54 thoughts on “News/Politics 9-22-18

  1. Ross Douthat wrote this 16 months ago (after the Comey firing and before the appointment of Mueller). They are still the best seven paragraphs ever written about the Trump presidency:

    “The presidency is not just another office. It has become, for good reasons and bad ones, a seat of semi-monarchical political power, a fixed place on which unimaginable pressures are daily brought to bear, and the final stopping point for decisions that can lead very swiftly to life or death for people the world over.

    One does not need to be a Marvel superhero or Nietzschean Übermensch to rise to this responsibility. But one needs some basic attributes: a reasonable level of intellectual curiosity, a certain seriousness of purpose, a basic level of managerial competence, a decent attention span, a functional moral compass, a measure of restraint and self-control. And if a president is deficient in one or more of them, you can be sure it will be exposed.

    Trump is seemingly deficient in them all. Some he perhaps never had, others have presumably atrophied with age. He certainly has political talent — charisma, a raw cunning, an instinct for the jugular, a form of the common touch, a certain creativity that normal politicians lack. He would not have been elected without these qualities. But they are not enough, they cannot fill the void where other, very normal human gifts should be.

    There is, as my colleague David Brooks wrote Tuesday, a basic childishness to the man who now occupies the presidency. That is the simplest way of understanding what has come tumbling into light in the last few days: The presidency now has kinglike qualities, and we have a child upon the throne.

    It is a child who blurts out classified information in order to impress distinguished visitors. It is a child who asks the head of the F.B.I. why the rules cannot be suspended for his friend and ally. It is a child who does not understand the obvious consequences of his more vindictive actions — like firing the very same man whom you had asked to potentially obstruct justice on your say-so.

    A child cannot be president. I love my children; they cannot have the nuclear codes.

    But a child also cannot really commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” in any usual meaning of the term. There will be more talk of impeachment now, more talk of a special prosecutor for the Russia business; well and good. But ultimately I do not believe that our president sufficiently understands the nature of the office that he holds, the nature of the legal constraints that are supposed to bind him, perhaps even the nature of normal human interactions, to be guilty of obstruction of justice in the Nixonian or even Clintonian sense of the phrase. I do not believe he is really capable of the behind-the-scenes conspiring that the darker Russia theories envision. And it is hard to betray an oath of office whose obligations you evince no sign of really understanding or respecting.”


  2. Today’s “Traitor” alert: Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue suggests that the US should rejoin our former allies in the TPP to be able to present a united front against China. Going back to the previous article, a President with a reasonable level of intellectual curiosity and a decent attention span would know that is why both Little Bush and Obama worked to create the TPP. Perdue is at least my age. He learned economics as a college sophomore. The kids learn it in the 11th grade.


  3. An income tax paying young (31) year old friend of mine and his peers were watching the Cruz/Beto debate last night and having a debate on Facebook about Cruz and the election. None were voting for Beto. Most had supported Cruz in his presidential bid. None had any remaining respect for Cruz because of his embrace of Trump whom all viewed as an “idiot”. Half said they would hold their noses and vote for Cruz. Half were voting for the Libertarian.


  4. Hmm. Three of the nitwit Trump Cult priests advised Dear Leader to fire Rosenstein immediately. So that means the fourth (Sean Hannity) who strongly advised Dear Leader not to fire Rosenstein must be …. a Traitor!


  5. I heard an interesting take on the Ford/Kavanagh thing on FoxNews last night.
    A woman is the only one to think of this. She said:
    “It s surprising that no other women have come out to support Ford. If something happened, she told her friends. Girls talk to their friends. Somebody else has heard of this.”
    That is true. Men don’t talk about such things, unless they are bragging. But I have noticed that women talk to each other. They will keep secrets. It’s a girl thing.
    If it happened, some other women know.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Ricky, your young friends sound like you will have Beto in the end unless your older friends are more practical minded. Politics has become a very emotional thing, which is a shame because the outcome can have momentous and long lasting reverberations. But the young rarely have a perspective of time or it’s consequences, and they really cannot be blamed for that. Many have been educated with either free market or utopian myths that have no place for real virtue or vice—only production and consumption,or distribution and redistribution. Such is life, and we will make of it what we can.


