35 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-5-18

  1. Just because the science is junk, that doesn’t mean you can’t get published.

    But does that make it junk science? I imagine this is how most of the “climate science” malarky came about.


    “Academics Expose Corruption in ‘Grievance Studies’ by Getting Absurd Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals”

    “This story is in one sense hilarious, yet horrifying at the same time. Three highly credentialed academics named Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian set out to write absurd papers focused in areas like gender studies, women’s studies, and the like.

    They submitted the papers to respected peer review journals and watched in astonishment as many of them were accepted and published.

    They published their first-hand account of what happened in Areo Magazine:

    Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship

    Part I: Introduction

    Something has gone wrong in the university—especially in certain fields within the humanities. Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.

    We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as “cultural studies” or “identity studies” (for example, gender studies) or “critical theory” because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of “theory” which arose in the late sixties. As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields “grievance studies” in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.

    We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research. Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations. We hope this will give people—especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice—a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, “No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.”

    The examples of the work they submitted is beyond belief. You really have to wonder how the people reviewing the work took it seriously:

    What if we write a paper saying we should train men like we do dogs—to prevent rape culture? Hence came the “Dog Park” paper. What if we write a paper claiming that when a guy privately masturbates while thinking about a woman (without her consent—in fact, without her ever finding out about it) that he’s committing sexual violence against her? That gave us the “Masturbation” paper.

    What if we argue that the reason superintelligent AI is potentially dangerous is because it is being programmed to be masculinist and imperialist using Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Lacanian psychoanalysis? That’s our “Feminist AI” paper. What if we argued that “a fat body is a legitimately built body” as a foundation for introducing a category for fat bodybuilding into the sport of professional bodybuilding? You can read how that went in Fat Studies.

    Some of the examples are downright shocking:

    Another tough one for us was, “I wonder if they’d publish a feminist rewrite of a chapter from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.” The answer to that question also turns out to be “yes,” given that the feminist social work journal Affilia has just accepted it.

    Of the 20 papers they submitted, 7 have been accepted. Read the entire report here.”



  2. Political, not principled.


    “It has become the liberal law professor virtue signaling event of the year. But how many supported Kavanaugh before the Ford accusation testimony?”

    “Hundreds of law professors have signed a letter calling Brett Kavanaugh disqualified for the Supreme Court because of the temperament he displayed at the Senate hearing on September 27, 2018, with regard to alleged sexual misconduct.

    The letter, with original signatories as of October 1, 2018, has been circulating among law faculties. It has become the liberal law professor virtue signaling event of the year.

    It’s also posted for signature online, with the tally over 900 as of this morning:”

    “How many of those 900 law professors supported Kavanaugh before the Ford accusation testimony? How many voted for Trump? Something approaching zero.

    Yet the substance of the letter wraps itself in judicial and legal principles, rather than politics. It reads in part:

    Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge….

    We are law professors who teach, research, and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Thursday, September 27, 2018, the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

    The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh located the hearing as a partisan question, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory, and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to questioners….

    We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

    In other words, Kavanaugh allegedly defended himself too aggressively against claims of attempted rape, gang rape, and indecent exposure which he knew to be false. How would any of these professors have reacted if they were falsely accused of committing those crimes 36 years ago?

    Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the D.C. Circuit was bitterly fought, and delayed, over a decade ago. There’s nothing to suggest that Kavanaugh’s defense of himself now would taint his ability to be a fair judge, as he has been for the last 12 years despite political opposition to him.

    The law professors say Kavanaugh should have been “open to the necessary search for accuracy.” But he was. He offered to testify as soon as Ford’s accusation was made publicly. He has given numerous sworn interviews with the Judiciary Committee.

    It was Ford and Democrats who delayed, and have withheld documents.

    What additional inquiry was needed for Kavanaugh to know that accusations were false, and to defend himself vigorously? The professors don’t saty. That Kavanaugh defended himself based on his personal knowledge should be commended, not used as a political cudgel against him.

    And so what if he asked questions back to the Senators? Are the Senators so elevated in position that citizens who appear before them can’t ask them questions?

    The law professors do not point out anything Kavanaugh said about the attacks on him that was false. It manifestly WAS “a calculated and orchestrated political hit.” Can anyone seriously dispute that?

    Don’t think for a second this is anything but political. There might be some on the list who were inclined to support Kavanaugh prior to the Ford accusation testimony, but those people would be few and far between.

    By way of example, almost 500 law professors signed a letter opposing Kavanaugh earlier in September:”

    Before he even defended himself, they were already against him.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. And speaking of hit pieces, here’s the next fake outrage on BK…..


