RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/408425-trump-should-insist-on-declassification-of-mueller-documents

It has been 16 months this week since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller III as a special counsel to “investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” as described in Mr. Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017, letter appointing the special counsel.

But that appointment letter ignored the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) special counsel regulations set forth in 28 CFR SEC. 600 et seq., and the standards and regulations published by the DOJ in the “Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide” (DIOG) that require a predicate criminal offense before an investigation can be commenced.

Under the department’s guidelines, the agency is permitted “to conduct investigations to detect, obtain information about, and prevent and protect against federal crimes,” requiring some reasonable basis for commencing an investigation after having first identified “a particular crime or threatened crime.” Yet, the authorizing letter appointing the special counsel contained no “particular crime or threatened crime” by the president or his campaign, and none has been identified since, despite issuance of a later memo on Aug. 2, 2017, purporting to amplify the earlier appointment.

The president has now retracted his recent request for declassification and release of DOJ/FBI material that would shed defining light on the supposed crime (or, perhaps, lack thereof). It would be important in addition to have full, unredacted disclosure of the August 2017 Rosenstein memo to Mueller elaborating on his mission about which there should be no secrecy. But the DOJ and, now, the United Kingdom appear determined to continue to resist disclosure.

https://www.steynonline.com/8881/the-turning-point

I mentioned with Tucker the other night the condescension of Gentleman Jim Acosta, who airily presumes that, if you’re a woman, any woman, you believe the accuser and assume this Kavanaugh guy is a serial gang-rapist. That’s how it goes: Identity politics makes moron cultures of formerly sophisticated societies. So it was inevitable that when a picture from yesterday’s hearing popped up, of the judge with three females sitting behind him, the wankerati of Twitter immediately assumed that they were just three regular all-American women staring in disgust at the rape beast of Bethesda.

In fact, they were Kavanaugh’s wife, mother, and one of their dearest friends. And the reason they look like that is because they’re crushed and broken by what Dianne Feinstein, Blumenthal, Whitehouse and the other whatever-it-takes Democrats chose to do to them. It is a testament to the thoroughness with which these malign carbuncles on the body politic set about their task that, in a certain sense, one could forgive the Twitter mob its carelessness: Mrs Kavanaugh was all but unrecognizable from the woman who’d sat behind her husband just a fortnight ago. She was, indeed, a different person, and she will be for the rest of her life.

Dianne Feinstein did that to her, consciously. The Ranking Member is in a tricky position back home. She’s on the California ballot this November, but, having been outflanked on her left, she is not the official Democrat nominee. So she cannot afford to be insufficiently “progressive”, and thus concluded it was necessary to, in Kavanaugh’s words, “destroy” his family.

Nothing personal, just business. Roger L Simon writes today with cold fury:

A real rape had taken place but it wasn’t the one everyone was talking about. It was simultaneously a rape of Judge Kavanaugh, his family, and the American people themselves. The collateral damage was Dr. Ford, her friends, and her family. And the perpetrator was the Democratic Party, principally their Judiciary Committee members, their ranking member, and the minority leader.

The GOP base, and Trump supporters in particular, weren’t in the mood for the usual milquetoast pantywaist routine from Republicans. That Deputy County Attorney from Arizona seems an affable lady, but the effect of her performance, punctuated by the usual bollocks from showboating Dems about the “courage” it takes to “speak your truth” (a horrible relativist phrase), was to ensure that for the first half of yesterday’s charade the ritual sacrifice of Brett Kavanaugh was a done deal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-silverglate-on-kavanaugh-1538170255

From “Kavanaugh: A Legal Assessment—With Some Personal Reflections” by Harvey Silverglate,

When does “adolescence” occur? I’ve represented a lot of kids in trouble. And I can tell you that in the modern era, adolescence begins around age 12 and lasts through college graduation (or, for kids who don’t attend college, the age at which kids would graduate).

This is not just my opinion: Society has juvenile courts for transgressions committed in adolescence; the legal system does not want to give mere kids a permanent criminal record. Even at a time when too many juveniles are treated as adults, it is more often than not a widely accepted guiding principle that kids are given a pass by being treated and taught more than punished.

