The wrong target?
“A woman who had anonymously accused President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, of sexual misconduct in the early 1980s went public on Sunday, prompting Republicans to plan further discussions about his nomination before a committee vote this week.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor in California, said that as a high school student in suburban Maryland decades earlier, a ‘stumbling drunk’ Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to remove her clothing. She said that when she tried to scream, Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth. ‘I thought he might inadvertently kill me,’ Ford told the newspaper, adding: ‘He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.’
Senator Diane Feinstein, the top Judiciary Committee Democrat, called for a delay, saying the FBI should conduct an investigation before the Senate moves forward on the nominee.” <Source>
Really? We are going to allow the progressive socialists to smear a nominee over what may or may not happened in high school thirty-five years ago?
The Legal Advisor for Kavanaugh’s Accuser Is a Big Time Democratic Donor, Thinks People Who Work for Trump Are 'Miscreants'
The Washington Post reported this afternoon that Stanford professor Christine Blasey Ford is the woman behind the confidential letter given to Sen. Dianne Feinstein accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault as a teenager. According to the Post, Ford initially refrained from revealing the alleged information of a horrendous sexual assault due to privacy concerns for herself and her family. But she thought it was her duty to come forward on the record after the advice of Washington lawyer Debra Katz. Katz, however, has a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politicians, donating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as "miscreants" who are worse than deplorables.
On the advice of Katz, who believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August."
After Sen. Feinstein announced the accusatory letter last week, Ford decided she had to come on the record to avoid public scrutiny and speculation. It was Katz who provided the results of that polygraph test to the Post. The results "concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate." [OCS: Is this a dodge where the question was whether the statement was accurate or the allegations themselves were true? And, the reason I am suspicious is when you find out that her attorney is a hyper-partisan activist/advocate with a vested interest in interrupting the nomination process over a case which can never reach court or the subject be forced to testify under oath.]
But, readers should remember that Katz treated Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against President Bill Clinton very differently in the 1990s. Katz dismissed Jones' assertions on March 30th,1998 on CNN's "Talkback Live" saying that, "Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak. She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."
Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."
Katz continued to argue throughout the 90s that because Jones could not show that the harassment was "severe and pervasive," she did not have a case. In 1998, Katz told the media that, "If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.’ Katz said that courts have generally held that a one-time proposition does not constitute harassment. If it's one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody's breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing."
Yet, Katz continued to dismiss certain episodes of sexual misconduct throughout the years. Fast forward to 2017 and Katz defended then Sen. Al Franken after a photo appeared of him mock groping a female colleague while working as a comedian. At the time Katz said, "Context is relevant. He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer," and dismissed concern it was sexual harassment.
Since 2004, Katz has donated at least $26,000 to Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Kerry. She also donated to groups such as MoveOn.org, the DNC Services Corp, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. <Source>
The real investigative target should be…
What to make of Dianne (D-CA) withholding of information on a nominee under consideration for the highest court in the land from her Senate colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, her lack of questioning of the nominee in either a public or private hearing, and her last-minute announcement, after weeks of holding the information, that she was forwarding the information to the FBI for potential investigation.
So here we have an anonymous charge which appears to amount to second-hand hearsay of an unspecified allegation of an unspecified activity that occurred decades ago, and that is being forwarded to a government agency for investigation -- and subject to a self-serving media announcement by Feinstein.
Is this not a replay of the anonymous suspicions and unverified allegations contained in the Steele Dossier that is being sent to the FBI for potential investigation -- and leaked to the media.
In the case of the Steele Dossier, we know for a certainty who funded the dossier, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee through a lawyer at a prestigious law firm who acted to hide the source of the funding. In the case of the Feinstein disclosure, for want of a better descriptive title, we do not know the circumstances under which the information was solicited or who may have paid to surface the information.
Both efforts in an attempt to smear President Donald Trump, the Trump campaign, the Trump Administration, and Trump's court nominee.
There is little doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton and her entourage conspired with Russia in an unsuccessful attempt to thwart the candidacy of Donald Trump, to delegitimize his authority, and now to develop grounds for impeachment and possible removal from office.
Might not the same be said of Dianne Feinstein who, with the longstanding business and social relationships with high-ranking Chinese and the presence of a previously undisclosed presence of a long-term Chinese spy with close access to the Senator? That Dianne Feinstein, along with her husband, should be investigated for possible collusion with the Chinese to thwart President Trump's onerous sanctions on China that are wreaking havoc on the Chinese economy? And, as with the investigation of the business affairs of Trump associates, should we take a deep dive into Feinstein's husband's finances to see if he colluded with the Chinese. After all, the evidence against her husband is at least as strong as that which has been announced against Carter Page. Perhaps the FBI should seek a FISA warrant to wiretap the Feinstein entourage.
Nothing new and why are you surprised? Smears are an essential part of the pattern and practice of Democrat Party politics.
Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) jumped on the smear bandwagon with an edited video and misleading rhetoric.
Hillary jumps into the fray with a tweet.
Of course, both progressive socialist democrats Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton are distorting the truth to the point of deliberating lying in order to smear Judge Kavanaugh.
While this is literally true, it is taken out of context. First, Kavanaugh, in response to Senator Ted Cruz, was citing a case in which he wrote the dissent and reporting on the position of one of the litigants, Priests for Life vs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The answer, in context, was, “That was a group that was being forced to provide a certain kind of health coverage over their religious objection to their employees and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was: First, was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise? And it seemed to me quite clearly it was. It was a technical matter of filling out a form in that case. They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they, as a religious matter, objected to.”
Mischaracterization and parsing to promote a Democrat smear.
But that’s nothing new here. How many people remember the actions of Teddy Kennedy and Joseph Biden during the Judge Robert Bork confirmation hearing?
The new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee was Biden. Following Ted Kennedy's outrageous assertion that "blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters," the newly appointed Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, was quick to smear Bork. "It appears to me that you are saying that the government has as much right to control a married couple's decision about choosing to have a child or not, as that government has a right to control the public utility's right to pollute the air." The smear was so vicious and complete that the practice of smearing court nominees was called “Borking.”
As a result, the conservative Judge Bork who would have held toxic progressivism in check gave way to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who mostly sides with progressives and is fond of quoting foreign law when speaking of precedents.
The mainstream media echo chamber…
Obama Administration official and advisor, Ben Rhodes was quoted as saying, "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old... They literally know nothing... We created an echo chamber... They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say." in boasting about how journalists will act like parrots given simple access to White House officials.
So why are we surprised when the progressive mainstream media put the Harris and Hillary quotes on a 24/7 repeat loop? And, when someone like President Trump points out the perfidy and the “fake news,” the media condemns his words as an attack on the freedom of the press. As if they have some particular constitutional right to deliberately lie to the American people.
Dianne Feinstein should be expelled from the Senate and investigated for her abuse of power, use of insider information for her own enrichment, and for potential collaboration with the Chinese, as much a malevolent enemy of the United States as Russia.
Or, in the alternative, Californians can vote for another radical socialist democrat, Kevin de Leon, who is every bit as extreme as Feinstein – but will not inherit her influential committee memberships. At least we will not have someone on the intelligence committee that sat next to a Chinese spy for 20 years – and arranged for him to be “retired” rather than prosecuted and jailed.
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius