Archive for the ‘Chuck Grassley’ Category

After reading this article, there’s no doubt that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford had a sinister motive in stepping forward and making her wild accusations. At the time, I thought that it was highly possible Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn’t telling the truth. When Dr. Ford’s best friend said that she’d never met Brett Kavanaugh, I thought it was almost certain that Dr. Blasey-Ford hadn’t told the truth.

It’s worth noting that Debra Katz, a “high-powered progressive lawyer” who represented Dr. Blasey-Ford, said “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.”

The assault against Kavanaugh has been exposed, especially in the fantastic new book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, written by Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. There will be an asterisk associated with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings but it will be attached to the far-left activists who tried derailing Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Here’s the video proof of Katz’s statements:

What’s now known is that Dr. Ford came forward for partisan political reasons, not because she had proof that Brett Kavanaugh had done the things she’d accused him of doing. Lots of accusations were thrown at Justice Kavanaugh. The most discredited accusations were made by Julie Swetnick, then represented by Michael Avenatti, aka CPL, aka Creepy Porn Lawyer. In September, 2018, Swetnick swore out a statement under penalty of perjury, stating “I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s.”

In October, 2018, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred both Avenatti and Swetnick for criminal prosecution to the DOJ. The Democrats’ attempt to derail the confirmation of a judge who happened to be Catholic should frighten people who think that we shouldn’t hold a person’s religious beliefs against them if they’re applying for a position within the federal government. The Constitution forbids religious tests:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That text is found in Article VI, Clause 3. This is just the start. If/when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and President Trump still occupies the Oval Office and Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, all hell will break loose. It doesn’t take Nostradamus to figure that out. Joe Biden could even figure that out.

If this article doesn’t stir Democrats to action, then they’ll be exposed as heartless politicians who only care about winning elections. Here’s a serious question for House Democrats: Why don’t you attempt to put nation ahead of political gain for a change?

I won’t pretend that the GOP is faultless on immigration. Still, I know Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has put together legislation together to fix the current crisis. That’s leaps and bounds beyond anything that House Democrats have done.

Mark Morgan, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, didn’t pull punches in addressing the crisis:

Participating in the briefing was Sen. Chuck Grassley. Here’s what he had to say about what he’d heard:

I can’t believe that this actually happens but that people down there in Central America or Mexico are renting babies to get across the border and then sending them back and renting them again to get across the border. The public doesn’t know about it. I hope you guys will help advertise that, assuming the information that I heard yesterday was accurate because that’s a humanitarian crisis that we have to be concerned about.

What will Nancy do? What will Chuck do? Can they be bothered to give a damn? Thus far, they’ve said that it was a manufactured crisis, that the problem was caused by President Trump’s policies or simply refused to fix the asylum loopholes.

Their accomplices in the press, especially Jessica Tarlov, insist that Democrats care about border security. That’s BS. If they cared, they’d pass Sen. Graham’s 11-page bill that could fix these problems within a week. Democrats won’t do that, though. Their actions speak for themselves.

If Democrat members of the Problem Solvers Caucus don’t defy Ms. Pelosi, most of those freshmen Democrats will be one-term wonders. If Pelosi, Schumer and the Democrats listen to the Resist Movement, they’ll deserve to lose in a landslide. This is a crisis. Crises demand fixing.

Thus far, Democrats have failed miserably.

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.”