacked by bigots who shouted the phrase “MAGA country,” and ambitious, Democratic politicians who are calling this a “a modern-day lynching” are absolutely justified. But here’s the thing — I’m going to wait to see whether or not that’s the case, as everyone else should have.

It hasn’t even been a fortnight since the Covington Catholic incident, and the lesson we were should have taken away from that “teachable moment” — be careful dealing with stories that confirm your cultural narrative — has been lost.

No fewer than two senators with eyes on the 2020 Democratic nomination have taken this accusation as gospel because they can use it as an illustration of supposed Trump-fueled hate coursing through the country, even though no arrests have been made and the evidence is scanty. If this turns out to be a hoax, Sens. Booker and Harris own this, as do the legion of liberals who tweeted this out without waiting for a fuller investigation.

Even if this turns out to be true, what they did was supremely irresponsible. That these two individuals are in the Senate is bad enough. Just imagine one of them in the White House, backed by a legion of people who think Donald Trump supporters are irresponsible bigots, but are willing to blame white Donald Trump supporters for a hate crime without any charges or even direct physical evidence. It will make the Obama years look like pure reason.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

 

GOP Congressional Members Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Enact Term Limits


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | January 5, 2019 at 2:13pm

A new bill from two top Republicans would limit most people to 18 years in Congress via a constitutional amendment — something that’s bound to have career bureaucrats infuriated.

The amendment, according to CNN, is being introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively.

“For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people,” Cruz said.

Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.”

Cruz had introduced a similar bill in 2017, but failed to gain traction.

The plan would limit House members to three terms of two years each and senators to two terms of six years each. This means that most people would be limited to 18 years in office, and only if they are elected to one office and then the other.

The language makes it technically possible to serve up to slightly less than 22 years if they’re appointed or elected to fill less than a half-term.

This, according to Rooney, is closer to what the nation’s founders envisioned.

“The founders never envisioned a professional political class,” Rooney said during an interview on Fox News Saturday.

“This is a much better way than having these entrenched politicians who are too aligned with special interests over a period of years. I would say 18 years is plenty of time to serve your country in.”

Neither Cruz nor Rooney would really be benefiting from the arrangement, should any politician be seen as having benefited personally from term limits. Rooney, 65, was first elected in 2016 and would be eligible to serve in the House until 2022. Cruz, who just won his second term, would be out of Congress in 2024.

It’s worth noting, however, that Rooney could possibly take over for Sen. Marco Rubio, who would be term-limited out if he won the Republican nomination. (Lest you think Rubio would be upset about it, consider that he’s a co-sponsor of the bill — along with Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia.)

And Cruz, who came to the Senate from a position as Texas’ solicitor general, could also technically run for the House if he so chose.

Incidentally, if you think that the bill can’t win bipartisan support, consider there was another major Democratic voice calling for term limits this election cycle: Beto O’Rourke, Cruz’s opponent.

“People in Texas and across the country recognize that members of Congress often focus on re-election at the expense of addressing the challenges our country faces,” O’Rourke said in a piece posted to Medium.

“We see that the longer you serve in Congress, the less connected, the less responsive, the less accountable you can become to the people you represent. And we recognize that imposing term limits on members of Congress — along with getting PAC money out of our politics and putting an end to gerrymandering — will help breathe new life and new ideas into our democracy.”

If even Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke can come together on something, maybe Congress can, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Ted Cruz Fires Epic Counterpunch After Jim Carrey’s Latest Haunting Cartoon Hits His Desk


Reported By Ben Marquis | November 6, 2018 at 12:13pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ted-cruz-fires-epic-counter-punch-jim-carreys-latest-haunting-cartoon-hits-desk/

Ted Cruz pictured speaking in a file photo from 2014.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is pictured in a file photo from April 2014. Cruz used his well-honed wit to slam a cartoon created by liberal actor Jim Carrey. (Andrew Cline / Shutterstock)

Liberal Hollywood actor Jim Carrey was once beloved by audiences across America for his amazing acting ability in roles that ranged from rather serious to absurdly stupid — but incredibly hilarious — in his many popular movies over the years.

Sadly, Carrey succumbed to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in 2016 and simply hasn’t been the same, trading in his spot in front of a camera for one in front of a canvas as he works out his inner demons through the process of painting what could be described by some as “artwork,” typically of the anti-Trump, anti-Republican variety.

The Daily Caller reported on the latest piece of “art” showcased by Carrey on social media, but it was the response he received from the featured subject of his piece — Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is being challenged in the election by Democrat Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke — that truly garnered the attention.

Carrey tweeted, “Go Beto! Go Democrats! Vote like there’s no tomorrow. Let’s make this Tuesday like the end of every great vampire movie. Pull back the curtains and let the sunshine turn all those bloodsuckers to dust.”

Naturally, Carrey’s painting portrayed Cruz as a vampire that was shrinking away and shrieking in pain as he burst into flames and disintegrated while O’Rourke pulled back a curtain to bathe his opponent in sunlight.

The likening of Cruz to a vampire was possibly inspired by the admittedly funny comparisons of Cruz with the vampiric Grandpa Munster from the 1960s sitcom “The Munsters,” not to mention the leftist belief that Republicans are blood-sucking monsters who hate the living, especially women and children, or something.

For all of the criticisms that Cruz has received — both fairly and unfairly — few could say with a straight face that he doesn’t have a great sense of self-deprecating humor or that he is incapable of suffering and replying to harsh insults exceedingly well.

Cruz linked to Carrey’s tweet mocking him as a vampire, and wrote, “Hollywood liberals all in for Beto. But (self-described socialist) Jim Carrey made a mistake here: Vampires are dead, and everyone knows the dead vote Democrat….”

