Search
Archives
Categories

One of the things implied in Alan Dershowitz’s article is that Dr. Ford must testify. That comes through loud and clear when Prof. Dershowitz wrote “Obviously she has to testify, she has to be cross-examined, preferably by good lawyers who can ask probing questions. Then [Kavanaugh] has to get up and respond.”

Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think that Dr. Ford will testify. It’s her affirmative responsibility to testify now that she dropped this bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh but there’s virtually no chance that she’ll do that because there’s too much downside for her and the Democrats.

First, there’s the downside of Dr. Ford sounding like a political pawn the minute the Republicans start asking her about specifics about the event. The minute that Dr. Ford can’t identify the address of the home where the alleged attack happened, Dr. Ford’s credibility will diminish. When they ask Dr. Ford about how she got home after the event and she admits that she can’t remember, Dr. Ford’s credibility will diminish.

Dr. Ford’s team of attorneys are doing their best to ‘negotiate’ rules that benefit her the most. Testifying after Judge Kavanaugh is designed to help her craft her story after Judge Kavanaugh has testified. Prof. Dershowitz said it perfectly when he said this:

The tool of the inquisition was to always call the accused first. Make him testify. Make him lay out his whole case and only then tell him what the accusation is.

This afternoon, Dr. Ford’s attorneys issued another unresponsive response, insisting that Judge Kavanaugh go first, and that the hearing be held on Thursday. If Dr. Ford won’t testify on Wednesday and if she isn’t willing to testify first, then Republicans should highlight how Dr. Ford and the Democrats tried creating a kangaroo court in their attempt to not have Dr. Ford testify. Like I said yesterday, her testimony has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If given a smell test, Dr. Ford’s testimony would stink like Limburger cheese.

Sen. Grassley, it’s time to make a decision. It’s time to give Judge Kavanaugh an up-or-down vote.

For most of this week, Democrat women senators like Mazie Hirono and Kirsten Gillibrand have insisted that Chairman Grassley’s invitation to Christine Blasey-Ford was an attempt to silence Dr. Ford. They insisted that making her testify first violated her constitutional rights. (It doesn’t.) The defendant always goes last. Who’s ever heard of the prosecution going last? How would the defendant defend himself/herself if the prosecution hasn’t presented its case first?

Writing in The Atlantic, Benjamin Witte writes that “Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof.” When I went to sleep last night, I could’ve sworn that people were innocent until proven guilty. The truth is that this case has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. If a prosecutor were to bring it to trial, the defense wouldn’t need to call a witness. All they’d have to do is make a motion to dismiss immediately after the prosecution rested. The judge would immediately dismiss for insufficient evidence.

Nan Aron, one of the most strident activists on the Democratic side, writes “Every Woman in America Is Watching” in an attempt to intimidate men.

She wrote this:

More than a quarter century ago, a university professor named Anita Hill was abused, shamed, and ignored by the U.S. Senate—just for having the courage to go before the Judiciary Committee and describe how she’d been sexually harassed by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

I know because I was at that hearing. My organization, Alliance for Justice, played a role in bringing Professor Hill’s story to light, by alerting the Senate Judiciary Committee to her experiences and ability to corroborate what had been widely whispered, but not validated, about Clarence Thomas. I also remember the pain and the outrage that women felt at the way Professor Hill was treated, and I want very much to believe that such a thing would not happen again in today’s #MeToo era.

First, Anita Hill was shamed because they believed Clarence Thomas, who rightly highlighted the unsubstantiated allegations in this epic scene:

Why doesn’t Aron think that women are interested in fairness? Picture a justice system where men’s careers can be demolished with unsubstantiated allegations. Is that a world you’d want to live in? Women, imagine a system where your husband’s career can be demolished with an unsubstantiated allegation. I can’t imagine that’s your definition of fairness.

It isn’t just the faux feminists that are watching on this. It’s everyone. Predictably, the Democrats have overplayed their hand. Again. There’s an old saying about Yasser Arafat that fits Democrats perfectly: He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Democrats didn’t have an opportunity to take down Judge Kavanaugh but they’re certainly missing an opportunity to win voters over.

Senate Democrats, especially female senators, insist that women are right to expect to be believed. Apparently, that right comes with an asterisk. Apparently, that doesn’t apply if you’ve accused Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Al Franken or Harvey Weinstein.

Women like Karen Monahan don’t have the right to be believed, even when they provide verification of their accusations. In Bill Clinton’s case, he even had a wife who attacked his accusers.

