“The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Friday morning at 9:30.
This vote will take place a day after Kavanaugh and one of the two women who accused him of sexual misconduct, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, are scheduled to testify in front of the committee, according to Politico.
Judic Cmte noticed POTENTIAL exec mtg for Friday. Still taking this 1 step at a time. After hrg Dr Ford & Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony- if we‘re ready to vote, we will vote. If we aren’t ready, we won’t. Cmte rules normally require 3 days notice so we‘re following regular order
“Republican senators have selected Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, a top senator announced Tuesday.
Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, will query the two at Thursday’s highly anticipated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for 26 years.
In enlisting Mitchell to join their staff, Republican senators are taking an unusual step. They are turning to her to ask what are expected to be personal and potentially painful questions about the woman’s youth on live television, sparing the all-male panel of 11 Republican senators on the committee some uncomfortable exchanges that could sway the public’s opinion about the session.
“The majority members have followed the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”
He added, “I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role.””
“Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.
Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.
Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.
While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.”
“Senate Republicans say that Brett Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation have improved because of new doubts over allegations of sexual misconduct against the embattled Supreme Court nominee.
That growing confidence was reflected Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who told reporters after a meeting of the Senate GOP conference that he will have enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh.
“We’re going to be moving forward. I’m confident we’re going to win, confident that he’ll be confirmed in the very near future,” McConnell said. A full-chamber vote on Kavanaugh could be scheduled for next week.
Still, key GOP swing votes such as Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.) are undecided. Murkowski on Tuesday suggested the FBI should look into the accusations and indicated her vote will now depend on whether she believes Kavanaugh.”
“Weasel words, weasel moves from an emotionally overwrought deputy AG eager to ingratiate himself with Democrats
Rod Rosenstein is even a weasel when repudiating his weasel moves. Here (with my italics) is the deputy attorney general’s non-denial denial of a New York Times report Friday that he brainstormed about ousting President Trump in May 2017:
The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. . . . 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.
Let’s parse this.
The Times story “is inaccurate and factually incorrect.” Rosenstein won’t say exactly what is wrong in the report. He is careful not to say that the gist of the report is wrong — he just hopes that, if he sounds indignant enough, you will hear it that way. The Times may have gotten a few details wrong, but you can bet the story is essentially true.
You can’t trust “anonymous sources”: this from the guy who, in approving a FISA warrant application to spy on an American political campaign, relied on anonymous sources — some of them Russian operatives — who were channeling information through a foreign spy from whom the Justice Department continued to take information even after telling a federal court that the spy had been cut out of the investigation for leaking to the media.
And my favorite: Rosenstein knows “there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment” against President Trump. Of course, that does not respond to what the Times report actually says, which is that back in May 2017, when he was an emotional wreck because Democrats were being mean to him, Rosenstein urged that there might at that time be a basis to remove the president under the 25th Amendment (specifically, Section 4) if he could get enough top officials to agree that Trump was unfit to discharge his duties.
The Times account is based on multiple unnamed sources and draws on memoranda about interactions with Rosenstein, written by the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, and other officials. The Times creates ambiguity about whether its journalists have actually seen these memos. Times reporters Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt indicate that the chirpy anonymous officials with whom they spoke “were briefed either on the events themselves or on [the] memos” — implying that the journalists are relying on their sources’ accounts of the memos. Yet, the report subsequently adds a quote from McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, who says his client “has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”
Trump may have thought that the delegates at the UN were all from £€%#¥£€ countries, but one of his aides should have warned him that the delegates were largely educated and informed and likely to laugh at the manure he regularly dishes out at the MAGA Cult rallies.
Just as I thought! The obvious dishonesty of the Democrats on Kavanaugh has raised the chances of the Republicans keeping the House back above 20%, and I expect that percentage to go much higher in the next couple of weeks.
They were rolling their eyes at everything. My favorite part was when he attacked high oil prices when we are the leading producer.
This is all true.
