The Worst Argument Ever

I don't watch the Sunday morning news/talk shows.  They are generally just a forum for mostly unimportant politicians or their advisers to get together and repeat their talking points.  I can't wade through the garbage in order to get to a nugget or two of actual news.  It's just too boring.  Today, however, I heard an excerpt from what senator Coons had to say on one of the shows.  Coons argued that Judge Kavanaugh's responses to senators Feinstein, Blumenthal and a few other Democrats were too angry, too confrontational, and too emotional for a judge.  Kavanaugh didn't display a judicial temperament.  This had to be the worst argument made thus far in the entire Kavanaugh saga.

Think about it.  At the hearings, Feinstein repeated claims that Kavanaugh, as a 15 year old, ran multiple house parties where girls were drugged and then gang raped by groups of boys.  Feinstein has also said that she believes the "victims".  In other words, she stood behind the claim of Kavanaugh running a gang rape ring for at least two years.  Imagine how you would feel if someone said that about you.  Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh got angry.  He responded forcefully to senator Feinstein.  Anyone would respond that way.  It's perfectly normal.  In fact, if Kavanaugh had just stayed calm and reserved in his response, no one would have believed him.  But I guess that's the point.  If Kavanaugh had maintained his calm, the Dems would have said that he must have done it because it didn't upset him.  When instead he got angry, the Dems said that he lacked a judicial temperament.

Judges have to be impartial when judging matters before them.  No one expects judges to be impartial when it comes to matters that concern the judge himself or herself.  That's the whole reason why judges have to recuse themselves (withdraw from hearing a matter) when they have a personal stake in the outcome.  No one expects judges to be able to avoid their personal biases if they will be affected by the decision.  In other words, since Feinstein was accusing the judge of a crime, even a judicial temperament doesn't require Kavanaugh to remain unmoved by that false smear.

The sad thing is that many of the Democrat senators involved here are lawyers themselves.  They well know what it means to have a judicial temperament and also what it doesn't mean.  Nevertheless, they spout these lies just to try to make a political gain.

 

Media Again Working For Dems; This Time Protecting Kavanaugh Accuser

Remember Julie Swetnick?  She's the woman that CPL Avenatti brought out to claim that Bret Cavanaugh had organized a series of parties while he was in high school at which women were drugged and then gang raped.  She claims that she realized what was happening, but still went to ten of the parties over a year and a half.  Indeed, she also claims that she herself was gang raped and still went to the parties.  In other words, her allegations are ridiculous.

But let's put aside the content of the allegations and look for a moment at Ms Swetnick's past.  The AP put out a story this morning that is headlined "3rd Kavanaugh Accuser Has History of Legal Disputes".  It sounds like Swetnick is litigious, right?  That's no big deal.  If you read the article, however, you find buried in the bottom of the story that Swetnick was involved with a lawsuit with a former employer that let her go after it got reports from multiple other employees that Swetnick had behaved in a sexually aggressive and inappropriate way at work and even in meetings with clients of the company.  Swetnick responded by making claims that other employees had sexually harassed her and that the company maintained a hostile work environment.  In any event within a month of being hired, Swetnick was fired.  The lawsuit was begun shortly thereafter, but it was quickly settled with no money changing hands and Swetnick was not rehired.

This is an important bit of history for Swetnick.  It means she has previously made charges of sexual misbehavior by others, charges that were quickly dropped when challenged.  It also means that she herself has been accused of this same sort of misconduct.  It casts a further shadow on her story (although her charges are so bizarre as to be completely unbelievable.) 

So why did the AP bury the most important fact about Swetnick?  The answer is obvious.  To tell the story accurately would mean undermining one of the Kavanaugh accusers.  The media can't do that, because it might harm the narrative which is now that the Judge ran a series of gang rape parties.

The AP owes Kavanaugh and all of us an apology.
 

Worth Remembering

Matt Damon did the cold open on SNL last night.  Damon appeared playing Bret Kavanaugh giving his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Kavanaugh was mocked harshly by SNL and Damon.  I guess it was SNL's way of attacking President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh.  But the choice of Matt Damon was a strange one.

Remember, it was only a few months back when Damon was denying that Harvey Weinstein had done anything wrong.  Shortly after that defense, Damon admitted that he knew of specific instances where Weinstein had attacked women.  Then Damon said that Louis CK should be "forgiven" because he had admitted what he had done wrong.  (Louis CK admitted that he had sexually harassed women by, among other things, forcing them to watch him masturbate, etc.)  Damon also defended Casey Affleck who was sued by two different women for molesting them and then firing them when they resisted his advances.  (Those suits were settled by Affleck.)  And let's not forget that Damon also said that if anyone accused him of sexual misconduct (even if he were innocent), he would "lawyer up" and then work out a settlement for the woman containing a non-disclosure agreement.  (That sure sounds familiar.) 

I wonder if the SNL producers thought it was funnier to have Damon do this bit than someone else.  It wasn't.  It just shows the hypocrisy of Hollywood and the media.

What's Going On In The Senate Races?

After this weeks spectacle in the Senate, it has become clear to many across the country just how important control of the Senate will be for the next two years.  Simply put, if the Democrats were to take control, they would block every nominee put forward by President Trump.  They tried to do just that for the last two years, but were ultimately thwarted because they were in the minority.  Future picks for the Supreme Court (if any) would obviously be major battles.  The Dems, however. wouldn't stop there.  They filibustered nominees for under secretary of this or that, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank, and all sorts of relatively minor offices.  Who knows what they would do next to try to resist Trump?  So let's take a look at where the senate races stand.  We'll do it one state at a time.

Today we'll cover Missouri because it has the most recent polling which came out after the incumbent Democrat Clair McCaskill announced she would vote no on the Kavanaugh nomination.  According to the latest poll of likely voters, the GOP candidate Josh Hawley is leading McCaskill by 2% at 48 to 46 with 6% undecided.  There's only 5 weeks left to the election, but McCaskill is making no headway with the voters.  In the four public polls taken in September, McCaskill has averaged the support of 45% of the electorate.  Hawley has averaged 46.25%.  What's most important is not the specific numbers, although the fact that McCaskill has not been ahead in any of these polls is still quite meaningful.  No, the key here is that long time senator McCaskill is stuck at 45%.  The voters in the state know her well, and 55% of them aren't voting for her.  That's a bad place for an incumbent to be at any time, but if it's five weeks before the election, it's a disastrous place to be.  Obviously much can happen in five weeks, but right now it looks as if Hawley is the likely winner.

It is true that Hawley has also run and won a state-wide race in Missouri, so the voters know him too.  Hawley, however, ran and won as Attorney General, an office which has a low profile.  Voters may have heard his name, but they didn't know him well.

It is also true that the Kavanaugh mess could affect this race, although it doesn't seem likely.  This latest poll came after McCaskill announced she would vote against the judge, but half before the committee hearings.  There doesn't seem to have been much effect; both McCaskill and Hawley moved a bit higher in their numbers (McCaskill beat the average by 1%, Hawley by 1.75%).  If there's a delayed reaction, it will show in the next poll.  Still, this cannot be a big mover for the race.

The next question will be about turnout on election day.  Are the Democrats or Republicans more fired up to get out and vote?  The blue wave theorists say that enthusiasm is on the Democrat side, but their evidence is all old.  Most recently, there was a special election in a Texas district that Hillary carried by 11% in 2016 and which hadn't elected a Republican in 132 years.  The GOP candidate won by more than 10% on a heavy turnout.

The main takeaway from the Missouri race at this point is that it's close but Hawley is leading by a small margin.  Normally, as that last portion of the electorate makes up their minds, Hawley's lead should increase.  We will see how this develops in the next polls.  Unless McCaskill's numbers start rising in a meaningful way, however, she is likely to lose.

Cherokee Liz Drops a Hint; She Running in 2020

Until now, Elizabeth Warren, the fake Native American senator from Massachusetts, has denied wanting to or even considering that she might run for the Democrat nomination for President in 2020.  Today, however, she changed her tune.  Now she says that it is something she will consider after the mid-term elections are over.

Warren is the perfect candidate for the Democrats. 

1.  She's a woman and could be the first female president.

2.  She falsely claimed to be part Native American in order to get jobs at the law schools at Penn and Harvard.  That means she could be the first fake Native American president.

3.  She's a terrible campaigner.  When she ran for the senate the first time in 2010, she almost managed to lose as a Democrat in Massachusetts.  That is something that is not easy to do, but Liz managed to accomplish it. 

4.  She's strident, screechy and usually angry.  It's a potent combination.  It's not that she seems to care about the average person.  Nope, she's just angry.

5.  Her big accomplishment in the senate has been setting up the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  She drafted the statute so well that it was declared unconstitutional by the courts.

This is a woman who would basically be a repeat of Hillary Clinton but without the name recognitions or the charm and charisma of Hillary.

I hope she gets the nomination.