What’s interesting is that Kirsten Gillibrand thinks that it’s impolite for Republicans to essentially tell an accuser that she wouldn’t be believed if she didn’t testify after making strong accusations against a Supreme Court nominee without any proof.

Initially, Dr. Ford’s attorneys played this stupid, insisting that the FBI conduct an investigation. That’s rather rich considering that the alleged crime happened 36 years ago at a home the ‘victim’ doesn’t know the address of. How do you collect forensic evidence without a ‘crime scene’? Without a crime scene (and, in this case, I use that term extremely loosely) or forensic evidence, this will forever be a he said/she said allegation. No investigation, done by the FBI or otherwise, will change that. Period.

Finally, how can you trust people whose logic is this circular?

In doing background checks, the FBI just puts in raw data. It doesn’t provide conclusions. Why would Democrats want that? Explanation: so they can tell people that Judge Kavanaugh did X, Y or Z, then throw in the term BI investigation to make it sound official. It’s still a he said/she said thing. There still isn’t a bit of proof that verifies anything in either person’s direction. It isn’t a stretch to think that this is just the Democrats’ attempt to drag this out past the midterms, then pray that they win back the majority in the Senate, thereby killing the Kavanaugh nomination.

It isn’t a stretch because the Kavanaugh confirmation represents an existential threat to Democrats. (That’s why they announced their opposition to the eventual nominee before he’d been named.)

After Jessie van Berkel’s article, Doug Wardlow is going on the offensive in his campaign against Keith Ellison. Wardlow’s campaign is going on the offensive with this ad:

Here’s a partial transcript of Wardlow’s ad:

NARRATOR: Extreme Keith Ellison voted against the Farm Bill and supports radical environmental policies that hurt Minnesota farmers and workers. Extreme Keith Ellison supported cop-killers, open borders and has said he’s against the Second Amendment. Even worse, Extreme Keith Ellison has been accused of domestic violence by multiple women.

Think about this — Keith Ellison wants to be Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer but he disagrees with the Bill of Rights and he thinks that he can beat up women without getting punished. What type of idiot liberal thinks that makes sense?

Let me rephrase that. What idiot liberal other than the ones serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks that ignoring the Constitution and beating up women is ok? In Karen Monahan’s case, she provided proof of Ellison’s assault. She didn’t wait 30+ years to make the accusation. She immediately reported it to the proper authorities. Medical personnel have verified her injuries.

Keith Ellison is devoid of character plus he thinks he’s above the law. Why would we elect that type of dirtbag? Instead, let’s elect Doug Wardlow. With him, we know he won’t support cop-killers or beat up women.

John Hinderaker’s latest article on Keith Ellison might push Ellison over the edge politically. Hinderaker’s article includes this screen shot:

It’s difficult to imagine how fair-minded Minnesotans give Rep. Ellison the benefit of the doubt when coupling this documentation with a transcript of a previous 911 call of another woman who has accused Ellison of physical abuse. Ellison has insisted that he’s innocent of committing domestic violence but this screen shot from an ER visit (in which Monahan identifies Rep. Ellison by name) is virtually impossible to escape from. Houdini would have a difficult time escaping from this.

Considering the fact that the KSTP-SurveyUSA poll had Ellison tied with Doug Wardlow at 41%, it’s difficult picturing things getting better for Ellison between today and Election Day.

Jessie van Berkel, the Strib reporter covering Ellison, wrote this:

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s former girlfriend Karen Monahan has posted a medical document on social media that shows she told a doctor in 2017 that she had been in an abusive relationship with Ellison. Monahan, who said Ellison domestically abused her in 2016, shared the patient progress notes from Nov. 2017 on Twitter several times this week.

Ellison, who is running for Minnesota attorney general, has denied the allegation, which emerged in August. Monahan’s son first told the story on social media, and she later confirmed what her son said. During a fight, Ellison pulled on her legs and feet while she was lying on a bed, Monahan said.

Getting around a domestic violence complaint is difficult when there’s a document signed by a doctor talking about the suffering the woman had dealt with. It’s virtually impossible for me to see Rep. Ellison wiggling out of this one.

Thursday night, C-cubed and Red Hat events are holding an event at the Tuscan Center. The subjects for the event will be “Crime & Terrorism A local & National Perspective.” Confirmed to attend are Philip Haney and Dave Bentrud. Mr. Haney is the co-author of the book titled “See Something, Say Nothing.” He is a former whistleblower who worked in the US Department of Homeland Security.

If you don’t know much about him, this article will provide you with a ton of important information about Mr. Haney and the important responsibilities he was tasked with at the DHS.

