Conservative Blogger
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Kimberly Strassel: A vote against Kavanaugh is a vote for ambush tactics and against due process
 |
| America can thank Jeff Flake for the continued circus on capital hill. |
The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.
Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.
To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitterrule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.
Bill Maher attacks Lindsey Graham for defending Kavanaugh, says senator needs 'his dead boyfriend' John McCain
HBO’s Bill Maher lashed out at Sen. Lindsey Graham on Friday for his defense of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying the South Carolina Republican was missing “the stabilizing influence of his dead boyfriend,” meaning the late Sen. John McCain.
Maher, host of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” took shots at Graham multiple times -- for example, saying in his opening monologue that the senator was “familiar” with the “back door.”
“The fact that Trump can either find people like him or make him … Lindsey Graham needs the stabilizing influence of his dead boyfriend,” Maher said later, in reference to McCain, who died Aug. 25 at age 81.
Maher went on to decry Graham’s fiery support for Kavanaugh as a “performance” and that he may be eyeing on a cabinet position within the Trump administration.
Graham stood out during Thursday's hearings of Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused the judge of sexual assault over 36 years ago. He gave perhaps one of the most impassioned speeches in defense of Kavanaugh, accusing the Democrats of trying to destroy the Supreme Court nominee with “the most unethical sham since I've been in politics.”
“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020,” Graham told Senate Judiciary Democrats. “Boy, y’all want power and I hope you don’t get it.”
Maher also accused Kavanaugh of “acting” during the hearing, with one of his guests, CNN commentator April Ryan, saying Kavanaugh spoke only to please President Trump.
“He was rehearsed. He talked about the press, he talked about the Clintons,” Ryan said. “He was too rehearsed. He was so bombastic.”
Maher went on to claim that Kavanaugh lied that his 10-year-old daughter prayed for his accuser.
“That’s what actors do!” Maher said when talking about Kavanaugh barely holding back the tears during his opening statement to the committee. “They make s--- up!”
USA Today hit piece says Kavanaugh should 'stay off basketball courts when kids are around'
You can give thanks to people like GOP's Jeff Flake for the USA Today hit piece.
USA Today got slammed on social media after
publishing an “evil” article saying Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh should stay away from coaching girls’ basketball because of
sexual assault allegations.
“The U.S. Senate may yet confirm
Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts
for now when kids are around,” reads the article by a staff sportswriter.
The report, which was presented as a news story rather
than an opinion article, focused on Thursday’s dramatic testimony by
Kavanaugh, who said the mere allegations ruined his reputation and that
it could mean he will never be able to coach a girls' basketball team
again.“I love coaching more than anything I’ve ever done in my whole life,” Kavanaugh said in his opening statement. “But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again.”
Thousands of social media users slammed the article’s insinuation."I love coaching more than anything I’ve ever done in my whole life. But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again."
“This is a truly evil piece,” tweeted Charles Cooke, editor of the conservative National Review magazine.
“Irresponsible, inflammatory, foolhardy, opprobrious and thoughtless article serving no purpose than to further add contempt to someone's name who has not been proven guilty of any crime,” wrote a Twitter user, joining the choir of more than 7,000 overwhelmingly negative comments on social media.
Michael Brown, a former undersecretary of Homeland Security, said the outlet uses allegations from more than 30 years ago, “in essence to call someone a pedophile.”
“Let me get this straight @USATODAY... you believe uncorroborated allegations from 30+ years ago allow in essence to call someone a pedophile? Kavanaugh claims the media will continue to attack him and you just proved his point. Despicable,” he wrote.
The USA Today story went on to proclaim that “the nation is newly vigilant on who coaches and trains its children given recent scandals in gymnastics and other sports,” but notes that Kavanaugh is free to continue coaching in the Catholic Youth Organization and his daughters’ private school in Washington because he passed all background checks.
Edward McFadden, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington, told the outlet that “adult volunteers with extensive contact with children” undergo extensive background checks. A coach would have to be convicted before he gets banned from coaching children.
But despite that, the report ends with the call that “credibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation.”