How Widespread Was The Democrat Plan To Smear Kavanaugh

I noticed today a tweet from CT Democrat candidate Ned Lamont.  Here it is:


Ned Lamont‏Verified account @NedLamont Sep 4 

Governor candidate, CT

I’m proud of Sen Blumenthal’s tireless efforts to shine the light of day on Kavanaugh’s hidden past. People deserve to know where he stands. I stand for choice, common-sense gun laws, and keeping immigrant families together. Where’s Bob Stefanowski? What does he believe? (Hint:)

 

 

It's the usual boilerplate stuff that Lamont puts on his Twitter feed, but with one major difference.  Notice the date?  Sep 4.  That's more than a week before senator Feinstein announced that she had sent a letter with charges against Bret Kavanaugh to the FBI.  It's about two weeks before the name of Dr. Ford was leaked by the Demcrats to the media.  And here is a candidate for governor of CT talking about senator Blumenthal's "tireless efforts to shine the light of day on Kavanaugh's hidden past."  That's very telling.  Before Feinstein started the character assassination attempt on Kavanaugh with the letter to the FBI on September 12th, Kavanaugh didn't have a "hidden past" even among those who opposed his nomination.  So Lamont knew what was coming and let it slip.

 

How could Ned Lamont know that there was going to be this attack on Kavanaugh?  We don't know for sure how he heard of it, but we do know for certain that Lamont knew the attack was coming more than a week before the first word of Dr. Ford's charges ever came to light.  Did senator Blumenthal tell him?  It surely seems so.  If there were a plan by Feinstein and the other Dems on the Judiciary Committee for the attack, Blumenthal would certainly be included in the group behind the attack.  He's on the committee.  He has a legal background.  He has no compunction about lying.  So I ask again, did Blumenthal tell Lamont about what was coming regarding Judge Kavanaugh?

 

Think what this means:

 

1.  Senator Feinstein was lying when she claimed that she told no one about Dr. Ford other than her chief of staff.  Feinstein lying?  So what else is new?

 

2.  Blumenthal was part of a cabal that was planning in detail how to try to disrupt the Kavanaugh nomination at the last possible minute.  Blumenthal acting dishonorably?  So what else is new?

 

3.  It also raises the possibility that the Democrats and Ford's lawyer (and maybe even Ford) were in this plot together.  First, they took steps to prevent there being any investigation of the charges and then, once the charges were made, they screamed about how the investigation was being "blocked".  Certainly, Blumenthal made a big deal about the lack of a proper investigation.

 

4.  The entire merit of the Democrats' position is called into question when you have proof like this that there was a widespread plot to use Dr. Ford for political purposes rather than caring one bit about the alleged attack.

 

Let Me Explain It For You

Time magazine has a story in which it reports the surprising success that Republicans are having wooing Latino voters.  In Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Texas polling shows that Democrat senate candidates are running between 7 and 20 points behind the percentages obtained by Hillary Clinton from Latinos in those states in 2016.  The Time report chalks it all up to better campaign machinery from the GOP since according to Time, President Trump has taken steps to alienate the Latino community.  According to Time, the Democrats will have to step up their campaigns to win back these voters.

It's an amazing article, amazingly unrealistic that is.  Here's what it leaves out:  Latinos are doing better as a group over the last two years than they did during the eight years of Obama.  Unemployment of Latinos reached the lowest level ever recorded by the government and it is still trending lower.  New businesses started by Latinos reached the highest level ever recorded and that figure is trending higher.  In other words, from an economic perspective, Latinos are doing much better than they were under Obama.  That's something that people who are living through the difference recognize.  It's not going to swing 50% of the vote one way or the other, but the movement of 10% from Democrat to Republican is certainly feasible.

The Democrat response so far has been twofold.  First, the Dems deny that the economy is better for Latinos.  That will work with some, but not with those who themselves are doing better.  Second, the Dems have fallen back on their normal attack which is that Republicans are all white supremacists who hate Latinos.  This lie is hard to continue in places like Texas (where the GOP nominee is himself a Cuban-American) or Florida (where the GOP nominee Rick Scott has spent years helping the state's Latino community.) 

The reality is that a 10% swing in the Latino vote will kill the chances of the Dems to pick up senate seats in Texas, Arizona and Nevada and will give the GOP a pick up in Florida. 

The Next Accuser

President Trump has agreed to the request by the Judiciary Committee chair (senator Grassley) and asked the FBI to do a further investigation that must be completed within one week and be limited to "current credible allegations."  What does that mean?

1.  Most important, by ordering the investigation, the President has taken away from the Democrats their biggest talking point.  They have pushed for an FBI investigation for the last two weeks.  The Dems don't really want the investigation, since it will come up with nothing that we don't already know.  What they want is to portray the GOP as unfair to Dr. Ford.  Well now the investigation has been ordered even though there's nothing to investigate.

2.  The limitation to current credible allegations, means that when the Democrats trot out their next phony victim, the FBI will not be investigating that claim.  It seems reasonable that more claims are coming.  After all, with Ford, the Dems told the Senate that her testimony had to be delayed from Monday because she was scared to fly to DC.  That was a total lie.  We learned yesterday that Ford was in Delaware for the last three weeks.  That hardly requires a flight to get to Washington.  It's about an hour's drive.  Further, we also learned yesterday that Ford flies across the world many times each year.  So why would the Dems have lied about Ford's fear of flying when they knew that the truth would get out?  The answer is that the Dems were hoping that the second and third accusers would surface and that it would force Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination.  That plan didn't work, and the Democrats are exposed as liars.  Nevertheless, you can be sure that the Democrats are actively looking for the next accuser as we speak.

3.  Hopefully, senator McConnell will start the debate on the nomination ahead of time.  That would allow for a cloture vote to set the final vote on Kavanaugh for Saturday, October 6th.  The time line would go as follows:  end of FBI investigation -- October 5; Vote on nomination -- October 6; Kavanaugh joins SCOTUS -- October 8.

 

What Did The Kavanaugh Hearings Do?

The point of yesterday's hearings was supposed to be confirmation or not of a Supreme Court Justice.  That's been fully discussed, and it looks right now as if Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  Time will tell.  The hearings, however, also did a host of other things which cannot be overlooked:

1.  They exposed the Democrats and their disgusting tactics fully.  The statements from Kavanaugh and the outburst from Lindsey Graham were a rather clear denunciation of the Democrats smear tactics in a way that most Americans had not heard through the media.  We don't know how many people actually saw these responses, but those who did could not miss them.  Surely, these responses to the Democrats made the Democrat base even angrier than usual, but they were already plenty angry.  What the responses also did, however, was to stir up the Republican base.  As of a month ago, there was a concern that the Democrats would turn out in November energized by Trump hatred, but that Republicans would vote more like a normal midterm election, in other words at lower levels than the Democrats.  This was the basis for much of the blue wave theorizing.  The Democrats' smear attack on Kavanaugh changed the tide on the GOP side.  Republican voters who haven't been paying attention now understand what will happen if the Democrats regain the majority in either house of Congress.  It will likely have a big effect on the November turnout and with that, the result.

2.  The Democrats succeeded in making a permanent enemy of Judge Kavanaugh.  For the last 50 years, we have seen Republican appointments to the Supreme Court who go to Washington and get coopted into the liberal ethos of that city.  Justice Souter is perhaps the best example.  He came in like a Republican conservative and within a few years was voting like a moderate/liberal.  Judge Kavanaugh will never be coopted by the liberals.  He's actually had an "I am Spartacus" moment that he will never forget.  The Democrats feared losing control of the Supreme Court for the first time since the early 1930s.  With their tactics, they guaranteed that outcome.

3.  The #MeToo movement got hit with a major problem because of the Democrats.  Anyone looking at what happened here understands that this was a political battle that only used Dr. Ford as a pawn.  The Democrats could have actually cared about Dr. Ford.  After all, it was the Democrats who leaked Dr. Ford's name against her express wished for confidentiality.  It was the Democrats who forced Dr. Ford to endure yesterday's circus when she didn't want to do it.  Dr. Ford says she was attacked in 1982 and the Democrats forced her to be attacked again in 2018.  For the Dems, it wasn't #MeToo, rather it was #DemPower.  Remember, this entire matter could have been handled confidentially with a full investigation.  Dr. Ford did not need to go through all this.  The Dems know this.  That's why senator Feinstein rushed to deny that she and her office (who were the only people beside Dr. Ford to have her name) didn't leak.  My guess is that senator Feinstein is also prepared to say that the Titanic didn't leak either.

4.  The hearings also raised the level of confrontation in our society.  That's bad.  People like Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh and their families got death threats from the crazies out there.  Remember last year when a congressional GOP baseball team was attacked in VA and congressman Scalise was almost murdered.  That was the result of the lower level of craziness fomented by the Democrats' campaign of hate.  They run that campaign by vilifying every Republican as a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc who needs to be run out of town.  It's a disgusting lie, but there are people out there in the Democrat base who don't understand that.  They are getting closer to acting on the lie.  Meanwhile on the other side, there are Republicans who feel threatened by the Dems.  They too are closer to an actual fight.  America needs to be a civil society in which people can disagree without hating each other.  Yesterday was a big step away from that.

