RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/who-was-behind-the-flake-set-up/

ACORN’s tactics live on in the senator’s elevator confrontation with activists from a Soros-backed group.

On Friday morning, two women raced past reporters and security officers and blocked a senators-only elevator in the U.S. Capitol. They cornered Arizona senator Jeff Flake, who had just announced he was going to vote yes on moving Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination out of the Judiciary Committee and onto the Senate floor for a full debate. The women wouldn’t let Flake leave until had they yelled at him, face to face, for several minutes. Anyone who thinks the two left-wing activists acted without a well-thought-out plan hasn’t read The Intimidation Game by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal.

A CNN camera broadcast the event live, and from there it went viral. “Thank you,” Flake said, as he was finally allowed to exit after one of the women revealed, apparently for the first time, that she’d been sexually abused:

I was sexually assaulted, and nobody believed me. I didn’t tell anyone, and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter. . . . That’s what you’re telling all of these women. That’s what you’re telling me right now. Look at me when I’m talking to you! You are telling me that my assault doesn’t matter. . . . Don’t look away from me. Look at me.

The New Yorker reported that, after the incident, Flake “looked more withdrawn than ever, eyes wet, voice a little frayed, chin tucked down in the somber knot of his tie.” Shortly afterward, Flake voted to refer Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate but with a sudden proviso: He wouldn’t vote for the judge on the floor unless the vote was delayed to do an FBI investigation, “limited in time to no more than one week,” into “current allegations that are already there.” Democrats rejoiced.

A reporter for the Washington Examiner asked Flake, “Did the women who confronted you this morning, did they have any role in changing your mind?”

“No, no,” Flake said as he shook his head.

https://edwardcline.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-midsummer-nights-nightmare_30.html

By now, many readers are doubtless sick of reading about the latest whirligigs in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination brouhaha in the Senate Judiciary Committee. They may have grown tired of all the speculative commentary about how or why the Dems have manipulated the Judicial hearings over Kavanaugh, commentary with which they probably agree, and which explains how the Dems’ witch hunt plan suits their agenda to defeat Donald Trump and destroy Kavanaugh with the whiny testimony of an alleged rape victim. All in all, the whole charade has been and continues to be nauseous. As many commentators and even Republican Senators have have remarked, the hearing’s vicious tone is unprecedented in our political history.

Christine Blasey Ford was obviously coached by her attorneys and the Dems on how and what to say in her testimony, and was probably coached on how to comport herself. I even suspect that she did not compose the typewritten testimony from which she read, as she played with her glasses and fussed with her hair, all the while playing to be a “nervous Nellie,” uncomfortable with her testimony with all eyes, ears, and cameras focused on her.

Wikipedia has an interesting observation on Shakespeare’s comedy, which has four interconnected subplots and a confusing cast of nineteen characters, not including dancing fairies. The comedy is less complex and confusing to follow than has been the Kavanaugh hearing.

In 1972, Ralph Berry argued that Shakespeare was chiefly concerned with epistemology in this play. The lovers declare illusion to be reality, the actors declare reality to be illusion. The play ultimately reconciles the seemingly opposing views and vindicates imagination.

Diane Feinstein and Company subscribe to this notion, and struggle to reconcile illusion and reality. She and her ilk “believe” Ford’s assertions, so, ergo, Kavanaugh “really” attacked Ford, with as much sutstance and evidence as wind storms on Pluto, and he’s automatically guilty (no amount of “mansplaining” by him or any other man will exonerate him). The illusion of guilt becomes a “fact” which must be further investigated by the FBI until the “truth” is discovered, thus delaying his nomination before the national elections at the end of the year. It isn’t as though Feinstein and her Democratic ilk place any importance on truth. Truth to them, if a malleable concept that can be fitted to their political agenda.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/gillibrand-praises-judiciary-dem-for-performance-at-f-king-kavanaugh-ford-hearing/

WASHINGTON – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) praised Judiciary Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) for his performance during the committee hearing with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

“I watched the whole f–king thing. You did really well. You did so well,” Gillibrand told Blumenthal after the conclusion of Kavanaugh’s portion of the hearing on Thursday.

Gillibrand declined to answer a follow-up question about her reaction to the hearing.

Last year, Gillibrand used colorful language during a speech about democracy and her opposition to President Trump, which CNN declared was “out of character” for her.

“If we are not helping people, we should go the f–k home,” she said. Referring to Trump, she said, “Has he kept his promises? No. F–k no.”

Gillibrand, who is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, watched the hearing inside the room alongside actress Alyssa Milano, a progressive activist, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.).

On the Senate floor Wednesday, Gillibrand said that “the presumption of innocence until proven guilty” does not apply to Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation since it is not a criminal trial.

“To those who I hear say, over and over, ‘this isn’t fair to Judge Kavanaugh, he’s entitled to due process. What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Dr. Blasey Ford has to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt,’” said Gillibrand, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender.

