36 thoughts on “News/Politics 9-17-18

  1. Donna,

    “So now we “like” Woodward?”

    In case you missed it, here’s my response.

    No, I still think he’s a Dem shill. But since Ricky (and you?) puts so much stock in what he says, I thought he might listen to reason from someone he likes.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. 40 year old allegations? Talk about desperate.

    But oh look, there’s a “principled” NTer siding with the Dems again, and putting the conservative majority of the court in doubt based on an Anita Hill type slander from 40 years ago.


    “Republicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October, when the court starts its next term. But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her.

    Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh “groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it.”

    Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans quickly defended Kavanaugh, noting he had undergone multiple FBI background checks, and questioned the timing of the allegations.”

    Taylor Foy, a spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), released a lengthy statement after the Post published its interview with Ford saying it was “disturbing” that the “uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of the committee vote.”

    “It raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee’s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way. Senator Feinstein should publicly release the letter she received back in July so that everyone can know what she’s known for weeks,” he added.

    And who’s a good little Democrat shill?

    This guy!

    “And Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until they’ve had time to dig into the allegation.

    “For me, we can’t vote until we hear more,” Flake told the Post.

    A spokeswoman for Flake didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But if the committee tried to move forward on Thursday and Flake joined all Democrats in voting “no,” that would leave the panel in a tie.”


  3. Still no collusion….

    And in case anyone is wondering, again, no, I still think she is a Dem shill too like Woodward, but since some still view her as reputable, I thought they might care that she disagrees with them.


    “More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page’s recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News.

    “I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” Page said.

    Page was responding to Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, who wanted more information about a May 2017 text where Page, and her then colleague and lover FBI agent Peter Strzok discussed the merits of joining Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
    Page sat for the transcribed interview before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in mid-July as part of a joint congressional investigation into the Justice Department’s handling of the Russia and Clinton email probes.

    According to the transcript, Page stopped mid-answer.”…sorry. Can I consult with counsel? I’m sorry. I need to consult with FBI counsel for a moment.”

    Sections of the transcript reviewed by Fox show Ratcliffe pursued the line of questioning at least three more times, and Page provided varying answers.

    “I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview,” Ratcliffe told Fox News when asked for comment. “But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.””


  4. Looks like Kavanaugh’s accuser already has discrepancies in her story.

    And if she’s so reputable, why would the WaPo, wait on this when they’ve had the “story” since July?

    Because even they didn’t believe it.


    “For someone being portrayed as a very reluctant accuser, Ford contacted both the Post and her Congresswoman in July, though sought to get confidentiality commitments from them:

    She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

    It may be that she didn’t want to come forward, or it may be (and more likely to me) that if she came forward she needed to be portrayed as doing so reluctantly. Hence, the leak strategy of Feinstein and Democrats to make it seem as if she was compelled to come forward not of her own choosing. Leak to The Intercept and Buzzfeed that Feinstein forwarded a secret letter to the FBI, then let the DC leak system do it’s magic. Only step forward when you must, and then use that reluctance to build credibility for the story you didn’t tell for 30 years.

    Here’s the key problem with the story — when she told it for the first time in 2012 during couples therapy there were four attackers, and she didn’t name Kavanaugh. This reluctant witness had the planning to get the therapists’ notes to explain the discrepancy when she came forward as to number of attackers:

    Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

    There will be enormous pressure on a small group of Republicans (Colling, Murkowski, Flake, Corker) to insist on a delay in the confirmation vote. That is, of course, the reason for the delayed leak of the accusations. It’s the Clarence Thomas strategy precisely, waiting until the hearings are over to reveal the accusation.

    It’s worth noting that in addition to Kavanaugh, the other person allegedly present, Mike Judge, specifically denies this took place, as The Weekly Standard reported Friday:

    The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge told TWS.

    Judge says he first learned he was named in the letter during an interview with the New Yorker. “[Ronan Farrow] said: As you know, you’re named in the letter. And I did not know,” he said.

    The Kavanaugh classmate told TWS that the New Yorker did not provide him the name of the woman alleging wrongdoing, a specific date of the alleged incident, or the location where the incident is alleged to have occurred. The woman alleging misconduct has requested that her identity be protected, according to media reports.

