The Senate GOP reportedly plans to “play hardball” in getting Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, possibly this week:
Strategists advising Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh plan to use aggressive tactics this week in response to the public accusation of a “stumbling drunk” sexual assault in high school that instantly imperiled his confirmation, top sources tell Jonathan Swan:
• Some involved in the process are going to urge Senate leaders to call on the accuser — Christine Blasey Ford, who went on the record with The Washington Post’s Emma Brown — to testify publicly this week, ahead of Thursday’s scheduled Judiciary Committee vote. This gambit basically bets that she will decline, and Republicans can then say that they tried to investigate further.
• A source close to the process said that if Democrats sink Kavanaugh “we’ll just bring in someone more conservative.”
I hope they do. Not only has Kavanaugh denied the charges, but apparently the other student home Ford said was present, and who supposedly broke up the attack, claimed the episode never happened.
The other hand – isn’t it refreshing, seeing Democrats actually taking “sexual harassment” seriously?
I’m sure Keith Ellison is sweating bullets at the prospect (or would, if the American Left ever behaved in a morally consistent manner)
What gets me is that the libs are crowing about “She sought medical treatment!”
She talked to a therapist 33 years later, in couple’s therapy(*), and even then she didn’t name names, nor does she real when or where this event occurred. She didn’t even name Kavanaugh until later, when pressed by a different therapist.
And all these recovered memories started 17 years after Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against her parents in a foreclosure lawsuit.
So, no contemporaneous testimony, details that don’t exist nor can be verified, the only other witness denies it happened, and I’m expected to believe this? It’s not impossible the event happened, but given the details we’ve seen so far you’ve got to be absolutely insane to put any credence in this accusation.
This is Anita Hill 2, but with even fewer details and nobody supporting her declarations.
(*) And given the dynamics of “couples therapy” I’m highly dubious of the veracity of anything said there. Why would she bring up an incident such as this for the first time ever, and with a paucity of details? It makes me wonder just what was going on in that session. I’m more than tempted to the think the less of Ford and suspect she was using this as an excuse for some sort of behavior that was a point of contention with her husband.
Rumor has it shes a hardcore anti-trumper too. I know its infowars but it seems legiy
https://www.infowars.com/kavanaugh-accuser-is-an-anti-trump-leftist-who-attended-womens-march-donated-to-dnc/
PoD, you needn’t apologize for Infowars as a source unless there’s something questionable about the information. If the info propagated is valid, even better if it is verified, the source doesn’t matter. The notion that a source is invalid because of its affiliations or political inclinations is a leftist tactic to 1) avoid having to deal with the info itself and 2) to literally veto any sources that might disagree with leftists.
Remember the epidemic of “recovered memories?” Or the UVA lacrosse team “rape” that wasn’t at all? Or the Scott County prosecutor who broke up and traumatized several families in Jordan, MN with charges that a daycare provider engaged in satanic rituals? None of which, of course, proves that the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh are false. But the burden of proof falls of the accuser, and in that she is sadly lacking.
I am angrily amazed at the NRO-types stroking their chins about how this time the accusations of sexual misconduct might be real. That time is no different from the last 30 years of weak, overblown and/or outright false accusations so we should entertain the possibility – this time! – that Ms Ford is telling the truth. This includes Mr French who really, really, really wants the left to continue to invite him to their parties as their pet conservative (fully house trained!).
jdm, I think NR is just being sober about the deal, and it’s worth noting that French comes to the conclusion that, all told, the weight of evidence doesn’t favor Ford. Powerline is taking a lot of the same tack, which I think is appropriate. If it is for real–and I’m about 80% certain it’s not–a lot of typical responses are just plain cruel to real victims. If it is not, a lot of the viciousness simply helps a perjurer get away with it. Best to hold our fire.
As near as I can tell, we have one witness saying “yea” two different ways, two witnesses (plus character witnesses) saying “nay”, but one of them having written a book about drunken hookups in high school. We also have Feinstein clearly holding fire and then “leaking” things just as it was getting to a vote, a clearly political move.
For my part, if Kavanaugh is either guilty or lying, reason to keep him off the court. If he’s innocent, it’s reason to censure or expel Feinstein and revoke Ford’s tenure. If the Democrats are playing unfairly for keeps, let’s do the same.
I accept your argument in good faith, bb, but I don’t accept the Democrats’ and as a primary NeverTrump media source, I don’t accept the NRO’s either.
My preference is for the Republicans to roll-over the Democrats. The reality is that the NRO-type Republican senators will join in the chin-stroking, delay the (Thursday?) vote, and accept any and all Democrat shenanigans that result in a deferral until after the election. In which the Republicans will lose the Senate and this chance to add a conservative to the SC. The NRO and associates will blink, and then pat each other on the back for a fight well fought and get on with the process of chin-stroking and being sober about the coming impeachment of Trump.
I’m not gonna get too upset by this leftist thot’s pathetic play for immortality. She is wide open and target rich.
Forget that her story is more than 30 years old. Forget that Feinstein sat on the letter for 3 months. Forget that this is coming from an California academic.
She scrubbed her internet presence. If she didn’t have stuff she feels would impeach her, she wouldn’t have done that.
So the question for every GOP Senator to ask is “why did you sanitize your internet record?”
Again. And again. And again.
Then take the vote.
Swiftee
its a safe bet that our “credible witness” from CA had expert help sanitizing her internet persona directly from the MOU techs at google, FB, etc because its not credible that a low tech academic could accomplish what she apparently has without assistance.
Trick is FB NEVER deletes anything, neither does google, they just hide it. A couple of well crafted subpoenas could wreak havoc in the tech world and they do have a dog in this hunt because some serious anti-trust litigation is on the horizon and Kavanaugh is not likely to be sympathetic to the Silicon Valley status quo.
Moderation? Whats the offending word?
Clinton rule: The truth doesn’t matter, and the accusers are to be shamed for their prurience.
The funny thing is the despicable hypocrisy of the morons on the left. Cryin’ Chuck makes his holier than though speech about an alleged a flimsy accusation against Kavanaugh, while he fails to call out Hakim Ellison. Despite the fact that Karen Monhan’s story has been out before the slime ball filed as an AG candidate, she says that her own party (Democrats) are smearing her all over town and basically making her life a living hell. The old left wing double standard is on display in spades!
Good comment, bh429. You have given voice to one of my reasons for taking such a hard-line view on this and most all assertions and accusations from the left. At some point, the majority of those on the right have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the left.
Regarding Ellison and Monahan, I think the responsible thing to do is to simply say “Ms. Monahan, we have a ‘he said she said’ case between yourself and Mr. Ellison, and to take this to the next level, we need someone we both trust to see the video you say exists. We volunteer to pay counseling costs, but otherwise we can’t go forward. If we get other accusers with similar, credible allegations, it can and will be revived.”
And really, similarly with Ms. Ford. Her testimony is muddled and contradicted–it’s simply in the 60-80% of sexual assault accusations that lie between “the accuser is a perjurer” and criminal conviction. Hint; absent physical evidence, that’s where almost all accusations where the accuser and accusee were intoxicated go.