Among many of my friends in Cambridge and Boston, my view of [Brett] Kavanaugh is considered wrongheaded—if not reckless, even dangerous. So, I’ll make matters worse by saying that so much of the case being made against Kavanaugh is cynical, if not outright dishonest. It has nothing to do with his qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice. Nor is it reflective of how Kavanaugh’s most ardent critics really feel about the extent to which adults should be punished later in life for their adolescent transgressions. They would not want their own children, nor themselves for that matter, treated in the way they are campaigning for Kavanaugh to be treated. This is a classic example of the hypocrisy of the current socio-political moment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/republicans-should-not-have-delayed-the-kavanaugh-vote/

“Maybe Republicans instructed Mitchell to refrain from asking Ford hard questions; or maybe, her experience notwithstanding, Mitchell took it on herself to conduct a gentle, confrontation-free examination. Either way, in the one and only chance they will ever have to question Ford, Republicans failed to highlight the deep flaws in her account.

Mitchell invited Ford to wax scientific about how “the etiology of PTSD is multi-factorial,” and to school Mitchell on the topography of Montgomery County. But if you were listening for basic questions about the alleged sexual assault, you listened in vain. This isn’t hard. A lawyer could have been completely respectful of Dr. Ford’s emotional distress and still have asked elementary questions:
Isn’t it a fact that you don’t know where or when this purported assault happened?
Isn’t it a fact that you can’t tell us how you got there?
You just know the house was several miles from your home, but it is a fact, is it not, that you can’t tell us how you got home?
You’ve told us that you were terrified running out of the house after the attack, but you can’t tell us who rescued you and drove you away?
You remember 36 years ago that you had exactly one beer at the party, you remember hearing your alleged attackers go downstairs, you remember exactly the route you took to get out of the house, yet you can’t tell us what happened after you left the house?

So, you’re sure the party happened, but you can’t say when it happened, you can’t say where it happened, you don’t know how you got there, you don’t know how you got home, and every person you’ve identified as a witness says that they have no memory of the party and that they never saw Brett Kavanaugh act the way you’ve described, isn’t that right?”

You have opponents whose first and only objective is delay. From the start of the confirmation proceedings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, those opponents, Senate Democrats, have thus pushed for delay. At every turn. Of course they never come out and say that’s what they’re doing — they never come out and say, “We’ve abused the confirmation process and dropped a bomb at the eleventh hour, an uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegation of sexual assault, because we’re trying to delay the vote until after the midterms.” But delay is what they want.

It doesn’t matter what sheep’s clothing the wolf comes in; the wolf is always delay. When they say, “We’re protecting survivors,” they mean, “We want delay.” When they posture that “women must be believed,” their aim is more delay. When they say, “The FBI must investigate to remove any cloud over the nominee,” the translation is: “Give us a delay so we can come up with new reasons for delay.”

Get it?

Dems say, “potato,” they mean “delay”;
Dems say “tomato,” they mean delay;
Tomato, delay, potato, delay;
Let’s call the whole thing off.

So, finally, we get to a committee vote over two weeks after it should have happened; after reopening a hearing that involved 31 hours of testimony from the nominee; after 65 meetings with senators and followed by over 1,200 answers to post-hearing questions, more than the combined number of post-hearing questions in the history of Supreme Court nominations. We finally get Kavanaugh’s nomination voted out of committee. And then, as a final floor vote is about to be scheduled and debated, Republicans — taking their lead from the ineffable Jeff Flake — agree to accede to one more Democratic request (really, just one more, cross-our-hearts . . .). And what would that be?

What else? Another week of delay.

The rationale for this delay is priceless: We need an FBI investigation. It is understandable that the public does not realize how specious this demand is. But who would have thought Senate Republicans were in need of a civics lesson?

Let’s try to give them a brisk one.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/28/revenge-of-the-

In one scene in “When Harry Met Sally,” Meg Ryan’s character insists she had great sex in college with a guy named Shel. Billy Crystal’s character doesn’t buy it.

“Sheldon? No, no, you did not have great sex with Sheldon. A Sheldon can do your income taxes, if you need a root canal, Sheldon’s your man . . . but humpin’ and pumpin’ is not Sheldon’s strong suit. It’s the name. ‘Do it to me Sheldon, you’re an animal Sheldon, ride me big Shel-don.’ Doesn’t work.”

Since we all reliving the 1980s, that clip came to mind as I watched Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) grill Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday about his high school hijinx and in-crowd jargon from Georgetown Prep’s 1983 yearbook. The former prosecutor applied his keen interrogation skills against the Supreme Court nominee as Whitehouse delved into an unfamiliar world of teenaged popularity and partying, a place where guys like Kavanaugh strode past the likes of Whitehouse in the high school hallway with nary a glance, and Kavanaugh’s gal pals never gave poor Shel a chance to score.

Whitehouse revealed depravity of the highest order as he exposed the elite prep-school caste system. He finally was clued into its secret dialect and, acting like he was uncovering the cool kids’ Rosetta Stone, he made Kavanaugh admit that “ralph” is a reference to vomiting, and “boofed” means flatulence. The judge finally explained to an anxious nation what all those Fs were before his mention of the FFFFFFFourth of July. (Poor Squi.)

Whitehouse even exposed how these campus kings entertained themselves on the weekend while he was at home sharpening his Dungeons and Dragons skills. In one riveting exchange, peering over his glasses, the two-term senator cross-examined the former star athlete and student:

Whitehouse: Devil’s Triangle?

Kavanaugh: Drinking game.

Whitehouse: How’s it played?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-kavanaugh-flakeout-1538176574

Democrats must be secretly delighted, not that they’ll admit it. A couple of GOP Senators fell on Friday for their ruse of seeking an FBI investigation of an assault accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, and now this Supreme Court nomination ordeal will continue for at least another week. Who knows what new dirt against the judge they can throw on the Senate wall?

On Friday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Supreme Court nominee in an 11-10 party-line vote, with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake the last convert. That should have sent the nomination to the Senate floor and a vote early next week.

But then Mr. Flake had a crisis of, well, something and said he wanted another FBI investigation before a floor vote. After Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski said she agreed with Mr. Flake, GOP Senate leaders agreed to a one-week FBI probe into current accusations. President Trump obliged and put the FBI on the case again.
***

The mystery is what new evidence Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski expect the FBI to find. The Senate this week heard six hours of public testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

The potential witnesses Ms. Ford has named have given statements under penalty of perjury saying they don’t recall the 1982 party she describes. No corroboration has materialized, leaving Democrats and the media to pick over high-school yearbook entries from 1983. Ms. Ford said Thursday that she is “100%” certain Judge Kavanaugh assaulted her. He told the Senate that he is “100%” certain of his innocence.

Now the FBI will spend a week redoing all these interviews. To what end? FBI background investigations aren’t criminal probes. They reach no conclusions. The agents conduct interviews, record what the subjects say, and put the summaries in a nominee’s file. The Senators are then expected to draw their conclusions and vote. After a week Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski may find themselves in the same place, since Ms. Ford’s charge is too imprecise in date, place or recollections to corroborate.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/pediatrician-transgender-activists-are-accusing-us-of-heresy-for-asking-questions/

Schools across the country and around the world have started embracing the idea that boys who identify as girls and girls who identify as boys should be confirmed in those mistaken identities and even put on hormonal or surgical “treatments” to “affirm” them. Medical organizations and governments are endorsing this crackpot approach, and working hard to silence dissent. Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, explained why.

“It’s like they’re accusing us of heresy, it’s an inquisition,” Dr. Cretella told PJ Media in an interview at the Values Voter Summit. “You can’t have debate, scientific debate. No dissent allowed. You either agree with us or you’re a hater, you’re a bigot.” Her own organization has been marked as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and derided by the American Academy of Pediatricians, which promotes transgender identity as healthy.

The pediatrician suggested that transgender ideology is tantamount to a religion that should not be endorsed by the government, much less pushed as unquestionable truth, quashing dissent as “heresy.” This “cult” spreads in various ways, and many of them foster child abuse.

Dr. Cretella discussed a scientific study published in the academic journal PLOS ONE that delves into “rapid onset gender dysphoria.” The researcher, Lisa Littman, studied teenagers who had no gender confusion or gender non-conforming behavior as children, but then suddenly announced to their parents and the world that they were transgender, requesting hormones and surgery.

