Brett Kavanaugh

Limbaugh: GOP Must Confirm Kavanaugh or Kiss Midterms Goodbye

So Chairman Grassley has a job to do here, because, if he gives Democrats enough time, they’ll produce a woman claiming to be Kavanaugh’s secret Russian wife who Trump paid to urinate on that bed in Moscow. If Grassley waits long enough, the Democrats will come up with the woman claiming to be Kavanaugh’s secret Russian wife. — he’s a bigamist, too, don’t you know — and Trump paid Kavanaugh’s second wife to hire a bunch of prostitutes to urinate on the bed Obama slept in while in Moscow. If Grassley doesn’t get a handle on this and just do — and I’ll tell you something else, which everybody also knows. If the Republicans do not get this vote taken and have Kavanaugh confirmed, you can kiss the midterms goodbye. You can kiss goodbye holding the House and you can kiss goodbye holding the Senate. Because whatever the Democrats think of their base, the one thing I know that if you guys fold on this and cave and keep bending over backwards… You’ve done that enough. You’ve demonstrated that you don’t hate women. You’ve demonstrated that you’re open minded. You’ve demonstrated that you’re gonna hear from her. You’re never gonna hear from her! She’s never gonna show up. She’s not telling a story that can be verified, Senator Grassley. She’s not gonna show up. If you guys don’t conduct this vote in defiance of all this and if Avenatti gets one foot in the door to a Senate committee to start telling his story, then you can kind of kiss good-bye Republican chances in the midterms in November. Because people are gonna logically say, “What good does it do?”

Agreed!  Worse..  If Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Republican voters will sit out the midterms altogether, and that so-called “blue wave” will come to fruition.  The “silent majority” voted for Donald Trump so that he could fix the economy and put conservative judges on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.  If this supremely (pun intended) qualified jurist with decades of experience and an impeccable record isn’t confirmed, Senate Republicans will face the wrath of their voter base…and rightly so.  Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for saying what needs to be said.  Dittos Rush!!

Opinion/Analysis: Thiessen: Ford vs. Kavanaugh — How much evidence do we need to destroy someone?

Christine Blasey Ford has accused Brett M. Kavanaugh of attempted rape while they were both in high school — a charge he unequivocally denies. She can’t remember the date the alleged attack took place. She isn’t even certain about the year (although she reportedly thinks it may have been the summer around the end of her sophomore year when she was 15). She can’t remember whose house she was in. She can’t remember how she got there. She says she didn’t tell anyone about it at the time, not even her closest friends — so there are no contemporaneous witnesses to back her claims. No other women have come forward to say that the young Kavanaugh assaulted them. There is no pattern of bad behavior. Quite the contrary, by all accounts other than Ford’s, he treats women with respect in his personal and professional life. (Full disclosure: I worked with Kavanaugh in the George W. Bush White House.) The gathering included just Ford and four others, according to her confidential letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. One man named by Ford as a witness has come forward and not only denied knowledge of the assault but also denied knowledge of the gathering in question. Another, who said he was the “PJ” mentioned in the letter, Patrick J. Smyth, has also denied being at a gathering like the one Ford described. Ford deserves to be treated with dignity, not maligned or attacked. But let’s not forget that Kavanaugh is human too. This ordeal affects not only him but also his family, including his two young daughters, who are hearing awful things said about the father they love. He cannot prove a negative. So far, there are accusations but no corroborating evidence. And accusations without evidence cannot be the standard by which a man’s reputation and career are ruined. Both Kavanaugh and Ford have been ill-served by Senate Democrats in this process. Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, knew about Ford’s accusation for about six weeks and did nothing. She never asked Kavanaugh about the allegations in private or in public. She did not use the confidential, bipartisan process that the Judiciary Committee uses every day to assess the credibility of allegations against hundreds of judicial nominees — which would have given Ford the chance to talk to the committee’s professional investigators in a confidential setting. Bizarrely, to this day Feinstein has not shared a copy of Ford’s unredacted letter with Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa. But Democrats appear not to have been too scrupulous when it came to protecting her confidentiality. Ford has also been ill-served by her lawyers, who initially stated that Ford “will agree to participate in any proceedings that she’s asked to participate in.” Then, when Grassley canceled the vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination and scheduled a hearing where she could testify in public or private, her lawyers started echoing Senate Democrats’ new message that a full FBI investigation was needed before she would speak to the committee — undermining the perception of Ford’s independence. (At this writing, she has reversed course yet again, with her lawyer now saying she might be willing to testify next week). It’s not the FBI’s job to investigate. There is no federal crime alleged. As Grassley explained in a letter, “We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence.”

Indeed..  Well said, Marc.  Marc Thiessen is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

French: Do Democrats Really Believe Christine Blasey Ford Doesn’t Have to Prove Her Claims?

There is something extremely curious about the course of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy thus far. At least based on the evidence and her conduct through today, Christine Blasey Ford seems to be making minimal effort to prove her case. In fact, with a strong assist from her Democratic allies, she seems to be making every effort not to prove her case. Absent an FBI investigation that’s not forthcoming and not necessary, she’s refusing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in essence asking that a single, unsworn letter be allowed to stand as the heart and soul of a claim that could alter history and destroy a man’s reputation. Democrats are only too happy to play along. At the foundation of our system of justice is the notion that accusers don’t just have to state a case against the accused, they have to prove their case. The burden of proof varies depending on the situation. At one end is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal trial. At the other is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of civil court. But in virtually any court, when a person first states their case against an accused, that is just the beginning of the process of proof. Thus, when you hire an attorney as a plaintiff, it is to go on offense, to build your case, to substantiate your claims. What you cannot do — under any circumstances, in any competent court — is file your complaint, refuse to submit to questioning, fail to produce additional evidence or witnesses, and hope to prevail. In such circumstances, your case will be dismissed as a matter of law, tossed out of court for legal insufficiency — especially if, as in Ford’s case, not even the initial claim is submitted under oath. Yet from the beginning, Ford’s team — including her attorney, who is known to be aggressive in the service of her clients — has behaved as if she doesn’t have to prove her case, and as if the very request that she do so is itself fundamentally oppressive. She’s submitted her unsworn claim and then immediately gone into a defensive crouch, with allies such as New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand even claiming that having her testify at a Senate hearing would somehow “silence” her. The consistent demand for an FBI investigation — even when the FBI lacks jurisdiction over the alleged incident — is not by itself problematic. But conditioning her own testimony — the centerpiece of her case — on such an investigation is not what a person intent on proving her allegations would do. Kavanaugh, by contrast, has submitted to a formal interview, meaning he can be convicted of a felony if he lied. He’s stated that he’s willing to testify at an open hearing. Two other individuals have come forward to rebut Ford’s claims, including Mark Judge, the other man alleged to have been in the room during the attack. Their statements were also offered under penalty of legal sanction for lying. At present they and Kavanaugh are the only people on the record and at criminal risk if they lied. Unless Ford changes that fact — after being given ample opportunity to testify in public or private, in the Senate or at her home — Kavanaugh should be confirmed, and her claims against him shouldn’t be considered. They should be treated in the same way we treat claims that can’t survive a motion for summary judgment, claims not supported by any evidence in the record. Those are the stakes. By conditioning testimony on an FBI investigation, Ford and her Democratic allies are attempting to bring the worst possible form of campus “justice” to the national stage. As of this moment, they are actually seeking to derail a Supreme Court nomination and impugn the nominee’s character without a single piece of sworn evidence. Indeed, all the legally binding statements on the matter contradict the accuser. This cannot stand. Ford’s team has to either reverse course or drop its complaint. Yes, of course, testifying before the committee would be “partisan.” No, the members of the committee are not “neutral.” But that’s not just the reality of the Senate, it’s the fundamental reality of the justice system itself. It is an adversarial system. If you seek to prove your claim under any standard, you have to expose yourself to the most partisan possible scrutiny — cross-examination by a lawyer trained to find flaws in your testimony and paid to work relentlessly until he discredits your case. If Ford testifies, she’ll face a heightened version of the reality every plaintiff must confront. She’ll have adversaries, and she’ll have allies. It will be difficult, but it is necessary. Now, some caveats. It’s entirely possible that the instant we publish this piece, the next shoe drops, and it turns out that the defensive crouch was a delaying tactic, that Ford and the Democrats were busy investigating all along, and corroboration and substantiation are just around the corner. Or it’s possible that Ford was simply trying to apply as much pressure as she could, to achieve the most favorable circumstances for an interview possible before finally agreeing to testify under oath. But even if that’s true, it doesn’t change the fact that those now saying her testimony isn’t necessary — those claiming Kavanaugh should be rejected on the basis of her unsworn claim, a claim completely lacking in contemporary corroboration and contradicted by substantial evidence — are wholly and completely wrong. And it’s dangerous to our very system of justice to create or impose a standard that permits accusers to make accusations and then stand aside as suspicion alone is used to destroy reputations and ruin careers. Instead, those who make serious allegations — just like those who make claims in court — must be forced to support those claims. They must endeavor to substantiate their case, even under the lowest burden of proof. As of today, the energies of the Democrats are directed at denying that fundamental requirement of American justice. They cannot be allowed to prevail.