A Childhood Memory

The Kavanaugh hearing presents a woman who says she was assaulted 35 years ago and a man who says he did not take part in that assault.  Much has been made of whether or not Dr. Ford is lying or Judge Kavanaugh is lying.  But what if this is just a case of mistaken identity?  What if Ford was assaulted but by some other guy who had nothing whatsoever to do with Kavanaugh.  That too is possible.  After all, it was 35 years ago, and none of us look like we did 35 years ago.

The question reminds me of an incident in my own past.  When I was almost 10 years old and in the fourth grade, I was at band practice in my elementary school.  Suddenly, there was a bit of a commotion and the band teacher told me that I had to go to the principal's office immediately.  I did that.  When I got there, I was told that I had been identified as one of two boys who had attacked and beaten another child the previous evening.  The victim even told the principal that I had hit him with the case to my trumpet.

At that point, I reacted as many 9 year olds would:  I started to cry.  I said that it wasn't me.  I hadn't done anything of the sort.  I had not been on the street at 8 o'clock the previous evening.  I had been home.  The principal then said that the fact that I was crying showed that I felt guilty.

Now when I was in fourth grade, I was one of the tallest kids.  I looked like I could have been in sixth grade.  And I had the tell-tale instrument case.  In front of me there was a boy who had bruises on his face and who kept saying that it was me.  But it wasn't.

Fortunately for me, I had been sitting in the living room of my house the night before at 8:00 watching TV with my parents and my sister.  My mother came from work and gave me my alibi.  The incident was over, but I was upset by it for a long time.  I kept looking for the boy who had been attacked to come after me to get revenge for something that I hadn't done.

I know that if I had been outside that evening instead of watching TV, I would have been branded the attacker.  I do not know what would have been the result of that, and fortunately I never had to find out.  I just know that you can't jump to conclusions in cases like these.  It's something worth keeping in mind.

 

Lamont Amits the Truth -- He WILL RAISE Taxes

In the last debate between the candidates for governor of Connecticut, Democrat Ned Lamont got pushed to admit that he would raise taxes.  That's RAISE taxes.  It was a refreshing bit of truth.

In the primary season, Lamont told interviewers that he would raise the income tax, impose tolls on highways and possibly add a statewide property tax on cars.  Then the primary ended and Lamont was the official Democrat candidate and Bob Stefanowski was the official Republican candidate.  Suddenly, Lamont tried to paint Stefanowski as a tax raiser.  That didn't work.  Anyone who has ever heard Bob knows that his main thrust has been the need to cut taxes to get the Connecticut economy moving again.  Then Lamont tried to argue that Stefanowski would cut the state budget by about 60%.  He created phony numbers about the various cuts and kept pushing them.  That ploy also didn't work.  Bob Stefanowski has made clear his plans for initial changes in spending.  Cuts would be phased in as tax cuts were also phased in.  There's more than enough waste and unnecessary spending by the state to cover the initial tax cuts.  If there cannot be sufficient savings, there won't be corresponding tax cuts.  Lamont had to abandon that push too.

Lamont's latest ploy has been to call himself a tax cutter.  He proposed a $100 property tax credit for homeowners.  That would be a lot less than the increase in income tax and all his other new taxes.  Then Lamont talked about how he would cut the income tax.  It was bogus, but that didn't stop Lamont.  One day he was raising the income tax and the next day he was cutting it.

At the debate, however, when challenged, Lamont said that "everyone" in the state would have to "do more" when it came to taxes.  That's right, Lamont admitted once again the basic truth of his plans:  he wants to raise, not lower, taxes.

Hopefully the news of this will get out.  The people of Connecticut recognize that their taxes are just too high.  People are leaving the state for lower tax locations.  Businesses are leaving too for the same reason.  Even worse, new businesses are avoiding the state again because of taxes.  Lamont's plan to raise taxes may be in line with Democrat dogma, but it would be a death blow to Connecticut's economy.  Our state still has not recovered from the 2009 recession, and it's nearly ten years later.  Higher taxes would be a disaster.  Lamont would be a disaster.

What Happens to the JCPOA

It's been a while since President Trump pulled the USA out of the Iranian nuclear deal (known as the JCPOA).  The Europeans and the Russians are still clinging to that pact as the best way to proceed.  Various leaders in Europe have even announced plans for a means to avoid the re-imposition of sanctions on the mullahs.  That effort isn't going to work, however.  Sorry to sound like Game of Thrones, but the important words here are "November is Coming".  In November, much stricter sanctions are going to be put in place by the USA under the protocols regarding the JCPOA.  There were some US sanctions against Iran that went back into effect as soon as the USA pulled out of that agreement.  In November, however, the six month grace period ends and the full sanctions go back into place.  At that time, a company that does business in Iran can be barred from access to the American market and the American banking system.  Imagine you are a large French multi-national corporation.  Your choice becomes doing business with the mullahs or doing business with the USA and having access to the worldwide banking operations of American banks.  It's an easy choice to make.  There could be some profit in Iran, but there's an existential question if the American market and banking system are shut off.  For all the statements made by the Europeans against the move by President Trump, they are going to have to go along with his move.

Russia is a different story.  Putin may decide that he will risk the wrath and the sanctions of the USA in order to cement his ties to Teheran.  I doubt that, but you never know.

In any event, another strong blow is coming towards the Iranian economy.  The first wave of sanctions that began when Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA has nearly swamped Iran's fragile economy.  The Iranian currency has collapsed.  The protest marches across Iran in recent months have focused mostly on economic issues.  A second -- and much stronger blow -- will do great harm to Iran's economy.

President Trump is betting that the sanctions will bring the Iranians back to the table.  Despite their constant statements of hatred for the USA, the mullahs are more concerned for keeping their power in Iran.  Hopefully, they will recognize that letting the sanctions stay in place undermines their position in a manner that gets worse with the passage of time.  We will see soon how this plays out.  Remember November Is Coming.

Fatal Attraction II

Politico is normally very biased in favor of the Democrats.  Today, however, it published a story that does major damage to the latest charge against Judge Kavanaugh.  This is the claim by Julie Swetnick that she went to ten house parties where Kavanaugh and his friend served spiked punch to the women who were then gang raped by the men in the house.  Swetnick's story is weak enough.  For example:

1.  Swetnick was a college sophomore at the time, and these house parties were held by high school juniors.  There is no explanation why Swetnick was coming to these high school parties.

2.  Swetnick says she knew that there was something spiking the punch so she stayed away from it.  She also knew that there were gang rapes taking place.  So why did she keep coming back to the ten parties.

3.  Swetnick says she herself was raped.  Why did she keep coming back?

4.  There were dozens of women gang raped by dozens of men according to Swetnick.  Why did not a single person report this to the police.  In fact, how could this have been kept quiet through six different FBI investigations of judge kavanaugh?

5.  If all these women were raped by all these men, why are there no corroborating witnesses to confirm Swetnick's story.

6.  Swetnick brought a sexual harassment suit a few years back against a former employer.  Her lawyer was none other than the woman who is now representing Dr. Ford.

On top of all this, however, Politico reports that Swetnick's former boyfriend has to file for a restraining order against Swetnick.  Here's how Politico put what the boyfriend (Mr. Vinneccy) had to say:

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

So not only is her story not credible, but she apparently has lived her life like she was starring in a remake of Fatal Attraction. 

Getting Ready for the Kavanaugh Hearings

Here's a rundown of the key facts you should want to keep in mind during the hearings tomorrow regarding Dr. Ford and Bret Kavanaugh:

1.  The hearings are supposed to be only about Dr. Ford's claims against Kavanaugh.  If you see the Democrats on the committee asking about the other claims made against the judge, that tells you that Dr. Ford's story is falling apart and the Democrats know it.

2.  Ford has consistently said that she cannot recall when the alleged assault happened.  If she comes up with a date or even a narrow range of dates tomorrow, you will know that she is not telling the truth.

3.  Ford has consistently said she cannot remember where the alleged assault happened.  Again, if she suddenly remembers where this took place, you will know that she is not telling the truth.

4.  Ford has varied in her story as to how many others were at the "party" where the assault allegedly happened.  She has gone from "four boys and one other girl" that she told her therapist six years ago, to "two other boys" that she told senator Feinstein, to three boys and a girl that was her story as of ten days ago, etc.  There will surely be questioning about this.  Since three men and a woman who Ford identified have stated under oath that Ford's story is wrong and that they have no memory of the events or even the party she describes ever happening, Ford's view of those present becomes doubly important.

5.  It will be interesting to see who Ford blames for leaking her name to the media.  Hopefully they will ask her if she ever agreed to her name being released to the media.

6.  It will be important to see how credible Ford seems.  Her story falls apart, and one wonders whether or not her credibility will collapse as the questions mount up.

7.  It will also be important to see how Kavanuagh holds up under the questioning from the Democrats on the panel.  If they are overly harsh, they will set up Kavanaugh as a sympathetic figure.

 

Ten Parties???? Really??

We now have the affidavit of Julie Swetnick that is being put forward by her lawyer Michael Avenatti.  Swetnich says that in 1981 and 1982 she went to about ten house parties at which Bret Kavanaugh and his friend spiked the punch with alcohol and drugs to get the women unable to resist.  Then she says the boys all gang raped the women in another room.  Swetnick says that she herself was raped in this manner.  She also says that she avoided the punch because she thought it was spiked.

Here's the problems with this:

1.  It comes out the day before the last hearing.  How convenient.

2.  More important, Swetnick says she went to ten of these house parties over two years.  TEN PARTIES???  She's saying that she went to a party where women were gang raped and then went back nine more times.  Who believes that?  I don't.

Michael Avenatti is Stormy Daniels lawyer.  He's the guy they call creepy porn lawyer on TV.  It's not hard for me to believe that he ginned this entire thing up.

I truly feel bad for Bret Kavanaugh.

Funny Media Attempts To Subvert Kavanaugh

There are some rather humorous attempts in the media today to help the Democrats and to subvert the Kavanaugh nomination for SCOTUS.  Politico is running a story that says that the Democrats on the Senate committee haven't coordinated with Dr. Ford at all ahead of the hearing.  By pushing that line, Politico is trying to insulate the Democrats should Dr. Ford fall apart at the hearing tomorrow.  Politico is also trying to bolster Ford's testimony as being all her own and not something ginned up with the Democrats.  But here's the kicker, in the same article, Politico says that the Democrats have spoken to Dr. Ford's legal team.  Get it?  The communications went through the lawyers, not Ford herself.  In other words, the whole thesis of the article is a lie.

Then we have the "sworn statements" obtained by NBC News from people who "confirm" Ford's story.  The statements are meant to make it look as if Ford's story has some support aside from her patchy memory.  They don't.  These "statements" are from Ford's husband and a friend who say that Ford told them recently of the supposed assault by Kavanaugh before she went public with her allegations.  Think about that.  Were I to tell you all today that I was robbed by Chuck Schumer in 1975, it's not proof that it actually happened.  It corroborates nothing.  That's the rough equivalent of these "statements."

And He Ought To Know Better Than Most

John Hinderacker lives in Minnesota and is one of the founders of Power Line.  I've known John for many years; he's a sharp guy.  He has a great focus on Minnesota politics, among other things.  He is reporting tonight that it appears that the Democrats are starting to edge away from Keith Ellison, the national vice chair of the party and the candidate for Attorney General of Minnesota.  Ellison, of course, has been the target of allegations by a former girlfriend that he abused her physically and mentally.  According to the victim's son, she has video of one episode of abuse in which Ellison actually grabs her by her hair and throws her against a wall.  Further, there are multiple 911 calls in which the victim asks the police to come to her residence to protect her from Ellison.  Despite all this evidence, the Democrats generally ignored the charges.  The mantra that the victim must be believed only applies if the target is a Republican and not a Democrat apparently.  Hinderacker believes that the Dems are throwing Ellison under the bus so as to avoid looking like hypocrites during the current mess with Bret Kavanaugh.

If you want to read Hinderacker's summary, you can get it here. 

Ned Lamont's Plan To Cause Chaos in Fairfield County

Democrat Ned Lamont is finally out with his plan for infrastructure and transportation in the state.  Most of it is the usual rehash of platitudes, but he does have some specific proposals.  One, which has been much discussed in the last few months, is Lamont's idea to put tolls back on CT highways and to use the money raised for infrastructure projects.  It's just another tax dressed up as a remedy for bad roads.

More important, however, is Lamont's plan for passenger railroads across the state.  The biggest point these is Lamont's view as to the future of Metro North.  Here's a direct quote from Lamont's plan:

We can bring travel time from New Haven to New York down to one hour and 15 minutes through improvements to our current line. I also support investment in high speed rail that will bring travel times to under one hour.

That sounds nice, doesn't it.  That is, of course, until you start thinking about what this all would mean.

1.  Cutting travel time to one hour and 15 minutes from New Haven to NYC would require enormous expenditures and purchase of new equipment.  Right now, the trip takes 23 minutes longer on the express trains in the morning.  Further, Metro North is already running to capacity into Grand Central in New York.  There is no way to add capacity easily.  Is it worth spending billions of dollars to save 23 minutes when it would take tens of billions more to be able to increase capacity?  The simple answer is no.

2.  The pledge to put in high speed rail is much more dangerous.  That would not only cost many tens of billions of dollars, but it would also cause major chaos across Fairfield County.  It is possible with major expenditures to raise train speeds so that the trip from New Haven to New York would take less time.  To put in high speed rail, however, the tracks across Connecticut would have to be straightened.  Trains travelling 150 mile per hour can't go around bends without flying off the track.  The tracks of Metro North have many more curves than would be tolerable for a high speed train.  In order to straighten the track hundreds of homes and businesses near the tracks would have to be relocated.  New bridges would have to be built over roads.  The cost could be forty billion dollars and major dislocation in Fairfield county.  And if Lamont wants to have high speed rail across the entire state, then the dislocation along the tracks in eastern CT would be even greater.  East of New Haven, the train lines have even more curves than in Fairfield County.

Lamont's pledge to build high speed rail is nothing more than using one of the Democrats' big talking points of the Obama years.  President Obama pledged high speed rail in just about each State of the Union Address.  It was going to revitalize the economy.  It was going to perform miracles.  Of course, in nearly every instance that individual states looked at the cost and the benefit from high speed rail, the state rejected it.  It costs too much and provides too little.  Indeed, only California made a major commitment to high speed rail.  That commitment in California has so far cost sixty billion dollars and resulted in a high speed line that goes nowhere.  Only the portion out in the farmlands has been built.  There are no plans underway to build the portion of the line that will go into the major cities.  It's just too expensive.

This plan by Lamont shows that he has not thought the matter through.  Once again, his only real plan is to raise taxes, this time by instituting tolls on our highways.  The plan to improve rail service is a non-starter.  Were Lamont actually to carry it out, Connecticut would just have new enormous bills to pay with very little benefit from all those expenditures.  It's a typical Lamont plan.

Iran's Goes Ballistic

Iran's Revolutionary Guards issued a video today which threatens an Iranian attack on the capitals of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as on unspecified targets in Israel.  The Revolutionary Guards are a military force that answers only to the Ayatollah Khamenei; they have total control of Iran's ballistic missile force.  And lest you think that these threats are meaningless, the Revolutionary Guards launched two international missile strikes in recent years:  one on ISIS in Syria and one on a meeting of Kurds in Iraq.

The martial drumbeat from Iran after the recent terrorist attack by Iranian Arab forces has been aimed at convincing the Iranian people that all is fine at home and only foreign agitators are to blame.  At first, the Iranians focused on the USA and Israel, but now they have moved on to the Saudis and the Emiratis.

Just imagine the consequences of a ballistic missile attack on the Saudi or Emirati capital.  Most likely the Iranians would launch a salvo of missiles, say 15.  After all, one could be shot down, and that would be a total embarrassment for Teheran.  Fifteen missiles heading for the Saudi capital, however, would be very difficult to stop.  If only five got through, and if the guidance system kept the missiles on target, the damage could be immense.  Further, a surprise attack on Riyadh would surely catch most of the capital by surprise and could literally kill hundreds or thousands depending on where the missiles strike.  That, of course, is a worst case scenario. 

Even were the missiles all shot down or were they to fall harmlessly in the desert, the consequences would be severe.  There is no way that the Saudis would leave such an attack unpunished.  There would surely be a counter strike.  The Saudis would call upon the USA for help.  The same would be true of the Emiratis although they would be less likely to launch a counter strike. 

Let's consider the alternatives.  The counter strike could target the missile bases.  Those might be difficult to hit particularly if the Iranians have anti-missile defenses.  The strike could also target Iran's government or military in general.  Economic targets like oil facilities or port installations could also get hit.  And rest assured, a Saudi counterstrike would result in another attack by the Iranians.  Things would likely quickly get out of control an move on to war. 

In a war between the Saudis and the Iranians, the critical interests of the USA would be threatened.  US national security depends on maintaining free commerce in the Persian Gulf so that the world's main oil commerce route could stay open.  This is more important to our allies than to the USA, but it is major nevertheless.  In addition, America could not stand by while Iran attacked one of our leading friends in the Arab world. 

My guess is that were the President to seek a declaration of War, Congress would pass one.  No doubt Washington would bend over backwards to avoid the war happening, but it easily could come to that.  Remember, the US has a major navy presence in the Persian Gulf, and Iran would be poised to attack our ships.