“He’s not entitled to those because we’re not actually seeking to convict him or put him in jail,” Gillibrand added. “We are seeking the truth. We are seeking facts. We are seeking just what happened.”

Following Ford’s testimony earlier on Thursday, Gillibrand said, “I just don’t know how any Republican could vote for Brett Kavanaugh after what she said – not only her honesty, her integrity, her truth, it’s obvious. I just don’t know how any Republican could vote for Brett Kavanaugh after hearing her.” CONTINUE AT SIT

https://www.wsj.com/articles/feinsteins-temperament-gambit-1538337954

The intervention by American Bar Association President and Hillary Clinton supporter Robert Carlson against Brett Kavanaugh turns out to be even worse than we reported on Saturday. Now, exploiting the latest delay in a Senate confirmation vote, Democrats and liberals like Mr. Carlson are pressuring the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to reopen its evaluation of Brett Kavanaugh.

The ABA committee submitted its evaluation to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 31. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA committee, wrote that “after an exhaustive evaluation process, the Standing Committee has determined by a unanimous vote that Judge Kavanaugh is ‘Well Qualified.’” That is the ABA’s highest rating.

The excuse now being pushed on the ABA behind the scenes isn’t merely the uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct, which are being investigated by the FBI. The new claim is that Mr. Kavanaugh’s passionate defense of his reputation before the Senate last week showed that he is too political and lacks the proper judicial temperament.

“Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge,” Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein tweeted on Friday. “He was aggressive and belligerent.”

The media have picked up the meme. “The judge who previously served as a top aide to President George W. Bush and worked for independent counsel Ken Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton tossed aside his earlier judicious language of neutrality,” opined CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-is-no-mere-job-interview-1538313919

Until Judge Brett Kavanaugh was accused of horrible crimes—sexual assault, lewd conduct and even gang rape—his confirmation hearings could fairly, if not entirely accurately, be characterized as a “job interview.” The burden was on him to demonstrate his suitability to serve on the Supreme Court. He apparently met that burden in the eyes of a majority, a partisan one to be sure, and seemed on the way to getting the job.

But now everything has changed. So should the burden of persuasion. The behavior of which Judge Kavanaugh has been accused is so serious and devastating that it requires a high level of proof before forming the basis for his rejection. There is an enormous and dispositive difference between a candidate’s rejection on ideological grounds, as was the case with Robert Bork, and rejection on the ground that he has committed crimes warranting lifetime imprisonment rather than a lifetime appointment.

Being on the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right. But being disqualified based on a false accusation of a crime would be a violation of the fundamental right to fairness. Some will argue that the issue of Judge Kavanaugh’s ideological and professional qualifications should be merged with the sexual allegations and that doubts should be resolved against a lifetime appointment.

In some cases that would be a plausible argument. But it is too late for that kind of nuanced approach now, because these accusations have received world-wide attention. Judge Kavanaugh is on trial for his life. At stake are his career, his family, his legacy and a reputation earned over many decades as a lawyer and judge.

If he is now denied the appointment, it will be because he has been depicted as a sexual predator who deserves contempt, derision and possible imprisonment. He may no longer be able to teach law, coach sports or expect to be treated respectfully. He could be forced to resign his current judicial position, because having a “convicted” rapist on the bench is unseemly. For these reasons, he now has the right—perhaps not a legal right, but a right based on fundamental fairness—to have the charges against him put to the test of clear and convincing evidence or some standard close to that.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409032-burden-on-avenatti-to-show-proof-or-face-consequences

Michael Avenatti, whose judgments have proved questionable so many times, may be right in demanding a thorough investigation of his client’s outrageous claims of multiple gang rapes participated in and witnessed by a young Brett Kavanaugh.

These claims, typical of Avenatti, seem so incredible on their face that even partisan Democratic senators have generally stayed away from them. Yet, if they are true, they are not only disqualifying for Judge Kavanaugh to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court, but they should result in criminal prosecutions of anyone and everyone who allegedly drugged young girls and subjected them to systematic gang rape on multiple occasions.

The affidavit laying out these allegations is so deeply flawed and so filled with gaps that it would be easy for any experienced cross-examiner to raise doubts about the credibility of the affiant. One critical question is why this young woman would repeatedly return to parties where she claims to have witnessed gang rapes of drugged women. Yet, since the charges are so serious, further investigation is warranted.

But there is one condition that should be imposed before an investigation is conducted: The accuser should have to waive her lawyer-client privilege with Avenatti so that investigators can determine how much of her affidavit and how many of her claims were originally her own, and how many, if any, may have been “improved upon” by her conversations with her highly partisan lawyer or others.

If she is telling the truth, she should have no reason for not waiving the privilege. If she is lying, then there is no privilege anyway, since the crime-fraud exception would take it outside of the privilege. She should be asked how she got in contact with Avenatti, who first introduced the term “gang rape” into the conversation, and whether she intended the information she conveyed to Avenatti to be made public.