Maybe They Can Hold Their Breath

I'm truly confused by the strategy being followed by the Democrats in the Senate, particularly those on the Judiciary Committee. 

1.  First, they complained for months that they were not getting enough information on Judge Kavanaugh.  Then it turns out that they had the letter from Dr. Ford with its severe allegations and just sat on it for two months.  Surely, if the allegations needed to be investigated, then the Dems should have given the letter to the FBI and gotten the investigation started.

2.  The explanation from Senator Feinstein as to why she did not do anything with Dr. Ford's letter other than sit on it, is that Dr. Ford wanted to stay anonymous.  Nevertheless, after the confirmation hearings had concluded, senator Feinstein turned the letter over to the FBI (minus the name of the woman making the allegations) and also announced publically that she had done this.  Ford's desires hadn't changed.  Feinstein just decided to ignore Ford's wishes at that point.  We still have gotten no explantion why Ford's wishes were honored for two months but then ignored by the Democrats.  Needless to say, this conduct makes Feinstein and the Democrats look bad.

3.  A few days ago, someone leaked Dr. Ford's name to the media.  We don't know who that was, but we can be certain that the leaker was a Democrat affiliated with Feinstein or the Democrats.  It couldn't come from the FBI or law enforcement; they hadn't been given the name of Dr. Ford.  It couldn't be from a Republican senator; they too had not been given the name.  Supposedly there were only two people who knew Dr. Ford's name:  senator Feinstein, and the Democrat congressman to whom Ford originally sent her letter.  One of them had to be the leaker.  Again, it makes the Dems look bad that they kept Ford's name out of the press for two months only to leak it at a time when it would create the maximum political uproar. 

4.  As soon as Ford's name was leaked, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee demanded that more hearings be held at which Ford could testify and Kavanaugh could be further questioned.  It was not a request; it was a strident demand.  The Republicans on the committee responded by agreeing that there should be a hearing and scheduling it for Monday.  The Democrats should have been happy that their demands were met, but instead they began trying to prevent the hearings.  Dr. Ford, who at first said she wanted to testify, changed her position to refusing to testify unless there were first a full FBI investigation.  The Democrats on the committee chimed in to support such an investigation.  So the Dems got what they said they wanted and then changed their position to no longer want it.

5.  Of course, there really is nothing to investigate.  Ford can't say where or when the supposed misconduct by Kavanaugh took place.  She can't identify anyone else who was there except for one guy who says he has no memory of any such thing happening.  Ford says she told no one about the attack, so there's no corroborating statements to collect.  And this happened so long ago that there's no need for a forensic examination (if the FBI actually were told what location to investigate.)  The Dems keep demanding an investigation, though.

The games being played by the Dems have now managed to destroy their own position.  There were three Republican senators who had come out in favor of hearings and full disclosure as a condition to holding a vote.  Each of senators Flake, Collins and Corker have now said that if Ford doesn't come to testify on Monday, the committee should just go ahead and vote on the nomination without anything further happening.

What in the world are the Democrats doing?  Do they actually care about finding out the truth of Ford's accusations?  Or, are the Democrats just trying to delay confirmation of Kavanaugh in the hopes of somehow stopping it at a later date?  It sure looks like delay is their hope rather than finding the truth.

The show put on the by Democrats looks much more like a temper tantrum than the behavior of senators.  Maybe they will all decide to hold their breath until they get their way.  I hope so.  If they do that, at least they will stop talking.

The Kavanaugh Mess Unravels Further -- Ford Is Clearly Unbelievable

It hasn't been long since Dr. Ford was identified as the woman who claims she was the victim of a sex attack from Bret Kavanaugh while in high school.  At first, she got support from all the people who say that we have to believe the woman in these cases.  She has rapidly managed to undermine that support, however, and reveal herself as part of an effort to block Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Here's what we know that really undermines her story:

1.  Dr. Ford sent a letter to a congressman in July outlining her story.  The Congressman sent that letter to senator Feinstein also in July but she just sat on the story.  Dr. Ford, you see, did not want her identity disclosed or for the story to become public.

2.  Through the rest of July, all of August and the first third of September, there was no mention of this story.  Dr. Ford's wishes were honored by senator Feinstein. 

3.  In mid August, Dr. Ford hired a high powered Democrat lawyer in Washington, DC.  Ford lives in California, but she got a DC lawyer.  That lawyer is someone who has been involved in sexual abuse and harassment cases in the past.  She was outspoken in her defense of Democrats and her condemnation of Republicans when those people were accused of sexual abuse.  A few weeks later, the lawyer supposedly arranged for Dr. Ford to take a lie detector test.  Although we don't know who administered this test, we have all been told by Dr. Ford's lawyer that Ford passed.

4.  That leads to the first big question:  if Dr. Ford asked for her name to be withheld and senator Feinstein was honoring that wish, why did Dr. Ford need a big shot lawyer in DC and why did she need to take a lie detector test?  It certainly seems as if Ford was planning to go public in an ambush right at the end of the confirmation process, doesn't it?