    After Judge categorically denied ever witnessing an attempted assault by Kavanaugh, I asked him if he could recall any sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school (an incident that might have been interpreted differently by parties involved). “I can’t. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other,” he said said. “I don’t remember any of that stuff going on with girls.”

    Judge says he still does not know the name of the woman who made the allegations.

    Judge repeated his denial after the WaPo story revealed the accuser’s name and more details:

    “Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter””


  5. So who is the accuser, and why scrub her records?

    Why she’s a never-Trump social justice warrior, of course…..


    “It’s true that Bill Clinton’s liberal ‘90s apologists justified his sexual misconduct with the claim “Character doesn’t matter.” It nonetheless does, and since Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hopes are being influenced by accusations that may speak to his character, it’s only fair to examine the character of his accuser. And this woman, Palo Alto University psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, is a radical social-justice warrior with some damning student reviews — including one from a person who wrote “I am honestly scared of her.”

    Ford’s accusation goes back to her high-school days, in approximately 1982, when she would have been 15 and Kavanaugh 17. She claims that Kavanaugh laid on top of her and groped her while heavily intoxicated and that the incident ended when a friend of his, Mark Judge, jumped on both of them, sending them all tumbling (you can read a more thorough account here).

    Whatever the truth of the matter, however, certainly true is that Ford is a radical leftist who’d be inclined to zealously oppose a Kavanaugh nomination. For example, Breitbart reports that she not only has attended anti-Trump events, but actually donned a pink “brain pu**y hat” for a 2017 anti-Trump march.

    Just as telling, though, may be her student reviews. Consider the following screen grab of one of her reviews (now scrubbed) from the popular site Rate My Professors:”


  6. @6:46

    1. Woodward’s book is about the Trump presidency rather than the Trump campaign. If collusion occurred, it was during the campaign.

    2. Someone needs to ask Woodward if he found evidence to support my theory: Did you find evidence that indicates Trump idiotically framed himself?

    I suspect that evidence of the “idiotic framing” is probably in every chapter, but I won’t know for a few weeks. I am not going to buy the book until it comes to the bargain book store. By then Mueller may have told us whether Trump is a criminal or just a moron.

    If you read the recent interviews with Woodward, his real critique of the Trump Presidency is about “process”. Trump is profoundly ignorant and temperamental. We have had presidents with those characteristics before, though maybe never in the quantities and combination possessed by Trump. However, Trump refuses to allow his staff to help him prepare for meetings, decisions, legislative battles, summits with foreign leaders, etc. He refuses to engage in any form of self-discipline. That is the main reason that the last 18 months have been such a farce.


  7. This was the Beto Rally yesterday in Plano in Collin County north of Dallas. Collin County has a million people and is overwhelmingly white, rich and well-educated. It is common for Republicans to win around 80% of the vote in that County. Those aren’t poor Mexicans in the picture. They are wealthy, well-educated white suburbanites. Many of those pictured are recent immigrants from the North. This is as close as you can get in Texas to simulating what is going on in the wealthy suburbs of Philadelphia, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc.


  8. Uh-oh. Those folks know that I had to look up the exact definition of “Faustian bargain” and the major battles of the Russo-Japanese War.

    I expect major federal privacy legislation will be enacted over the next decade.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I have used Duck Duck Go as my primary search engine for about a year. Google needs to be de-monopolized. Probably won’t happen any time soon. My husband mentioned just yesterday that he read (or saw a video, I don’t remember which) Peter Theil (google founder) said the only business worth investing in is a monopoly—like google or amazon. It will take more than federal privacy legislation to fix this problem.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. See. I’m not the only one who thinks so….



    “Despite the feebleness of Ford’s complaint, it is easy to understand why the Democrats are clinging to it like a life raft. But what could possibly prompt Jeff Flake, who ran for office and was elected as a Republican, to join in their attempt to block one of the most superbly qualified jurists ever appointed to the Court? There is only one answer: his insane hatred for President Trump.