    “The New York Times Preparing Hit Piece On Brett Kavanaugh For Party Planning

    Multiple sources tell The Federalist that the New York Times is prepping yet another attack piece on Brett Kavanaugh for his party planning efforts in the 1980s.”

    “Having failed to corroborate any allegations of rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, The New York Times is now preparing to smear him for organizing party planning and logistics more than 30 years ago. This comes on the heels of a blockbuster Times report alleging that Kavanaugh might have thrown ice at someone at some point in the 1980s.

    The Times is calling around to classmates asking them about a letter Kavanaugh allegedly wrote to a classmate to organize a week at the beach during the 1980s, according to multiple sources. The letter notes the location on the Maryland shore where the classmates planned to stay, the estimated costs for each organizer, and items they should bring with them, such as “sheets, pillowcases, blankets, etc.””

    ““Brett was very organized, the most organized of everybody. This was his attempt to get people informed about where we were staying,” said one classmate, who described the note as innocuous. He described his friend set as having a good reputation with women at neighboring schools, a view confirmed by many female contemporaries who have signed letters in praise of Kavanaugh.

    The friend said Kavanaugh was “one of the most reserved and conservative guys in this group. Did he drink beer? Yes, but absolutely he was one of the most reserved and conservative guys in the whole group.” He expressed disappointment in the Times, which he said couldn’t care less about the truth. “They have an objective and will do whatever it takes to achieve that objective,” he said.

    This isn’t the first attempt by The New York Times to spuriously slime Kavanaugh and his classmates for their high school friendships. As The Federalist previously noted, a Times article scrutinizing inside jokes in the 1983 yearbook of Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Preparatory School hid multiple problems with its claims, including that it was sourced to a rabidly anti-Trump politician in Maryland and his associate.”

    Truly blockbuster journalism right there……….

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The crazies are getting worse now that confirmation seems assured.


  5. Their own worst enemy.


    “The conjoined Democratic Party and mainstream media’s despicable character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh combined with the two-year single-minded determination to destroy the Trump presidency by any means possible has irretrievably awakened a preponderance of the citizenry. In a recent poll, 70% of all Americans and 90% of Republicans have lost faith in the self-styled mainstream media. They are imploding due to the self-inflicted destruction of their credibility and integrity, which has exposed the fraud this cabal has carried out over the past 85 years. The damage done to this nation and its citizenry is incalculable.”

    “Therefore, the preponderance of the current generation of so-called mainstream journalists, more ill educated and steeped in left-wing ideology than their predecessors, had a platform to unabashedly promote leftist social and economic policies. Also, unlike their predecessors, they no longer attempted to hide or obfuscate their agenda or bias, as the goal of transforming America was within reach – until the election of 2016, a catastrophic event that precipitated a renewed determination by the American left to obliterate conservative and Republican opposition by any means possible. The mainstream media would be the spear-carriers in that effort.

    In their anger and retaliation, far too many mainstream reporters, editors, anchors, and columnists exhibit an inability to generate an original thought or comprehend basic concepts, hence fabrications, innuendo, and “fake news” are the hallmark of the mainstream media today. Further, they are much more impatient than those who preceded them – thus, the herd mentality in the despicable reporting on Judge Kavanaugh, the distorted coverage of Donald Trump, and the determination to foment tribalism and resentment.

    These overt actions are why Americans, as polling reveals, have become increasingly suspicious of the mainstream media and are searching for alternative sources of news. The current state of anxiety and bitterness throughout the nation can be laid primarily at the feet of the media as they took advantage of their monopoly of the electronic platform available to them to promote and give cover to the left while proactively and falsely declaring their objectivity and integrity – thus perpetrating the greatest fraud in American history.”

    Liked by 2 people

  6. VP Pence gave an excellent but sobering speech at the Hudson Institute a few days ago. This is a well articulated summary of our relationship with China past and present, and a way forward as well. This is a solid policy shift.

    The disturbing part is China’s interference in our internal politics which I have suspected for years. State and local governments and local officials are being increasingly targeted to exploit wedge issues.

    The speech is about 45 minutes, but well worth listening to, particularly after about the 21:00 mark.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. @7:00 VP Pence mentions the media in the above speech. He says that China is using our media as well—they are spending billions of dollars for propaganda. China put out a paper ‘Propaganda and Censorship Notice’ which indicates that this interference is well coordinated and planned at the top, and it covers many areas of influence in the US.


  8. I was just reading that Debra. And half of this country is worried more about the Russians small time operation than the organized crime syndicate known as China.

    Even scarier to think what they’ve done that’s still gone without notice.