  7. Chas, you make a good point. It is unlikely that Ford did not mention this to others at the time if it really happened. However, I am among those who find the whole accusation irrelevant to the Kavenaugh nomination—even if it occurred, because it’s timing indicate the strong political motivation, and Kavenaugh has been investigated thoroughly many times already and he’s squeaky clean by all other accounts.


  8. Re: My 7:47
    A peer and friend who knew Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a high school student is vouching for his character amid accusations from a woman that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teens.

    “I certainly have some strong feelings about the timing of this, but that is not going to do anybody any good,” Missy Carr, a 1985 graduate of Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Monday.

    “What I would say is I have known Brett since I was maybe 16, and I still know him today,” Carr, 51, said. “I knew him in all kinds of social situations and what is being described—I also, by the way, know Mark Judge, obviously—and the scenario that is being described is not one that I could ever put either one of those guys in, even under the influence of alcohol or any of that.”

    Carr is one of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh when he attended the all-boys Georgetown Preparatory School and signed a letter published Sept. 14 that vouches for the character of the Supreme Court nominee.

    I think this is a set-up.


  9. Debra, Inquiring minds want to know: Since you, Sonny Perdue and Hannity have been “outed” as “traitors” to Trump in the last 2 days,
    1. Have the three of you formed a Shallow State?
    2. Which of you persuaded Trump to appoint Sessions, Rosenstein, Wray, Mattis, Cohn, Tilllerson, McMaster, Kelly and the other “traitors” to their positions?


  10. The Cruz race is interesting for Texas conservatives:

    1. Cruz has forever humiliated himself by sucking up to Trump.
    2. Still, it is important that Republicans retain the Senate, both to approve Trump’s good judicial nominees and to block or water down the liberal stuff that the New Democrat House will pass and Trump might sign.
    3. If Beto wins, I would make him the instant favorite to win the 2020 Democrat Presidential nomination. As bad as Beto is, he is probably much better than the Yankee and California Democrats (Pocahontas, Spartacus, etc).


  11. Is McCabe or Comey the rat?

    Either way, it’s an attempted trap.


    “The panel on “The Five” on Friday discussed the New York Times report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made reference to recording President Trump and possibly working to invoke the 25th Amendment against him.

    Dana Perino said new reporting from a senior Justice Department official said that in the 2017 meeting where the comments were allegedly made, Rosenstein was speaking extemporaneously after being challenged by then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

    In response to McCabe’s reported criticism that Rosenstein was preventing an aggressive investigation of Trump, Rosenstein shouted a frustrated and incredulous response that referenced wearing a wire, the official told Fox News.

    “McCabe wants to bring Rosenstein down,” Perino said.

    Marie Harf added that some people in Washington could want to goad Trump into firing Rosenstein and setting off “some kind of constitutional crisis.”


  12. It’s not working. 🙂


    “To hear the press tell it, President Trump is an unprecedented menace to the republic. Every day’s news is devoted to undermining him and his administration. Not just the New York Times and the Washington Post, but news outlets that once were regarded as relatively neutral, like the Associated Press, have made war on Donald Trump ever since his nomination for the presidency, if not before. Time after time, they have delivered blows they thought would be fatal. NBC’s leak of the Access Hollywood tape is one notorious instance among many. The Russia Hoax is another.

    And our readers do not need to be reminded of Democratic politicians’ non-stop hysteria over the last 18 months.

    Still, despite everything–despite his own occasional blunders as well as the unremitting hostility of all right-thinking people–Trump’s standing with the voters has barely been dented. His approval ratings move within a rather narrow range. At the moment, he is at 49% approval in the Rasmussen survey, the only rolling daily poll now being published, with 50% disapproving. Moreover, his “Approval Index”–the difference between strong approval and strong disapproval–stands at -7. That doesn’t sound great, but at the same point in his first term, Barack Obama’s Approval Index was -19.

    The Democrats have yet to come to grips with the fact that so far, President Trump is more popular with voters than their idol Barack Obama. If they were more reflective, Democrats might wonder why this is so. I suppose it has to do with a booming economy, record low unemployment, especially among minorities and women, solid advances in foreign policy, and in general, a sense that we now have a president who is at least trying to advance American interests. To put America first, in other words.”