Littman suggested that this “rapid onset” gender dysphoria (the condition of identifying as a gender opposite your birth sex) could result from a “social or peer contagion.” She explained peer contagion using the example of anorexia. Girls in friend groups will convince one another that they are fat and together they will strategize on starving themselves.

These social networks will praise girls who lose a lot of weight and stigmatize girls who reject anorexia. The situation can get even worse over the Internet, where pro-eating disorder sites will provide motivation for extreme weight loss, called “thinspiration.” Such sites even push the eating disorder as an identity, and strategize on how to deceive parents and doctors to keep losing weight when it isn’t healthy.

Littman’s study found evidence to support the idea that gender dysphoria is indeed a social contagion, and that many friend groups — particularly among teenage girls — will “come out” as transgender together. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/28/the

The silver lining of the Kavanaugh show trial, if one may be allowed to speak of such a thing, is that a great many formerly less-than-reliable conservatives finally understand. They have come to realize what the Left has in store for them, for us, and for the nation.

Many, but not all. If one pays attention to the national cacophony, one notices—like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s dog that didn’t bark—the silence, or coy dodges, of many #NeverTrump “conservatives.”

All along, they have said that their objections to Trump are about him personally—his personality, rhetoric, alleged lack of principle and so on (and on!). Whereas they—they insist; just ask them!—stand for eternal conservative principle. You know, conservative principles such as original intent jurisprudence and standing up for men and women of good character, moderate rhetoric, unimpeachable family and private lives, and exemplary records of public service.

Men such as—just to pick a name at random—Brett Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh—aside from being honorable, intelligent, decent and genuinely principled—is one of them. An establishment Republican. A beltway lifer. A Bush White House veteran. A product of elite schools and conservative institutions intended to groom him for high office. So where are they in support of the judge? Either silent, or siding with the Left.

Accusation vs. Calumny
Let’s examine more closely that Left—the side they’ve joined. The Left has created a new “standard” for American politics—indeed, new in the entire history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Let us call it the Gillibrand Standard, after its most insistent advocate, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

According to the Gillibrand Standard, accusation suffices to destroy. Not only is no corroborating evidence necessary, to ask for such evidence makes one just as guilty as the accused. Especially monstrous is to ask questions of the accuser; that is to repeat or compound the alleged crime. The accusation, once stated, immediately takes on metaphysical certainty. To doubt is to blaspheme.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/senator-cory-booker-cant-shake-his-own-lurid-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

A witness has emerged with allegations of teenage sexual misconduct against Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and that witness is — surprise! — Senator Cory Booker. Columns detailing his misconduct, written by Booker in the student-run Stanford Daily newspaper in 1992, were first unearthed by the Daily Caller in 2013. They became an issue again this month after the senator became one of the leading Democratic voices against Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Earlier this month, Booker launched his 2020 presidential bid during a Judiciary Committee hearing where he awkwardly likened himself to Thracian gladiator Spartacus. This Friday, the senator awkwardly decried the “pernicious patriarchy” surrounding California professor Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh.

“In the United States of America right now, there are dark corners of our culture. The Center of Disease Control reports ‘one out of every three American women will experience some form of sexual violence,'” Booker intoned, adding that “60 percent of them go unreported.”

One instance of underage sexual misconduct in 1984 did go reported, however — by Booker himself. In a column in the student-run Stanford Daily newspaper in 1992, Booker admitted to taking advantage of an intoxicated classmate.

“New Year’s Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next ‘move’ as if it were a chess game,” Booker wrote:

“With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark,’” he continued, without explaining what he meant by “mark.”

“Our groping ended soon and while no ‘relationship’ ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn’t really know what she was doing,” he added.

Booker’s intent of the column was to detail his transformation from a 15-year-old who was “trotting around the bases and stealing second” to someone who was called a “man-hater” over his pro-women views.

Booker returned to the subject of “date rape” a few months later:

“But by my second column, as I raised my noble pen to address the issue of date rape, I realized that the person holding it wasn’t so noble after all,” he wrote. “With this issue as with so many others, a dash of sincere introspection has revealed to me a dangerous gap — a gap between my beliefs and my actions.”

The columns were written by Booker when he was an undergraduate at Stanford majoring in sociology. CONTINUE AT SITE