Tucker: Jeff Flake Is 'Ringmaster of the Partisan Circus' After Calling for Kavanaugh FBI Probe
Tucker Carlson on Friday declared Sen. Jeff Flake the "ringmaster of the partisan circus" after the lawmaker called for an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh.
Flake (R-Ariz.) had voted to send Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate.
He said before the vote, in agreement with Democrats, that he'd be calling for a one-week delay to allow the FBI to investigate the sexual misconduct claims against the nominee.
President Trump subsequently ordered the bureau to conduct the "supplemental" probe at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Jeff Flake crumbled," Carlson said, noting that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) commended Flake for rising above "the partisan circus on display."
Friday, September 28, 2018
Gregg Jarrett: At Kavanaugh hearing, Democrats' outrageous conduct victimizes him, Ford and all Americans
If Judge Brett Kavanaugh was not telling the truth Thursday at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court, he is one of America’s greatest actors.
The emotion Kavanaugh evinced during the hearing cannot be feigned. When it finally spilled out, it was real and raw. His justifiable anger at being falsely accused of sexually assaulting Professor Christine Blasey Ford when both were teenagers some 36 years ago was palpable.
“I swear today, under oath, before the Senate and the nation, before my family, and God, I am innocent of this charge,” Kavanaugh said.
Most people who are grievously wronged react with outrage. In his statement and testimony, Kavanaugh expressed such righteous indignation. His defense of himself was forceful and convincing.
Kavanaugh’s core message was both conciliatory and compelling.
“I don’t question that Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted at some time and at some place, but it was not me,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh emphasized that none of the people identified by Ford as attending a party – where Ford claims a drunken Kavanaugh got on top of her on a bed, tried unsuccessfully to take off her clothes and covered her mouth to stifle her screams – corroborate the accusations leveled against him.
Kavanaugh also firmly denied claims by three other women not at the hearing that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. Like Ford, those women have presented not a shred of corroborating evidence or any other witnesses to back up their claims against the judge. One accusation came from an anonymous person who claimed to be the mother of another woman and is so weak that it can’t even be seriously considered.
In support of his denial of Ford’s allegations, Kavanaugh offered a meticulous calendar he kept in 1982. It served as a remarkably convincing piece of evidence showing he could not have been the teenage boy who attacked Ford.
Significantly, the calendar shows that the then-17-year-old Kavanaugh was out of town nearly every weekend of the summer when Ford claims he attacked her at a house party in Maryland, just outside Washington.
For the two weekends Kavanaugh spent at home, his whereabouts were accounted for. His weekdays were equally accounted for.
Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”These records clearly reflect that there were no house parties involving the people Ford said were at the party where she was allegedly attacked. While not dispositive evidence, the calendar is highly persuasive. Why would young Kavanaugh have noted all his other activities on the calendar but for some reason left off the party?
Ford also told a credible story. During her testimony, she seemed authentic and sincere. However, when two people tell different and conflicting stories, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused. This is consistent with an important principle by which our democracy abides both inside and outside the courtroom: the presumption of innocence.
Fundamental fairness and due process demand every accused person receive a presumption of innocence. If it did not exist, America would be a police state, where the government could accuse any of us of any crime and convict us without evidence. The liberty and freedom of each and every one of us would be endangered.
Try a thought experiment and think back to your own high school years. Imagine if someone came forward tomorrow and accused you of criminal activity long ago. How could you possibly prove you did not engage in such conduct?
Sadly, decency has eluded these proceedings against an superbly qualified judge who has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI for high-level positions in the White House and elsewhere, including for the past 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Choking back tears, Kavanaugh – a deeply religious man – recounted how his youngest daughter, Liza, wanted to pray for Ford. “That’s a lot of wisdom for a 10-year-old,” the judge observed. Senators could learn a thing or two from a 10-year-old.
Kavanaugh justifiably heaped scorn on Senate Democrats for what was he described as a “smear” and “character assassination,” pointing out correctly that they revealed the allegations against him by Ford only when his confirmation seemed assured.
Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”
At times, questioning resembled a theater of the absurd as some clueless Democratic senators like Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut implied that cryptic references to drinking in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook were somehow incriminating evidence of attempted rape. That’s so ridiculous as to be laughable.
More than anyone, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is responsible for this abomination.
Feinstein knew of Ford’s allegations for the better part of two months. Yet she concealed the professor’s claims about Kavanaugh until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended. The hearing was reopened to give Ford a chance to testify, out of respect for her and a sincere effort get to the truth.
Feinstein could have – and should have – brought Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh to the attention of the Judiciary Committee without revealing the accuser’s identity. Committee staffers could have questioned Ford in a private and confidential manner, allowing a more orderly investigation to take place.
Feinstein’s explanations for her actions in refusing to disclose Ford’s claims are nothing more than vacuous excuses.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right to strongly chastise Feinstein at Thursday’s hearing for hiding Ford’s accusations.
“I hope the American people can see through this sham – that you knew about it and you held it,” Graham told Feinstein. “You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford, none! She’s as much of a victim as you are,” Graham said as he pointed to Judge Kavanaugh.
But Graham wasn’t done.
“If you wanted an FBI investigation you could have come to us,” Graham told Feinstein. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020,” referring to Democratic hopes to capture the White House in two years.
Graham then criticized all the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee.
“I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy,” Graham said. “This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. If you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you did to this guy.”
The plain truth is that it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated to fill the existing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The president could have nominated a saint and Democrats would have done everything humanly possible to stop the nominee from being confirmed. No shameful tactic would have been spared.
Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are the victims of the outrageous conduct by Senate Democrats. And so are the American people.
Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).
California governor vetoes bills to let noncitizens serve on boards, block immigration arrests in courthouses
California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed two bills Thursday that would have allowed noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, to serve on state boards and commissions, and would have prevented immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses.
Brown’s actions come as California has sparred with the Trump administration over its perceived accommodation of illegal immigrants. An estimated 2 million people reside in the state illegally, the Orange County Register reported.
“Governance belongs to a nation’s citizens,” said Mike Spence, a councilman in the Southern California city of West Covina. “Even Jerry Brown understands citizenship has to mean something.”
“Governance belongs to a nation’s citizens. Even Jerry Brown understands citizenship has to mean something.”Trump has voiced his frustration with California’s immigration policies, calling them “unconstitutional” and “illegal.” Several California cities have voted to opt out of the state’s sanctuary law.
Had Brown, a Democrat, signed SB-174, California would have been the first state in the country to allow legal residents and undocumented immigrants to serve on local and state boards that advise on policy areas such as employment and labor, the Register reported.
“I believe existing law, which requires citizenship for these forms of public service, is the better path,” Brown said in explaining his veto.
The proposed law would have eliminated “transient aliens” from the government code in an effort to make clear that anyone can hold an appointed civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status.
The phrase is included in an 1872 provision intended to exclude Chinese immigrants and other foreign-born residents from holding appointed civil positions, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The bill’s authors, state Sen. Ricardo Lara and Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo, both Democrats, said the language conflicts with the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States.
“There was a time when Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, African Americans, and Catholics were prevented from serving, and California cleared away those barriers,” Lara said. “I predict that this barrier will eventually fall.”
Lara also authored the other bill that Brown vetoed Thursday, the one that sought to prevent immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses.
In his veto message, Brown expressed concerns that the proposed law could have unintended consequences. He pointed to the state’s sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between local and state law enforcement agencies and immigration authorities, according to the L.A. Times.
“I believe the prudent path is to allow for that guidance to be released before enacting new laws in this area,” Brown said.
The bill would have allowed judges to stop the arrests or other activities that interrupt their proceedings.
Brown has vetoed other bills passed by the California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature. In 2013, he vetoed one that would have allowed non-citizens to serve on juries.
“Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship,” he said at the time.
California has passed several laws in recent years designed to protect the rights of immigrants. Last week, Brown signed a bill authored by Lara into law that decriminalizes sidewalk vending, a business popular with many immigrants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