This is a scary scenario.  With US involvement, the Iranians would be vanquished rather quickly.  It certainly would be one way to end the Iranian nuclear threat.  The battle would be costly in lives and treasure, though.  It would shake the world economy as oil prices soared through the roof.  It would allow unfriendly actors like the Russians and the Chinese to try to push further into the Middle East.  In short, it is something to be avoided if at all possible.

Hopefully, this is just another one of those threats from Iran which turn out to be completely bogus.  Sometimes, though, these Iranian threats turn out to be real.  Let's hope not this time.

Renate Schroeder Dolphin

Ever hear of a woman named Renate Schroeder Dolphin?  Probably not.  According to the NY Times, however, Dolphin was the target of a vicious boast in the high school yearbook of Bret Kavanaugh and 13 of his classmates.  MSNBC summed it up this way:  Kavanaugh and his friends used the yearbook to call Dolphin a slut.

All this stems from a cryptic note in Kavanaugh's high school yearbook which says only "Renate Alumnius".  That same note appears in 13 other bios in the yearbook.  Renate Schroeder was part of a circle of friends which included these 14 boys.

So that leads to the first question:  what does Renate Alumnius mean?  The Times reports that the boys are bragging that they had slept with Renate.  Really?  The source for the claim is a highly anti-Trump classmate who is a Democrat state senator in Maryland.  He, however, never slept with Renate; he's gay.  When asked about the note, the 14 men who had the note in their yearbook said it had no sexual connotation.  Renate Schroeder was a social leader of their group of friends; that was all.  Everyone of these men said they never slept with Renate in high school or thereafter, a fact that the Times omitted.  I guess the reporters couldn't put the basic denial of their entire story into the article.

And what does Renate Schroeder Dolphin say?  She sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting the nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and praising him as a fine man.  Got that?  The supposed victim has no complaint about the yearbook entry.  She has no thought that these boys "shamed" her 36 years ago.  She knew what they were talking about, and the speculation from the Democrat activist state senator is wrong.  And by the way, this is another thing that the Times left out of its story.

Let's just file this one under Fake News.

A Moment of Pure Lunacy

Last night, senator Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi went for dinner to a restaurant in Washington.  After they got to the restaurant, a crowd "spontaneously" gathered inside the establishment to threaten Cruz and his wife and to chant some rather nasty things and to announce "we believer survivors".  Got that?  Cruz was being confronted because the crowd "believes" dr. Ford rather than Bret Kavanaugh.

This was a preplanned attack.  We know that busloads of Antifa members went to DC yesterday to pave the way to Thursday's hearings by the Senate Judiciary committee.  It's not much of a logical jump to assume that the first Antifa outing was this disgusting display of attempted mob rule.  Even if it was not Antifa, however, it surely was something that was planned in advance.  There was no other way to get that group of protesters to the restaurant so quickly unless they either followed Cruz there or somehow got advanced notice of where he was dining.

I wonder if the protesters understand the impact of what they are doing.  I think it is fair to say that most Americans are decent people who recoil from attacking the senator and his wife for any reason.  No matter how the Kavanaugh nomination turns out, no reasonable person sees an attack like this as appropriate.  In America, political disagreements are supposed to be discussed and then voted upon, not fought out in the streets by thugs.  My guess is that particularly in Texas this attack will actually help Cruz and the Republicans.  I'm surprised that Cruz' Democrat opponent in the November senate election hasn't condemned the attackers.  I guess when part of your base consists of violent crazies you can't condemn them without doing serious damage to your position.  As for the rest of America, these thugs have once again confirmed something that has been on display for a while:  the Democrats as a group have lost their minds.  The Kavanaugh battle is being waged by the Dems more like World War III than a political dispute.  All those people who voted for Trump two years ago because they couldn't stand things like Hillary's famous dismissal of them as a "basket of deplorables" are being reminded just why they dislike and distrust the left so much.

UPDATE:  I just saw the headline on Yahoo News about this disgusting confrontation in the restaurant.  According to Yahoo News, Cruz and his wife were "heckled".  That's actually the word Yahoo uses.  It just further reinforces the basic truth that the mainstream media is hopelessly biased.  Heckling is defined as interrupting a public speaker with derisive comments.  It doesn't include threats of physical violence visited by a crowd of thugs upon a couple who are quietly having dinner at a restaurant.  That's called an attack.  By the standards of Yahoo News, they would call attempted murder by a street gang an "unhappy meeting".

The Odds of Ford Showing Up Are Getting Worse

For all the reports of an "agreement" that Dr. Ford will testify on Thursday, it is seeming more and more likely that she won't show.  Tonight, Ford's high powered Democrat-activist lawyer sent a letter to the senate committee denouncing the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for saying that Kavanaugh would get a vote in the Senate.  How dare he say that!  It makes the hearing a travesty, right?  And then there's a batch of new demands about how the hearing will be conducted on Thursday.  In other words, Dr. Ford's lawyer is setting up the scenario in which she refuses to appear because the committee and the Senate has been unfair.

The truth is that if Ford doesn't show on Thursday, it is a very good indicator that she has been knowingly lying all along.  As of now, she has never told her story under oath or even to a federal investigator.  That means she has never lied in a situation which would make her criminally liable.  If she doesn't show for to testify, one can only assume that she doesn't want to risk being arrested for perjury.  Remember, in the Mueller probe, General Flynn and some of the others did nothing wrong, but the got convicted of lying to an FBI agent. 

What does Ford have to hide.  If she's telling the truth, she should show up and tell her story to America. 

Do The Iranians Actually Believe This?

Here's a short blurb of a report from Iran about the recent terrorist attack:

The deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned US and Israeli leaders on Monday to expect a "devastating" response from Tehran, accusing them of involvement in an attack on a military parade in the city of Ahvaz.

I understand that the mullahs cannot accept or even give credence to the idea that it was Iranians who committed the terrorism because of grievances with the theocratic regime in Teheran.  Still, I wonder if the Iranian public actually believes that the USA and/or Israel had any involvement in the attack.  It's a nutty idea, but it's the sort of nutty idea that could actually start a war.

Too Much Even For The Mainstream Media

The hit piece by Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker in which Deborah Ramirez accuses Judge Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a drunken party when they were freshmen at Yale is under fire from the mainstream media.  Wow!  An article designed to torpedo the Kavanaugh nomination is actually drawing fire from the New York Times and a mega-Democrat on ABC.

When the story dropped in the New Yorker, the Times reported on it, but in the middle of the article it said this:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

 

Think about that.  The NY Times itself couldn't stand the idea of reporting a story which no one could back up and about which the complaining woman herself wasn't sure.  Maybe there is some journalistic instinct left at the Times.

 

That was followed by ABC where former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos interviewed Ronan Farrow on Good Morning America this morning.  Stephanopoulos challenged Ronan Farrow about the lack of witnesses.  Farrow admitted he had no eyewitnesses but claimed that some people who knew Kavanaugh at Yale said it was “possible.”

 

There you have it.  Ramirez says she was totally drunk and admitted that she wasn't sure if the guy involved was Kavanaugh.  No one -- that's right no one -- backs up her story by saying that they were there and saw this happen.  Some people, on the other hand, say they were there but Kavanaugh did not do what Ramirez claims.  And even ABC News and a mega-Democrat couldn't let this smear soil Kavanaugh's reputation like this.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee should just cancel all the hearings and vote today to confirm Kavanaugh.  He has been through enough.

Right on Schedule

Within a half hour of the Ramirez accusations appearing in the New Yorker on line, senator Feinstein called for cancellation of any further hearings for Kavanaugh and sending the whole mess to the FBI (which of course won't investigate it.)

It's hard to imagine a more transparent political charade than this.  Dr. Ford's story collapses.  All the supposed witnesses to what happened support Kavanaugh.  Now, Kavanaugh has found his calendars from the summer of 1982 that show that he was out of town with his parents for nearly all the summer.  The events that are detailed in his calendar for the remainder of the summer of 1982 don't match anything like the party Ford described.  In other words, Ford is either confused or lying.  Nothing happened with Kavanaugh.  At that point, the Democrats can't have Ford testify.  That would make it clear to America that Kavanaugh is vindicated.  As a result, right on schedule, the second woman comes forward.  This one took six days of talking with her lawyer before she could remember for sure that Kavanaugh supposedly exposed himself to her while she was dead drunk as a freshman in college.  And just like that, the Democrats demand that the hearings be cancelled.

I hope Grassley and the other Republicans have the courage to hold Thursday's hearings and to let America watch the Ford story get demolished.  Then, I hope they just go ahead and vote on the nomination.  These last minute games by the Dems should not be allowed to blacken the name of a good man nor stop the process to put him on the Supreme Court.