  13. Let’s face it, anyone with a brain knew they were low balling/lying about it.


    “However big you thought the problem of illegal aliens in America was, a trio of Yale researches says it’s double what everyone thinks.

    The three university-affiliated researchers say that the previous estimate of 11.3 million illegals is based on one study with problematic methodology. The researchers took an entirely different approach and came up with the shocking number of 22 million.

    National Review:

    “Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,” said one of the study’s authors, Edward Kaplan, a professor of operations research at the Yale School of Management. “Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was 50 percent higher. That caused us to scratch our heads.”

    “There’s a number that everybody quotes, but when you actually dig down and say, ‘What is it based on?’ You find it’s based on one very specific survey and possibly an approach that has some difficulties. So we went in and just took a very different approach,” said another of the study’s authors, Jonathan Feinstein, a professor of Economics and Management.

    To arrive at their estimate, the authors used operational data such as deportations and visa overstays as well as demographic data such as death rates and immigration rates.

    “We combined these data using a demographic model that follows a very simple logic,” Kaplan said. “The population today is equal to the initial population plus everyone who came in minus everyone who went out. It’s that simple.”

    “The analysis we’ve done can be thought of as estimating the size of a hidden population,” he added. “People who are undocumented immigrants are not walking around with labels on their foreheads. . . . There are very few numbers we can point to and say, ‘This is carved in stone.’”

    The researchers said their goal in crunching the numbers was not a political one.

    “We wouldn’t want people to walk away from this research thinking that suddenly there’s a large influx happening now,” Feinstein commented. “It’s really something that happened in the past and maybe was not properly counted or documented.””


  14. 12 things to keep in mind….


    “Twelve points to keep in mind on the NYT’s Rosenstein ‘wear a wire’ and invoke 25th Amendment story”

    “The New York Times lobbed a hand grenade yesterday, with its story claiming:

    The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.

    As the old joke has it, “close doesn’t count, except in horseshoes and hand grenades,” so we can take it for granted that President Trump was certainly the main target, damaging his credibility and prospects for remaining in office, but Rod Rosenstein no doubt has been hit by shrapnel.

    We are only getting started on figuring out what this really means, but here are ten points to keep in mind,

    1. The New York Times is comfortable exposing deep state resistance to Trump.

    The idea that members of the federal bureaucracy are deliberately sabotaging and working to oust a duly elected president of the United States has been dismissed as a conspiracy theory by all sorts of mainstream media outlets and purported fact-checkers. But first with its publication of an anonymously-written op-ed, and now with this story, the Times is eager to admit the resistance and celebrate it, presumably because it thinks the end is nearing for the Trump presidency.

    2. Memos written by Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page were at least part of the basis for the report.

    Given the fact that McCabe has been fired and has been referred by the DOJ’s Inspector General for criminal prosecution, there may be self-protection motives in releasing them to the leading journalistic opponent of Trump’s presidency.

    3. Rod Rosenstein’s denials are lawyerly and self-contradictory

    Rosenstein’s first denial:

    “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

    This actually does not deny the specifics of the report. Later in the day, Rosenstein contradicted the first sentence of his statement and issued a second denial that also does not directly contradict what was reported:

    “I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false.””


  15. That’s our only hope, Obi Wan.

    I’m in Amos and teaching on Nehemiah. Way too many parallels to Israel and Judah–God will not be mocked. I’d say it’s only a matter of time, now. 😦


  16. Everyday and everywhere.


    “Trump supporters who hadn’t realized it before, must now know what we are up against in the wake of the anonymous New York Times op-ed, said to be authored by an “senior administration official” explaining #TheResistance efforts at work within the Trump Administration. Apparently, the call really is coming from inside the house.

    We’ve learned that there are active efforts inside the administration to thwart President Trump’s agenda and policies. This person thinks he (or she) knows better than the tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump. But what should be sobering to Trump supporters—and to all serious conservatives and Republicans, for that matter—is the fact that Times op-ed represents just a small sliver of what’s going on inside even a Republican administration on virtually a daily basis. There is a vast, unelected body inside the federal government that silently influences the ways in which our country is run. This permanent, unelected elite views citizens and their elections as nothing more than white noise. Something to be tolerated, but never heeded.

