RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271411/lefts-show-trial-kavanaugh-matthew-vadum

Two more women accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of dubious improprieties materialized out of thin air late Sunday, throwing Senate Republicans’ hope of finally confirming the Supreme Court nominee this week even more into doubt.

The new allegations came yesterday amid reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tentatively scheduled a hearing for this Thursday to take testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, sexually assaulted her decades ago when he was a high school student. Suspiciously, Ford can’t –or won’t— say when or where the alleged incident happened and can provide few details.

As Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post, working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and backed financially by George Soros’s money, Ford’s lawyers spent the last few days gaming the system. After stalling Grassley and getting repeated extensions, the attorneys got the chairman to cave on various demands, such as that Kavanaugh not be in the room when Ford gives evidence.

Republicans never seem to learn from their mistakes.

As usual, Republicans’ seeming reasonableness is rewarded with more abuse by the Left. Give left-wingers an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Democrats, it turns out, used the extra time created through their delaying tactics to produce two new women with questionable claims against Kavanaugh. More accusers could be on their way.

President Trump continues to support Kavanaugh, who maintains his innocence.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271385/feminist-cult-victimhood-dawn-perlmutter

Christine Blasey Ford is the latest poster child in the feminist cult of victimhood. She achieved that status by claiming she was physically attacked at a high school party by Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh three decades ago. She immediately became the perfect useful idiot whose false memories and false allegations are being fully exploited to postpone the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. She is the latest symbol of oppression among anti-Trump women activists. Instead of characteristics like honor, integrity and courage, feminist heroines must first and foremost be victims, real or imagined.

The current feminist movement has become a cult of angry miserable women recruited by the guru of man hating misery Hillary Clinton. There are certain predisposing factors that facilitate recruitment into cults. These factors typically include: a desire to belong, impaired capacity for critical thinking, disillusionment, dissatisfaction, idealism, lack of self-confidence and a desire for meaning in one’s life. Thousands of vulnerable unhappy women were ripe for recruitment into the cult of women activists. Now thoroughly indoctrinated in anti-Trump hatred they have been brainwashed, organized and unleashed on the public. Their goal is to destroy the Trump administration, their strategy is resistance and their tactics are accusation, disinformation, and extortion. Christine Blasey Ford’s attempt to politically assassinate Kavanaugh can be likened to the Manson cult followers who were sent out to start ‘Helter Skelter’, an apocalyptic race war initiated by murdering influential white people.

Cults often like to create a recognizable visual identity. This is often accomplished with uniform clothing that functions as a recognizable symbol of the group. The latest popular outfit of women’s rights activists are full length scarlet robes and puritanical white bonnets. Always seeking attention these women have hung up their Women’s March ‘pussy hats’ to dress up as characters from ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. Groups of feminist protesters have been dressing in creepy cult-like ankle-length red dresses and cloaks, red gloves and white bonnets during protests in courthouses, government building and other public places. The uniforms signify their new-found identity and purpose in life in their Anti-Trump sisterhood.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/four-reasons-the-new-accusations-against-kavanaugh-are-weaker-than-fords/

As Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lost all credibility, it was reasonable to assume there was a reason for all the stalling. Many believed that somewhere, somehow, leftists would find someone else to come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh.

Earlier this evening The New Yorker published a story written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer proving that theory correct. This story centers on Deborah Ramirez, who has come forward (or was pushed to come forward) with a claim that while she and Kavanaugh were both students at Yale, they were both at a drunken dorm party where Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to her.

Judge Kavanaugh has already released a statement denying the allegation. “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime — against these last-minute allegations.”

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network, released the following statement to PJ Media regarding the allegations:

Senate Republicans must not allow unsubstantiated and discredited allegations from over three decades ago to destroy the life and reputation of a good man. Countless people from every phase of Brett Kavanaugh’s life have testified that he is a good man of the highest character and integrity. Chuck Schumer vowed to oppose Kavanaugh with everything he’s got, and apparently that took the form of character assassination. This has all of the ingredients of a smear campaign on steroids. Senate Republicans should stand up to these unsubstantiated and discredited allegations and move forward with a vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

While reading The New Yorker story, the weakness of the allegation becomes apparent immediately. In fact, I would argue that these new allegations are even weaker than Ford’s accusations. Here are four reasons why Ramirez’s accusations are even weaker than Christine Blasey Ford’s.
The Top Five Shameful Ways Democrats Have Tried to Thwart Kavanaugh’s Confirmation
1. Ramirez admits gaps in her memory and wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh

According to the article, “Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.”

