Brian Williams would be so proud.

Fight for Kavanaugh

The cynics — or, perhaps more precisely, the realists — believed that the Democrats were playing for time in the hopes of finding another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. The cynics were right.

The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he was at Yale. The alleged incident occurred at a drunken party when both were in their freshman year. What’s extraordinary is that the woman making the charge, a fellow Yale student named Deborah Ramirez, admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory.

As the magazine puts it: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” She only decided to talk, it says, “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

Even after her new-found certainty — which happens to accord with her political interest as a Democrat — her story still contains gaps. She was drunk and didn’t directly see that it was Kavanaugh who put his penis in front of her face when she was on the floor. She says she heard someone yell out that it was Kavanaugh who had done this, and she saw him make a motion afterward that was consistent with pulling up his pants. So even she is making the charge as a matter of hearsay and interpretation.

The only other corroboration is an unidentified classmate who tells the magazine that he heard of the incident afterwards — in other words, more hearsay.

Otherwise, the authors write, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” a rather important lacuna if you are publishing a story that will contribute to an effort to destroy a man’s reputation. (Where’s William Shawn when you need him?) Two male students identified by Ramirez as being present at the party said they had no recollection of any such incident.

The New Yorker story comes on the heels of another blow to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s account. She has identified four other people who were present at the high-school party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her as a teenager. All have denied it, now including Leland Keyser, who is a long-time friend of Ford’s and a Democrat. She told the Judiciary Committee through her lawyer, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Clearly, the opposition to Kavanaugh hopes that the two stories — with perhaps more on the way — will support each other despite their inherent weakness. If Democrats take down Kavanaugh on the basis of these charges, they will have achieved the miraculous by stopping a Supreme Court nominee with two unproven and probably unprovable charges, in a smashing victory for garbage-pail politics.
Comments

Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent jurist who has earned his sterling reputation over decades of public service. If his career is going to be ruined and his reputation besmirched, it should require clear and convincing evidence. We are willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, but so far, they lead only to the belief that this is a disgraceful episode that makes Borking look above-board and responsible by comparison.

If Republicans surrender on the basis of what we know now, they will face the fury of their own voters — and rightly so.

https://www.nationalreview.com...licans-should-fight/

I expect that this isn't only about dragging Judge Kavanaugh through the dirt, but it's a threat to any other Conservative who might stand up in the future.

The GDCs are not held back by any moral code. The end always justifies their means.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Brett Kavanaugh and his wife will be on with Martha McCallum tonight for an interview at 7pm.

Not sure how I feel about that. But he clearly knows how to handle himself.

quote:

She was told she had to do it for the "sisterhood"...

My second ex worked in the advertising field and has very few kind words for the "sisterhood" bitches she was forced to deal with.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Brett Kavanaugh and his wife will be on with Martha McCallum tonight for an interview at 7pm.

He is fighting back, big time.

I pray that all intelligent fair-minded people in this country will pay attention to this goat fuck and vote appropriately in the midterms.

This media-enabled Democratic smear campaign simply can't be the standard by which we destroy people.

Federalist
Mollie Hemingway
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is a gang-raping attempted murderer who managed to live a public life of acclaim and honor. Maybe the devotion to his wife and two daughters, his respect for countless women and their careers, and his wisdom on the bench is part of an elaborate plot to get away with it. Anything is possible.

But the idea that the country should convict him and destroy his life with no evidence other than recovered and uncorroborated memories and creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s say-so is quite insane.

President Donald Trump, who was elected by people who cared deeply about fighting the progressive takeover of the courts, nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s seat. D.C. establishment figures on the right revere Kavanaugh, and praise his extensive judicial record. Before meeting with him or holding hearings, most Democratic senators said they planned to vote against him.

The hearings ricocheted from interesting discussions of judicial philosophy to clownish “I am Spartacus” moments and radical abortion protesters screaming about their love of killing unborn children.