    “To help with due diligence, AWS, which was overseeing the prospective acquisition, hired a third-party company to scrutinize Elemental’s security, according to one person familiar with the process. The first pass uncovered troubling issues, prompting AWS to take a closer look at Elemental’s main product: the expensive servers that customers installed in their networks to handle the video compression. These servers were assembled for Elemental by Super Micro Computer Inc., a San Jose-based company (commonly known as Supermicro) that’s also one of the world’s biggest suppliers of server motherboards, the fiberglass-mounted clusters of chips and capacitors that act as the neurons of data centers large and small. In late spring of 2015, Elemental’s staff boxed up several servers and sent them to Ontario, Canada, for the third-party security company to test, the person says.

    Nested on the servers’ motherboards, the testers found a tiny microchip, not much bigger than a grain of rice, that wasn’t part of the boards’ original design. Amazon reported the discovery to U.S. authorities, sending a shudder through the intelligence community. Elemental’s servers could be found in Department of Defense data centers, the CIA’s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships. And Elemental was just one of hundreds of Supermicro customers.

    During the ensuing top-secret probe, which remains open more than three years later, investigators determined that the chips allowed the attackers to create a stealth doorway into any network that included the altered machines. Multiple people familiar with the matter say investigators found that the chips had been inserted at factories run by manufacturing subcontractors in China.

    This attack was something graver than the software-based incidents the world has grown accustomed to seeing. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating, promising the kind of long-term, stealth access that spy agencies are willing to invest millions of dollars and many years to get.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mystery solved, and another Democrat/Media talking point gets destroyed.

    And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids…..


    “Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday they’ve gotten to the bottom of a pair of slang terms in Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook.

    “MYSTERY SOLVED: It turns out that ‘boofing’ and ‘the devil’s triangle’ aren’t so scandalous after all,” proclaimed the official Twitter account for the committee’s majority.

    “Judge Kavanaugh was completely honest in his descriptions of both. Another swing and another miss from Senate Democrats.”



  10. The next hurdle has been cleared..


    “The U.S. Senate on Friday narrowly voted to advance Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a final vote. Senators now have up to 30 hours to debate the controversial nomination before a final floor vote, likely on Saturday afternoon. Yahoo News will be streaming all of speeches as well as the final vote live in the player (above) and offering instant analysis in the blog below.”

    Liked by 2 people

  11. The Judiciary Committee has released an executive summary of the FBI investigation. The whole Dem/Media charade falls apart on closer examination.


    “According to the summary of the report, FBI agents interviewed 10 people and reached out to 11. They focused exclusively on witnesses with potential first-hand knowledge of alleged sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh.

    “The FBI provided to the Senate 12 detailed FD-302 reports summarizing their interviews with the witnesses as well as supporting materials cited by the witnesses during their interviews,” the summary reads. Only senators and top aides are being allowed to review the full report in a secure facility on Capitol Hill.

    Notably absent from the witness list were any individuals directly related to the allegations of Julie Swetnick, who claimed in a sworn statement that she had witnessed Kavanaugh participating in systemic gang rapes decades ago.

    Swetnick’s credibility has taken a beating in recent days, with one ex-boyfriend telling Fox News she “exaggerated everything” and had threatened to kill his unborn child. Another ex-boyfriend similarly cast doubt on her credibility, as reports surfaced that she had previously been sued for allegedly concocting false sexual harassment claims. Swetnick is represented by anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti.

    Among those questioned were Mark Judge, PJ Smyth, and Leland Keyser, the three individuals Christine Blasey Ford claimed were present in the house when Kavanaugh allegedly threw her on a bed and sexually assaulted her sometime in the 1980s (Ford has variously claimed the episode occurred in the mid-1980s and early 1980s, before testifying that it occurred in 1982).

    All three of those individuals had already provided statements to the Judiciary Committee under penalty of felony denying any knowledge of the alleged assault. Keyser, Ford’s lifelong best friend, denied ever knowing Kavanaugh. When questioned about Keyser’s statement at last Thursday’s hearing, Ford suggested Keyser was having serious medical issues and had apologized for her denial.

    In a twist, Keyser told FBI investigators that she felt pressured to clarify her original statement saying she was unaware of any incident involving Kavanaugh and Ford, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Keyser, who later said she believed Ford even though she could not corroborate her story, told the investigators that she was urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Ford’s. (Ford’s ex-boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that Ford had helped McLean prepare for a polygraph, directly contradicting Ford’s sworn testimony last Thursday).”

    “”The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez,” the Judiciary Committee Republicans wrote.”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Now about that one allegation above….


    “A woman that Christine Blasey Ford claimed was at the party where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her circa 1982 told FBI investigators that Dr. Ford’s “allies” tried to pressure her to change her story about what happened.

    Leland Keyser told investigators that Ford’s friend, former FBI agent Monica McLean, had urged her to alter the original statement that she gave about not remembering any such party and not knowing Kavanaugh, The Wall Street Journal reported.

    The Journal noted that Keyser’s statement to the FBI offered “a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident.””


  13. Grassley unloads on the Ford lawyers. They continue to stonewall the committee, they don’t really want an investigation, but they’re gonna get one anyway.


    “On Thursday, Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a searing letter to the attorneys representing Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982. Grassley reiterated his already twice-stated request for the attorneys to turn over the “therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with The Washington Post that Dr. Ford has relied upon as evidence.”

    Grassley began by noting that as the Senate is charged by the Constitution to advise the president on his nominees for the Supreme Court, the Committee had a “constitutional obligation to investigate and evaluate independently the President’s nominees.” He pointed out that the Senate’s “obligation is unrelated to anything the FBI does … We have to make our own assessment.”

    Grassley then set the record straight about the attorneys using their objections to the FBI investigation as an excuse to deny the Judiciary Committee access to the information they were demanding. He wrote, “The FBI’s investigative decisions aren’t our concern. Even if the FBI never interviews Dr. Ford, or interviews her ten times, this Committee has a constitutional obligation to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegations, and that’s what we’ve been doing since we became aware of her allegations.”

    Grassley pointed out that the attorneys had “claimed repeatedly that the evidence I have requested supports Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. She even provided some of this evidence to national news. Indeed, if the evidence supported your client’s allegations, you surely would produce it as quickly as you could.”

    Then Grassley really got to the nitty-gritty: “But you have repeatedly refused to produce this evidence to the Senate. In doing so, you are preventing the Senate from considering the evidence most crucial to Dr. Ford’s allegations. I don’t know what other inference we should draw from your refusal but that the withheld evidence does not support Dr. Ford’s allegations in quite the way you have claimed.”

    Grassley’s concluding paragraph indicated he thought there might have been some interesting communication going on between Ford or her attorneys and some of the alleged witnesses she named to the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh:

    In addition to the evidence I requested in my October 2 letter, in light of recently uncovered information, please turn over records and descriptions of direct or indirect communications between Dr. Ford or her representatives and any of the following: (1) U.S. Senators or their staffs, particularly the offices of Senators Feinstein and Hirono, other than your communications with me and my staff in preparation for the September 27 hearing; (2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford (Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth); and (3) Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, or their representatives.”

    Liked by 2 people

  14. A nice gesture. 🙂


    “President Donald Trump on Wednesday donated his second quarter salary to a new Small Business Administration initiative to help veteran entrepreneurs, the second time this year he has given money to federal veterans initiatives, according to the White House.

    White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced the donation at a White House briefing on Wednesday. Linda McMahon, head of the Small Business Administration, accepted the $100,000 check, saying the funds “would be put to good use.”

    Agency officials plan to use the money to launch a new seven-month training program for transitioning troops looking at starting their own businesses. The program will be based on the existing Emerging Leaders Initiative, but tailored to veteran-specific needs.

    The existing program includes classroom instruction as well as “opportunities for small business owners to work with experienced coaches and mentors, attend workshops, and develop connections.” McMahon called it a significant resource for veterans shifting from military to civilian life.”

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Becoming a unicorn….. 🙂


    “I have become a unicorn. My metamorphosis didn’t require a magic spell or potion, or even a trip to a well-reviewed plastic surgeon to add a horn to my head. All it took was Democrats’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh over the last few weeks to turn me into that elusive creature: a minority, immigrant woman who supports Republicans.”

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Thoughts from a piece in First Things today:



    God has given the United States over to divisive blindness and stupidity.

    Americans watched Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. We couldn’t *not* watch, but drew opposite conclusions. The New York Times quadrant of the country found the fragile determination of Dr. Ford’s testimony utterly compelling; the National Review quadrant reveled in the outrage of Judge Kavanaugh and Senator Graham.

    We inhabit different universes. We have no shared standards of conduct, especially sexual conduct. Our elites jettisoned all the old rules a long time ago, and we have to limp along on the thin reed of consent. There were odd twists in the latest spectacle. Some traditionalists excuse Kavanaugh for youthful indiscretions; for sexual progressives, his opposition to Roe is evidence he’s a creepy serial rapist. Our rudderless sexual ethics make no sense: The same people who defend pornographers and sex workers are in high dudgeon whenever someone acts out a pornographic fantasy. …

    We have no common standard of evidence or proof. Do we believe victims, or assume innocence? Does sincerity and vulnerability make Ford’s story creditable, even in the absence of a second witness? Even if Ford’s allegations were proven beyond doubt, we couldn’t decide whether or not a teenage boy’s drunken groping still matters thirty years after the fact. Can a nation long endure when we can’t agree on basics of decency and fairness? …

    …. President Trump is right to sense something “evil” going on, some super-social power at work. The evil isn’t confined to one side of the aisle. We’re all caught up in it, spinning in the vortex. As my friend Mike Bull said, the Spirit has departed, and we’re back to Babel, where no one can speak to his neighbor. God has delivered us to divisive blindness and stupidity, to the force René Girard identified as “Satan.”