Agreed!  And well said, David.  David French is an attorney and Army Reserve officer (Major) who received the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  Dr. Ford needs to either testify under oath Monday, or the Senate should move forward with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.  It’s that simple.  Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who head’s up the Senate Judiciary Committee has been more than accommodating to Dr. Ford and has offered her and her attorney’s multiple venues (both private and public) to testify under oath about this alleged incident 4 decades ago.  It’s time to move forward and confirm this extremely qualified federal judge and be done with this nonsense.

Elizabeth Warren slammed over editing of Kavanaugh video

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, drew criticism Tuesday after sharing a clip of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh discussing his days at Georgetown Preparatory School. The editing of the clip seemed designed to fuel the fire over the sexual misconduct allegations against the judge. In the short video posted on Warren’s Twitter page, Kavanaugh is heard speaking at Columbus Law School at the Catholic University of America in 2015 about his school years. “But fortunately we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day,” Kavanaugh says in the video. “As the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is ‘What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.’ That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.” Warren quickly jumped to denounce Kavanaugh’s comments, which were revealed in the wake of the allegations of sexual misconduct raised by Christine Blasey Ford, who claims the high court nominee drunkenly forced himself on her during a house party nearly four decades ago. “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view,” Warren tweeted. “Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?” But the clip shared by Warren, though first unearthed by MSNBC, cuts out Kavanaugh’s previous remarks indicating he’s talking about his three friends. “I, by coincidence, three classmates of mine at Georgetown Prep were graduates of this law school in 1990 and are really really good friends of mine,” Kavanaugh said in a recording of the full speech, naming his friends. “And they were good friends of mine then, and they are still good friends of mine as recently as this weekend when we were all on email together,” he added. He then made the “what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep” joke. Mark Hemingway, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, slammed Warren for trying to suggest Kavanaugh was admitting improper behavior in the video rather than making a joke. “This has zero bearing on whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford, and the party of underage abortion and birth control on demand suddenly becoming neopuritans is a tad pathetic,” he tweeted. “Like MSNBC, Sen. Warren is passing around a truncated version of the Kavanaugh video, in which he makes a joke about three ‘really, really good friends of mine,’ in order to smear him,” Oklahoma attorney Gabriel Malor tweeted. “As we know, Warren is very comfortable misleading people. Her constituents deserve better,” he added, comparing Warren’s clip to a video posted by U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., which recently came under fire for depicting Kavanaugh as anti-women. Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — which will decide if Kavanaugh gets a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court — tweeted out the clip earlier this month, which shows Kavanaugh mentioning the term “abortion-inducing drugs,” a term that Harris slammed as “a dog whistle for going after birth control.” But the fact-checkers didn’t find Harris’ commentary or the edited video even remotely accurate. The Washington Post gave the senator four Pinocchios, its most egregious rating, saying the post omitted crucial facts such as that Kavanaugh was actually quoting the terminology used by the plaintiff in a 2013 court case rather than stating his personal views. Even more partisan fact-checkers such like PolitiFact also found Harris’ attack wasn’t based on truth. “In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to define contraception as abortion-inducing. But the video failed to include a crucial qualifier: ‘They said.’ In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view,” PolitiFact’s check said.

Both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) are nauseating, agenda-driven, self-righteous, extreme-liberal liars.  Shame on both of them for such brazen deception!  Even the extreme liberal Washington Post gave Kamala “four Pinocchios” for her deceit!  Unfortunately this is par for the course with these two..  Judge Kavanaugh has an impeccable record, and fake story being promoted to derail his nomination is an insult to him, and frankly to the Senate.  He should be confirmed, and hopefully will be in the next week or two, and we can put an end to this ridiculous circus that is a national embarrassment.

Analysis: Kavanaugh confirmation craziness: Just when you think the left can’t sink any lower, THIS happens

Just when you think those on the left can’t possibly sink any lower into the gutter with attacks filled with vitriol and desperation, they surprise you again. This time the target of liberal anger is moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine – who is being threatened if she dares vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In the latest example of bullying by the left, a crowdfunding site has been set up to raise money to defeat Collins, should she run for re-election in 2020, if she casts her vote in coming weeks to seat the extraordinarily qualified Kavanaugh on the nation’s highest court. Kavanaugh has served for the past 12 years on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The liberal organizations Mainers for Accountable Leadership and the Maine People’s Alliance are using the crowdfunding site in an effort to strong-arm Collins into voting “no” on Judge Kavanaugh. Under terms of the fundraising deal, donors pledge money with a credit card. If Collins votes “yes” on Kavanaugh’s nomination, the cards will be charged and all donations will go to Collins’ opponent in 2020 – whoever that may be. However, if Collins votes “no” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation the cards won’t be charged and no donations will be given to her opponent. No harm, no foul. Collins said of these scheme: “It’s offensive. It’s of questionable legality. And it is extraordinary to me that people would want to participate in trying to essentially buy a Senator’s vote.” To date the crowdfunding site has raised more than $1.2 million from more than 45,000 pledges. Not only is it extraordinary that so many people are willing to essentially try to buy a vote. It is remarkable that people are willing to give money to a Democratic candidate not even selected two years before the 2020 election. What will the unknown candidate’s positions be on issues of concern to Maine voters? What qualifications will he or she have? Will the mystery candidate have something in his or her past that will trouble voters? No one ones this – yet thousands of people are willing to give this person more than $1 million. This is where Trump Derangement Syndrome has led us. If you think this whole “fundraising” campaign sounds shady, you’re not alone. While Collins stressed that this won’t influence her vote, she wasted no time calling out this effort, saying: “I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh.” The law could be on her side, though she hasn’t decided if she is going to pursue any legal action. “I have had three attorneys tell me that they think it is a clear violation of the federal law on bribery,” Collins said. “Actually, two told me that; one told me it’s extortion.” The left-wing rage is also being unleashed on the senator’s personal office. She’s received vulgar harassment calls, as well as a rape threat against one of her staffers, which has been reported to law enforcement. Collins has worked alongside both Democrats and Republicans and she can hardly be considered partisan, yet her colleagues on the left are sitting in stone-cold silence. Not a single Democrat has come out and condemned these tactics. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, blasted his Democratic colleagues for not calling out such abhorrent behavior against Collins and her staff, tweeting: “Every Democrat should be condemning these antics in Maine – attempting to bribe Senator Collins to vote against Judge Kavanaugh and threatening sexual violence against staffers if she votes for him is absolutely disgusting.” One would think blatantly attempting to swing a senator’s vote and threatening sexual violence against another person would be something all decent human beings could be united against. Apparently not. Opponents of Kavanaugh’s nomination are clearly looking to test Collins and see how far they can push her, because they’re desperate and need her vote if they have any hope of sinking Kavanaugh’s nomination. The senator should do her best to tune out the blatant bullying from the activist liberals and the silent bullying from Democrats condoning this shameful behavior by refusing to condemn it. Collins has yet to say how she will vote, but she had pretty strong words for those trying to see if they could own her vote. Collins voted for Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – nominated by President Obama – because she believed they were well qualified. She should do the same for Kavanaugh for the same reason.

Agreed!  And well said, Lauren.  Lauren DeBellis Appell, a freelance writer in Fairfax, Virginia, was deputy press secretary for then-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in his successful 2000 re-election campaign, as well as assistant communications director for the Senate Republican Policy Committee (2001-2003).

Brett Kavanaugh responds to 1,287 written questions from senators, nearly all from Dems

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s responses to over 1,200 questions submitted by mostly Senate Democrats following his four-day hearings earlier this month. Kavanaugh’s responses, which amounted to more than 260 pages, answered the senators’ questions on topics that ranged from abortion, executive power and his personal finances. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., took to questioning Kavanaugh’s stance on abortion after he reportedly said in a 2003 email that he considered Roe v. Wade to be “settled law,” an answer she considered to be too vague. “If confirmed, I would respect the law of precedent given its centrality to stability, predictability, impartiality, and public confidence in the rule of law,” he said in his response. He also addressed a similar question to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, saying that the email “commented on the views of legal scholars. It did not describe my own views.” Kavanaugh was also asked about an incident during the hearing when he turned away from the father of shooting victim that approached him during a recess. Kavanaugh said that after a day packed with demonstrators, and not realizing who the man was, “I assumed he was a protestor.” “I unfortunately did not realize that the man was the father of a shooting victim from Parkland, Florida. Mr. Guttenberg has suffered an incalculable loss. If I had known who he was, I would have shaken his hand, talked to him, and expressed my sympathy.” Kavanaugh was also asked about the tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt he amassed after regularly buying Washington National tickets for years. He said he split the tickets with a “group of old friends.” “We would usually divide the tickets in a ‘ticket draft’ at my house. Everyone in the group paid me for their tickets based on the cost of the tickets, to the dollar. No one overpaid or underpaid me for tickets. No loans were given in either direction,” he said. Kavanaugh described himself as a “huge sports fan” who has attended “a couple of hundred regular season games.” Kavanaugh’s responses come ahead of the Judiciary Committee’s scheduled Thursday meeting to consider his confirmation. A vote is expected later this month.

Baseball tickets?  That’s what these obnoxious, self-righteous Dems in the Senate are asking this man about?!  Seriously?!?  What a bunch of tools..  Brett Kavanaugh is an OUTSTANDING, and eminently qualified candidate to serve on our Supreme Court.  Once he’s confirmed, President Trump can say to America, “you’re welcome.”

Brett Kavanaugh backed by Bob Bennett, Bill Clinton’s Paula Jones-era lawyer

Bob Bennett, the lawyer who represented former President Bill Clinton during the Paula Jones sexual misconduct case, declared his support on Tuesday for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, referring to the nominee as “the most qualified person any Republican President could possibly have nominated.” In a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News, written to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bennett detailed his relationship with Kavanaugh, with whom he spent time during Ken Starr’s investigation into Clinton. Kavanaugh, 53, assisted Starr in writing his report in the 1990s, which laid out the legal framework for supporting Clinton’s impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, linked to his affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Bennett noted that while he and Kavanaugh worked for different teams during the investigation, the two were able to avoid “falling prey to that trap” of treating the opponent as a “villain.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Bennett wrote, “has had an innate sense of fairness and civility that has governed his relationships with allies and adversaries equally.” Bennett also said lawyers “love” to argue their cases to Kavanaugh, who will then treat each one fairly. “To him, it does not matter whether you are bringing a ‘conservative’ case or a ‘liberal’ case,” Bennett said. “What matters is whether you can support your case with solid arguments grounded in the law.” Bennett added that attorneys think “Brett is a ‘judge’s judge'” and that when Kavanaugh “rules against parties, they know he gave them a fair hearing and thoughtful explanation for his position.” Bennett said that if the Senate does not confirm Kavanaugh to the recently vacated Supreme Court seat held by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “it would undermine civility in politics twice over.” “First in playing politics with such an obviously qualified nominee, and then again in losing the opportunity to put such a strong advocate for decency and civility on our Nation’s highest court,” Bennett wrote. Confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh are expected to begin Sept. 4.