Only upon completion did Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein release news that she’d sat on a claim of sexual assault for six weeks. The media then began running with uncorroborated and disputed allegations ranging from Christine Blasey Ford saying she thought Kavanaugh was trying to rape her and might kill her to Avenatti suggesting that Kavanaugh is a gang raper.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — in part thanks to Sen. Jeff Flake, cowering in the face of a smear campaign — bent over backwards to accommodate the first accuser, no matter how outlandish her requests to delay the hearing. As was easily predictable, the media and other resistance members put forth additional claims — somehow even less substantiated than the initial one — as the days passed.

This all has political significance, but let’s take a step back and think through the ethics of destroying a man without evidence to warrant it.

Standards Of Evidence Must Be Kept High

We have rules for evidence in our court rooms that provide excellent guidance in the general culture. One of these is that the burden of proof is not on the accused but the accuser. First the accuser presents his or her case, buttressing it with all the evidence at hand. Then the accused responds to the accusation using the evidence he or she has. It is easy to make an allegation but difficult to prove one. This is as it should be.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the danger posed by people throwing accusations against political enemies. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does a good job of explaining some of the rights of the accused in our political system:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Kavanaugh isn’t facing criminal prosecution in part because his accusers have come nowhere near the standard required for criminal prosecution. And senators predisposed to vote against him are not the definition of an impartial jury. That does not mean disputed allegations should form the basis of destroying a man’s life, career, and reputation. It also does not mean that a precedent should be established of allowing the left to weaponize use of disputed allegations to thwart the seating of justices.

Journalists Should Not Engage In Mob Justice

No profession has as high a self-conception as journalism. And yet in recent weeks, in an environment where they are accused of being partisan activists instead of truth tellers, they have dropped their standards somehow even further.

Presumably out of a shared belief that the sacrament of abortion might be threatened by a second Trump nominee serving on the court, some in the media are running multiple stories based on reputation-destroying allegations that have not come close to meeting a journalistic standard.

The New Yorker’s laughably disreputable Jane Mayer and previously well-regarded Ronan Farrow wrote up a story claiming that a progressive activist recovered a memory of sexual assault only after being prodded by Senate Democrats to do so. Even The New York Times — which doesn’t have a sterling track record when it comes to running with wild accusations — interviewed dozens of people in an attempt to corroborate the allegation and was not able to do so. They found that the accuser Deborah Ramirez had recently told classmates she could not be certain Kavanaugh was the man who she says exposed himself to her.

Journalism can and should be an important check on declining standards. Instead of demanding that accusers make reasonable cases, they are helping them overcome the flaws in their own stories in an effort to defeat a Supreme Court nomination.

Are Our Senators All Children?

Democratic senators announced at the outset of the Kavanaugh nomination that they would do what it took to stop him. They have held to their word, believing that any means necessary is morally defensible.

Republican senators, however, seem to lack the discernment to understand when they’re getting played by people who hate them and want them destroyed.

It’s not just that they’re losing a political battle, but that they’re allowing Democrats and the media to destroy a man and his family for political gain. There is no virtue in allowing a man to be smeared without evidence.

Wielding Political Power Morally

When President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the closing months of his presidency, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the Biden Rule, named after the former senator’s view that Supreme Court vacancies in the waning months of a presidency should be filled after the election. It was the use of raw political power, even one with precedent, and it angered Democrats. That anger is at least defensible.

But thank God that Republicans didn’t kill the Garland nomination by tearing down the man and spending months trying to find high school classmates to claim attempted rape and near-death experiences.

At some point one must consider whether evil means are justified for progressive ends. The bottom line is that this media-enabled Democratic smear campaign simply can’t be the standard by which we destroy people. Watching this miscarriage of justice is radicalizing those who care about rule of law and political processes that have a semblance of sanity.

Link

Not sure about you, I can't remember much about 35 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Brett Kavanaugh and his wife will be on with Martha McCallum tonight for an interview at 7pm.

He is fighting back, big time.

He must be jacked in his eagerness to get out there and defend himself. It must be beyond frustrating having to just sit there and watch this firestorm of lies directed at him unfold in such a grossly unfair manner.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
He is fighting back, big time.

He must be jacked in his eagerness to get out there and defend himself. It must be beyond frustrating having to just sit there and watch this firestorm of lies directed at him unfold in such a grossly unfair manner.