    It’s not as if he didn’t warn us. Paul writes that ungrateful idolaters become “futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Isaiah saw it happening in Judah: Idolaters “do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend” (Isa 44).

    This doesn’t mean we’re helpless. Or, better, our helplessness can drive us to seek justice in a higher court. We can shatter the idols that bind and blind us, and turn to God in prayer. That may seem a priss-pious response to what R. R. Reno has called a “political knife-fight,” but prayer is in the arsenal of spiritual weapons, one of the church’s primary ways of pursuing justice. Jesus compares prayer to a widow’s persistent appeal for justice (Luke 18). Psalm after psalm calls on God to see and judge, and summons Israel to praise when judgment falls. Some demons don’t come out except by prayer and fasting.

    Human justice fails, often. But Christians can still send the case up to the Judge of all the earth who does right, the heavenly Judge, Jesus, whose fiery eyes penetrate dark places and bring hidden things to light.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. All eyes on Murkowski, Collins, Flake and Manchin as Senate barrels toward final Kavanaugh vote



    … The momentum seemed to be moving in Kavanaugh’s direction as Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told reporters Friday afternoon that he plans to vote to confirm Kavanaugh “unless something big changes.” …

    But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted against proceeding to the final confirmation vote, in a move suggesting she may vote against Kavanaugh. Still, Murkowski told reporters she has still not made up her mind.

    With a 51-49 majority, Republicans can’t afford more than one defection if all Democrats were to vote together. A Manchin vote for Kavanaugh, though, would give Republicans some cushion. …


  18. Well this explains the witness tampering allegation. I hope they throw the book at him.


    “A Democratic congressional aide accused of publishing the private information of at least three Republican lawmakers allegedly threatened to leak senators’ children’s health information if a witness told anyone about his activities.

    Jackson Cosko, who recently worked for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, was arrested for allegedly posting the personal information (or “doxxing”) of a number of senators including Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah on Wikipedia — with information such as their home addresses and phone numbers. Graham, Lee and Hatch’s information was published on Thursday.

    According to a sworn statement by Capitol Police Captain Jason Bell, a witness Tuesday saw Cosko at a computer in a senator’s office, where he used to work, a day after two other unnamed senators’ information had been put on Wikipedia. Cosko worked for other Democratic senators including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and former Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. While earlier reports identified Cosko as an intern for Jackson Lee, his lawyer said that he was working as a fellow in her office, paid by an outside institution.

    Sources familiar with the case tell Fox News Cosko was in Sen. Hassan’s office, where he was not authorized to be and was caught using a login he was not authorized to use. Cosko earlier was let go by Senator Hassan’s office. A spokesman for Hassan says she “strongly denounces the alleged actions.”

    According to Bell’s statement, Cosko is alleged to have been confronted by the staffer and then walked out. The staffer then called police. Hours later the witness received an email from “livefreeorpwn@gmail.com” saying: “If you tell anyone I will leak it all. Emails signal conversations gmails. Senators children’s health information and socials.”

    “Socials” apparently referred to social security numbers, while Signal is a secure messaging application. Bell said that there was probably cause to believe that Cosko published the information of senators, and then made threatening statements directed to the unnamed witness “with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent” the witness from reporting it to authorities.”

    Liked by 2 people

  19. CNN: Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin will vote yes on Brett Kavanaugh, assuring his nomination to the Supreme Court

    Editor was pretty spot on.

    Of course, now Collins is being called every vile name in the book on social media — essentially proving her points about what’s happened to us all in this country.


  20. From ATT: They want him to withdraw.
    The National Council of Churches statement said, “Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation.” The statement also alleged misstatements and “outright falsehoods” in his testimony


  21. Good thing Kavanaugh is being confirmed. I’ve a feeling Trump may have another nomination to make soon.


  22. Time enough to crow tomorrow after the confirmation vote. Someone could always get cold feet and melt if he gets trapped again in an elevator or stairwell with ranting activists. But seriously, I can’t believe they don’t protect Senators from harassment better than this. People don’t have a right to shut down the operation of government.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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