I think this is probably right, which simply highlights why Trump and Co.’s obsession and paranoia on the topic has been so weird and I’ll-advised. https://t.co/g6Idjc6ifv
lol. Ricky, I’m glad you have 538 to keep you encouraged. But Democrats have been self-destructing (even worse than Republicans) since the election—before actually. They should have let Bernie Sanders stand or fall on his own. That would have helped them, but even that might not have saved them. When Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supported Hillary they permanently damaged their credibility with the Left—the REAL Left, not the Republican-friendly, Hillary Democrats. Sanders was supposed to be a sort of middle way—a European (or perhaps Canadian?) styled socialism. The people we see now are more Venezuelan styled socialist and some are Communists. The Socialist Democrats are the new Democratic party, I think. Their moderates are trending down and I am told their factions that favored more moderate European socialism have been drowned out by the more radical voices.
The UN crowd laughed after President Trump said, “It’s so true,” so it was more of a reaction to that. They actually even cheered him right after he said, “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay.”
Yeah I hear a slight murmur, Trump pause to react to it, he jokingly comments on it, then is applauded. Somehow this tells us everything about how the U.S. is perceived internationally?
Re: 9:58
The vote for/against Kavanagh will be a political vote.
Simple as that.
All the commotion the last couple of weeks has been so much static. Noise that amounts to nothing.
To think that someone will vote influenced by something done by a 17-year old is beyond logic. Whether he did it or not.
Politics it is. That’s all and all this commotion amounts to nothing.
“What voters most hate about politicians is their maddening refusal to keep – or even try to keep – their campaign promises. In this regard, Trump is a truly revolutionary force in politics, a veritable saint among demons. Given that, and the relative peace and prosperity Americans enjoy, how do we explain a presidential approval rating that remains mired in the low to mid-40s? Since Trump is the center of political gravity and leads the GOP, the question of how voters really view him is a major factor in the upcoming election.
Republicans should discount the polls – the picture heading into the 2018 elections is brighter than it seems. There are at least eight ways in which poll numbers are likely exaggerated against Trump – and thus Republicans in general:
1. Pollsters are asking the wrong question. Every polling firm aside from Rasmussen appears to ask this exact question: “Do you approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President?” Clearly, “handling” is a loaded term in the context of Trump: there are millions of Americans who don’t care for his “handling” of things – which largely speaks to demeanor and style – but are at the same time satisfied with his actual job performance and results. It’s not clear exactly what question Rasmussen asks regarding Trump’s job approval (an inquiry went unanswered), but Rasmussen reports its results in terms of “job performance.”
2. Many firms produce consistently negative results, outside the norm, suggesting bias or a flawed approach. An analysis of the RCP polling data going back to Trump’s inauguration shows that Quinnipiac polls consistently produce lower results than other polls taken around the same time. The same is true for CBS, IBD-TIPP; Gallup; and to a lesser extent CNN, CNBC, and Pew. Only Rasmussen consistently produces higher than average results. The questions that are asked, the ideological sample that is polled, and the order in which the questions are asked can all affect the results. And with the exceptions of Gallup and Rasmussen, who always poll exactly 1,500 people, polling samples from other firms always vary. That might facilitate tampering with the data, such as ending the polling after a particularly negative stretch of results.
3. Corporate media ignore Trump’s successes and obsesses over issues that can be used to paint him in a bad light. A recent analysis of corporate media’s labeling of Trump’s emotional state shows the regular use of terms such as “angry” and “lashing out.” Analysis has also shown that 93% of corporate media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days was negative, and recent coverage has been 91% negative. Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd, and the corporate media know this, so they try to create the impression that most people are anti-Trump. The “Bradley/Wilder Effect” is almost certain to be in evidence in November: voters respond to polling based on the current ethos rather than their own self-interest, but their self-interest produces a different result in the voting booth.”
In the last two days, I’ve seen two Trump bumper stickers, a rare sight. The radical left’s violent tendencies have been on vivid display since Trump announced his candidacy, and that violence and vandalism is meant to intimidate Trump supporters. The resulting fear to make a small public statement of support such as posting a bumper sticker or a yard sign is surely an indication that polling results are also affected.
4. Many polling firms sample the wrong people – registered voters or all adults. The only valid sample is likely voters. Those who stay home on election day aren’t part of the election results.”
————————–
“Some of the variables mentioned above are significant, others less so. Factors such as the Bradley/Wilder Effect and the “job performance” vs. “handling” question might each count for 5% or more by themselves. If the above factors average just 1% each, the approval picture for Trump changes dramatically, and the GOP’s election prospects change dramatically.
