Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Chuck Grassley category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Chuck Grassley’ Category

At the risk of dating myself, I’ll use a joke from Chevy Chase’s movie titled “Fletch Lives” to convey this message. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out that Heidi Heitkamp is heading for defeat. Larry Holmes could figure this one out. About an hour ago, Heitkamp announced that she won’t confirm Judge Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Couple that announcement with this weeks polls showing Heitkamp trailing Kevin Kramer by 10 points and 12 points and it’s pretty obvious that she’s history. Of course, that hasn’t stopped her from deploying one of the Democrats’ favorite chanting points:

Heitkamp, who is running for reelection in a state won by Trump, said a public hearing where Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, his first accuser, testified raised questions about Kavanaugh’s “current temperament, honesty, and impartiality” and has “furthered a national discussion about stopping sexual assault. Our actions right now are a poignant signal to young girls and women across our country. I will continue to stand up for them,” Heitkamp said.

This video is worth watching because Chairman Grassley takes the press and Sen. Feinstein to task:

Back to Heitkamp. She’s likely playing for a spot in the next Democrat White House. I predict that she’ll have a long wait for that position.

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.)

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.

News junkies like me and other bloggers remember how fired up the Democrats were the night President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Special interest organizations put together official statements that looked like this:

Democrats didn’t even bother to find out who President Trump had nominated. Now, they’re making things worse. According to this ABC News article, Democrats are now willing to meet with Judge Kavanaugh to “personally lobby him to hand over his entire record.” I’d tell the Democrats to take a hike. The vast majority of them have already announced that they’re voting to not confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Why do these Democrats need to examine documents that don’t have anything to do with Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy if they’ve already decided they’re voting against him?

Judge Kavanaugh has written 300+ opinions, the most of any recent SCOTUS nominee. If they can’t figure out Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy after reading Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, then they’re hopeless. This is an obvious stalling tactic. It should be stopped before the first interview is held.

This is wishful thinking:

Meanwhile, a potential roadblock awaits Kavanaugh’s confirmation process after the National Archives indicated Thursday that it needs until the end of October to produce nearly 1 million documents requested by Senate Republicans. The records delay could mean a vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court might not come as quickly as Republicans hoped – they wanted Kavanaugh confirmed in early October before the court’s fall term is set to begin.

That won’t slow anything down. Republicans aren’t paying attention to this tactic:

Despite the setback, Senate Republicans, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, appear unfazed and plan to forge ahead with a mid-September confirmation hearing for the 53-year old appellate judge.

Republicans should make the argument that Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings, plus his documents from when he worked for Ken Starr, plus the information that they’ll get from the confirmation hearings itself, are enough to make a well-informed decision. If Sen. Schumer whines that it isn’t enough, I’d throw it back in their face that the vast majority of Democrats have either officially announced that they’re voting against confirming Judge Kavanaugh or they’ve appeared at anti-Kavanaugh rallies where they’re expected to be no votes.

Ed Morrissey highlights “precisely the kind of conversation Republicans want Democrats to have in the run-up to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Please, please, please, please let this be the topic of conversation. Ed mentioned a forum that Keith Ellison put together in the Twin Cities. In the video, a constituent is heard saying “Assuming the Democrats take the House and Senate in November … is there any possibility that the legislative branch will remove a Supreme Court Justice?”

As lunatic as that sounds, that’s modest-sounding compared to what Gov. Cuomo said. Gov. Cuomo said “We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection.” He continues by saying, “we have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts because I will sue when the Supreme Court acts and I want the New York State law in place.”

For all the bluster happening, the simple truth is that Judge Kavanaugh will get confirmed and he’ll likely get modest Democrat support:

“I think that we can’t count on any Democrats until we get the 50 votes we need, and then we’ll get five or six of them,” Grassley said on Fox News. “Otherwise, I don’t think we can count on them.”

This HuffPost article provides more proof that the nutty left hasn’t stopped getting nuttier. The article is titled “Trump Is Giving Democrats Everything They Need For The Midterms”. It starts by saying that “the one silver lining” from the confirmation battle over soon-to-be-Justice Kavanaugh “is that the confirmation of yet another hard-right justice, coming just weeks before the November midterm elections, will spike Democratic turnout.”

What this idiot doesn’t mention is that the Democrats’ attempts to stall the confirmation won’t play well. “Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley of Iowa has the discretion to schedule a series of hearings on Trump’s nominee. Democrats can press Grassley to delay hearings so members of the panel can review all documents related to the confirmation. One quirk of the Senate’s rules that might come into play is that it requires permission of all senators in order for committees to meet for longer than two hours after the Senate convenes. Hearings for Supreme Court nominees run much longer than that, so any one Democrat could object for committees to meet beyond the customary two-hour start. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would then need to start manipulating the chamber schedule to accommodate the long hearings.”

Democrats have already used delaying tactics in the Senate. They’re already on pace to lose a bunch of seats in the Senate. They can’t afford alienating more red state voters over a fight they can’t win. If Democrats think that they’re going to prevent Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, they’re kidding themselves:

What’s interesting is the outright lies Mr. Kuttner tells in his article. Check this out:

Trump’s policy of separating young children from their parents and creating concentration camps for toddlers was grotesque. His government still has no coherent plan for reuniting children with their families. His claim that he fixed a bad policy that he blames on Democrats is fooling nobody outside of his hardcore base. In swing suburban districts, this is an issue that should damage incumbent Republicans and help Democrats.

Concentration camps for toddlers? Seriously? It isn’t surprising that large swaths of people don’t even consider voting for Democrats. Get anywhere in blue collar country, whether in Pennsylvania, Ohio or Minnesota and Democrats are viewed pretty much like aliens from a different solar system.

It isn’t surprising to find out that Democrats think like this. After all, they think that the #WalkAway movement is a Republican propaganda ploy run by Russian bots. Nutty Democrats wouldn’t recognize a genuine grassroots movement if it bit them in the backside.

In the past, politicians, mostly senators, have warned President Trump not to fire Robert Mueller. This morning, a legal heavyweight wrote this op-ed offering a different opinion. Michael Mukasey’s opinion isn’t coming from a politically-motivated standpoint. It’s coming from a legal standpoint.

He wrote “Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign had gotten help unlawfully from Russia. Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.” In other words, based on DOJ guidelines, there wasn’t a legitimate basis for launching this investigation.

Judge Mukasey continued, saying “Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president, Watergate and Whitewater come to mind, we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here. Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump campaign’s criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians. The one indictment that relates to Russian criminality charges that the Russians hacked Democratic Party computers and committed other social media abuse, but says specifically that if the Trump campaign got the benefit of it, that was ‘unwitting’ — i.e., without criminal intent.”

The harm this fishing expedition is doing is to the Intelligence Community’s reputation. The Deep Staters have tarnished the FBI’s and the DOJ’s reputations. Who knows how long it will take to repair that damage? The political heat is increasing on Mueller to wrap things up. First, it was Judge T.S. Ellis III who questioned the Mueller investigation’s scope. Now, it’s former Attorney General Michael Mukasey questioning Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of a special council.

Sprinkle in Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter demanding production of Rosenstein’s scope memo. Combine these things and you have pressure building from people who aren’t seen as overtly partisan. That, more than anything, will hurt Mueller’s credibility.