In addition to her acknowledged memory gaps, she reportedly “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” What changed? Christine Blasey Ford. “Ramirez said that she hoped her story would support that of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has raised an allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh that bears several similarities to Ramirez’s claim.” So, Ramirez went from uncertain, to confident in order to support Ford’s claim.

Did I mention Ramirez is a Democrat?
2. The New Yorker tried to find eyewitnesses… and failed

Despite contacting “several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh” about the incident, they were unable to find any eyewitnesses to the alleged incident that supposedly occurred at a party with lots of Yale students present.

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.

None of the people who believe Ramirez’s story claim to have witnessed the incident, only to have heard about it.

3. Others alleged to have been involved deny it happened

Remember how Christine Blasey Ford named three individuals who either witnessed her alleged assault, or were present at the party, and that none of them corroborated her story? Well, Ramirez also mentioned witnesses involved in the incident who deny it happened.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/23/fourth-supposed-witness-kavanaugh-accusers-alleged-assault-says-didnt-happen/

Christine Blasey Ford’s charge that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago crumpled late Saturday when the final witness Ford identified failed to back her story.

In a Saturday evening email, an attorney representing Ford’s former classmate, Leland Ingham Keyser, stated that his client “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.”

Keyser is now the fourth person to refute Ford’s story. Kavanaugh immediately and unequivocally denied Ford’s charge that, while intoxicated, he pushed her into a bedroom, pinned her to a bed, and attempted to rip off her clothing. Kavanaugh also implored the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing the following day so he could clear himself.

In addition to Kavanaugh, Ford claimed that three other teens were at the party that occurred circa 1982, although she is not sure of the year or location. Ford also said Mark Judge, a friend and Georgetown Preparatory classmate of Kavanaugh, was in the room with her and Kavanaugh at the time of the assault.

Judge refuted Ford’s claim in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, writing “I have no memory of this alleged incident.” “Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described” by Ford, Judge continued. Judge ended his statement by stressing that, while he did not remember the supposed party, he “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Ford also identified another Georgetown Prep student by his initials “PJ,” and later Patrick J. Smyth, a fellow 1983 grad of the North Bethesda, Maryland all-boys school, came forward to respond to Ford’s charge. In a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Smyth said he wrote “to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth then added: “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

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.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/23/hillarys-hypocrisy

Hillary Clinton employs just 30 words before ladling a characteristic untruth across the page of The Atlantic this week. It shouldn’t surprise anyone inured to her austere relationship with the truth.

The essay, an excerpted afterword of the soon-to-be published paperback edition of What Happened, is sparse in the details of what actually happened in 2016, and why Hillary Clinton can only call herself Madam President in some parallel and cosmically unfortunate universe.

A lady who even lies about the genesis of her own first name, dives straight into attacking President Trump, claiming, charitably, that she gave him a chance to lead unhindered. That, the computer tells us, is a lie.

Plucking her concession speech for focus-grouped slithers of integrity, Hillary claims she was true to the words: “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” Perhaps forgetting that the Clinton campaign set to sabotage the 63 million votes of Americans they regard as irredeemable oafs, before those votes were even stamped on ballot papers via the apparent telekinesis of Vladimir Putin.

She expects us to believe she was gracious in defeat. But disfiguring the truth has always been a pathological challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton. A game. And it’s one she thinks she is rather good at.

The emotional manipulation begins with a degree of shameless untruth common to the state-controlled airwaves of banana republics. No time is wasted in conjuring up lurid imagery of President Trump, The Heartless.

“Exhibit A is the unspeakable cruelty that this administration has inflicted on undocumented families arriving at the border, including separating children, some as young as eight months, from their parents,” she offers.

The language employed is typically Clintonian—emotive, evasive, manipulative, and larcenous. After all, that paragraph of wanton untruth could easily have applied to the Obama or Bush administrations. That context, of course, doesn’t enter into it.

Orwellian falsities thread the essay brazenly. Man, these people are stupid! cackles the pant-suited purveyor of piffle.