RCP’s polling average for the direction of the country is at a five-year high and has been steadily rising for the last year. The peak under Obama was in June of 2009, with 45.8% of those polled saying the country was moving in the right direction. Two years later, Obama bottomed at 17%. On election day 2016, it was 31%. Today it stands at 41%. Because of Trump’s unprecedented commitment to keeping his campaign promises, for the first time in a generation, Republicans have a chance to vote with great enthusiasm. They should ignore the polls and do so.”
If she’s smart she will no show, rather than put herself in a perjury trap. She can lie to the press, and I believe she has. Lying under oath, well I don’t think she or her lawyers are that stupid.
They thought the allegations would be enough. They were wrong. There bluff has been called. A no show is her likeliest out.
Now for the record, I didn’t see/hear any reaction to the speech that indicated there’s particular disrespect for Trump, but it *is* pretty ridiculous how he depicts everything he does as more than everyone, bigger than anyone, greater than anything. I haven’t seen any particular harm come from it, but it really is kind of silly.
Ricky’s favorite creepy porn lawyer is making new allegations. All carefully crafted to make Kavanaugh look guilty, without actually saying he is. She also claims this stuff is well known, which goes against what every other witnesses has said. Sounds like more BS.
“Ms. Swetnick, in a sworn statement says she was a victim of one of these “gang” or “train” rapes where Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were present. Swetnick also claims she was drugged with Qualuudes or “something similar.””
——————-
Swetnick's declaration looks worse than it is. She doesn’t provide any evidence or eyewitness observation that A) Kavanaugh actually spiked any drinks or B) that Kavanaugh "raped" or participated in any “trains.” Though all that is heavily implied, it's not actually stated.
“These Emails Show Kavanaugh Accuser’s Attorney Lied To Anderson Cooper About Senate Republicans’ ‘Game-Playing’”
“Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately reached out to Ramirez’s attorney, asking for information and to learn if she were willing to provide investigators a statement. But instead of providing a statement to the committee or answering Davis’ simple question, Ramirez’s attorney, John Clune, started issuing demands for an FBI investigation. Davis calmly repeated his request for information six times over 48 hours, while Ramirez’s lawyer instead made it clear their sole intent was to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
This time the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee was having none of it: Rather than wait for Ramirez to decide whether to speak to committee investigators, Grassley announced that he would not delay, based on Ramirez’s media-reported claims, Thursday’s hearing at which Ford and Kavanaugh were scheduled to testify. And he noticed a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for Friday morning before the Judiciary Committee.
Those developments sent Ramirez’s attorney sprinting to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, where Clune told the host that Republicans were playing games and refusing to investigate Ramirez’s accusations against Kavanaugh. Unfortunately for Clune, his email exchanges with Davis have been made public and the black-and-white back-and-forth eviscerates the spin he is peddling. For instance, Clune seethed to the CNN host, “We finally had a phone all scheduled for 7 o’clock Eastern this evening, we got on the phone, and only the minority party showed.”
Not true. Davis had spent 48 hours and at least six attempts to obtain basic information from Clune, and was awaiting a statement from Ramirez and word from Clune concerning whether his client would speak to investigators, to schedule a phone call to discuss next steps. All Davis had to go on at this point was The New Yorker article.
The “scheduled” phone call Clune claims Republicans were a “no show” for was the one Clune had arranged with a Democrat representative. Yet Clune had the audacity to tell Cooper that “there’s a lot of game-playing that’s going on right now by the majority party.”
Putting aside Clune’s charge, Cooper pushed on whether Ramirez would provide a statement to Grassley as the Judiciary Committee chair had requested. At that point in the interview, Clune made clear exactly his end goal: the launch of an FBI investigation. A baffled Cooper tried to pin Clune down, asking whether Ramirez would refuse to talk to investigators unless there were an FBI investigation launched.
Once again, Clune peddled a complete falsehood, responding, that “if it is just a matter of her disclosing information, that’d be one thing,” but saying his client was not about to sit down to be grilled by the committee or a hired gun—a reference to the sex-crimes prosecutor handling Ford’s testimony—without an FBI investigation. Clune then had the chutzpah to claim, “I don’t know what else we can do if they’re not going to engage, but blaming us for being non-cooperative is just, you know, flat-out not consistent with how things have gone and what the emails show.””