5.  But let's move on.  When Ford's story was made public, we were told that Ford doesn't remember:
           a.  where the supposed sexual attack took place.
           b.  when the supposed attack took place.
           c.  how she (Ford) got to the party where the attack supposedly took place.
           d.  how she got home from the party where the attack supposedly took place.

6.  Ford says she never told anyone that the supposed attack had occurred until she told a therapist six years ago.  The notes taken by the therapist, however, do not agree with the few details of the supposed attack that Ford now claims to be what happened.  For example, Ford told the therapist that there were four boys there; now she says that there were only two.  One was Kavanaugh, but he denies that any of this ever happened.  The other boy was a man named Judge who says he has no memory of any of this ever happening either.

7.  Dr. Ford said when the story first broke that she would be ready to tell her story.  Almost immediately, however, she pulled back.  First, her lawyer wanted there to be a hearing behind closed doors.  That was odd.  Why would Dr. Ford still want to keep her story private after she had splashed it across the airwaves.

8.  The Senate Judiciary Committee tried to set up a phone call with Dr. Ford and her attorney.  Ford did not participate and even the Democrats on the committee refused to participate.  That's another red flag.  Why would they want to keep the full story from being discussed.

9.  The committee set up a hearing in DC on Monday and asked Ford to come testify under oath in public or private session.  Kavanaugh said he would be there to answer questions.  Dr. Ford, however, has now said that she won't be there unless there is a full FBI investigation first.  This is  a giant red flag.  There is nothing to investigate.  Dr. Ford can't say where or when this happened.  She claims that she told no one until 30 years later, so there is no way to get corroboration by statements made at the time.  The two people who Ford puts in the room say that the event never happened and they certainly have no memory of it ever happening.  What would the FBI investigate?  There are no witnesses to interview.  There is no supposed crime scene to check 36 years later; the FBI doesn't even know where this all supposedly happened.

10.  It certainly seems as if Dr. Ford doesn't want to testify about all this under oath.  After all, if these charges are a lie, she could open herself up to perjury charges.

11.  Fortunately, senator Grassley, the chair of the committee is not going along with the circus that Dr. Ford and the Democrats are trying to create.  Grassley says the hearings will proceed on Monday.  If Ford wants to testify, she is welcome.  If she chooses not to testify, the committee will move on to a vote.  Right now, it seems a 50-50 proposition whether or not Ford will show on Monday.  If she doesn't, her position collapses.  After all, it's really hard to believe the word of a woman who won't even come forward and tell her story under oath.


 

They Just Can't Make Up Their Minds

This morning, I opened Yahoo News to see a big headline proclaiming the "Likely Downfall" of the Kavanaugh nomination for the Supreme Court.  There was no new information in the article.  All it said was that there would be a hearing on Monday where the senators could hear from and question both Kavanaugh and his accuser.  According to the article, however, it was unlikely Kavanaugh could disprove the charges against him, so his nomination was going to fail.

About the same time, I heard that despite attempts by the Senate committee to reach the accuser, neither she nor her attorney was responding.  That seemed strange; after coming forward to make the charges, one would think she would want to tell her story to the nation.

Not long after that, I read that the accuser's lawyer wanted to have the hearing held behind closed doors.  That was bizarre; she wanted to make the charges to the public but avoid giving any details to the public.  Why?

Then I read that the committee had said that the hearings would be public only and that the accuser's lawyer wanted to limit the questions that she would have to answer.  Again the committee said no, and now there are reports that the accuser will not show up on Monday to testify.

If there was ever a course of conduct by an accuser that would make her look untruthful, this was it.  Imagine causing all this uproar and then refusing to testify.  No amount of proclamations of the victim status of the accuser would be able to overcome this conduct.

It seems that even Yahoo News has gotten the message.  The same article that used to talk of the likely failure of the Kavanaugh nomination now only talks about the "possible" failure of that nomination.

Syria Shoots Down A Plane -- An Update

Last night, I wrote about how the Assad forces in Syria mistakenly shot down a Russian plane while they were apparently shooting at Israeli planes that were nearby.  That story has developed quickly.  After the incident, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed the loss of the aircraft and then blamed the Israelis for the loss of the plane.  That's right, the Syrians shot at planes over the Mediterranean Sea (not in Syrian airspace), and they hit a Russian military spy plane that was in the area.  Rather than blame the Syrians who shot the plane down, Russia is blaming the Israelis.  It's bizarre.

If the ground forces that shot the missile had been American or Turkish, you can be sure that Russia would blame them.  Of course, American anti-aircraft forces would not have shot a missile to a site where a Russian plane was located.  They are too well trained and would not endanger a non-combatant.  The Assad forces, however, take a different tack as can be seen from their conduct.  The armed forces that think it proper to use poison gas on civilians in a region in the hope of maybe hitting a few opposition soldiers as well, is a group that doesn't care at all about collateral damage or deaths. 

I wonder how serious Russia is with regard to its statements blaming the Israelis.  Most likely this is just for show, with the target being the Russian public.  Putin doesn't want to have to blame Assad while supporting him with money, weapons and troops. 
 