    A new president, of course, enters the Oval Office in order to implement the agenda that got him elected. His goal is to follow through on the promises he made to the electorate and make the country safer, wealthier, and generally better off than it was before he entered office. One of the largest and most important tasks is to appoint trusted men and women in the various departments and agencies throughout the government to enact his policies and execute the laws Congress passes. According to the Plum Book, there are more than 7,000 roles to fill, from cabinet secretaries to deputy secretaries down to lower-level Schedule C appointments. These are the political roles—appointees that every administration seeks to fill in order both to make sure the right people are in place to advance the president’s agenda and to reward those who worked for his election. Some appointees require Senate confirmation, similar to the process we see with cabinet-level positions.

    To give it some perspective, those roughly 7,000 political appointees are coming in to manage and direct roughly 2 million federal employees spread out over the 430 various departments, agencies, or sub-agencies within the U.S. government (plus the 1.3 million members of the military). For comparison’s sake, Walmart, America’s largest company, has 2.3 million employees while Amazon has just over 500,000. Running the federal government is a massive management task, so it’s important to bring in qualified, motivated individuals to get the work done. Unfortunately, those appointees aren’t the only ones on the job. Career government employees, civil servants, have potentially been in the same role or department for decades and still serve in that role regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is president.

    It has to be understood that those careers are, for the most part, not the kind that would be attractive to limited government conservatives or friendly to most stated Republican goals. Those who fill them are oftentimes motivated by self-interest and believe in maintaining the status quo. To these bureaucrats, cutting the size and growth of government means lost jobs and lower wages—whether for themselves or for their friends. Needless to say, many of them are not simpatico with cutting government spending (particularly if it diminishes the power or prestige of their own department), devolving powers to local governments, or to implementing any policies that would in any way hurt their job security.

    But don’t take my word for it. Consider the political giving of federal government employees in the 2016 elections: 95 percent went to Hillary Clinton. That’s called self-interest in action. Unfortunately, the political beliefs of the unelected bureaucrats carry over into their behavior in the workplace.

    Having been involved in a previous Republican administration, and having had many friends who were also involved as well, let me describe what typically happens. First, the Democrats obstruct and delay the confirmations and appointments of the senior political appointees (to be fair, Republicans often do the same during Democratic administrations). When those roles are not filled, guess what happens? Career bureaucrats step in as “acting” officials, and right now there are over 300 appointees still stalled by the Democrats after over 21 months of the Trump Administration. Those career bureaucrats might not be working overtly to thwart the Trump agenda, but in delaying, stalling, and with a distinct lack of urgency, they gum up implementation every day. But in some instances, careers bureaucrats pride themselves for actively working against the Republican President’s agenda.”


  17. At the very least…..


    “The Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

    Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to review judicial nominations, and unquestionably has brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute,” the standard that governs these matters. As a matter of institutional integrity, the Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

    Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Congress may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.” Nine times in American history the Senate has used that power to censure one of its members. Feinstein has richly earned the right to join this inglorious company.

    The senior senator from California not only disgraced herself personally in the underhanded and disingenuous way she dealt with the sex-assault charge against Judge Kavanaugh, but she also misused her position on the Judiciary Committee and broke faith with her fellow committee members. She was further, to quote the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, “unfair” to Judge Kavanaugh — manipulating the public disclosure of the charge so as to maximize the adverse publicity Judge Kavanaugh received and minimize the judge’s opportunity to defend himself. Censure is appropriate in this case for the Senate to defend its procedures and institutional reputation.

    By her own account, Feinstein was aware of the charge shortly after President Trump nominated Kavanaugh, nearly two months before her committee opened its hearings. She came into possession of the letter making the charge by virtue of her position on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t know what contact she had thereafter with the accuser or the accuser’s Democrat-activist Washington lawyer — but we do know that Feinstein kept the information from her Senate colleagues, ensuring it was untested and unmentioned in the committee’s hearings. This, even though the hearings were accompanied by loud complaints from Democrats that the administration’s document production was insufficient. Indeed, as this is being written, while yet another Judiciary Committee hearing has been scheduled, she still has not released the unredacted text of the letter that made the charge.