“Gallup Poll: Republicans Reach Highest Favorability in Seven Years
“Only one other time in the last decade has the Republican Party had a significantly higher score than the Democratic Party.”
“We’re now just a matter of weeks away from the 2018 midterms and the Republican party just got a very positive piece of news. According to a new Gallup poll, the GOP has reached its highest approval rating since 2011.
Jim Norman of Gallup reports:
Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years
Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September’s 36%. It is the party’s most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.
The parity in Republicans’ and Democrats’ favorable ratings marks a change from what has generally been the case since Barack Obama’s election as president in November 2008. Republicans have usually been rated less positively than Democrats over this time, with the Republican Party’s favorability rating for the last decade averaging 39%, compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%.
Only one other time in the last decade has the Republican Party had a significantly higher score than the Democratic Party. That one exception came in November 2014, immediately after elections that saw Republicans capture control of the Senate and expand their majority in the House, when 42% rated the GOP favorably and 36% the Democrats.
This could be a positive indicator for the midterms:”
I had time to listen to part pf the President’s speech before work. It was much better than comments about it suggested. What I heard (apart from the initial hyperbole) was quite good. Good job, Mr. President. :–)
Debra
I had first hand knowledge, along with 5 witnesses – 8 YEARS later in 1999. YOU @SenFeinstein refused to read the evidence in my record. You are such a hypocrite! https://t.co/RoqIvaOLEg
Elsewhere I read that there supposedly are witnesses who can corroborate all the elements of the third accuser’s story. She also gave her statement as a sworn deposition, so she can be charged with perjury if her statement is found to be false. Now we just need to see if those other witnesses come forward and corroborate her story or not.
(CNN) Sen. Susan Collins, who could determine whether Brett Kavanaugh gets a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, raised serious concerns at a private meeting about the newest allegations of inappropriate behavior against the nominee — and questioned why the Senate Judiciary Committee had not subpoenaed a close friend of the federal judge.
Multiple sources familiar with the private Wednesday meeting told CNN that Collins appeared unnerved by the latest allegation, citing in particular that it was a sworn statement sent to the panel, which carries with it the possibility of perjury for lying to Congress.
Collins, sources said, did not indicate how she would vote. But her private concerns underscore how Kavanaugh faces a critical test Thursday: He must reassure at least three key GOP senators that he did not act improperly towards women in the 1980s when he testifies after one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford. He can’t afford to lose more than one GOP senator if all Democrats vote against his nomination. …
_________________________________________
What you’ve read is probably wrong. No one corroborated anything, only that she had told them the story in the last few years. None were there, didn’t witness it, and don’t have any knowledge other than what she told them. That’s not the same as corroborated.
On Wednesdays from now on I take care of my grandson (now 12 weeks old). Today was my first day. I feel like I just walked 36 holes. How do women take care of more than one child?
Hmm. Trump said his opinion of Kavanaugh’s case has been influenced by his own experiences. So help me out. While I was babysitting, did Kavanaugh confess to multiple sexual assaults into an NBC microphone?
Wandering Views 
Friday morning vote.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-committee-vote-friday/
“The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Friday morning at 9:30.
This vote will take place a day after Kavanaugh and one of the two women who accused him of sexual misconduct, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, are scheduled to testify in front of the committee, according to Politico.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And the lady questioning witnesses will be…..
https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Arizona-prosecutor-emerges-as-GOP-choice-to-13258105.php
“Republican senators have selected Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, a top senator announced Tuesday.
Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, will query the two at Thursday’s highly anticipated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for 26 years.
In enlisting Mitchell to join their staff, Republican senators are taking an unusual step. They are turning to her to ask what are expected to be personal and potentially painful questions about the woman’s youth on live television, sparing the all-male panel of 11 Republican senators on the committee some uncomfortable exchanges that could sway the public’s opinion about the session.
“The majority members have followed the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”
He added, “I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role.””
LikeLike
Sorry lady, but that’s not how this works. You don’t get to pick your biased choices while others are left out.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/
“Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.
Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.
Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.
While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.”
LikeLike
Confidence is up?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408424-gop-confidence-grows-on-kavanaugh
“Senate Republicans say that Brett Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation have improved because of new doubts over allegations of sexual misconduct against the embattled Supreme Court nominee.