    Flake is a never-Trumper. Like a number of others for whom I once had considerable respect, Flake has elevated his hatred for our president over every principle of politics and public policy. He would rather subvert his own allegedly conservative principles than allow President Trump to exercise his constitutional powers as president. Words can hardly express how contemptible this is.

    Flake is a member of the Judiciary Committee, so Kavanaugh’s appointment cannot proceed to the Senate floor without his vote. (It goes without saying that there is no Democrat on the committee who will follow his or her conscience rather than the Schumer party line.) Flake has resigned from the Senate effective the end of this term, so this could be his parting shot against the party and the principles he claimed to represent. He is not yet a party-switcher like Jim Jeffords–remember him? He was briefly celebrated–but he might as well be. Rarely have I witnessed anything so disgusting in the world of politics.

    Jeff Flake should be ashamed of himself. One can only hope that he sees the light between now and Thursday, when the Judiciary Committee vote is scheduled to be held.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. My thought about Woodward or anything else we read is that too often the *sides* huddle in their own corners. One side will believe everything negative that is said about this president; the other side refuses to believe anything negative that is written.

    As news consumers, we need to check our own mindsets as well as the writers’. Are we becoming so entrenched in our corners of ‘belief’ that we are unable to fairly look at a source that may report something that conflicts with that?

    I think that’s where we are culturally right now. Everyone has their corner they’re defending and fighting for and anything contrary to that, true or not, is outright rejected and not even considered.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Kavanaugh says she’s a liar, and will swear to it. Let’s put both under oath and see who is the more credible witness.


    US President Donald Trump’s conservative Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh, struck back Monday at an allegation that he committed sexual assault as a teenager, saying he was ready to defend his “integrity” before the Senate.

    “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh said in a statement released by the White House in response to the accusation made by a California college professor.

    “I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation from 36 years ago and defend my integrity.”

    Kavanaugh’s defiance promised a major fight in the Republican-led Senate where his candidacy had appeared poised to sail through, giving Trump the opportunity to tilt the constitutional court to the right for years to come.

    Shortly before Kavanaugh’s statement, the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, announced through her lawyer that she too was ready to testify before the committee.”


  13. This just makes it all the more suspect.


    “Looks like the Kavanaugh/Ford battle at the Senate Judiciary Committee is on, but not before its chair makes clear what the obstacles have been. This afternoon, Chuck Grassley issued a statement promising that Christine Blasey Ford would be offered an “appropriate, precedented, and respectful” process with the committee to discuss her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. But he also reminded everyone that she could have had that weeks ago if Senate Democrats hadn’t sat on it and “deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do their jobs”:

    Grassley levels a specific charge of obstruction — two of them, actually, if you count the history of Democrats holding onto Ford’s claim until after the hearings. Grassley claims that he’s attempted to work with Dianne Feinstein to schedule follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and Ford, but that her office has “thus far … refused” to cooperate. That’s a swipe at Judiciary Democrats calling for a postponement of the vote until the committee addresses the allegations, with Grassley claiming that they’ve been obstructing his attempts to resolve the situation through “precedented” means.

    Grassley also takes a swipe at Ford herself, albeit indirectly. “Dr. Ford’s attorney could have approached my office,” his statement concludes, “while keeping her client confidential and anonymous, so that these allegations could be thoroughly investigated.” “


  14. Well now. This will make things interesting and should be easy enough to verify.


  15. Well this doesn’t sound self incriminating at all……. 🙄



  16. ————————

    Why yes, it is….


  17. Jennifer Rubin, the fake conservative, once again helps out Dems. But she gets called on it too.


  18. More credibility issues.




    From the Maven.net:

    It is worth noting that Christine Ford’s first mention of Brett Kavanaugh came after the New York Times ran a story suggesting he could be on the Supreme Court if Mitt Romney were elected.

    They continued …

    But beyond that, the story no longer adds up in real ways. Christine Ford’s lawyer claims Ms. Ford wanted anonymity and reached out to Dianne Feinstein privately. The Washington Post, however, reports that Ford first reached out to them via a tip line to tell her story.

    Then, while still claiming to not want to come forward, Ford both lawyered up and got a polygraph.

    She now claims she knew she would have to come forward because the media was working on stories and would expose her, but that comes full circle to her calling a tip line and outing herself.