There have been talks of removing him from the Federal bench. Some on the R side are wavering in their support. Sometimes in battle you have to grab the flag, run toward the enemy, and hope those behind you will back you up.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
McConnell just said on the Senate floor that there will be a vote of the full Senate, up or down.
This after detailing the outrages and indignities and perfidy of the Democrats. He sounded serious!

Mitch McConnell sounds firm and unwavering.
You really can't fault him on judges. On many things, yes. But not on judges.

I go with my original theory. This is not about the democrats, it is about getting a few RINO's to abstain or vote no.

I really really hate this.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
GOP needs to handle this correctly if not they risk losing a lot of the female vote. They need to treat her with respect and hear her story. Once they prove she is fabricating the story, then they need to hammer her and make her an example.

When Clinton was in office, the Democrats called such stuff "bimbo eruptions". I wish somebody with a voice would remind them of this.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
He is fighting back, big time.

He must be jacked in his eagerness to get out there and defend himself. It must be beyond frustrating having to just sit there and watch this firestorm of lies directed at him unfold in such a grossly unfair manner.

There have been talks of removing him from the Federal bench. Some on the R side are wavering in their support. Sometimes in battle you have to grab the flag, run toward the enemy, and hope those behind you will back you up.

I would not admire him getting on the Court then shading his decisions to disadvantage what he perceived to be the libs, as revenge.

One choice, if it comes to this that he is rejected for Supreme Court, is to resign from the Court of Appeals, go out into private practice where the doors would be wide open, make about $3-5 million a year, working on cases that drive the SJW nuts. A man of his demonstrated skill and experience could be fairly dangerous.

The general election is November 6, 2018. The Dems want to delay the Kavanaugh confirmation vote until after that election. Let's hypothesize that the Dems succeed in the delay AND win a majority in the senate. The lame duck senate re-convenes Nov. 12 and is off and on until Dec. 14. The new Democrat controlled senate doesn't convene until Jan. 3, 2019. The lame duck Republican senate can confirm Kavanaugh or anyone else Trump sends over in that time period. But: the Supreme Court convenes Oct. 1 with 4+4 justices and sets the calendar. Kennedy is off the Supreme and a new justice isn't supposed to weigh in on any case that has started oral arguments. The meaningful deadline for the Republican senate to confirm Kavanaugh is then Oct. 1, 2018. Get'er done!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:


Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are considering using female staffers to question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford at the hearing set for Thursday, but her attorneys pushed back.

Does that make any sense to anyone? Why wouldn't she want to be questioned by people that are completely neutral and non-political? Well of course we know why. Because this is very much political. It's always been political.

This is truly insidious behavior on the part of the democrats.

As angry as I am and I'm sure all you are, I can only imagine what is going through Kavanaugh’s mind. His poor daughters are getting a nice lesson on just how vile the left is.

But what angers me even more is that the Repub's are apparently brain dead on this one. This is all about 'branding'. Have Grassley and a couple others go on TV and share they are using women staffers to make Ms. Ford's appearance far more comfortable, and also in response to the Dem's complaining about only "old white men" would be questioning her. This is so easy to diffuse its almost ridiculous. Also, it would lay the groundwork to defend against Ford not testifying because she wouldn't be questioned by women. Come on Repub's. Get in there and fight!

Can you imagine her refusing to testify because she would be questioned by a female staff attorney rather than the Senators themselves? If the issue is (as I personally believe) what Flake, Collins and Murkowski will do, then such a refusal would basically be to concede the game. There's simply nothing threatening or dismissive about being questioned by a staff attorney before the entire Committee.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

There have been talks of removing him from the Federal bench. Some on the R side are wavering in their support. Sometimes in battle you have to grab the flag, run toward the enemy, and hope those behind you will back you up.

I would not admire him getting on the Court then shading his decisions to disadvantage what he perceived to be the libs, as revenge.

I was speaking of his aggressiveness in defending his honor and integrity while the line around him was faltering. Revenge, I would think, would be beneath him at that level.