That growing confidence was reflected Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who told reporters after a meeting of the Senate GOP conference that he will have enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh.
“We’re going to be moving forward. I’m confident we’re going to win, confident that he’ll be confirmed in the very near future,” McConnell said. A full-chamber vote on Kavanaugh could be scheduled for next week.
Still, key GOP swing votes such as Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.) are undecided. Murkowski on Tuesday suggested the FBI should look into the accusations and indicated her vote will now depend on whether she believes Kavanaugh.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Warning: If you read this article by Douthat, you will be tempted to look up the meaning of an obscure word. Don’t!
LikeLike
LikeLike
He kept his job for now, but he’s still a weasel. Either he’s lying, or the NYT is.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/rod-rosenstein-resistance-president-trump/
“Weasel words, weasel moves from an emotionally overwrought deputy AG eager to ingratiate himself with Democrats
Rod Rosenstein is even a weasel when repudiating his weasel moves. Here (with my italics) is the deputy attorney general’s non-denial denial of a New York Times report Friday that he brainstormed about ousting President Trump in May 2017:
The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. . . . 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.
Let’s parse this.
The Times story “is inaccurate and factually incorrect.” Rosenstein won’t say exactly what is wrong in the report. He is careful not to say that the gist of the report is wrong — he just hopes that, if he sounds indignant enough, you will hear it that way. The Times may have gotten a few details wrong, but you can bet the story is essentially true.
You can’t trust “anonymous sources”: this from the guy who, in approving a FISA warrant application to spy on an American political campaign, relied on anonymous sources — some of them Russian operatives — who were channeling information through a foreign spy from whom the Justice Department continued to take information even after telling a federal court that the spy had been cut out of the investigation for leaking to the media.
And my favorite: Rosenstein knows “there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment” against President Trump. Of course, that does not respond to what the Times report actually says, which is that back in May 2017, when he was an emotional wreck because Democrats were being mean to him, Rosenstein urged that there might at that time be a basis to remove the president under the 25th Amendment (specifically, Section 4) if he could get enough top officials to agree that Trump was unfit to discharge his duties.
The Times account is based on multiple unnamed sources and draws on memoranda about interactions with Rosenstein, written by the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, and other officials. The Times creates ambiguity about whether its journalists have actually seen these memos. Times reporters Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt indicate that the chirpy anonymous officials with whom they spoke “were briefed either on the events themselves or on [the] memos” — implying that the journalists are relying on their sources’ accounts of the memos. Yet, the report subsequently adds a quote from McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, who says his client “has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”
LikeLike
Trump may have thought that the delegates at the UN were all from £€%#¥£€ countries, but one of his aides should have warned him that the delegates were largely educated and informed and likely to laugh at the manure he regularly dishes out at the MAGA Cult rallies.
LikeLike
Just as I thought! The obvious dishonesty of the Democrats on Kavanaugh has raised the chances of the Republicans keeping the House back above 20%, and I expect that percentage to go much higher in the next couple of weeks.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, were they laughing when he repudiated the ideology of globalism and reasserted our sovereignty? Were they rolling their eyes? Probably not.
LikeLike
They were rolling their eyes at everything. My favorite part was when he attacked high oil prices when we are the leading producer.
This is all true.
“He moronically framed himself.” will please no one except me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol. Ricky, I’m glad you have 538 to keep you encouraged. But Democrats have been self-destructing (even worse than Republicans) since the election—before actually. They should have let Bernie Sanders stand or fall on his own. That would have helped them, but even that might not have saved them. When Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supported Hillary they permanently damaged their credibility with the Left—the REAL Left, not the Republican-friendly, Hillary Democrats. Sanders was supposed to be a sort of middle way—a European (or perhaps Canadian?) styled socialism. The people we see now are more Venezuelan styled socialist and some are Communists. The Socialist Democrats are the new Democratic party, I think. Their moderates are trending down and I am told their factions that favored more moderate European socialism have been drowned out by the more radical voices.
LikeLike
Ha. I think you’re projecting, Ricky.
Mmmmm. I smell brisket. :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The UN crowd laughed after President Trump said, “It’s so true,” so it was more of a reaction to that. They actually even cheered him right after he said, “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay.”
Weak sauce to claim otherwise.