    Spin spin.”

    Smear smear…


  19. More questions….

    Like why did she spend the weekend purging her social media footprints?



  20. The same people who think Kavanagh is guilty of attempted rape didn’t care that Clinton raped Juanita Broderick.
    Where is moveon.org in this?


  21. This is yet another reason why millions think most journalists are biased. It’s because they are.
    The media applauds and honors her. It’s gross.


    “You can always count on Rep. Maxine Waters to give away the plans to destroy Trump’s presidency and administration.

    The latest of which occurred Friday and included a suggestion to “knock off” Trump, which was greeted with applause and cheers.

    The National Newspaper Publishers Association gave Waters a National Leadership Award and Waters used her platform to trash Trump.”


  22. Ol’ Huck gets it too.


    “Mike Huckabee to Media: Honoring Maxine Waters with ‘National Leadership Award’ ‘Might Be’ Why ‘Americans Don’t Trust You’”


  23. I haven’t kept up with today’s news about the Kavanaugh dustup but I was bothered by what I read last night about the account, if it’s true.

    Still ….

    The timing seems odd and it sounds like there’s enough inconsistencies that all may not be as it seems.




    The San Francisco Chronicle—not exactly a bastion of conservative journalism ever since Debra Saunders left their staff—is harsh in its house editorial about Sen. Feinstein:

    ‘Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee. …’

    … When you’ve lost the Chronicle. . . …


  24. And this from the same site:




    It’s clear now that, if Brett Kavanaugh is to be confirmed, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to have to hold hearings on Christine Basey Ford’s claim of sexual misconduct. Without such hearings, the votes won’t be there to confirm Kavanaugh. I don’t think it’s even close.

    For me, then, the case comes down to the question of how long it would take to nominate and confirm a new nominee. If there’s time to have additional hearings plus have the votes on Kavanaugh, and still confirm an alternative this year if Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, then have the hearings.

    If there’s time to confirm an alternative this year but not if additional hearings take place, then the nomination should be pulled. Otherwise, the risk is too great that the Senate will not confirm Kavanaugh. In that case, under this scenario, no conservative nominee will be confirmed this year, and the Senate might be in Democratic hands next year. …


  25. My son thinks that Trump will pull Kavanaugh’s nomination and nominate Trump’s sister in his place. I think he was kidding, but if it actually happens you heard it here first.


  26. Sunshine is a great disinfectant.



    “President Trump on Monday ordered the declassification of several key documents related to the FBI’s probe of Russian actions during the 2016 presidential election, including 21 pages of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page, and text messages from disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

    White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency.”

    The documents to be declassified also include all FBI reports on interviews with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all other applications to surveil Carter Page.

    Trump also ordered the Justice Department to release text messages from a number of the key players in the Russia investigation “without redaction” — including Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

    House Republicans have repeatedly sought more information about Ohr’s contacts with former British spy Christopher Steele, a longtime FBI informant who compiled the now-infamous dossier alleging various ties between Trump and Russia that was published in January 2017.

    It was not immediately clear when or how the documents would be released. A source familiar with the timing of the declassification told Fox News that they expected the Carter Page warrant application to be declassified first, followed by the FBI reports on agent interviews with Ohr.

    The source added that the Justice Department is working on a “compressed timeline” and they expect the first release of records in days or sooner. The text messages are expected to take longer because of the sheer number involved and the fact that Trump ordered their release without redactions.”


  27. Donna,

    Nonsense to the PL writer. This is a delay tactic, seeking to delay until after the midterms. Won’t, and shouldn’t, happen. They already held hearings, they had this info then yet said nothing. It’s obstruction, nothing more. It’s Bork/Thomas all over again. It’s time for R’s to play hardball.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. And this is a good start. Don’t reward their pathetic behavior by giving them what they want.


  29. On the down side, “skipping” any hearing will be seen as covering up the truth and will create a shadow over Kavanaugh for all of his term, if confirmed. Of course the hearings didn’t do much good for Thomas, so …

    I think the powerline point was that the idea is not to support Kavanaugh per se but to support a conservative justice — so if that will be more likely with starting anew, so be it.

    Not fair, but …

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.