    Her conduct has been condemned all across the political spectrum. Her hometown newspaper, the left-leaning Chronicle, editorialized that she chose “the worst possible course” in dealing with the charge. The Chronicle specifically noted that her treatment of the more than three-decade-old assault charge was “unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Across the political aisle, her conduct was called “totally dishonest and dirty” in the pages of the Washington Examiner; the Wall Street Journal, more restrained, described her conduct as “highly irregular.”

    In substance, she “deliberately misled and deceived” her fellow senators, with the “effect of impeding discovery of evidence” relevant to the performance of their constitutional duties. No one should know better than Feinstein herself that such deceptive and obstructive conduct, widely regarded as “unacceptable,” “fully deserves censure,” so that “future generations of Americans . . . know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences,” bringing “shame and dishonor” to the person guilty of it and to the office that person holds, who has “violated the trust of the American people.” These quoted words all come from the resolution of censure Feinstein herself introduced concerning President Bill Clinton’s behavior in connection with his sex scandal. She can hardly be heard to complain if she is held to the same standard.”


  18. “OK, Trumpsters. You are the lawn mowing boy. What do you tell him?”


    Thanks for keeping out the job stealing illegals who want my job Mr. President. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  19. LA Times: Senate Republicans say Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, must decide this afternoon (Saturday) whether she will agree to their terms for testifying next week.


  20. How low can people go?

    An alleged victim of sexual assault had her address, phone number, email etc released on the internet and is now moving from friends to friends every few days. No wonder women don’t usually come forward.

    Kavanugh did it, to be more accurate its extremely likely. The more interesting things it appears the Republicans were prepared for the accusation. Just days after the accusation, a letter signed by 65 women is released. I went to a coed school and I didn’t know 65 girls. How popular was this guy. Just recently, Ed Whelan accused someone else and the retracted. Whelan was later found to be checking Ford’s Linkedin account even before she went public.

    Yet despite this the question is does this disqualify him? It shouldn’t…..we have juvenile records for a reason. But I wonder if Republicans are consisted on this issue. My guess is they’re far more likely to overlook the crimes of a white 17 year old prep boy than an inner city black 17 year old.


  21. Kavanugh should be disqualified or at least have longer hearings for other reasons.

    1. His views on executive privilege and power

    2. His work in the executive branch ie Bush admin colours his interpretation. Judges should advance from the lower courts.

    3. His time in the Bush White house has not been fully disclosed. It may be subject to national security or executive privilege which is why he shouldn’t be nominated. His record isn’t clear

    4. He’s not credible. Democrats claim he has lied several times under oath. At the very least he’s evasive and speaking half truths.

    5. The processed has been rushed. Grassely has been a joke. There’s nothing wrong with doing due diligence. Its a life time appointment. And the Court just proved its fine with only 8 members for just under a year.

    6. Finally its Garland’s seat.


  22. Ricky slightly misrepresents my view of Trump and collusion. There’s no doubt the Russians were involved in the US election and no doubt Putin favored Trump. The issue is when did Trump know and did he participate in it.

    Originally I think Trump’s sole goal was to sell a book, put pressure on NBC, and increase his political influence. But when it became apparent he might win, things changed.

    Trump has been involved in the Russian mob since the 90s. mostly laundering money through real estate. And as he (or his inner circle) saw a need to be more organized, he reached out to Americans he knew through his Russian connections. Its also clear Russia came calling and his team responded. The question is did he know or understand? I doubt the latter and the former is only 50/50.

    Trump fired Comey not necessarily because he had something to hide but because Comey was investigating the integrity of his “great victory”. His insecurity and pride opened up a can of worms.

    Although the US and other western nations should do more to protect their democracy, that isn’t the real issue. The blatant small town style corruption should appall any American.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Kerry is not a traitor or guilty of anything. The Republican noise machine is hysterical and sees a squirrel more than my dog.

    Retired politicians routinely talk to foreign politicians. Some do push alternative policy; Kissinger comes to mind. Others have developed personal friendships …Bush Sr, Obama, the Clintons. Others do work or act as back channels….Carter. Or maybe participate in think tanks, conferences, etc. Gorbachev, Blair, Mandela did similar things.

    The former Canadian PM Harper just visited Washington where he blamed the Cdn for the slow NAFTA negotiations. He’s not a traitor but he is an idiot as he just made his conservative party look bad.


  24. So conservatives think Fienstein should be removed for throwing a wrench in the process and raises question about their nominee…..snowflakes, the lot of them. They’re rushing him through and complaining when somebody forces them to slow down.

    I believe there was a Democratic senator sitting for about 50 years and a know former member of a terrorist organization, the KKK. And no attempts to remove him…

    If I received a note or disclosure from a student allegeding sexual assault I would have to immediately report it ( I’ve reported based on less). The only mistake Feinstein made was not disclosing it earlier, although I can understand if she’s checking the validity of the note.


  25. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/22/christine-blasey-ford-accuser-of-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-agrees-to-testify-to-key-senate-members-details-to-be-worked-out.html


    Christine Blasey Ford, accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, agrees to Senate testimony

    Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor at the center of a sexual assault accusation against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, has agreed to testify to representatives of the Senate Judiciary Committee sometime next week.

    The details have yet to be worked out, but it could mean the end of a lengthy and emotional political fight that has stalled Kavanaugh’s nomination.


  26. Re 8:29: More shades of Hill vs. Thomas, I remember that being said back then a well.

    I’ve thought that it *may* be plausible that they interpreted what happened so differently that, yes, possible that for him it wasn’t even memorable (because no harm actually was intended, it was something akin to a brief moment of ongoing ‘horseplay’ that seemed mutual to him and ended or was directed away from her quickly, during a party or among a group of kids in which that behavior was not all that unusual, wise or not). In her memory, on the other hand, it at least was a terrifying moment or two but also was something she moved on from (until she didn’t or couldn’t and it all resurfaced with a more menacing, sinister and dark cast to it, complete with even criminal intent).

    Then, as ‘others’ in the political class found out about it (or she told others in those circles about it), the event was seen as a brilliant political chess piece to use and everyone was off and running … and here we all are.

    But I distinctly remember that theory — “they’re both right” — coming out in the Anita Hill – Clarence Thomas debates when people thought both people sounded credible and like they were telling the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Hmmmmmm…….


    “White House insiders reportedly believe former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe’s team planted a story in the press suggesting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is conspiring against the president, according to Politico on Saturday.

    McCabe’s colleagues allegedly concocted the ruse to bait President Donald Trump into firing Rosenstein ahead of November’s midterm elections, the report noted. Individuals within the West Wing believe the former FBI director’s team pushed the story to create political consequences for Trump, according to Politico.

    McCabe’s spokesman pushed back on any such assertions, Politico reported. The report refers to a Sept. 21 New York Times article suggesting Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire to record Trump and volunteered to recruit cabinet officials to potentially remove the Republican from office.”


  28. Like I been saying…..


    “Trey Gowdy said classified documents from the Russia probe contain information that is “embarrassing” for former CIA Director John Brennan, the FBI and Justice Department.

    Gowdy made the remarks during an interview Thursday. By Friday, President Donald Trump reneged on an order to declassify a slew of documents from the investigation.

    Gowdy also teased documents related to George Papadopoulos, the former Trump adviser who allegedly sparked the FBI’s investigation.

    South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said the information in a batch of Russia investigation documents that President Donald Trump was considering for declassification will prove “embarrassing” for the Department of Justice, FBI and former CIA Director John Brennan.

    Gowdy made the remarks in an interview with Fox News on Thursday. The next day, President Donald Trump retracted his order to the Justice Department to declassify and release the documents. But the Republican left open the possibility that the records could be released down the road.

    But Gowdy, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, provided a preview of what to expect from the documents if they are eventually released.

    “I’ve read it. Some of it’s embarrassing for the Department of Justice — some of it’s embarrassing for the FBI. Embarrassment is not a reason to classify something,” said Gowdy. “A lot of it should be embarrassing to John Brennan, and maybe therein lies why he is so adamant that this information not be released.””


  29. HRW, Thanks for the correction on your Trump/Russia position. You and I are not at all far apart.

    I heard Smerconish and Dershowitz yesterday calling for Congressional hearings about the Rosenstein/25th Amendment issue. Both thought that participants in that meeting and other meetings of our leaders in which the 25th Amendment was discussed should testify before Congress about those discussions. I assume Trumpers would support such hearings to look for evidence of The Deep State.