LikeLiked by 3 people
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/26/better-christine-blasey-ford-skips-thursdays-hearing/#.W6tx6d7n6GQ.facebook
LikeLike
Yeah I hear a slight murmur, Trump pause to react to it, he jokingly comments on it, then is applauded. Somehow this tells us everything about how the U.S. is perceived internationally?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: 9:58
The vote for/against Kavanagh will be a political vote.
Simple as that.
All the commotion the last couple of weeks has been so much static. Noise that amounts to nothing.
To think that someone will vote influenced by something done by a 17-year old is beyond logic. Whether he did it or not.
Politics it is. That’s all and all this commotion amounts to nothing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What! Ricky stretched the truth about Trump?
Shocked I am. Shocked!
Not really. 🙄
They laughed twice. But yeah, really weak sauce. He’s getting desperate. 🙂
LikeLike
Debra,
Don’t take Ricky’s word for it. Watch it yourself when you have time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Debra’s brisket may be closer than it appears.
I don’t bother much with individual polls because they’re easily manipulated. Here’s 8 ways how they’re exaggerated against Trump.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/trumps_real_job_approval_could_be_as_high_as_60_percent.html
“What voters most hate about politicians is their maddening refusal to keep – or even try to keep – their campaign promises. In this regard, Trump is a truly revolutionary force in politics, a veritable saint among demons. Given that, and the relative peace and prosperity Americans enjoy, how do we explain a presidential approval rating that remains mired in the low to mid-40s? Since Trump is the center of political gravity and leads the GOP, the question of how voters really view him is a major factor in the upcoming election.
Republicans should discount the polls – the picture heading into the 2018 elections is brighter than it seems. There are at least eight ways in which poll numbers are likely exaggerated against Trump – and thus Republicans in general:
1. Pollsters are asking the wrong question. Every polling firm aside from Rasmussen appears to ask this exact question: “Do you approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President?” Clearly, “handling” is a loaded term in the context of Trump: there are millions of Americans who don’t care for his “handling” of things – which largely speaks to demeanor and style – but are at the same time satisfied with his actual job performance and results. It’s not clear exactly what question Rasmussen asks regarding Trump’s job approval (an inquiry went unanswered), but Rasmussen reports its results in terms of “job performance.”
2. Many firms produce consistently negative results, outside the norm, suggesting bias or a flawed approach. An analysis of the RCP polling data going back to Trump’s inauguration shows that Quinnipiac polls consistently produce lower results than other polls taken around the same time. The same is true for CBS, IBD-TIPP; Gallup; and to a lesser extent CNN, CNBC, and Pew. Only Rasmussen consistently produces higher than average results. The questions that are asked, the ideological sample that is polled, and the order in which the questions are asked can all affect the results. And with the exceptions of Gallup and Rasmussen, who always poll exactly 1,500 people, polling samples from other firms always vary. That might facilitate tampering with the data, such as ending the polling after a particularly negative stretch of results.
3. Corporate media ignore Trump’s successes and obsesses over issues that can be used to paint him in a bad light. A recent analysis of corporate media’s labeling of Trump’s emotional state shows the regular use of terms such as “angry” and “lashing out.” Analysis has also shown that 93% of corporate media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days was negative, and recent coverage has been 91% negative. Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd, and the corporate media know this, so they try to create the impression that most people are anti-Trump. The “Bradley/Wilder Effect” is almost certain to be in evidence in November: voters respond to polling based on the current ethos rather than their own self-interest, but their self-interest produces a different result in the voting booth.”
In the last two days, I’ve seen two Trump bumper stickers, a rare sight. The radical left’s violent tendencies have been on vivid display since Trump announced his candidacy, and that violence and vandalism is meant to intimidate Trump supporters. The resulting fear to make a small public statement of support such as posting a bumper sticker or a yard sign is surely an indication that polling results are also affected.
4. Many polling firms sample the wrong people – registered voters or all adults. The only valid sample is likely voters. Those who stay home on election day aren’t part of the election results.”
————————–
“Some of the variables mentioned above are significant, others less so. Factors such as the Bradley/Wilder Effect and the “job performance” vs. “handling” question might each count for 5% or more by themselves. If the above factors average just 1% each, the approval picture for Trump changes dramatically, and the GOP’s election prospects change dramatically.
