RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271441/avenattis-freak-show-matthew-vadum

On the eve of a historic Supreme Court confirmation hearing, two more women have materialized out of thin air to accuse President Trump’s high court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual improprieties – bringing the total number of accusers to four.

Even more eleventh-hour character-assassination attempts may be coming given the enraged Left’s determination to prevent the judge’s ascent to the Supreme Court at all costs. Whether the claims are true is irrelevant to these people. Only the seriousness and luridness of the charges matter as they get aired over and over again in the 24-hour news cycle. They don’t care about the victims they create. Only the headlines.

The new allegations surfaced yesterday as the Senate Judiciary Committee battens down the hatches for a hearing today to receive oral evidence from the first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, tried to rape her decades ago when he was a high school student.

The third accuser is Julie Swetnick, a 55-year-old certified systems engineer, who on Wednesday claimed that in the early 1980s Kavanaugh and others spiked the drinks of young women at high school parties with intoxicants to clear the way for them to be gang-raped.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/26/cowardly
The logic of a premise will drag you to its conclusion. When Senate Republicans accepted the premise that Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh was a legitimate personal complaint rather than a political maneuver orchestrated by the Democratic Party, they placed themselves in the grips of a logic leading them through bargaining about how to accommodate her as he was dogged by a nationwide campaign of personal and political vilification.

The logic’s next step is likely to come Thursday, when Ford does not show at the Judiciary Committee hearing amidst renewed Democratic and media accusations of a litany of sins by now all too familiar.

Republicans will be left with the same option they had when the Democrats first brought up their last-minute landmine—to press ahead with confirmation. But by accepting a premise they knew was false, they energized the Democrats’ constituencies and dispirited their own.

They embarrassed themselves by volunteering to be played for suckers, as well as looking callous toward victims of sexual assault. Brilliant.

The substance, the manner, and the circumstances of Ford’s accusation shouted that it is a hoax—that the Democrats had conjured a political bludgeon of last resort, and never intended for Ford to testify. But the Republicans, being pusillanimous, refused to acknowledge the reality of what they were getting into.

The accusation’s substance advertised its unseriousness. The total lack of specifics about the time and place of the alleged assault, of anything that might be an investigation’s staring place, was red flag enough. But the contradiction between the original report to a therapist about four men in the room—and nothing about Kavanaugh—and the subsequent account of two, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, was as obvious to the Democrats making the charge as to the Republicans. When Judge denied any knowledge of the alleged party, followed by all others who Ford named as having knowledge of it, the Republicans had no reason to refrain from labeling the accusations the very definition of slander. No reason except cowardice.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-endorse-avenatti-1538004075

Now comes a third accuser against Brett Kavanaugh, this time claiming the Supreme Court nominee was part of a gang of high school boys who spiked the drinks of teenage girls in order to assault and rape them. Really? Does even Mazie Hirono believe this?

The charge comes from Julie Swetnick, a Washington-area woman elevated to accusatory fame on Wednesday by Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels. She claims that Mr. Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge drank to excess at numerous parties and then assaulted girls and women with abandon. She says in a sworn statement that the gang would “‘target’ particular girls” who were alone or shy for serial rape.

So we are supposed to believe that the boys at Georgetown Prep, amid their dreams of Yale, conspired to commit drug and sex crimes on multiple occasions over many years. Yet word of this rape gang at an elite Jesuit high school never made it to anyone in authority. None of the rape victims spoke up—not to a teacher, parent or other official—then or since. None of the boys bragged about it to friends who spoke to a parent or priest.

As for Ms. Swetnick, she says in her statement that she was personally assaulted in 1982 at one of these parties, yet she admits that she attended “well over 10” of these parties from 1981-1983. This means she would have returned to these parties even after she was gang-raped. She suddenly recalls it all now after 35 years, though somehow this never came up during FBI investigations of Mr. Kavanaugh’s background over more than two decades.

Messrs. Judge and Kavanaugh deny the accusation, with Mr. Kavanaugh calling it “ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.” But that’s unfair to the late Rod Serling, who was more subtle than this kind of character assassination. We wouldn’t even report the details of this latest smear if Democrats and the left weren’t treating the accusation as disqualifying for the Supreme Court.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/26/senate-gop-has-bent-over-backwards-to-get-testimony-evidence-from-kavanaugh-accusers/

Within minutes of The New Yorker breaking the story of a second woman alleging improper behavior by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Senate GOP investigators reached out to accuser Deborah Ramirez’s attorneys asking for any and all evidence she had to support her allegations. The article was based on a foggy accusation of misconduct and admitted that the accuser was not sure of her memory even days before it was published.

Over the next 48 hours, attorneys for the Senate Judiciary Committee repeated their requests for testimony and evidence another six times. Yet more than three days later, attorneys for the woman have still refused to provide any evidence or formal statements beyond what she told The New Yorker.

At 7:43 p.m. on Sunday, Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee, emailed Ramirez’s attorneys asking when she’d be available for an interview with Senate committee investigators. “[W]e are determined to take Ms. Ramirez’s statement and investigate further as necessary as quickly as possible,” he wrote. He followed up later that evening and again the following morning. Her attorneys said they’d respond later.

Throughout Monday, he asked again if Ramirez had “any other evidence, including other statements, in addition to those that are contained in the New Yorker article?” At 3:03 p.m., the attorneys responded with vague, non-committal statements about possible future compliance.

At 3:11 p.m., Davis immediately reiterated his request for any additional information beyond what had been published in the New Yorker article. A few hours later, Ramirez’s attorneys put off the request again. So Davis emailed again at 7:11 p.m. pleading with them for additional information.

Still not receiving the information necessary to proceed by Tuesday morning, Davis implored Ramirez’s counsel at 10:05 a.m. to answer whether she had any other evidence and whether she was willing to provide it direcxtly to the committee. He did so again at 7:45 p.m. on Tuesday night, and again at 8:05 p.m. after another non-responsive email.

Rather than making Ramirez available for an interview, providing a formal statement, or providing any evidence to support her claims, her attorneys instead sought to delay and obstruct at every opportunity. This mirrors the behavior of the attorneys of Christine Blasey Ford, who has yet to provide a sworn statement to the Senate, instead making a seemingly unending list of demands for delays.

Correspondence from Grassley and his staff make clear that they have repeatedly sought to make accusers comfortable and safe so that they can formally testify to their allegations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/metoo-becomes-a-political-ploy-1537915920

Pity Lady Justice; she’s had a rough couple of weeks. On “State of the Union” Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper tossed Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii what should have been a grapefruit: “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” Ms. Hirono responded: “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches cases.” Conservative jurists in America have been put on notice: They are to forfeit their most basic rights as punishment for their judicial philosophy.

In the national circus that is the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, sexual assault is very much beside the point. Christine Blasey Ford claims that 36 years ago she suffered an attempt at the most terrifying act of brutality a woman can live through. But in the hands of Senate Democrats, this is one more bit of materiel flung at the other side. Ms. Ford is merely the expedient means to a desirable end.

I have no idea what if anything happened to Ms. Ford. (Is it necessary to say this?) I have no idea whether she is more credible than Leland Keyser, whom Ms. Ford places at the party, though Ms. Keyser has no memory of it and says she’s never met Brett Kavanaugh. Neither do any of the senators, including Dianne Feinstein, who learned of the accusation and withheld it from her Republican colleagues and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for six weeks, knowing as every good gunslinger must, that if you’ve only got one bullet left, you don’t let it go to waste.

Imagine if we treated murder this way. Imagine if a woman had written to Mrs. Feinstein alleging that the man who was about to be appointed to the Supreme Court had murdered her brother 36 years ago. What would we say of a senator who failed to turn this evidence over immediately to the authorities? That the question is so easily answered indicates how much less seriously we already take crimes of sexual violence.

Mrs. Feinstein was elected in 1992, the year after Justice Clarence Thomas’s appointment. When he was accused, we were told the woman is always right. Why else would Anita Hill have brought these claims? A few years later, when the accused was Bill Clinton, elite opinion cried we shouldn’t rush to believe the accuser. He was a good feminist—and Paula Jones, not nearly our sort of girl. In both cases, we knew that the point was not any of the accusations. It was to shelter powerful men with views we liked or punish men with views we didn’t.

Then came #MeToo. For a moment, it seemed everything might change. Public opinion was on the side, not of all women exactly, but of those women with credible, corroborated claims who were willing to name powerful men—even those men with the right political allegiances. In this light, Bill O’Reilly and Harvey Weinstein seemed more alike than different; they met the same disgrace not for their political beliefs but for behavior that Americans of every political stripe should want to stop. For the first time in years, even Bill Clinton seemed less a gift to women than a Trojan Horse.

But now we’re back to our cheap tricks, using sexual assault as a political ploy. If Judge Kavanaugh were liberal, Sen. Hirono makes clear, she would give him the benefit of the doubt. If he adjudicates like a conservative, that’s evidence of rape. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.weeklystandard.com/adam-j-white/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-the-senates-burden-of-proof
Understanding where the burden of proof really rests.

As the Senate considers Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 30 years ago, senators find themselves asking a basic question familiar to all lawyers: Who bears the burden of proof—the accuser or the accused?

But the greater burden is the one borne by the Senate itself, which now must come to a decision on Kavanaugh’s nomination, and do so in the manner that will best promote transparency and fact-finding in this nomination and all future nominations.

The “burden of proof” issue is the crux of the debate surrounding Dr. Ford’s accusations against Judge Kavanaugh precisely because she has produced no evidence to support her accusations against him. She has no physical evidence, though that is unsurprising given that she is alleging a three-decades-old-crime. More surprising, and more disconcerting, is the fact that the direct witnesses that she identified disclaim any knowledge of the crime she says they were present for; the fact that her therapist’s notes of her statements neither name Kavanaugh nor square with her other specific allegations; and the fact that Senator Feinstein herself did not pursue the allegations until after the regular confirmation hearings had ended and Kavanaugh was poised for a successful vote.

In sum, Dr. Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh is unsupported save for the accusation itself, and those who say that she told them about Kavanaugh in the last handful of years, three decades after the alleged incident. And Kavanaugh, for his part, denies the accusation categorically—he denies assaulting her at any time or any place, including at the unspecified house party in an unknown house during an unknown year.

So is that enough for the senators to decide to vote for Kavanaugh, Ford’s accusation notwithstanding? Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters think so, pointing to the traditional criminal-law standard of presuming the defendant’s innocence and requiring the prosecutor to prove otherwise.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-not-a-trial

Kavanaugh’s hearing has become a farce.

I’ve never thought the big Ford–Kavanaugh hearing scheduled for Thursday would actually happen. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but I’ve never believed Christine Blasey Ford wants to testify. This hearing is not going to settle the issue of what, if anything, happened 36 years ago — which, as I’ve noted, is why there is no point in having the hearing.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, should just invite affidavits from the witnesses and call it a day. Democrats, in any event, would rather have the specter of Ford’s testimony than the real thing, given that the latter will highlight: (a) her inability to recall and relate rudimentary details, (b) the fact that she did not utter a word about the alleged sexual assault for 30 years, (c) the discrepancies between her current version of events and the notes of what she told her therapist, and (d) the fact that the other witnesses she has identified do not corroborate her story. Moreover, now that Republicans have reportedly retained an experienced female litigator to conduct the questioning, there is no longer the prospect of video clips featuring Ford being grilled by old white guys — grist for what Democrats hoped would be their “War on Women 2.0” campaign ads.

Ford’s legal team continues to add new demands. The latest is a push to have two “trauma experts” and Ford’s polygrapher testify. The purpose of these outlandish proposals is likely to prompt denials that would allow Ford to bow out of the hearing, blaming purported GOP intransigence and insensitivity.

This underscores that the point of the hearing is being lost.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-consumer-confidence-rose-in-september-1537885594?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=0&cx_tag=pop&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

Consumer confidence hit an 18-year high in September, a positive indicator for spending going into the holiday shopping season, as robust job growth and a strong economic outlook bolstered Americans’ expectations for the future.

The Conference Board, a private research group, said Tuesday its index of consumer confidence rose to 138.4, up from 134.7 in August—the highest level since September 2000, which represented the late stages of the 1990s technology boom. An index reading of 100 represents how households saw the economy in 1985.

The report came on the heels of a separate University of Michigan survey that said sentiment jumped in early September to the second-highest level since 2004—behind only the reading in March of this year.

Economists have voiced concerns about trade and tariffs as risks to economic growth over the next 12 months. For consumers, however, the issue isn’t registering.

“We are kind of in a little bit of a Goldilocks moment in the economy. I think things are really strong for the consumer,” said David Jaffe, chief executive of Ascena Retail Group Inc., during an earnings call this week. The company, one of the largest women’s clothing retailers with brands like Dressbarn and Ann Taylor, reported its first positive quarter of overall comparable-stores sales growth in more than three years Monday.

“The tariffs, while it’s not going to impact apparel very much, haven’t really hit yet. We’ve seen unemployment go down. What we’re seeing, I think, is maybe a little bit of a rebound due to a lack of shopping for apparel over the last couple of years,” Mr. Jaffe said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-feinstein-clean-up-your-mess-1537915772?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=0&cx_tag=pop&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

Republicans and others who live in California and are appalled by the Senate’s Brett Kavanaugh spectacle at least can do something about it. In November, they can hold their noses and pull the lever for Dianne Feinstein’s ultraliberal challenger and thereby send the state’s four-term Senate doyenne down to landslide defeat.

Mrs. Feinstein’s ending an otherwise a long and creditable career in humiliation and ignominy would be justice not only because of her culpable role in the Kavanaugh travesty. It would be poetic for her to finish under a real and recent cloud given actions that have cast a cloud over Judge Kavanaugh because of unprovable, last-minute claims about how he may have behaved in his teens.

Mrs. Feinstein could learn something from the New York Times in its own debunking of the latest ill-sourced Kavanaugh allegation, in which the paper says it contacted dozens of potential witnesses and found none who would verify a complaint floated Sunday in backhanded fashion by the New Yorker magazine.

Lesson: You don’t need the FBI. Private investigators are available. Opposition researchers can be hired—just not the Fusion GPS kind, who specialize in producing anonymous, unsubstantiated slurs rather than checking them out.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/anti-kavanaugh-mob-chases-sen-ted-cruz-wife-restaurant/

A mob of people calling themselves democratic socialists, LGBT activists, anarchists, anti-fascists, and anti-racists descended upon Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife while they were out to dinner last night. They chanted “We believe survivors,” surrounded the Cruzes, blocked their exit, and screamed in their faces, show videos of the altercation. Cruz can be heard saying “Let my wife through.”

The hecklers also shouted “[Cruz’s Senate opponent] Beto is way hotter than you, dude.” After the Cruzes exited through an side door, protesters can be heard shouting “Ted Cruz and Brett Kavanaugh are best friends!” and “Cancel Kavanaugh for women’s rights!”

“This is a message to Ted Cruz, Bret Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum,” wrote Smash Racism DC in a statement taking responsibility for the harassment. “You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”

The incident appears to begin with a woman walking up to the Cruzes in the restaurant, calling herself a constituent and victim of sexual assault, and demanding to know how Cruz plans to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Do you believe survivors, sir?” she demands, as her mob chants “We believe survivors” in the background.Democrats are charging, based purely on hazy and uncorroborated claims of alcohol-fueled sexual encounters nearly 40 years ago, that Kavanaugh is a vicious pervert. Cruz sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee that is slated to receive testimony Thursday from one woman making such accusations. But her legal team has already caused the testimony to be rescheduled six times. Such testimony would put Christine Blasey Ford under oath and liable to perjury charges.