    I would also support such hearings. Last spring, Cabinet officers, federal law enforcement officials and Congress were confronted by a situation in which:
    A. The new President was an ignoramus, completely unfamiliar with his duties and our system of government and behaving as if he was mentally unbalanced;
    B. There was evidence (primarily from the President’s own history and behavior) that he was a “Manchurian Candidate”; and
    C. Not surprisingly, the President was moronically attempting to interfere with the federal investigation of Russian interference in the election.

    Americans need to be able to see how Congressional, law enforcement and Cabinet officers reacted to that situation and debate what should have been their proper responses.


  30. The Kavanaugh matter reminds me much of the Thomas/Hill situation. I watched those hearings, but still don’t know which of the two, if either, was telling the truth. Had I been a Senator, I would have voted to confirm Thomas.

    I appreciate how Sasse has been quiet to date about Kavanaugh/Ford. We may never know what happened, but I think it is wise not to rush to judgment until all known facts emerge.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Her latest excuse?

    She doesn’t have a thing to wear…. 🙄


    “Elaina Plott explains:

    The decision to testify, however, is only a small part of the battle. It’s understandable that Ford’s lawyers would blanch at the thought of a Monday hearing. According to sources on both sides of the aisle with knowledge of the process, 48 hours is hardly enough time to ready a client for a congressional hearing. From hiring the right counsel to simply understanding how to dress, preparing for a hearing is an endurance test in itself, requiring many days, if not weeks, to accomplish.

    Excuse us? 48 hours?”


  32. HRW,

    The Democrats made this personal. Not R’s. Point your faux outrage at them, where it belongs.


    “Soon after Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court, Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced total war on Kavanaugh. That war would not just be procedural, it would be personal:

    Schumer chose to fight the nomination aggressively. On the night of the nomination, his office released a statement saying that he would “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” In addition, it has been reported that Schumer is cautioning fellow Democrats that they will face a uproar from their base if they do not fight the nomination.

    According to this report, Schumer has instructed his caucus to focus on criticizing Kavanaugh specifically rather than raising procedural objections. Schumer’s own statement, which asserts that Kavanaugh’s record indicates that he “would rule against reproductive rights and freedoms, and that he would welcome challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,” reflects this strategy. [Emphasis added]

    Everything that has played out since then reflects this total personal war on Kavanaugh. There were weeks of Democrat claims that Kavanaugh being elevated to the Supreme Court would kill millions of people and enslave minorities and women.

    Democrats brought protesters into the hearing room to scream at Kavanaugh. His children had to be escorted out of the room.

    Democrat Senators were unseemly in how they conducted themselves.”

    No crying now. If you don’t like the tactics used, talk to the Democrats. They set the standards for this.


  33. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/


    Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations

    In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

    “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

    Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

    Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, nobody has backed up the account advanced by Kavanaugh’s accuser, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright. …

    And from CNN:

    Committee contacts Ford’s friend about party; ‘she has no recollection’ of it, lawyer says

    ~ Washington (CNN) As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

    CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

    “I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

    On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    “Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” ~

    Liked by 1 person

  34. How many of you think that Mrs. Ford will actually change her mind about testifying?

    She can’t remember where the alleged abuse occurred, she doesn’t remember who was at the party, she identified a girl who was supposedly in the room as a boy, people she named say they weren’t at such a party, she wants only women questioning her, she wants the judge to go first, she wants delay after delay, etc… she wants, she wants. Unless she can come up with something concrete, the judge should quickly be confirmed. Dems are once again showing their desperation, and the Republicans should simply discontinue with all the concessions they have made to accommodate her.

    It’s all about delay, delay, delay. The only surprise to date is that Mrs. Ford’s attorney is not Gloria Allred.


  35. AJ.

    Citing “they started it” as a basis for morality is not acceptable, especially when incidents are separate and weeks apart. Doesn’t work in my classroom, shouldn’t work elsewhere either.

    Remind me which party social conservatives support because its hard to tell the social degenerates apart.


  36. Interesting development in the Ford letter submitted to the Cmttee. Since her own name wasn’t in the letter why would her friends letter be there? Has the letter been released?

    I’ve read various opinions on whether Kavanugh should be confirmed if the allegations are accepted. Technically it shouldn’t bc it occured when he was a juvenile. However, I do wonder what message this sends to young people. Will boys think sexual assault has no consequences if under 18 and will young girls think no one will believe them and there’s no consequences so don’t report?

    I’m sure Trump can find another conservative judge. Is the societal message more important than Kavanugh at this point?

    If true, these allegations are worse than Hill/Thomas. Ford is alleging forcible confinement and sexual assault. Hill alleged sexual harrassment.


  37. Boys should be taught that if they don’t want their lives ruined with false accusations, they better follow the Pence rule. Treat women with respect, and don’t be alone with one you are not married to. ;–)

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Kizzie, the article you linked fleshed out what I’ve had trouble figuring out how to say succinctly. When we say someone is considered innocent until proven guilty, and we have no evidence either way, we have to consider Ford innocent of lying, and Kavanaugh innocent of assault. Furthermore, as your article says, memory can be a tricky thing, and may not reflect accurately what happened. And when partying is involved, that gets even trickier.

    Everyone’s so quick to take sides, usually based on a political position rather than credible evidence.

    If nobody can produce better evidence than Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony of 40-year-old memories, I think we have to proceed on the presumption that Kavanaugh is innocent, but at the same time that Ford is not intentionally lying. That’s not a tidy position to take, but I think it’s right. That is, unless someone can produce better evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Unless or until the other shoe drops …



    The New Yorker has just posted a painfully long article by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow titled “Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years.”

    … the Democrats may have achieved liftoff. According to FOX News, creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti has apparently let it be known #HeToo has a client waiting in the wings …


  40. So, with this latest allegation including some creepiness, more specific details and peers on the record as witnesses, a Plan B may be necessary for the administration to avoid having ongoing hearings and the clock running out.

    I still hope none of it’s true, but … politically, seems like it’s time to cut the losses and move on with a new nominee, perhaps someone already vetted (thoroughly, we hope) from the first round also-rans.


  41. More false allegations.

    Even flimsier than the original.


    “We’re starting to see some reaction from conservatives on the new piece from Ronan Farrow accusing SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh of exposing his penis to a woman at a college frat party and “caused her to touch it without her consent.”

    Matt Walsh calls the allegations “flimsier than the original”:


    “The others alleged to have been at the party deny it. Her friend from college says she never mentioned it happening. Debbie herself was hesitant to say whether Kavanaugh was even involved at all in her initial conversations with the New Yorker.

    But after “assessing her memories” and talking to her lawyers, she has now decided that Brett Kavanaugh is the one who showed off his private parts 35 years ago while she and everyone else was drunk. Okay then.”


  42. Don’t fall for it DJ. That’s what they want, just to delay it past the midterms. They have no evidence.




  43. Clock is ticking AJ. Now there are more stories to vet and hold hearings on. There’s not an easy way to simply chuck all of that, skip the hearings and force it to a vote, he won’t have the support if that happens.


  44. And while I didn’t read a lot of the new story, it struck me personally as stronger than the first — in that there were witnesses who saw and remember now the incident. Maybe those witnesses aren’t reliable, I don’t know.

    The problem becomes now sorting all of this out, the first incident and now a second (and perhaps a third to come). Politically timed, yes. And why these behaviors weren’t brought up in what must have been earlier background checks on the nominee, I have no idea.

    But thinking the battle, as it were, can be fought and won in the face of some impossible-to-vet allegations is I think naive.

    Unless the nominee has something more than calendars from 1982 to produce, he’s in an impossible situation of having to defend himself against some really ugly charges that cast a shadow of doubt over him.

    We’ll see what the new week brings, it’s a fast-moving story and I suspect the administration will be looking for ways to limit the damage and fallout — and to cut short what’s become an ongoing soap opera over did he or didn’t he.


  45. I still choose not to believe the allegations as I can’t imagine how, if they’re true, they didn’t surface much sooner than now in background checks months ago.

    But now that the charges are out there — and are nearly impossible to defend against in the court of public opinion at this late date — I think the odds are against his nomination being in place much longer. Just my take.


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.