RCP’s polling average for the direction of the country is at a five-year high and has been steadily rising for the last year. The peak under Obama was in June of 2009, with 45.8% of those polled saying the country was moving in the right direction. Two years later, Obama bottomed at 17%. On election day 2016, it was 31%. Today it stands at 41%. Because of Trump’s unprecedented commitment to keeping his campaign promises, for the first time in a generation, Republicans have a chance to vote with great enthusiasm. They should ignore the polls and do so.”
LikeLike
Michelle,
If she’s smart she will no show, rather than put herself in a perjury trap. She can lie to the press, and I believe she has. Lying under oath, well I don’t think she or her lawyers are that stupid.
They thought the allegations would be enough. They were wrong. There bluff has been called. A no show is her likeliest out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now for the record, I didn’t see/hear any reaction to the speech that indicated there’s particular disrespect for Trump, but it *is* pretty ridiculous how he depicts everything he does as more than everyone, bigger than anyone, greater than anything. I haven’t seen any particular harm come from it, but it really is kind of silly.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yep. That sounds like Trump. 🙂
LikeLike
Ricky’s favorite creepy porn lawyer is making new allegations. All carefully crafted to make Kavanaugh look guilty, without actually saying he is. She also claims this stuff is well known, which goes against what every other witnesses has said. Sounds like more BS.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-creepy-porn-lawyer-avenatti-reveals-3rd-kavanaugh-accuser-making-gang-rape-allegation/
“Ms. Swetnick, in a sworn statement says she was a victim of one of these “gang” or “train” rapes where Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were present. Swetnick also claims she was drugged with Qualuudes or “something similar.””
——————-
LikeLike
Meanwhile one of the other accusers’ story is falling apart.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/26/emails-show-kavanaugh-accusers-attorney-lied-anderson-cooper-senate-republicans-game-playing/
“These Emails Show Kavanaugh Accuser’s Attorney Lied To Anderson Cooper About Senate Republicans’ ‘Game-Playing’”
“Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately reached out to Ramirez’s attorney, asking for information and to learn if she were willing to provide investigators a statement. But instead of providing a statement to the committee or answering Davis’ simple question, Ramirez’s attorney, John Clune, started issuing demands for an FBI investigation. Davis calmly repeated his request for information six times over 48 hours, while Ramirez’s lawyer instead made it clear their sole intent was to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
This time the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee was having none of it: Rather than wait for Ramirez to decide whether to speak to committee investigators, Grassley announced that he would not delay, based on Ramirez’s media-reported claims, Thursday’s hearing at which Ford and Kavanaugh were scheduled to testify. And he noticed a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for Friday morning before the Judiciary Committee.
Those developments sent Ramirez’s attorney sprinting to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, where Clune told the host that Republicans were playing games and refusing to investigate Ramirez’s accusations against Kavanaugh. Unfortunately for Clune, his email exchanges with Davis have been made public and the black-and-white back-and-forth eviscerates the spin he is peddling. For instance, Clune seethed to the CNN host, “We finally had a phone all scheduled for 7 o’clock Eastern this evening, we got on the phone, and only the minority party showed.”
Not true. Davis had spent 48 hours and at least six attempts to obtain basic information from Clune, and was awaiting a statement from Ramirez and word from Clune concerning whether his client would speak to investigators, to schedule a phone call to discuss next steps. All Davis had to go on at this point was The New Yorker article.
The “scheduled” phone call Clune claims Republicans were a “no show” for was the one Clune had arranged with a Democrat representative. Yet Clune had the audacity to tell Cooper that “there’s a lot of game-playing that’s going on right now by the majority party.”
Putting aside Clune’s charge, Cooper pushed on whether Ramirez would provide a statement to Grassley as the Judiciary Committee chair had requested. At that point in the interview, Clune made clear exactly his end goal: the launch of an FBI investigation. A baffled Cooper tried to pin Clune down, asking whether Ramirez would refuse to talk to investigators unless there were an FBI investigation launched.
Once again, Clune peddled a complete falsehood, responding, that “if it is just a matter of her disclosing information, that’d be one thing,” but saying his client was not about to sit down to be grilled by the committee or a hired gun—a reference to the sex-crimes prosecutor handling Ford’s testimony—without an FBI investigation. Clune then had the chutzpah to claim, “I don’t know what else we can do if they’re not going to engage, but blaming us for being non-cooperative is just, you know, flat-out not consistent with how things have gone and what the emails show.””
