Senate

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.”

Claire McCaskill Polls as Most Unpopular Senator Up for Re-Election–for Four Consecutive Months

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), for the fourth consecutive month, ranks as the most unpopular U.S. senator up for re-election, according to a poll released last week. Forty-six percent of Missourians disapprove of Sen. McCaskill, while only 38 percent of Missouri citizens approve of the Missouri Democrat, according to a Morning Consult poll. Among senators up for re-election, Sen. McCaskill has ranked the least popular for the fourth month in a row. Fifty-three percent of Missourians believe it is time for a new Missouri senator, compared to just 31 percent of Missourians who believe Sen. McCaskill deserves re-election. An NBC News/Marist poll released last week showed that the race between McCaskill and her Republican challenger, Missouri state Attorney General Josh Hawley, is now tied for the Senate race. The survey found that both contenders receive 47 percent of the vote. Kelli Ford, a spokesman for the Hawley campaign, said in a statement on Monday: “Claire McCaskill and her dark money allies have spent millions of dollars in Missouri this year with little to show for it. She consistently votes against Missouri when it matters – from opposing middle-class tax cuts, to being wrong on the last five Supreme Court justices, to voting against the border wall. Washington is broken because of career politicians like Claire McCaskill, so it makes sense she’s the most unpopular and people want someone new.” Scandals have rocked Sen. McCaskill’s re-election campaign. A report released in July revealed that businesses with ties to McCaskill’s husband, Joseph Shepard, received $131 million in federal government subsidies since her election to the Senate in 2007. McCaskill faces an increasingly competitive Senate race in a state Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election by 18.5 percent. The tight election between Hawley and McCaskill has continued to put pressure on the Missouri Democrat to back Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

But, regardless of how she votes on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, that’ll have little bearing on how voters will cast their ballots in November.  She’s been voting along Democrat part lines her entire time in the Senate, and yet she represents a very conservative, red, state.  So, not exactly representing her constituency.  Let’s hope the good people of my home state of Missouri come to their collective senses and throw Claire out on her butt.

Arizona Governor Expected to Appoint Jon Kyl as McCain’s Replacement

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey is expected to name former U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl to fill Sen. John McCain’s Senate seat for the remainder of McCain’s term. McCain passed away from brain cancer last month after about a year-long battle. Gov. Ducey, in a tough re-election fight this year himself, pledged to wait until McCain was laid to rest before naming a successor. News broke Tuesday that Ducey will hold a 10:00 a.m. press conference in Phoenix, which is 1:00 p.m. Eastern: “Jon Kyl is a dear friend of mine and John’s. It’s a great tribute to John that he is prepared to go back into public service to help the state of Arizona,” posted McCain’s widow, Cindy, leading up to Ducey’s announcement: The tweet gave apparent confirmation to rumors that Kyl will receive the appointment to fill the remainder of McCain’s current term in the U.S. Senate. The seat will be up for a vote next in 2020.

Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) is a wise/prudent choice to serve out the reminder of the late Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) term.

McConnell Declares End to ‘Obstruction’ of Trump Nominees

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has taken his hardest line yet in the face of what he called Democratic “obstruction” of Trump administration nominees to the judicial and executive branches. McConnell on Thursday announced that the Senate will stay in session for as long as it takes to approve twelve of Trump’s judicial nominees as well as four executive-branch picks. “No more obstruction, no more delays. It’s time to confirm them all,” McConnell said. “The Senate will continue to work right through August until every single one of them is confirmed.” McConnell plans to explode Democratic filibusters on every one of the next 16 nominees, and has scheduled votes on them for this week. Democrats’ own 2013 amending of the filibuster rule has prevented them from stopping the votes. Former Senate majority leader Harry Reid spearheaded the effort to cancel the filibuster option for most nominations by presidents. Instead of the 60-vote supermajority previously required to confirm administration nominees, the razor-thin Republican majority can confirm them with zero Democratic votes. So far 110 Trump nominees have had to deal with a filibuster threat from Democrats, McConnell said on Twitter. Still, the Senate has managed to confirm 26 circuit-court judges and 26 district-court picks as well as Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch. McConnell organized Senate votes on the twelve judicial nominees as well as nominees for assistant attorney general, assistant security of the treasury, assistant secretary of health and human services, and vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Trump’s nominee for director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Kathy Kraninger, advanced to a Senate vote on Thursday after the Senate Banking Committee approved her 13 to twelve along party lines.