And then utter hilarity ensued and was enjoyed by all in the comment section of that tweet, as everyone understood the joke about Democrats using the fraudulent votes of dead people to win close elections. Just kidding … Cruz was ruthlessly mocked and excoriated by humorless liberals who failed to see the point or get the joke of his post.

Unfortunately for Carrey and his Cruz-hating fellow liberals, it is highly unlikely that Cruz will burst into flames and disintegrate when the curtains of the voting booths are opened after Election Day and the ultimate outcome of his race against O’Rourke is revealed.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls in the Texas Senate race show that Cruz holds a fairly comfortable 6-point lead over his challenger, with the four most recent polls in October giving Cruz a lead that ranged from as little as 3 points to as much as 10 points.

In all likelihood, given the manner in which pollsters have historically and routinely oversampled Democrats and independents and undersampled Republicans, Cruz could very well hold a more significant lead over O’Rourke than has been announced by the pollsters.

However, every conservative and Republican and right-leaning independent needs to get out and vote for Cruz on Tuesday to help drive a stake through the heart of the monstrous undead Marxist philosophy that continues to drive the Democratic Party increasingly leftward these days, lest they be allowed to suck out the lifeblood of our nation and economy by gaining control of Congress.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

In Tight Race, Tenn. Dem’s Own Staff Says He’s Lying To Get Votes


Reported By Karista Baldwin | October 11, 2018 at 11:33am

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas’ undercover reporting just exposed the double-dealing tactics that Tennessee Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen is using in his 2018 election campaign for the U.S Senate. The group released damning undercover video footage of staffers from Bredesen’s campaign revealing that Bredesen is not above lying to voters to get elected. And his staff has no problem helping him get away with it.

On Friday, Bredesen voiced support for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and said that he wanted him on the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post. This, according to Bredesen’s own staffers, is a total lie.

On the Project Veritas video, a man identified as Will Stewart, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, was asked if Bredesen “would actually vote yes” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation if he were in the Senate. Stewart quickly set things straight.

“Oh, he wouldn’t,” Stewart said. “But he’s saying he would.” (“It’s politics,” another campaign staffer added.)

“Which, I don’t know if it makes it worse or better,” Stewart continued. “No, it makes it better.”

“I don’t understand what’s to gain by saying yes,” the undercover Project Veritas journalist prodded.

“Moderates,” Stewart said.

“Moderate Republicans,” another staffer agreed.

The duplicitous strategy seems to be common knowledge among Bredesen’s staff.

A woman identified as Maria Amalla, another field organizer, responded to why Bredesen would lie about supporting Kavanaugh, saying, “Yeah, because it’s a political move and he’s trying to make up those points.”

“I guess we won’t know until November 6th whether or not this was worth it,” she said.

Apparently, lying was the only way Bredesen could see himself beating Marsha Blackburn.

“We’re down eight points and it also said that … 74 percent of Tennesseans wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed. Logically, based on those numbers and what I’ve seen, is that he had already known that the gap between him and her has grown more,” Amalla said, referring to Blackburn.

“And so he thought that by coming out in support that it would get more Republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts … He thinks that by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate Republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us,” Amalla continued.

Bredesen doesn’t hold much respect for the people he wants to represent, with Stewart agreeing that Bredesen can get away with his tactics because Tennesseans are “ignorant.”

The Project Veritas journalist also talked to a man identified as James Miller of “voter protection” on Bredesen’s staff. “I think it’s important to just remind yourself that it’s just a political move, right?” the journalist asked him.

“Yeah.  But isn’t that gross?” Miller said, lowering his voice. “That’s the way it has to go.”

“I just hate that he has to like … lie to get that vote,” the journalist said.

“I know. I know. Tell me about it.  Unfortunately, that’s reality,” Miller agreed.

Another field organizer, identified as Delaney Brown, said she hoped that all the deception at least pays off in the election.

“I know I’m going to be p—ed if this doesn’t pay off,” she said in the video.  “If we lose, I’m going to be so mad.  Because not only did he forfeit a lot of moral high ground … if it’d still lose, if it’s by a small margin, that’s the base.”

But campaign staffers assured the reporter that Bredesen’s just pulling a bait and switch. Fear not! His staff says that once Bredesen gets in office, he won’t feel any obligation to follow through with his campaign promises, since he doesn’t plan on running for re-election again anyway. Phew.

“He’s not going to be running for re-election. He can get in there and do the right thing,” Stewart said. “Between you and me, once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Right … once Bredesen’s elected he’ll “do the right thing.” No reason to jump the gun and act ethically while he’s campaigning.

“Once you’re in, six years, you’re going to do the right thing,” Miller also said. He agreed that Bredesen would be a good Democrat, saying, “100 percent. Always has been.”

Stewart also said that despite orders not to act as if Democrats are simply running against Trump, that’s actually pretty much the point.

“We don’t say that out of these walls. But here, of course, we talk about that,” Stewart said. “Cause it’s so funny. The messaging is like, ‘don’t talk about the blue wave. We’re not running against Trump.’ All this sort of stuff. Even though that’s all why we’re all here.  We can’t put it out there.”

Stewart then added that Bredesen “hates Trump.”

But if Democrats want to beat Republicans, they could learn a thing or two from them. Stop looking down on the people you need to vote you and show them respect instead, starting with not blatantly lying to them to try to con them into supporting you.

Also, if you do need to con people to get them to vote for you, maybe re-evaluate some of what you actually stand for.

I’m with Bredesen’s staff on this one in one respect — it’s just plain gross.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

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.

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:

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.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: