“In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”
“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”
Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.
The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.”
Time to travel with security, preferably the kind that doesn’t mind cracking some skulls when necessary. (It’s becoming necessary) It’s the only way this will stop.
“Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz was chased out of a DC restaurant by protesters on Monday night, according to video posted on Twitter.
Two videos were posted by “Smash Racism DC” and they show a large group of protesters chanting “We believe survivors” in reference to sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at Sen. Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz.”
“A federal judge appeared poised Monday to toss out a defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump by porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Judge S. James Otero said in U.S. District Court that a tweet the president wrote in April appears to be “rhetorical hyperbole” and speech protected under the First Amendment.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued Trump in April after he said a composite sketch of a man she said threatened her in 2011 to keep quiet about an alleged affair with the real estate mogul was a “con job.”
Trump tweeted that the man was “nonexistent” and that Daniels was playing the “fake news media for fools.” He retweeted a side-by-side photo comparing the sketch with a photo of Daniels’ husband.
Otero said he would rule later, but that Trump’s statement seemed like an opinion and speech protected under the First Amendment.
“To allow the complaint to go forward and to have one consider this to be defamatory in the context it was made would have a chilling effect,” Otero said.
Attorney Ken White who blogs about the case and talks about it on the podcast “All the President’s Lawyers” said he thinks Otero wrote a tentative ruling that he would finalize and issue soon.
If Daniels’ defamation case if thrown out it would be similar to a ruling by a New York state judge who dismissed a lawsuit by a political strategist who claimed her reputation was trashed when Trump falsely said she had “begged” for a campaign job and called her a “dummy” on Twitter, White said.
“The court basically said, ‘It’s Trump, it’s Twitter, he known for throwing around insults and this can’t be understood as anything other than exaggerated rhetoric,'” White said of the New York case.
Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said outside court that he would appeal if the defamation suit was dismissed. He said it was ironic that Trump was relied on the First Amendment to shield himself from legal trouble.”
——————–
“Trumponomics is working extremely well and it can for a long time if we don’t screw it up.
I saw a headline in the Washington Post telling us that Trumponomics is not working, and I wondered what the heck these people must be smoking because obviously the economy is humming on almost all fronts.
The reason they say his policies aren’t working or won’t work in the near future is because of Trump’s trade policies.
Trumponomics is actually a very simple concept. Get rid of unnecessary regulations and let people and businesses keep more of the money they earn, which will allow great compounding throughout the private sector.
We should all remember that a lot of economists predicted doom and gloom by now, and since they were way off they will just predict doom and gloom down the road a little. Few predicted the growth that we are having now so why would we believe their predictions for the future.
Let’s look at the current economic statistics to see how Trumponomics is working today:
Economic growth of 4.2%,
consumer and business confidence near record highs,
Unemployment for all ages, education levels, sexes and races near record lows,
unemployment claims at 50 year low,
part time jobs for economic reasons are down more than one million,
stock prices have hit record high over 100 times since Trump took office,
capital spending for businesses up substantially,
business and retail sales up,
imports and exports up,
oil production near record highs,
median family income rising faster than at any time in over a decade,
corporate profits are high,
bonuses have gone up, wage levels are rising,
take home pay is up more because of tax cuts,
dividend income, interest income and capital gains income up.
Oil prices are actually below 2008 and 2012-2015, when incomes and economic growth were lower. Isn’t it amazing how more drilling and production works.
Government entities throughout the country are seeing extra revenue come in because of the surging growth. Higher stock prices, interest rates, dividends and capital gains are helping their (and everyone’s) pension funds.
Food stamp usage and disability claims are down, helping the budget. Health care costs and premiums look to stabilize in 2019 for the first time in a long time. Isn’t it amazing what more competition, freedom of choice and getting rid of the individual mandate will do
I am truly having trouble finding anything that indicates that Trumponomics isn’t working.”
———————–
“While Democrats and the public holler to each other about who’s lying in the 11th-hour sexual abuse charges seeking to shoot down the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and the Drudge Report headlines it as a he-said, she-said case, what stands out is that the two sides in this aren’t equal. It’s amazing how much careful hedging against perjury charges Kavanaugh’s accusers have taken, in contrast with Kavanaugh’s defenders.
Christine Blasey Ford set off a few red flags from the get-go, not only because of first her insistence on anonymity in making the charges, then her vague recall of critical details such as when the incident was and how she got there, and finally her lawyer’s crazy conditions for her client to testify before the Senate, insisting that only male Senate members ask questions, Kavanaugh speak first, and lots of time to set up the Senate hearings due to the Hawaii-commuting professor’s suddenly disclosed fear of flying, alongside her false claim that the Senate insisted she sit at the same table as Kavanaugh as she made her charges.
All of those could be called small perjury hedges. Her defenders might argue that those aren’t hedges at all. But there is a big one: the fact that she sent her letter accusing Kavanaugh to Rep. Anna Eshoo, who sits in a House seat of no importance to the Senate confirmation – and didn’t send it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sits in a Senate seat of significant importance.
Why could she have done that? Well, because sending a letter to Eshoo (and hoping it stays anonymous) means it’s not under oath, because Eshoo is of no importance to the matter. Sending it to Feinstein means that it is under oath, because it’s sent as evidence for the case.
Now it looks like a perjury hedge. Nobody can get her on a Robert Mueller-style lying-to-the-investigators rap if the charges don’t pan out, given that she sent her letter to Eshoo, and what’s more, Feinstein, who has the letter now, doesn’t want to release it into the testimony pile.
Here’s the second thing: All of the three people named as witnesses in the incident, including the female, Leland Keyser, did send letters to the Senate, under oath, as did Kavanaugh. That’s four people – and they all said nothing happened. They didn’t take a perjury hedge. If they’re lying, they can be busted, quite unlike Ford, the accuser.”
—————————–
“Predictably, however, Ford has been joined by Stormy Daniels’ execrable mouthpiece, Michael Avenatti. Now a Yale classmate is making claims about some nudity at a dorm party, which have been questioned or denied by people who were allegedly there. So why are some self-described conservatives signing up to help this circus along?
False accusations and smear campaigns against upstanding Supreme Court nominees are nothing new. Democrats destroyed Robert Bork’s reputation in 1987 with a campaign of lies. Republicans said never again. So when Democrats tried it again on Clarence Thomas in 1991, that effort failed.
Today, however, so-called conservatives are helping Democrats destroy Kavanaugh as they seem to miss the point: Democrats aren’t acting in good faith. There is no search for truth—the campaign to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination is just brass-knuckled power politics. Democrats will do and say anything they think will keep Kavanaugh off the bench.
The longer it goes on, the more claims they will gin up until Republicans just can’t take it anymore and slink off in defeat, leaving Democrats in control of the Supreme Court. Remember when Harry Reid admitted to lying about improprieties in Mitt Romney’s tax returns but justified it saying he “did what was necessary.” The same ethic is at work here.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty not only thinks that Ford’s claims should bar Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court, but he told Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic, who wrote she believes Ford despite the lack of evidence, that “it’s hard to see how he could remain a federal judge.” David French agreed that the allegations, if proven, should “mar him for life.” National Review Online Editor Charles C. W. Cooke agreed, adding that he doesn’t think that makes him “irrational or a Stalinist.”
Dennis Prager disagreed and made the commonsense argument that people should be judged based on the entirety of their lives and not for things that occurred in their youth, for which there is no evidence, and which the accused has denied. For that, he earned the opprobrium of French’s wife, Nancy, in a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post. French added that she “is no longer a Republican” because Republicans tell her that “character doesn’t matter” and that “people are disposable.”
Yet, these are the people who represent themselves as “true conservatives.” They’re not and it’s time for actual conservatives to realize it and ignore them. What they really are is self-righteous moralizers and anti-social prigs.
If the Frenches and the Geraghtys of the world kept their opinions to themselves, the country would be better off. Unfortunately, they are members of a very vocal political suicide cult who falsely claim the conservative mantle yet collaborate with political enemies and work to advance the evidence-free smear of Kavanaugh. The only thing these “conservatives” seem genuinely interested in conserving is the platforms they use to reprimand the rest of us for not living up to their preposterous standards.
For those of us concerned about practical politics and the future of American republicanism, a constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court is vital to regaining some notion of responsible self-government. It has been the object of two generations of work by actual conservatives. But these hectoring scolds are actively working to seize defeat from the jaws of victory on the basis of a patently obvious, after the buzzer, bad faith smear campaign designed to destroy a man whose entire life—not to mention the testimony of many contemporaries—contradicts the claim.
If they are successful, we will all pay the price.
@7:14 just proved that what HRW said last night @ 7:15 was correct.
Trumpers do not believe that character matters. When conservative political leaders or religious conservatives commit themselves to supporting Trump, they must shed their commitment to morality just as certainly as they must give up their understanding of economics and foreign policy and their commitment to the rule of law.
Thank goodness there are still a few “hectoring scolds” who will speak out against the pathological liar, the %#&$% grabber, the economic ignoramus and the international buffoon.
That is very true, Jay Nordlinger. However, the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party you knew still had a moral compass and brains.
Is the dictator of North Korea — a gulag state, a totalitarian state, a murderous state — “very open and terrific”? The Republican party and conservative movement I knew would have been repulsed by statements such as this. https://t.co/BnKobncwFz
Look! One of the “hectoring scolds” demonstrates that it is possible to maintain your moral compass, be open minded and analyze facts.
Kavanaugh could have played it safe. Many lawyers would advise him to play it safe. He could have repeated his denials and claimed "no corroborating evidence." But he got aggressive. He got specific. He really wants to clear his name. My thoughts here: https://t.co/Y3q2o4pvm0
We see it is possible to be a conservative without taking leave of your rationality or your morality. The Democrats will probably still call you a fascist, a misogynist or a racist. The Trump Cult will call you a traitor or a scold.
So, Ricky, are you going to ‘give up your commitment to morality’ in November, or are you going to just let Beto take the Trump ‘sycophant’s seat in the Senate? Just curious.
When I was in the AF, I was a radio operator. It isn’t a problem not, technology had defeated it. But we had lots of problems communicating because of static. That’s why we went to Morse code. You could read the truth through the static.
That’s what all this business about the 25th amendment, sexual escapades of a 17-year old, and a multitude of other things.
So much static.
I’m not saying that morality isn’t important. But I don’t see anyone on the stage who has claim to it. Also, most moral man we have had recently is remembered for sweaters in the Oval office, 67degree federal office buildings, the 55 mph speed limits, convoys and the CB radio.
In other news: I can’t quite tell if this is a deal with the devil or a deal between devils….
Over the last two years, China’s estimated 60 million Christians have felt the power of a newly assertive government eager to bring their faith to heel.
Authorities have demolished hundreds of Protestant churches, knocking crosses off steeples and evicting congregations. Roman Catholics have faced similar measures, but the government took a different approach over the weekend, striking a diplomatic deal that Vatican officials said was a historic breakthrough — the first formal acknowledgment by Beijing of the pope’s authority in Catholic churches in China.
Beijing’s goal in the agreement, however, appears to be the same as with the church demolitions: gaining more control over the rapid spread of Christianity, the only foreign faith to gain a permanent foothold in China since the arrival of Buddhism two millenniums ago.
“We’re at a turning point,” said Ying Fuk-tsang, director of the divinity school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “The administration feels that the government had been too lax in the past and now wants to increase the pressure.”