Haney will provide insights into federal counterterrorism efforts.

Dave Bentrud is currently the Police Commissioner of the Waite Park Police Department. He’s also running to become the next sheriff of Stearns County. Chief Bentrud will provide insights into law enforcement strategies to keep crime as low as possible.

The doors open at 6:30 pm, with Mr. Haney’s presentation starting at 7:00 pm. The crime/law enforcement forum starts at 7:30 pm. PS- This video will help people understand Mr. Haney:

I’d argue that the ‘verdict’ is already in on whether Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice. Late this afternoon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced that “next week’s high-stakes open hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could be canceled if the accuser doesn’t accept the committee’s invitation.”

If Christine Blasey-Ford is a no-show next week, the Committee should immediately vote to move him out of committee.

UPDATE: Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, the woman accusing Judge Kavanaugh of improper sexual behavior, has issued a statement saying she won’t testify Monday unless the FBI conducts a full investigation. In saying that, she sounds just like Chuck Schumer. Then there’s this:

These pinhead Democrats don’t understand just how partisan and unfair they sound. Blumenthal thinks that the nomination should be pulled entirely based on his subjective criteria? That isn’t fair. This isn’t based on constitutional principles. It’s based on partisan desperation.

Earlier this week, Bob Corker, Susan Collins and Jeff Flake wanted to slow down the confirmation. Tonight, they’re each in favor of voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

I’d argue that the verdict is in.

With the ‘hearing’ now set for next Monday into whether Judge Kavanaugh did what Dr. Blasey-Ford accused him of 36 years ago, it’s time to admit that this is the lowest that Democrats have sunk since the ‘borking’ of Judge Bork or the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill fiasco.

Supposedly, both Judge Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey-Ford supposedly will both testify because both want their ‘day in court’. UPDATE: Now Ed Morrissey is reporting that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford has been difficult to reach. If she doesn’t show up next Monday, the Democrats’ will have a ton of problems on their hands. UPDATE II: Chairman Grassley is threatening to cancel the additional hearing if Blasey-Ford doesn’t respond to the Committee’s invitation:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday raised the possibility that next week’s high-stakes open hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could be canceled if the accuser doesn’t accept the committee’s invitation.

Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions from senators about the allegation. But Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back. “We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or four times by email and we have not heard from them, and it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

If Blasey-Ford doesn’t respond, Democrats will have a difficult time accusing Kavanaugh of being a predator. If the accuser won’t step forward, she’ll be seen as playing political games.

There’s no way to prove or disprove the allegations. The Democrats know this. Next Monday’s hearing isn’t about justice. It’s about playing a political stunt.

When I looked at the biggest problem facing Keith Ellison according to the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll, it was easy getting caught up with the 41%-41% ‘horserace’ figure. That a candidate with virtually no name recognition is tied with a candidate with virtually universal name recognition isn’t exactly commonplace.

That isn’t what caught my attention most, though. Q4 of the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll asks “Minnesota will also elect an Attorney General. If the election for Attorney General were today, and you were filling out your ballot right now, who would you vote for? (candidate names rotated) “, the poll found that 43% of independents said that they’d vote for Wardlow but just 27% said that they’d vote for Ellison. What’s even more striking is the fact that Ellison finished third, behind Wardlow 43% and Undecided at 27%.

Here’s the horse race graph of the race:

It’s also worth noting that 14% of all voters are undecideds. It isn’t a stretch to think that those voters won’t break for Ellison considering the fact that he’s such a known commodity.

The first time I read the headline to this article, I had to do a doubletake. The headline said “KSTP/SurveyUSA Poll: Ellison, Wardlow in Dead Heat in Attorney General Race.” I could picture it being close but tied? That was further than my imagination could stretch. Then I watched this video:

Democrats have had a vice grip on the office of Minnesota attorney general for 47 years, but the 2018 race for that job is shaping up as the closest in decades. A KSTP/SurveyUSA poll shows Democrat Keith Ellison and Republican Doug Wardlow deadlocked at 41 percent each. “This is anybody’s race,” said political scientist Steven Schier. “Ellison is vulnerable in a way other Democrats are not.”

When he jumped into the AG’s race, most Minnesota pundits thought it was Ellison’s to lose. If he loses, it’ll be the end of Ellison’s political career. How do you overcome a setback like that? It’s one thing to win over former Republicans. IT’s quite another to win back #MeToo Democrats.

The only thing missing from the headline is the theme song from the Twilight Zone.