Again? The Next Accuser for Kavanaugh Steps Forward

Just when it seemed that Dr. Ford's story had completely collapsed, a second woman has stepped forward to claim that Bret Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a drunken party during their freshman year at Yale.  As the Church Lady used to say on SNL, "How convenient!"

This new woman who is named Ramirez says that she and some friends were playing a drinking game in a room in the freshman residence at Yale.  She was highly drunk, and one of the guys put a dildo on the table.  Then Bret Kavanaugh exposed himself and asked Ramirez to kiss his penis.  She didn't, but she touched it as she pushed him away.  Everyone laughed at that point, and one of the guys yelled to tell everyone in the dorm what had just happened.

This all is supposed to have happened 36 years ago.  Until now, Ramirez never went to the police or filed a complaint of any sort.

The question arises why she waited until so late in the Kavanaugh confirmation process to say anything.  Ramirez' answer is that she was unsure of her memory because she was drunk at the time.  She also wasn't sure if it was Bret Kavanaugh who exposed himself.  After six days of thinking it over and speaking to her attorney, however, she concluded that it really was Kavanaugh.

Most of the other people identified as being at this drinking party were questioned and said it did not happen.  One person, however, says that she recalls being told of it.  Perhaps the most important witness, however, is a woman who was Ramirez' best friend in college and for years thereafter.  She says that she and Ramirez shared all their intimate secrets.  She also says that she never heard of any story involving Kavanaugh until now.

For his part, Kavanagh says this never happened.  He denies it completely.

So where does this leave the nomination.  Without a doubt the Ford story has collapsed.  Kavanaugh would have been confirmed next week.  The Democrats needed another reason for delay.  And now we have this second woman who conveniently tells her story to Ronan Farrow and the New Yorker just as Ford's story collapses.

Ramirez is not someone who is unaware of just who Kavanaugh is and of his nomination to the Supreme Court.  If Ramirez story is true and she is coming forward now because of his nomination, then there is no explanation why she waited until the hearings had ended and the vote on his nomination was imminent.  She could have come forward months ago.  She has no explanation for this.

I don't believe her as of now.  The whole story reeks of political opportunism.  Hopefully there will be no further delays.  The vote should go ahead now.

The Next Bogus Claim Regarding Ford-Kavanaugh

As things have proceeded in the drama surrounding the tentative hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Dr. Ford's allegations against Bret Kavanaugh, new claims keep popping up.  Most are complete nonsense and do not even merit comment, but there is one new one that is so idiotic that some explanation is needed.

Here's the claim.  I first heard this claim being pushed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, although I can't be certain that she is the original source.  The Democrats/media chorus is saying that even if Bret Kavanaugh is confirmed, he could still be investigated and arrested for sexual assault by the state of  Maryland.  The supposed attack is said by Dr. Ford to have taken place somewhere in Chevy Chase, MD.  The local county government is run by the Democrats, so the local prosecutor could investigate Kavanaugh were Ford to file a criminal complaint (something she never did).  Then, even were Kavanaugh a sitting Supreme Court Justice, he could be arrested on any resulting charges.  At that point, he could be impeached and removed from SCOTUS.

This is nonsense.  Prosecutors don't bring charges that have no chance of success.  In fact, it would be an ethical violation for the local prosecutor to bring a charge that he or she knows cannot be successful in court.  Right now, think of what the prosecutor would have:

1.  Dr. Ford says there was an attempted attack.  She can't remember where or when it happened.  She says she didn't tell anyone of the attack at the time, so there cannot be any corroboration there.  She cannot recall how she got to the party or how she got home afterwards.

2.  Kavanaugh denies the attack or even being at the party Ford described.

3.  Ford put three other people at the party, two boys and one girl.  All three have now stated under oath that they have no memory of any attack happening or, indeed, any party as described happening.  One witness, a long time friend of Ford, says that she has never even met Bret Kavanaugh.  That means that all the other possible witnesses support Kavanaugh's story.

4.  There is no physical evidence of any sort.  Even had there been some at the time, it is now gone after 36 years, and police don't even know where to look to find it.

5.  Ford has a motive to attack Kavanaugh.  She is a Democrat activist who has said that she hates the President.  Beating Kavanaugh would be a blow to Trump.  Further, Ford's parents were defendants in a foreclosure action brought by a bank to take the home of Ford's parents.  Kavanaugh's mother was the judge who presided in that action. 

If you put these facts together, you have a case that would be dismissed by a judge because the prosecutors could never prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, it seems more likely than not that Ford's story is wrong and Kavanaugh is innocent.  No reasonable prosecutor would ever bring this case.

On top of this, you also have the issue of the statute of limitations.  After the supposed attack 36 years ago or so, the statute of limitations expired in Maryland.  That means that Kavanaugh could not be prosecuted even were he to admit to the attack (which he has not).  Not long ago, Maryland changed that law to provide that there will no longer be a statute of limitations for sex attacks.  That change cannot reopen a matter for prosecution, however.  Only those alleged crimes that were not yet barred due to the statute of limitations were affected.

In summary, this whole claim of possible state prosecution is a bogus falsehood.  Anyone with any understanding of how our legal system works would understand this.  It's just one more lame attempt to smear Kavanaugh.

Amazing Mazie

Mazie Hirono is a little known Democrat senator from Hawaii.  As the Ford-Kavanaugh matter has progressed, however, she is making a name for herself as both a staunch defender of Ford as well as a complete idiot.

First, when Ford came forward, Hirono told America's men that they had better shut up and let only women respond to Ford's charges.  Men, you see, are disqualified from having an opinion or stating that view if a woman is charging a man with a sex-related crime.  We have to believe the accuser, no matter what she says and no matter what the evidence shows, at least according to the amazing Mazie.

Today, Jake Tapper asked Hirono on the CNN Sunday morning news show whether or not Judge Kavanaugh was entitled to the presumption of innocence.  You know the question:  Is Judge Kavanaugh innocent until proven guilty?

Here's Hirono's answer:  “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases”

Let's look at that response for a moment.  Here's a US senator saying that a judge is not presumed innocent because of what he has said in the decisions he has rendered.  Hirono doesn't like Kavanaugh's conservative legal stance so she doesn't want him to have constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I truly wonder if Hirono believes this (in which case she is not qualified to be a senator) or if this is just a political stance to keep her in line with the Democrats' anti-Kavanaugh position (in which case she is not qualified to be a senator.)  It's fine for her to take any political position she wants, but when a senator starts advocating for individuals to lose their constitutional rights based upon their political views, it crosses the line.

 

When There's No American Diplomats Available

After the terrorist attack on an Iranian military parade that killed at least 29, the Iranian government summoned the diplomats from the UK, the Netherlands and Denmark to explain why those countries "harbor" the group that carried out the attack.  It's a ploy by the mullahs to try to find someone other than themselves to blame for letting that attack happen.  Think about it.  So far, no one has been arrested for carrying out the attack and there is no hard evidence as to the identity of the attackers.  The first response from the mullahs was to blame the USA even though that is patently ridiculous.  America may desire to see the mullahs replaced, but we don't organize terrorist attacks.  That is, rather, what the Iranians do themselves.  And there are no American diplomats in Iran, so the mullahs went for the next best target, western Europeans.  The UK is an old standby target from the days of the British Empire, but Holland and Denmark?  Really?  Blaming Holland and Denmark is about the same as giving Japan credit for the demise of ISIS.  Japan said some things that denounced ISIS and may have provided some measure of moral support to the effort to eradicate the terrorist group, but the Japanese actually were uninvolved in destroying ISIS.

The Iranian mullahs have a major problem:  unrest among their own population.  The Iranian economy is collapsing.  The currency has declined in value by more than 50% since the USA pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal.  Prices in Iran are rising at a rate close to 100% annually.  There are anti-government marches all across the country despite some rather brutal tactics used by the mullahs to stop them.  Iranian oil exports are falling, and that means less foreign currency for the mullahs.  Even the pallets of cash that Obama sent to the mullahs as part of the nuclear deal are either gone or running out.  Iranian deaths continue in Syria as their forces help the Assad regime.  That may be important to the imperialistic mullahs, but the average Iranian doesn't care about Assad.  All this has now led to a terrorist attack on the parade.  That attack could be the spark that starts many more or even the overthrow of the government.  Teheran is facing a major crisis.

Most likely, we will now see a major bout of repression from the mullahs.  My prediction is that protesters will no longer be arrested, but rather shot.  That repression will either work and plunge the country into a police state horror, or it will lead to the opposite effect and foment an uprising such as happened in Syria when Assad used snipers to take out random protesters who were marching for change.  Either course is bad for the Iranian people.

UPDATE:  As if it wasn't already bad enough, the Iranian government and the armed forces have vowed "revenge" against those who "support" the terrorists.  With Iran, one never knows if that means that we will soon see some sort of revenge attack or if this is just a statement made for internal consumption. 