Under the agreement signed Saturday, Pope Francis recognized the legitimacy of seven bishops appointed by Beijing in exchange for a say in how future Chinese bishops are named.
The ruling Communist Party sees the compromise with the Vatican as a step toward eliminating the underground churches where Chinese Catholics who refuse to recognize the party’s authority have worshipped for generations. With the pope now recognizing all bishops and clergy in the official Catholic churches approved and controlled by the party, the underground church may have no reason to exist.
The move is part of a broader push by the government to clamp down on all aspects of society since Xi Jinping took power as the party’s leader in 2012. Xi has presided over a far-reaching crackdown on corruption, civic organizations and independent journalism, but his approach toward religion has been more selective….
Debra, I believe the Church is going to continue to grow rapidly in Asia and there is nothing that the Chinese government or the Vatican can do to prevent that from happening.
I see on FoxNews that Democrats are telling Kavanagh to withdraw his name.
QoD. I challenge someone to come up with something more ridiculous.
Really! How silly can you get? .
Nah, HRW was not correct last night @7:15, at least not so far as he was implying it’s a predominately “social conservative” phenomenon to overlook bad behavior, etc. That’s laughable, really. Are there studies about this? That show it’s more common for social conservatives to blame the victim, to secretly condone frat boy behavior? Maybe it’s my ego, but it appeared he posted in answer to my question about whether it concerns him if someone is assumed to be guilty before collection of facts. It’s strange that he would say we shouldn’t, and instead should be concerned about other stuff. I’m glad Kizzie pointed out people can actually hold to more than one principle simultaneously.
No, Trumpers and Trump and etc. didn’t start the decline in American morality, nor have they especially exacerbated it. It was already going downhill. Mitt Romney? Idol worship is immorality, you know. It’s says that somewhere in the Bible, I’m sure. Conservatives also didn’t seem to mind the only immorality some folks on this board seem to recognize–that is, the sexual kind–when John McCain held office and was nominated by the R party.
It is the job of an effective leader to broadcast a clear, truthful message that can be heard above all the static. Reagan did that better than any other politician in my lifetime, and it is one of his abilities that I miss the most.
When it comes to the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, remember one thing:
The math is the math is the math.
Nothing else matters.
Either the math works in favor of Kavanaugh or it doesn’t.
The Senate is divided between 51 Republicans and 49 senators who caucus with Democrats. …
There are at least four Republican senators who are genuinely in play right now. Fox is told the number could be as high as seven Republicans. The four obvious ones on the fence are Collins, Corker, Flake and Murkowski.
So, Kavanaugh’s fate is far from clear. …
“In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court,” said McConnell in a speech at the Values Voters Summit on Friday. “So my friends, keep the faith.”
By Monday, the Kentucky Republican tempered his pronouncement.
“Judge Kavanaugh will be voted on here on the Senate floor. Up or down, on the Senate floor, this fine nominee to the Supreme Court will receive a vote in this Senate in the near future,” said McConnell.
Up or down. …
Does Kavanaugh have the votes? He’s short right now.
And win or lose, the math is the math is the math.
______________________________
… How long does it take to confirm a Supreme Court justice?
Days from nomination to confirmation for current members of the Supreme Court:
JUSTICE DAYS FROM NOMINATION TO CONFIRMATION
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 50
–
John Roberts* 62
–
Neil Gorsuch 65
–
Sonia Sotomayor 66
–
Stephen Breyer 73
–
Samuel Alito 82
–
Elena Kagan 87
–
Clarence Thomas 99
–
Days until midterms 42
–
Days until next Congress 100
–
… That makes the timing awfully interesting (and makes Republican complaints about Democratic delays to the process a little easier to understand). If Kavanaugh were to withdraw his name today, and Trump were to nominate someone else in his place tomorrow, the GOP might be able to confirm the replacement before the midterms — but the timing would be tight and would require a faster confirmation process than for any current member of the Supreme Court. …
__________________________________
So calling out your brethren for their BS, especially where Kavanugh is concerned, has you again siding with our resident far leftist. Way to prove my point again.
And if you believe your own tripe, that character matters to you NTers more than anyone, why are your pals trashing a good man? Just to get Trump.
This says way more about you guys than it does Trump supporters. So does you’re little hissy fit at the end of 7:28. I obviously hit a nerve. 🙂
“On Sunday night, September 23, 2018, The New Yorker published an article about accusations by Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The authors were Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer.
The New Yorker article noted, deep into the article, that Ramirez’s accusations were not corroborated by any witnesses with first hand knowledge, and that Ramirez herself had gaps in memory that were cleared up only after 6 days of thinking about it and consulting with lawyers.
The NY Times covered the story, and had language in its September 23 about Ford testifying that was extremely helpful to Kavanaugh’s defense. The language was added in an evening edit.
Specifically that the Times could not corroborate the story AND that Ramirez had been calling people telling them she was uncertain Kavanaugh was involved in the alleged incident (emphasis added):
“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
This language was repeated in a September 24 article at the Times, but has been removed (see below). Now the NY Times has rewritten the September 24 story to take out that language, and to explicitly argue that the information does not rebut Ramirez’s claim.
Michael Smerconish tweeted about it:”
“Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” Why is this sentence now gone from this @nytimes story? https://t.co/ufSehglkTm
The hate storm being leveled by the left at Ashley Kavanaugh is a good indicator of what they really think of women—or at least any women with whom they disagree. So enough already with the liberal lecturing about "respect" and "bullying."
“If and when Kavanaugh is cleared and finally confirmed, we must never forget how complicit the media was in smearing his person, his name, and his family. They will pretend they weren’t biased and just covered the story but when you see hit pieces like this yearbook garbage from the New York Times, it’s clear they too have an agenda in doing whatever they can to stop Kavanaugh.
It’s gross.”
———————-
NYT quickly scrubbed source of yearbook hit piece, a rabidly anti-Trump politician whose recent campaign for MD governor was based on his vow to "piss off Donald Trump" https://t.co/Dzb7knUJjS
“The Times, which allowed anonymous sources to make the claim of sexual bragging that forms the basis of the story, would not allow anonymous sources to dispute that claim or defend the group of classmates.
When a reporter from the New York Times called one of the men a few days ago, the reporter said, “I understand that you and other friends used to brag about having had sex with” Dolphin and that a story saying as much was about to be published. It is unclear whether the reporter made similar presentations to Dolphin to elicit comments from her. The friends’ claims to the contrary, including denials of any sexual contact, were downplayed or ignored by the New York Times.
“The New York Times’ callous treatment of the yearbook references to our friend have now destroyed relationships that span four decades. These friendships can’t be recovered and will never be replaced. The anguish caused to our friend is immeasurable; the loss of her trust and respect is devastating,” said one member of the group portrayed by the article, who requested anonymity both because he worries about causing further distress and for fear the New York Times will continue to target him.”
I may be wrong, but I still see the Kavanaugh treatment as an eventual win-win. If he’s not confirmed before the election, he’ll be confirmed afterward. It’s a shame that the process has become so chaotic and that Kavanaugh and his family are being tarred and feathered in the press. I suppose it’s tit for tat since the Senate refused to allow a vote on Garland. However, I think it is a good thing that the SCOTUS is finally being acknowledged as essentially political. The justification for giving them the unprecedented and unintended power they have held is about to erode, I think.
“Republican Senator Lindsey Graham condemned what he called the Democrats’ attempt to destroy President Trump through the allegations levied against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Hannity Monday night.
“For them to complain about the process is like an arsonist complaining about a fire. The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are collapsing. This has been the worst low point in the Senate for me and that is saying a lot,” Graham said.
“I never thought it would get this bad. We are going to have a hearing Thursday and have a vote soon thereafter. And I look forward to supporting this good man,” Graham added. “The takeaway for me, Sean, is that when it comes to Donald Trump, there are no boundaries, there are no rules. Whatever you need to do to destroy him or his agenda is okay.”
Dem idea of justice: on MTP Daily, Sen. Chris Coons just said that Judge Kavanaugh "bears the burden of disproving these allegations." #tcot#BrettKavanaugh#ChristineFord#MTPDaily#DeborahRamirez pic.twitter.com/fZcouvWsXo
Debra, I agree with you that this whole Kavanaugh thing is good for Republicans. It is reminding all the Republicans who are disgusted with Trump just how bad the Democrats can be. If I don’t get my candy, I am going to blame Spartacus Booker and Dianne Feinstein.
I don’t know if the worst I’ve heard about the yearbook/Renate Club thing would disqualify someone for SC, but I would be interested in getting a clear explanation of it. The explanations I’ve heard so far don’t really make a lot of sense.
“IRS Tax Examiner: Target Conservative Groups Because They Are “… just @#$%^%$ fronts for the Koch brothers.”
Deleting IRS Emails is “… so cool… [conservatives] could not hold any evidence against… ” Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen “…I don’t give a @#$% if that is a crime.”
IRS Attorney on Lerner Scandal: “All that stuff we saw in the news, yeah mistakes were made.”
IRS is Comfy Gig, Democratic Socialist of America Gets “… a lot of paid time off and sick days” to Use for Activism
Contempt for America: “Unfortunately, I am not allowed by the bylaws of my union to go against the Constitution.”
Project Veritas has released the fourth story in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials who candidly discuss the IRS’s unfair treatment of conservative non-profit groups. The two officials in the report are Thomas Sheehy, an IRS tax examiner and member of the Austin Democratic Socialists of America in Texas, and Jerry Semasek, an IRS attorney in Washington, DC.
The Austin Democratic Socialists of America is a socialist group that works to advance ‘progressive issues’ in Austin, Texas.
Flagrantly Targeting Conservative Groups
Sheehy boasts about and appears to justify former disgraced IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was mired in scandal for losing tens of thousands of emails regarding the Lois Lerner controversy. The Lois Lerner controversy occurred in 2013 and involved revelations showing that the IRS unfairly scrutinized conservative groups.”
Were they laughing when he said the part about rejecting the ideology of globalism and embracing patriotism and when he spoke of sovereignty ? Just curious. ;–)
Debra
The laughter was clearly audible. He stopped his speech and responded.
Watch @realDonaldTrump get laughed at by world leaders at the #UNGA after saying his administration has accomplished more than any in US history over the past two years. He literally is a worldwide laughingstock. pic.twitter.com/ubFELgeg5Q
Is it true that Kavanaugh’s former roommate says that Kavanaugh drank to excess, moreso than others who drank a lot, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he did so? (Someone on Facebook mentioned this.)
Kizzie, Here is an interview for what it is worth. The roommate clearly was not close to Kavanaugh and seemed sympathetic (maybe biased) toward the 2nd accuser.
Wandering Views 
Cold feet, or just further stall tactics?
https://www.mediaite.com/online/hearing-in-doubt-christine-fords-lawyer-rips-senate-plan-to-have-prosecutor-ask-questions-not-fair-and-respectful/
“In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”
“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”
Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.
The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.”
LikeLike
Time to travel with security, preferably the kind that doesn’t mind cracking some skulls when necessary. (It’s becoming necessary) It’s the only way this will stop.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/ted-cruz-protested-dc-restaurant/
“Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz was chased out of a DC restaurant by protesters on Monday night, according to video posted on Twitter.
Two videos were posted by “Smash Racism DC” and they show a large group of protesters chanting “We believe survivors” in reference to sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at Sen. Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good. Her 15 minutes were up anyway.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-seek-toss-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-181622779.html
“A federal judge appeared poised Monday to toss out a defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump by porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Judge S. James Otero said in U.S. District Court that a tweet the president wrote in April appears to be “rhetorical hyperbole” and speech protected under the First Amendment.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued Trump in April after he said a composite sketch of a man she said threatened her in 2011 to keep quiet about an alleged affair with the real estate mogul was a “con job.”
Trump tweeted that the man was “nonexistent” and that Daniels was playing the “fake news media for fools.” He retweeted a side-by-side photo comparing the sketch with a photo of Daniels’ husband.
Otero said he would rule later, but that Trump’s statement seemed like an opinion and speech protected under the First Amendment.
“To allow the complaint to go forward and to have one consider this to be defamatory in the context it was made would have a chilling effect,” Otero said.
Attorney Ken White who blogs about the case and talks about it on the podcast “All the President’s Lawyers” said he thinks Otero wrote a tentative ruling that he would finalize and issue soon.
If Daniels’ defamation case if thrown out it would be similar to a ruling by a New York state judge who dismissed a lawsuit by a political strategist who claimed her reputation was trashed when Trump falsely said she had “begged” for a campaign job and called her a “dummy” on Twitter, White said.
“The court basically said, ‘It’s Trump, it’s Twitter, he known for throwing around insults and this can’t be understood as anything other than exaggerated rhetoric,'” White said of the New York case.
Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said outside court that he would appeal if the defamation suit was dismissed. He said it was ironic that Trump was relied on the First Amendment to shield himself from legal trouble.”
——————–
The creepy porn lawyer’s 15 are up too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Trumponomics Triumphant.
WaPo’s wrong again.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/trumponomics_triumphant.html
“Trumponomics is working extremely well and it can for a long time if we don’t screw it up.
I saw a headline in the Washington Post telling us that Trumponomics is not working, and I wondered what the heck these people must be smoking because obviously the economy is humming on almost all fronts.
The reason they say his policies aren’t working or won’t work in the near future is because of Trump’s trade policies.
Trumponomics is actually a very simple concept. Get rid of unnecessary regulations and let people and businesses keep more of the money they earn, which will allow great compounding throughout the private sector.
We should all remember that a lot of economists predicted doom and gloom by now, and since they were way off they will just predict doom and gloom down the road a little. Few predicted the growth that we are having now so why would we believe their predictions for the future.
Let’s look at the current economic statistics to see how Trumponomics is working today:
Economic growth of 4.2%,
consumer and business confidence near record highs,
Unemployment for all ages, education levels, sexes and races near record lows,
unemployment claims at 50 year low,
part time jobs for economic reasons are down more than one million,
stock prices have hit record high over 100 times since Trump took office,
capital spending for businesses up substantially,
business and retail sales up,
imports and exports up,
oil production near record highs,
median family income rising faster than at any time in over a decade,
corporate profits are high,
bonuses have gone up, wage levels are rising,
take home pay is up more because of tax cuts,
dividend income, interest income and capital gains income up.
Oil prices are actually below 2008 and 2012-2015, when incomes and economic growth were lower. Isn’t it amazing how more drilling and production works.
Government entities throughout the country are seeing extra revenue come in because of the surging growth. Higher stock prices, interest rates, dividends and capital gains are helping their (and everyone’s) pension funds.
Food stamp usage and disability claims are down, helping the budget. Health care costs and premiums look to stabilize in 2019 for the first time in a long time. Isn’t it amazing what more competition, freedom of choice and getting rid of the individual mandate will do
I am truly having trouble finding anything that indicates that Trumponomics isn’t working.”
———————–
🙂
LikeLike
Are the accusers lawyers delaying to avoid a perjury charge?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/perjury_hedge_sure_starting_to_look_that_way_with_kavanaughs_two_accusers.html
“While Democrats and the public holler to each other about who’s lying in the 11th-hour sexual abuse charges seeking to shoot down the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and the Drudge Report headlines it as a he-said, she-said case, what stands out is that the two sides in this aren’t equal. It’s amazing how much careful hedging against perjury charges Kavanaugh’s accusers have taken, in contrast with Kavanaugh’s defenders.
Christine Blasey Ford set off a few red flags from the get-go, not only because of first her insistence on anonymity in making the charges, then her vague recall of critical details such as when the incident was and how she got there, and finally her lawyer’s crazy conditions for her client to testify before the Senate, insisting that only male Senate members ask questions, Kavanaugh speak first, and lots of time to set up the Senate hearings due to the Hawaii-commuting professor’s suddenly disclosed fear of flying, alongside her false claim that the Senate insisted she sit at the same table as Kavanaugh as she made her charges.
All of those could be called small perjury hedges. Her defenders might argue that those aren’t hedges at all. But there is a big one: the fact that she sent her letter accusing Kavanaugh to Rep. Anna Eshoo, who sits in a House seat of no importance to the Senate confirmation – and didn’t send it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sits in a Senate seat of significant importance.
Why could she have done that? Well, because sending a letter to Eshoo (and hoping it stays anonymous) means it’s not under oath, because Eshoo is of no importance to the matter. Sending it to Feinstein means that it is under oath, because it’s sent as evidence for the case.
Now it looks like a perjury hedge. Nobody can get her on a Robert Mueller-style lying-to-the-investigators rap if the charges don’t pan out, given that she sent her letter to Eshoo, and what’s more, Feinstein, who has the letter now, doesn’t want to release it into the testimony pile.
Here’s the second thing: All of the three people named as witnesses in the incident, including the female, Leland Keyser, did send letters to the Senate, under oath, as did Kavanaugh. That’s four people – and they all said nothing happened. They didn’t take a perjury hedge. If they’re lying, they can be busted, quite unlike Ford, the accuser.”
—————————–
Now why do you suppose that is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So I guess we have to talk about the R dissenters, also known as NTers. Don’t fall for it.
“Predictably, however, Ford has been joined by Stormy Daniels’ execrable mouthpiece, Michael Avenatti. Now a Yale classmate is making claims about some nudity at a dorm party, which have been questioned or denied by people who were allegedly there. So why are some self-described conservatives signing up to help this circus along?
False accusations and smear campaigns against upstanding Supreme Court nominees are nothing new. Democrats destroyed Robert Bork’s reputation in 1987 with a campaign of lies. Republicans said never again. So when Democrats tried it again on Clarence Thomas in 1991, that effort failed.
Today, however, so-called conservatives are helping Democrats destroy Kavanaugh as they seem to miss the point: Democrats aren’t acting in good faith. There is no search for truth—the campaign to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination is just brass-knuckled power politics. Democrats will do and say anything they think will keep Kavanaugh off the bench.
The longer it goes on, the more claims they will gin up until Republicans just can’t take it anymore and slink off in defeat, leaving Democrats in control of the Supreme Court. Remember when Harry Reid admitted to lying about improprieties in Mitt Romney’s tax returns but justified it saying he “did what was necessary.” The same ethic is at work here.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty not only thinks that Ford’s claims should bar Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court, but he told Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic, who wrote she believes Ford despite the lack of evidence, that “it’s hard to see how he could remain a federal judge.” David French agreed that the allegations, if proven, should “mar him for life.” National Review Online Editor Charles C. W. Cooke agreed, adding that he doesn’t think that makes him “irrational or a Stalinist.”
Dennis Prager disagreed and made the commonsense argument that people should be judged based on the entirety of their lives and not for things that occurred in their youth, for which there is no evidence, and which the accused has denied. For that, he earned the opprobrium of French’s wife, Nancy, in a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post. French added that she “is no longer a Republican” because Republicans tell her that “character doesn’t matter” and that “people are disposable.”
Yet, these are the people who represent themselves as “true conservatives.” They’re not and it’s time for actual conservatives to realize it and ignore them. What they really are is self-righteous moralizers and anti-social prigs.
If the Frenches and the Geraghtys of the world kept their opinions to themselves, the country would be better off. Unfortunately, they are members of a very vocal political suicide cult who falsely claim the conservative mantle yet collaborate with political enemies and work to advance the evidence-free smear of Kavanaugh. The only thing these “conservatives” seem genuinely interested in conserving is the platforms they use to reprimand the rest of us for not living up to their preposterous standards.
For those of us concerned about practical politics and the future of American republicanism, a constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court is vital to regaining some notion of responsible self-government. It has been the object of two generations of work by actual conservatives. But these hectoring scolds are actively working to seize defeat from the jaws of victory on the basis of a patently obvious, after the buzzer, bad faith smear campaign designed to destroy a man whose entire life—not to mention the testimony of many contemporaries—contradicts the claim.
If they are successful, we will all pay the price.
LikeLike
@7:14 just proved that what HRW said last night @ 7:15 was correct.
Trumpers do not believe that character matters. When conservative political leaders or religious conservatives commit themselves to supporting Trump, they must shed their commitment to morality just as certainly as they must give up their understanding of economics and foreign policy and their commitment to the rule of law.
Thank goodness there are still a few “hectoring scolds” who will speak out against the pathological liar, the %#&$% grabber, the economic ignoramus and the international buffoon.
LikeLike
That is very true, Jay Nordlinger. However, the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party you knew still had a moral compass and brains.
LikeLike
Look! One of the “hectoring scolds” demonstrates that it is possible to maintain your moral compass, be open minded and analyze facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Another rational article by one of the “hectoring scolds” vilified @ 7:14:
We see it is possible to be a conservative without taking leave of your rationality or your morality. The Democrats will probably still call you a fascist, a misogynist or a racist. The Trump Cult will call you a traitor or a scold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, Ricky, are you going to ‘give up your commitment to morality’ in November, or are you going to just let Beto take the Trump ‘sycophant’s seat in the Senate? Just curious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I was in the AF, I was a radio operator. It isn’t a problem not, technology had defeated it. But we had lots of problems communicating because of static. That’s why we went to Morse code. You could read the truth through the static.
That’s what all this business about the 25th amendment, sexual escapades of a 17-year old, and a multitude of other things.
So much static.
I’m not saying that morality isn’t important. But I don’t see anyone on the stage who has claim to it. Also, most moral man we have had recently is remembered for sweaters in the Oval office, 67degree federal office buildings, the 55 mph speed limits, convoys and the CB radio.
LikeLiked by 4 people
In other news: I can’t quite tell if this is a deal with the devil or a deal between devils….
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/china-vatican-bulldozers-christianity-5373124/
LikeLike
Debra, I believe the Church is going to continue to grow rapidly in Asia and there is nothing that the Chinese government or the Vatican can do to prevent that from happening.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I see on FoxNews that Democrats are telling Kavanagh to withdraw his name.
QoD. I challenge someone to come up with something more ridiculous.
Really! How silly can you get? .
LikeLiked by 3 people
More static?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nah, HRW was not correct last night @7:15, at least not so far as he was implying it’s a predominately “social conservative” phenomenon to overlook bad behavior, etc. That’s laughable, really. Are there studies about this? That show it’s more common for social conservatives to blame the victim, to secretly condone frat boy behavior? Maybe it’s my ego, but it appeared he posted in answer to my question about whether it concerns him if someone is assumed to be guilty before collection of facts. It’s strange that he would say we shouldn’t, and instead should be concerned about other stuff. I’m glad Kizzie pointed out people can actually hold to more than one principle simultaneously.
No, Trumpers and Trump and etc. didn’t start the decline in American morality, nor have they especially exacerbated it. It was already going downhill. Mitt Romney? Idol worship is immorality, you know. It’s says that somewhere in the Bible, I’m sure. Conservatives also didn’t seem to mind the only immorality some folks on this board seem to recognize–that is, the sexual kind–when John McCain held office and was nominated by the R party.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is the job of an effective leader to broadcast a clear, truthful message that can be heard above all the static. Reagan did that better than any other politician in my lifetime, and it is one of his abilities that I miss the most.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kavanaugh is short of votes, but fate hinges on upcoming testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-is-short-votes-but-fate-hinges-on-upcoming-testimony.html
______________________________
When it comes to the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, remember one thing:
The math is the math is the math.
Nothing else matters.
Either the math works in favor of Kavanaugh or it doesn’t.
The Senate is divided between 51 Republicans and 49 senators who caucus with Democrats. …
There are at least four Republican senators who are genuinely in play right now. Fox is told the number could be as high as seven Republicans. The four obvious ones on the fence are Collins, Corker, Flake and Murkowski.
So, Kavanaugh’s fate is far from clear. …
“In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court,” said McConnell in a speech at the Values Voters Summit on Friday. “So my friends, keep the faith.”
By Monday, the Kentucky Republican tempered his pronouncement.
“Judge Kavanaugh will be voted on here on the Senate floor. Up or down, on the Senate floor, this fine nominee to the Supreme Court will receive a vote in this Senate in the near future,” said McConnell.
Up or down. …
Does Kavanaugh have the votes? He’s short right now.
And win or lose, the math is the math is the math.
______________________________
LikeLike
Interesting chart from FiveThirtyEight:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-least-worst-option-is-if-kavanaugh-withdraws-and-soon/
__________________________
… How long does it take to confirm a Supreme Court justice?
Days from nomination to confirmation for current members of the Supreme Court:
JUSTICE DAYS FROM NOMINATION TO CONFIRMATION
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 50
–
John Roberts* 62
–
Neil Gorsuch 65
–
Sonia Sotomayor 66
–
Stephen Breyer 73
–
Samuel Alito 82
–
Elena Kagan 87
–
Clarence Thomas 99
–
Days until midterms 42
–
Days until next Congress 100
–
… That makes the timing awfully interesting (and makes Republican complaints about Democratic delays to the process a little easier to understand). If Kavanaugh were to withdraw his name today, and Trump were to nominate someone else in his place tomorrow, the GOP might be able to confirm the replacement before the midterms — but the timing would be tight and would require a faster confirmation process than for any current member of the Supreme Court. …
__________________________________
LikeLike
So calling out your brethren for their BS, especially where Kavanugh is concerned, has you again siding with our resident far leftist. Way to prove my point again.
And if you believe your own tripe, that character matters to you NTers more than anyone, why are your pals trashing a good man? Just to get Trump.
This says way more about you guys than it does Trump supporters. So does you’re little hissy fit at the end of 7:28. I obviously hit a nerve. 🙂
LikeLike
As for the French piece, yeah the nerve of that Kavanaugh, wantin’ to clear his name and all. Who does he think he is?
🙄 The nerve…..
LikeLike
The NYT is at it again. All the news that’s fit to distort to our biased agenda.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/ny-times-removes-key-language-helpful-to-kavanaugh-from-article-about-yale-accuser-ramirez/
“On Sunday night, September 23, 2018, The New Yorker published an article about accusations by Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The authors were Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer.
The New Yorker article noted, deep into the article, that Ramirez’s accusations were not corroborated by any witnesses with first hand knowledge, and that Ramirez herself had gaps in memory that were cleared up only after 6 days of thinking about it and consulting with lawyers.
The NY Times covered the story, and had language in its September 23 about Ford testifying that was extremely helpful to Kavanaugh’s defense. The language was added in an evening edit.
Specifically that the Times could not corroborate the story AND that Ramirez had been calling people telling them she was uncertain Kavanaugh was involved in the alleged incident (emphasis added):
“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
This language was repeated in a September 24 article at the Times, but has been removed (see below). Now the NY Times has rewritten the September 24 story to take out that language, and to explicitly argue that the information does not rebut Ramirez’s claim.
Michael Smerconish tweeted about it:”
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1044599030347649024
LikeLike
Rubin the fake conservative is being called for her hackiness. She too thinks Kavanaugh has some nerve, defending himself on tv and all….
The nerve of that man! 🙄
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/09/25/come-on-jennifer-rubins-twisted-take-on-brett-kavanaughs-interview-answer-about-sex-is-a-new-new-low/
———————–
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
The NYT is caught lying, and then scrubbing it, again.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/09/25/now-why-oh-why-would-they-do-that-nyt-quickly-scrubs-source-of-yearbook-hit-piece-on-kavanaugh/
“If and when Kavanaugh is cleared and finally confirmed, we must never forget how complicit the media was in smearing his person, his name, and his family. They will pretend they weren’t biased and just covered the story but when you see hit pieces like this yearbook garbage from the New York Times, it’s clear they too have an agenda in doing whatever they can to stop Kavanaugh.
It’s gross.”
———————-
LikeLike
More here….
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/new-york-times-hid-multiple-key-facts-in-kavanaugh-yearbook-hit/#.W6orkpO7Atc.twitter
“The Times, which allowed anonymous sources to make the claim of sexual bragging that forms the basis of the story, would not allow anonymous sources to dispute that claim or defend the group of classmates.
When a reporter from the New York Times called one of the men a few days ago, the reporter said, “I understand that you and other friends used to brag about having had sex with” Dolphin and that a story saying as much was about to be published. It is unclear whether the reporter made similar presentations to Dolphin to elicit comments from her. The friends’ claims to the contrary, including denials of any sexual contact, were downplayed or ignored by the New York Times.
“The New York Times’ callous treatment of the yearbook references to our friend have now destroyed relationships that span four decades. These friendships can’t be recovered and will never be replaced. The anguish caused to our friend is immeasurable; the loss of her trust and respect is devastating,” said one member of the group portrayed by the article, who requested anonymity both because he worries about causing further distress and for fear the New York Times will continue to target him.”
LikeLike
I may be wrong, but I still see the Kavanaugh treatment as an eventual win-win. If he’s not confirmed before the election, he’ll be confirmed afterward. It’s a shame that the process has become so chaotic and that Kavanaugh and his family are being tarred and feathered in the press. I suppose it’s tit for tat since the Senate refused to allow a vote on Garland. However, I think it is a good thing that the SCOTUS is finally being acknowledged as essentially political. The justification for giving them the unprecedented and unintended power they have held is about to erode, I think.
LikeLike
Ricky @9:40 The church is growing in Iran too. Meanwhile, it’s being purged here in the US, I think. That’s not a bad thing. God is still good. :–)
LikeLiked by 2 people
“after thinking about it and consulting with lawyers” LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
And it’s not just Democrats, as Rubin, French, and other NTers have demonstrated.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/sen-lindsey-graham-attacks-democrats/
“Republican Senator Lindsey Graham condemned what he called the Democrats’ attempt to destroy President Trump through the allegations levied against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Hannity Monday night.
“For them to complain about the process is like an arsonist complaining about a fire. The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are collapsing. This has been the worst low point in the Senate for me and that is saying a lot,” Graham said.
“I never thought it would get this bad. We are going to have a hearing Thursday and have a vote soon thereafter. And I look forward to supporting this good man,” Graham added. “The takeaway for me, Sean, is that when it comes to Donald Trump, there are no boundaries, there are no rules. Whatever you need to do to destroy him or his agenda is okay.”
LikeLike
That’s not how this works….
That’s not how any of this works…..
LikeLike
Debra, I agree with you that this whole Kavanaugh thing is good for Republicans. It is reminding all the Republicans who are disgusted with Trump just how bad the Democrats can be. If I don’t get my candy, I am going to blame Spartacus Booker and Dianne Feinstein.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if the worst I’ve heard about the yearbook/Renate Club thing would disqualify someone for SC, but I would be interested in getting a clear explanation of it. The explanations I’ve heard so far don’t really make a lot of sense.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
Oh look. More of that non-existent deep state again.
With video, also again….
https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/09/25/breaking-deep-state-unmasked-irs-officials-you-should-give-increased-scrutiny-to-conservative-groups-i-dont-give-a-st-if-that-is-a-crime/
“IRS Tax Examiner: Target Conservative Groups Because They Are “… just @#$%^%$ fronts for the Koch brothers.”
Deleting IRS Emails is “… so cool… [conservatives] could not hold any evidence against… ” Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen “…I don’t give a @#$% if that is a crime.”
IRS Attorney on Lerner Scandal: “All that stuff we saw in the news, yeah mistakes were made.”
IRS is Comfy Gig, Democratic Socialist of America Gets “… a lot of paid time off and sick days” to Use for Activism
Contempt for America: “Unfortunately, I am not allowed by the bylaws of my union to go against the Constitution.”
Project Veritas has released the fourth story in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials who candidly discuss the IRS’s unfair treatment of conservative non-profit groups. The two officials in the report are Thomas Sheehy, an IRS tax examiner and member of the Austin Democratic Socialists of America in Texas, and Jerry Semasek, an IRS attorney in Washington, DC.
The Austin Democratic Socialists of America is a socialist group that works to advance ‘progressive issues’ in Austin, Texas.
Flagrantly Targeting Conservative Groups
Sheehy boasts about and appears to justify former disgraced IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was mired in scandal for losing tens of thousands of emails regarding the Lois Lerner controversy. The Lois Lerner controversy occurred in 2013 and involved revelations showing that the IRS unfairly scrutinized conservative groups.”
LikeLike
Trump’s remarks at the UN are sure to cause a stir among the hand wringing/pearl clutching crowd, as usual.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/trump-addresses-un-general-assembly-america-will-never-apologize-for-protecting-its-citizens/
“Trump Addresses UN General Assembly: “America Will Never Apologize for Protecting its Citizens”
“We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.”
Tuesday, President Trump spoke addressed the United Nations General Assembly.
Trump praised North Korea, lambasted Iran, saying he’s considering more sanctions, and made clear he will not apologize for his domestic policy.
Globalism was in his crosshairs, as was foreign aid to countries who wish America harm.”
——————
LikeLike
——————–
The full speech is here.
LikeLike
I was actually watching this. I didn’t see anyone clutching pearls, but I saw a lot of people laughing. The Germans were almost bent over double.
LikeLike
Were they laughing when he said the part about rejecting the ideology of globalism and embracing patriotism and when he spoke of sovereignty ? Just curious. ;–)
Debra
LikeLike
Maggie knows him. McConnell wanted him to be quiet, but after the rest of the world laughed at him, he had to strike out at someone.
LikeLike
The laughter was clearly audible. He stopped his speech and responded.
LikeLike
And this is how it looked if you were watching Fox News:
LikeLike
LikeLike
Interesting news about young people:
LikeLike
Is it true that Kavanaugh’s former roommate says that Kavanaugh drank to excess, moreso than others who drank a lot, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he did so? (Someone on Facebook mentioned this.)
LikeLike
Kizzie, Here is an interview for what it is worth. The roommate clearly was not close to Kavanaugh and seemed sympathetic (maybe biased) toward the 2nd accuser.
https://abc7news.com/politics/brett-kavanaughs-yale-roommate-says-he-believes-second-accuser/4330055/
LikeLike