LikeLike
Just gonna put this right here…..
There. 🙂
Now, like I was saying earlier…..
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/gallup-poll-republicans-reach-highest-favorability-in-seven-years/
“Gallup Poll: Republicans Reach Highest Favorability in Seven Years
“Only one other time in the last decade has the Republican Party had a significantly higher score than the Democratic Party.”
“We’re now just a matter of weeks away from the 2018 midterms and the Republican party just got a very positive piece of news. According to a new Gallup poll, the GOP has reached its highest approval rating since 2011.
Jim Norman of Gallup reports:
Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years
Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September’s 36%. It is the party’s most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.
The parity in Republicans’ and Democrats’ favorable ratings marks a change from what has generally been the case since Barack Obama’s election as president in November 2008. Republicans have usually been rated less positively than Democrats over this time, with the Republican Party’s favorability rating for the last decade averaging 39%, compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%.
Only one other time in the last decade has the Republican Party had a significantly higher score than the Democratic Party. That one exception came in November 2014, immediately after elections that saw Republicans capture control of the Senate and expand their majority in the House, when 42% rated the GOP favorably and 36% the Democrats.
This could be a positive indicator for the midterms:”
LikeLike
I had time to listen to part pf the President’s speech before work. It was much better than comments about it suggested. What I heard (apart from the initial hyperbole) was quite good. Good job, Mr. President. :–)
Debra
LikeLike
No surprise. An abortion connection. 😦
https://stream.org/christine-blasey-ford-abortion-profiteer/
LikeLike
Hmmmm
LikeLike
Nice catch Michelle.
This is dead on as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No good deed goes unpunished.
LikeLike
Michelle: Is it actually true?
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/sep/25/blog-posting/no-christine-blasey-ford-isnt-linked-abortion-pill/
LikeLike
Hmmmm.
LikeLike
Elsewhere I read that there supposedly are witnesses who can corroborate all the elements of the third accuser’s story. She also gave her statement as a sworn deposition, so she can be charged with perjury if her statement is found to be false. Now we just need to see if those other witnesses come forward and corroborate her story or not.
LikeLike
Collins privately raises concerns about new allegations, lack of subpoena for Kavanaugh friend
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/susan-collins-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
_______________________________________
(CNN) Sen. Susan Collins, who could determine whether Brett Kavanaugh gets a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, raised serious concerns at a private meeting about the newest allegations of inappropriate behavior against the nominee — and questioned why the Senate Judiciary Committee had not subpoenaed a close friend of the federal judge.
Multiple sources familiar with the private Wednesday meeting told CNN that Collins appeared unnerved by the latest allegation, citing in particular that it was a sworn statement sent to the panel, which carries with it the possibility of perjury for lying to Congress.
Collins, sources said, did not indicate how she would vote. But her private concerns underscore how Kavanaugh faces a critical test Thursday: He must reassure at least three key GOP senators that he did not act improperly towards women in the 1980s when he testifies after one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford. He can’t afford to lose more than one GOP senator if all Democrats vote against his nomination. …
_________________________________________
LikeLike
Trump did a great job in the news conference. Didn’t make any stupid statements and mostly made good sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kizzie,
What you’ve read is probably wrong. No one corroborated anything, only that she had told them the story in the last few years. None were there, didn’t witness it, and don’t have any knowledge other than what she told them. That’s not the same as corroborated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Tychicus. I guess John Zmirak got it wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On Wednesdays from now on I take care of my grandson (now 12 weeks old). Today was my first day. I feel like I just walked 36 holes. How do women take care of more than one child?
LikeLiked by 4 people
I missed the press conference and all today’s news, but I did see this. I love Kelly.
LikeLike
Hmm. Trump said his opinion of Kavanaugh’s case has been influenced by his own experiences. So help me out. While I was babysitting, did Kavanaugh confess to multiple sexual assaults into an NBC microphone?
LikeLike
I think I need to watch a replay of this press conference.
https://twitter.com/palmerreport/status/1045081013079224320?s=21
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
🙄
LikeLiked by 2 people