Dr. Ford's Story Unravels Completely

In the midst of all the back and forth over whether or not Dr. Ford will testify to the Senate committee about her claims regarding Bret Kavanaugh, most people have missed the fact that her story has completely fallen apart.  Think about it.

1.  Dr. Ford claims that Kavanaugh attempted to molest her at a party where there were five people present.  Those five are Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge, and one other guy and one girl.  Ford identified these people when she spoke to the Washington Post for the big splashy article laying out her claims against Kavanaugh.  Kavanaugh denies doing anything to Ford and even denies being at the party.  Judge says he knows of no instance where Kavanaugh did anything to Ford, and he doesn't remember the party either.  Now both of the other two have come forward and said that they know of no such incident.  Indeed the woman that Ford puts at the party not only says that she remembers no party and no events like the ones described by Ford, but she goes further and says that she doesn't know Kavanaugh and has never even met him.  Each of these four people who Ford puts at the party gave statements under oath to Congressional investigators saying the party and the attack never happened.  Lying on those statements would be a felony.  That means that each person that Ford puts at the party has given a sworn statement except for Dr. Ford herself.  If she repeats her story under oath, it will be her word against four others.

2.  Dr. Ford has no other details that corroborate her story.  She can't remember where or when the party took place.  She still can't remember how she got there or how she got home after the supposed party.  She says she told no one about what had happened, so there's no one to come forward to confirm at least that something happened in 1982 (whether or not it involved Kavanaugh.)

The only evidence is Ford's hazy memory of what happened at this supposed party.  I say hazy because I will still give her the benefit of the doubt that these are not intentional lies.  Still, absent something more, there is no way to believe Ford at this point.  There are just too many holes in her story.

So Now She Will Testify -- Supposedly

In the world of nonsense that is Washington, the big news of the hour is that Dr. Ford has agreed "in principle" to testify.  There are still negotiations on certain conditions, however.

It's hard to imagine a more bizarre way for this whole mess to unroll.  It took days of negotiations, unchangeable deadlines, and extensions of time for the accuser to agree actually to testify.  When she finally agreed, she castigated the committee for leaks and bullying.  It was surreal.

Think about it.  The leaks here came from senator Feinstein or her chief of staff.  They were the only ones who knew Dr. Ford's name, so when her identity surfaced, it had to come from them.  Nevertheless, Ford blames the Republicans for leaks even though they didn't even know her name.  And as for bullying, this too is a bizarre charge.  Ford demanded that the regular rules of the committee be abandoned so that new rules she specified could be used.  It is the rough equivalent of a baseball team demanding that they get six outs each inning rather than just three.  Things like that don't happen.  The senate rules have been in place for centuries.  When the committee insisted on following those Senate rules, it is not bullying.  The senators also demanded that Ford make a decision on testifying by a deadline which they extended three times.  That too hardly seems like bullying.

The truth is that by falsely accusing the Republican majority on the committee of improper behavior, Dr. Ford and her team seem more involved with politics than with caring at all about her telling her story.

Since there is no final agreement on Ford's testimony, it seems likely that this is not the last of the back and forth between Ford and the committee.  I wonder if she will ultimately testify or if she will put out at the last minute after claiming constant mistreatment by the committee. 

Attack in Iran

In the last few hours, there was an attack on a military parade in Ahvaz in Iran.  The parade is an annual event run by the government.  The attack was carried out by a group of men dressed as Iranian soldiers.  They sprayed gunfire into the soldiers marching by, into the grandstand holding government officials, and into the crowd watching the parade.  As of now, there are 24 confirmed dead, but that death toll is likely to rise.  There has been unrest inside Iran for the last year, but this is the first mass attack of this sort as far as we know.

It is unknown who carried out the attack.  Most likely, it is a group of local separatist Iranian Arabs who have been sabotaging oil pipelines and facilities.  It could also be a dissident group, although one would think that these attackers would focus more on the soldiers and the government officials and not on the crowd.  We may learn more as the day progresses.

I was struck though by the Iranian government announcement that blamed the attack on terrorists "recruited by foreign powers" especially the USA.  No matter what happens in Iran that is bad, the government blames the USA.  It's bizarre.  While I'm sure that the US government would not be unhappy were there to be regime change in Iran, I'm also sure that the US did not organize a terrorist attack on a military parade.  I'm also sure that none of the other governments in the region did that either.  Indeed, this sort of attack sounds more like something the Iranian government would do than something from outside Iran.

One does have to wonder if this attack is just the first of many.  Is Iran going to be hit by a wave of the sort of terrorism that it supports abroad?  Is there going to be an uprising there?  Is this just a one-off?  The answer has profound implications for many nations, not just Iran.  For example, were the Iranians to perceive a threat to their government, they might withdraw their forces from Syria and bring them home to guard Teheran.
 

Recognizing The Games For What They Are

When you look at what has happened in the week since Dr. Ford's name was leaked and her claims regarding Bret Kavanaugh were spread across the media, it seems hard to imagine that Dr. Ford is being advised by a big shot Democrat DC lawyer and all manner of Democrat political operatives.  Ford's advisers have a great deal of experience in Washington politics.  They should have positioned her to come across better.  Instead, Ford's team has managed to take step after step that makes her story look weaker, not stronger.

Consider this:
1.  When the story was leaked by the Democrats to the media (supposedly against Dr. Ford's wishes), Ford came forward an said she wanted to tell her story to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Her advisers demanded that the committee reopen its hearings on Kavanaugh for further testimony by Ford. 
2.  The Chair of the Committee, senator Grassley, agreed that Ford could come and testify and set a hearing for next Monday.  In other words, the senator gave Ford what she said she wanted.  So far so good for Ford.  America was awaiting the hearing in order to hear Ford's version of what happened and Kavanaugh's response.
3.  At this point, the first bizarre twist came from Ford.  She no longer wanted a hearing.  Instead, she wanted an FBI investigation.  Sure, there was nothing to investigate, and the FBI had no basis to perform an investigation and so stated, but Ford's people said that only an FBI investigation would be fair.  There was no way Ford could testify without the FBI first having a thorough investigation.
4.  The senate committee rightly said no to this.  It would be ridiculous to have an investigation that was guaranteed to produce nothing.  They told this to Ford, but she didn't respond for a few days. 
5.  When Ford finally responded she changed her position once again.  Now there was no need for a prior FBI investigation.  Ford could testify if there were protection for her and if certain rather bizarre conditions were met.  Ford's lawyer outlined those conditions in a letter.  Oh, and there couldn't be a hearing on Monday; that was just inconvenient.
6.  Despite the onerous conditions, the committee negotiated at length with Dr. Ford's advisers.  Some conditions were accepted and some were rejected by the committee.  The committee made its position clear yesterday.  It was now up to Ford whether or not she would testify.  The committee set a deadline of 10 am Friday.
7.  Ford claimed she needed more time to consider her response.  The committee moved the deadline back from 10 this morning to 10 this evening.  Senator Grassley said, however, that this was the final deadline.  Absent an agreement for Ford to appear, the committee would vote on the nomination on Monday.
8.  At that point, one would think that Ford would just say yes.  That would give her the chance to tell her story to America and to the senators.  That was supposedly her goal, after all.
9.  Instead, tonight at a few minutes before the deadline expired, Ford's lawyers wrote to the committee to ask for more time and to chastise the committee for mistreating poor Dr. Ford.   It is a travesty of a letter.  But forgetting the content, the very idea of trying again to delay the hearings is so transparent that it leads a reasonable person to question Dr. Ford's motives.  Does she want to tell her story to America or is she just playing a game to try to delay or prevent the Kavanaugh nomination?
10.  The response from the committee was to set the vote on the nomination for Monday.  Maybe something will change, but right now it seems as if there will be no hearing.  Ford will never testify.

I've practiced law for more decades than I care to admit.  I've seen hundreds of lawyers play all sorts of games in negotiations.  Few of those lawyers, however, were as clumsy in their presentation and strategy as the Ford lawyers.  They let Ford take positions that contradicted each other.  The presented demands that the average person would understand went way beyond anything that would normally be considered reasonable.  They made Ford look like a strange sort of person and not a very trustworthy one at that.

I don't know what, if anything, happened to Dr. Ford all those years ago in Maryland.  In fact, no one who is included in the mob that is busily writing and giving opinions about the whole mess knows what, if anything, actually happened.  All Dr. Ford had going for her was her credibility.  And it is that credibility that her team of advisers has frittered away with these stupid games regarding her testimony.  They've take a sympathetic woman and made her look shifty.

 

The New Definition of "Fairness"

In our topsy-turvy modern America, we often find that things change quickly.  Words are one of those oft changing items.  We all know that words that once were fine are now denounced as not just wrong but unforgivable insults or slurs.  Think, for example, of the term "illegal alien".  That means someone who is in this country illegally.  It is the legal term used in the US Code.  It has been used by the government and most Americans for at least the last century.  Now, anyone who uses illegal alien is branded a racist and a xenophobe by the left and gets denounced as anti-immigrant.  Immigrants, you see, now must include those here legally as well as those here illegally. 