Syria Finally Shoots Down A Plane

Two nights ago, there was an attack on an Iranian weapons storage depot at the main airport in Damascus Syria.  There were also attacks on a few other facilities of Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.  There is video of significant explosions taking place.  The Assad regime issued claims that its air defenses had shot down many of the missiles fired at these targets.  According to Assad, the attack was carried out by Israeli jets that were not even flying in Syrian airspace.  As usual, Israel is not commenting on whether or not it carried out any attack.  The video of the exploding Iranian arms depot, however, makes it very likely that it was the Israelis who launched this attack.  Israel has said many times that it will not tolerate Iranian forces digging in on the Syrian border or using Syria as a means to ship arms to Hezbollah.

The most interesting thing about the report was the Syrian claim that it had actually shot down some of the attacking missiles.  At first, that seemed like the usual BS put out by the Assad forces.  When American cruise missiles hit Syria after Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, the Assad forces claimed that many were shot down.  US information, however, showed that every one of the more than 60 missiles fired hit its target with the exception of one that malfunctioned shortly after launch.  In other words, the Assad forces were just lying.

Now comes word that a Russian plane flying over the Mediterranean was shot down during the attack by ground fired missiles coming from Syria.  The plane crashed and 14 Russians were killed.  That means that the Syrians actually did shoot down something with their defense systems.  Unfortunately for Assad, what he shot down was a plane of his Russian allies.

Nonsense Is Still Nonsense

There is so much political theater ongoing these days, that it is sometimes hard to remember that most of it is nonsense that is put out there just for political gain.  It is, however, truly important to keep that in mind.

1.  A good example is the "Medicare For All" push by the far left.  This program would cost something like $40 trillion dollars each decade.  That's TRILLION with a T.  That, of course, is just an estimate; the actual number might be higher or lower, but the estimate is a reasonable one.  When people like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get asked how they would pay for the program, they say things such as that the program would actually save money.  That sounds good, but it is obviously nonsense.  One can analyze the numbers 15 different ways, but all of them show staggeringly high costs.  The Medicare tax would go through the roof.  Instead of 2.3% of payroll, it would go to something like 40% of payroll.  All you really need to remember is that instead of all workers paying into Medicare to provide healthcare for the elderly, we would suddenly have everyone getting healthcare from this fund.  There would need to be enormous taxes to cover that cost.

2.  Another example of political theater just arose yesterday.  It's the detailed accusation of a sexual harassment by Brett Kavanaugh when he was in high school.  The accuser has now been identified, conveniently just a few days before the committee was scheduled to vote.  The Democrats knew of these charges over two months ago, but held them until now in order to get the maximum political usage and delay out of them.  It's disgraceful.  But the charges themselves need to be reviewed.  The accuser says that she doesn't remember where the attack happened or even what year it was.  She supposedly has detailed memories of the event, but can't recall where or when it happened?  Really?  And the other person who she claims was in the room has no memory of it ever happening?  Really?  So all we have is a conveniently timed accusation against a good man with a stellar record, in other words, a political hit job.  Oh, and the accuser just happens to be a left wing activist college professor who shows up with her own lawyer who happens to be another well-known leftist activist.  What a coincidence.  This sure seems like a bogus politically-motivated charge, but the theater will continue.

3.  Then there was Barack Obama's return to the campaign trail.  The media covered it like it was a major event.  Obama, however, drew 750 people to a rally in a building that holds many times that number.  He couldn't even fill the room.  The president who told us for years that the manufacturing jobs were gone and would never come back went on TV to claim that the return of those jobs is his doing, not Trump's.  The president who told us that economic growth would be 2% at most in the new era went on TV to claim the current stellar 4.2% growth rate was his doing, and not that of President Trump.  Obama and the media actually believe that people will see this theater of the absurd and believe it.  Nothing could more clearly be total nonsense.

Sorry, This Is The Umpteenth Smoking Gun

ABC trotted out Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton today to give the opinion that Paul Manafort must have some really good stuff on the President which could bring Trump down.  Otherwise, Mueller and his team would never have made a deal with Manafort.

These guys must be smoking something.  It is possible, certainly, that Manafort has something to say on Trump, but the likelihood of that is slim.  The deal got made because Manafort doesn't want to go through another costly trial and the Mueller team doesn't want to take the chance that they would lose the next time.  Manafort was already facing 80 years in prison, so that's really the rest of his life.  Even with his deal to limit prison time to ten years, it still puts him in his mid 80s when he would get out.  All that Manafort got was to save the cost of the trial and to set it up so that his family got to keep their home and vacation place too.  There was nothing to be gained by Mueller by going ahead with trial number 2.  What would they get:  the right to keep Manafort in prison from age 140 to age 175?  The chance to throw his family out of their home?  That's pointless.

So is it likely that Manafort will bring down Trump?  No.  If Manafort actually had something that could bring down the President, you can bet he would have parlayed that into something a lot better than what he got.  The testimony to bring down Trump would be the proverbial Get Our of Jail Free Card.  Manafort is the sort who would play that card without a second thought.  For his part, Mueller is someone who would accept that play in a heartbeat.  So most likely, Manafort will have nothing much to say about Trump.

This is the 55th of 55 smoking guns about which the left has been excited which won't pan out.