I was reminded of the frequent changes in meaning for words today by the latest word to switch meanings:  "fairness".  Fairness used to be something judged by an objective standard.  Certain procedures were judged to be "fair".  They were even enshrined in our Constitution.  Certain behavior was also judged to be fair.  But that was so yesterday.  Today, "fairness" now means whatever the Democrats and the media say it means, and the opposite of whatever the Republicans do.  Think about it.  When Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats to the media, she said she wanted to tell her story to the Senate.  The Democrat/media chorus started screaming that a denial of a hearing for Ford by the Republicans would be "unfair".  Forget that the only reason that Ford had not testified during the prior hearings was that the Democrats sat on her accusations and held them until just before the final vote, the Republicans were being unfair unless new hearings were called and Ford got her day to tell her story.  When the Republicans responded by scheduling the hearing Ford had requested, she backed away.  It seemed she would not appear.  At that point, the Democrat/media chorus announced that holding the hearings requested by Ford would be unfair to Ford and to all women.  "Fairness" had changed meanings in just a few days.  But that was not the last change.  Yesterday, Ford said she would come to the hearings but not on the date scheduled and only on conditions that would make the hearings "fair".  And what are those conditions?  First, she won't testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room.  Ford is accusing Kavanaugh of a crime, but she doesn't want him there when she explains those charges.  The Constitution guarantees each American (even older white males accused of sexual harassment) the right to "confront" his or her accuser.  That means that the accused (Kavanaugh here) gets to hear the testimony of the person making the charges.  As a society we have enshrined that rule as part of fundamental fairness in our system.  But not so among the Democrat/media chorus.  For them, allowing Kavanaugh to be present would be unfair.  A second condition is that Kavanaugh must testify first.  This too is bizarre.  In every proceeding in America, the accuser or the plaintiff goes first; the defendant (Kavanaugh here) goes second.  It's logical.  The defendant has to respond to what the accuser says, so he or she has to first hear exactly what that is.  Not fair, scream the Democrats/media.  Once again, fairness has changed.  Another condition is that there can be no questions from lawyers for the committee.  That sort of questioning is frequently done in situations like this.  The whole point is to get someone with the skills to pin down the truth rather than a bunch of blow hard senators.  That practice has been considered fair for centuries.  Today, the Democrat/media chorus don't just want it to be changed; they label it as unfair.

The truth is that fairness has now been changed to mean something that will give an advantage to Ford and her Democrat allies.  Finding the truth is not considered fair.  Consideration of the effect of these charges on Judge Kavanaugh is not considered fair.  Fairness has been redefined by the Democrat/media chorus as something that is outcome determinative.  If it helps Ford and damages Kavanaugh it is, by new definition, "fair".  On the other hand, if it helps Kavanaugh or damages Ford, it is by new definintion, "unfair".

The Democrats can scream all they want about unfairness.  I don't think the American people are buying it.  We know what's fair and what's unfair, and it isn't what the Democrats and media say.

A Worthwhile Reminder

I just watched a bit of the speech President Trump is giving to a rally in Las Vegas.  The rally is to support the re-election effort for Republican senator Dean Heller of Nevada.  The things that the President had to say in the portion of the rally that I saw were not much different from the speeches he has given at previous rallies.  Even so, it was important to see the speech.  There were a number of things that make it so.

1.  The crowd was immense.  I don't know the exact venue, but it was in one of those giant Vegas arenas.  The people were crammed in wall to wall.  We'll get an official estimate later, but on TV it looked like there were at least 15,000 people there.

2.  The crowd was incredibly enthusiastic.  It was clear that these were true Trump supporters.  This was not like the dull speech that Obama gave in California a few weeks back.  The small crowd that Obama drew applauded politely.  The huge crowd that Trump drew was going crazy.

3.  These were not people who were only excited because Trump is the President of the United States.  They were a large group of people who were completely in tune with what the President was saying.  They clearly want the border wall built.  They clearly are ecstatic over the economy.  Whatever Trump mentioned, the crowd often started chanting phrases of support.

So why is this important?  The answer is that this was a reminder of reality.  For too long we Americans get our news from the mainstream media.  That coverage is focused on Washington and it lets politicians say things without there being any hint of the popular reaction to the positions being taken.  Instead, we get the thoughtful musings of the pundits or the screaming talking points from one of those panels that populate the cable news programs.  In other words, we get the media allies of the Democrats who tell us over and over what we are supposed to believe about the news of the day.  The Trump rally, like the many others this year, show that there is a warm reception out there in the real America for the President and his policies.  Despite the viewpoint of the pundit/panel members, the vast bulk of America is NOT made up of far left, socialists who hate Trump.  There is, as shown by these rallies, a huge base of support for the President and the GOP.

It reminded me of 2016.  In the presidential election, Trump drew enormous crowds to rally after rally.  Hillary ran a much more sedate campaign, drew much smaller crowds but relied on the polls and how they showed that her victory was inevitable.  Except the polls were wrong!  All those crowds came out to vote and Trump carried all sorts of states that the pundits and the panel members told us he could never win.

I wonder whether the enthusiasm shown in Las Vegas tonight is going to last through election day.  If Trump can bring out the same crowds for the GOP in November that he did in 2016, the election won't even be close; it will be a Republican runaway victory. 

Eshoo Points To Feinstein

Congressman Eshoo is the California Democrat who was first told by Dr. Ford of her allegations against Bret Kavanaugh.  Today, she unintentionally made clear that the leak of Dr. Ford's identity to the media almost certainly had to come from senator Feinstein's office.  Eshoo told the media that she had met with Ford in July when Ford first raised the matter.  Because of Dr. Ford's fear of being exposed as the accuser, Eshoo says that no one in her office other than one very senior aide knew the nature of Ford's story.  Eshoo and the aide took great pains to keep the story confidential.  They are the ones who told senator Feinstein about the allegations.

If one believes Eshoo, the only source for the leak to the media would be Feinstein's office or Dr. Ford herself.  It seems most likely that Ford didn't out herself.  If she wanted to do that, she could have come forward in July.  It also seems likely that Eshoo is telling the truth.  There would be no reason for her to keep the whole matter confidential for months only to blab now.  She turned it over to Feinstein to handle because DiFi is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Now we don't know if senator Feinstein herself was the source of the leak or if one her staff took that step.  You can be pretty sure, however, that no staffer leaked Dr. Ford's identity without first clearing that with the senator.  That would be a firing offense in DC.

Women and Moderates, Really?

The new line from the Democrat supporting media is that the Bret Kavanaugh - Dr. Ford mess will hurt Republicans with women and moderates.  That surely seems strange to me, but again I have to confess that I am neither a woman nor a moderate.  Indeed, for the mainstream media, I would be characterized as some sort of devil; I'm a white, male conservative.  (Oh, the horror!)

Think about what we've seen in the last week.  Dr. Ford's name was leaked by a Democrat to out her in the media as the Kavanaugh accuser.  We don't know which Democrat leaked the name, but we do know that only senator Feinstein and a California congressman (both Democrats) knew the name, so the choice for the source of the leak makes clear which party did it.  Will women hold it against the GOP that the Democrats forced this woman into the public arena against her will (supposedly)?  I don't see it.

Then there's the committee hearing stuff.  When the leak first happened, Dr. Ford stated through her attorney that she was prepared to come and testify and the Democrats demanded a hearing.  When the Republicans said they thought a hearing should be held, the Democrats backed off and asked for a closed door hearing.  When the Republicans said fine, there could be a closed door hearing, Ford backed away again.  Now, the Republicans are offering Ford a public hearing, a private hearing, a conference with the committee staff in DC or one at her home in California.  As of now, Ford is refusing to attend any of these.  To make matters worse, senator Feinstein is now refusing even to show the Republican senators a copy of the original letter written by Dr. Ford that started all this.  Imagine her office most likely leaked that letter to the media, but she won't show it to the other senators on the Judiciary Committee.  So will moderates be angry at the GOP over this?  How about women?  Again, I don't see it.

I think that fair minded people all across America will see this as a naked political move by the Democrats.  They attacked Kavanaugh through Dr. Ford who was at worst a willing participant and at best an innocent victim of the Democrats' plan.  No one who is not already a strident Democrat partisan would look at these events and blame the GOP.  After all, what did the GOP senators do wrong?  Offer Ford the hearing she demanded?  Agree that she could testify behind closed doors as she demanded?  The only thing that can be held against the GOP would be their refusal to delay the hearing for an FBI investigation, which the FBI already says will not take place.

The truth is that I think the latest view from the left is nothing more than wishful thinking.  They shot themselves in the foot in this Ford-Kavanaugh mess.  Indeed, at the moment, it looks like the Democrats have pretty much guaranteed a Republican senate after the November elections.