Senate

Kavanaugh accuser referred to DOJ for false statements, Grassley’s office announces

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Friday referred a woman who’d accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of raping her “several times” in the backseat of a car to the Justice Department for “materially false statements” and “obstruction.” Kavanaugh, confirmed to the high court on Oct. 6, was infamously accused by multiple women of sexual assault and misconduct before the confirmation. Judy Munro-Leighton, according to Grassley’s office, “alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her ‘several times each’ in the backseat of a car.” Those accusations were made via a “Jane Doe” letter provided to Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat and committee member, Grassley’s office wrote. Upon further investigation, however, inconsistencies in the story emerged. “Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky,” Grassley’s office wrote. “Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by … Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original ‘Jane Doe’ letter,” Grassley’s office wrote in a Friday referral to the DOJ. “When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the ‘Jane Doe’ from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: ‘No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.” “In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a ‘ploy,’ and a ‘tactic,’” Grassley’s office wrote. “She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.” Friday’s referral to the DOJ was not the first time Grassley has asked for an investigation into Kavanaugh’s accusers. Last week, Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and client Julie Swetnick — who’d accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct — for criminal investigation regarding a potential “conspiracy” to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation.

As more evidence comes to light, we realize that the whole effort to derail (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court was a coordinated effort by Democrats in the Senate based on lies and false statements.  Keep this in mind tomorrow as you cast your vote.

Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris accused of breaking fundraising rules over Kavanaugh vote

A watchdog group filed a Senate ethics complaint Monday against Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — even before they cast their votes against him. While voting and then asking supporters to back that decision with cash is common, the watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), says asking for money ahead of time crosses the line into vote-buying. FACT asked the Senate ethics committee to probe fundraising emails sent by Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, and Ms. Harris, California Democrat. Ms. Warren’s email said she was demanding a delay on the judge’s confirmation vote and asked for donations for her 2018 election campaign, while Ms. Harris’s emails detailed several of her actions as a member of the Judiciary Committee, including her questioning of the president’s pick for the high court, and asking for contributions. The Senate’s rules prohibit senators “cashing in” on using their official positions for personal gain. FACT said that linking a promise of official action with campaign contributions violates that principle. “This is a clear violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the appearance or actuality of elected officials ‘cashing in’ on their official position for political purposes,” said Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT. Spokespersons for Ms. Harris and Ms. Warren didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Of course not..   They’re huddled with their attorneys.  Senate Dems and the dominantly liberal mainstream media made it clear even before (now) Justice Brett Kavanaugh was even officially nominated,  that they’d do anything and everything possible (even illegal), to fight his nomination.  So, this shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Kudos to FACT for looking into this potential ethics violation on the part of Sens. Warren and Harris.  This story is developing…

Senate confirms 15 Trump judges after GOP leaders, Democrats strike deal

The Senate confirmed 15 of President Trump’s judicial picks Thursday night after GOP leaders reached a deal with Democrats, clearing about a third of the backlog and closing up shop through Election Day to give senators a chance to campaign. Three of the judges are for the powerful circuit courts of appeals, while the other 12 were for district court positions. Many cleared on near-party line votes, while others were approved by voice votes. They were the first judicial confirmations since last weekend’s vote on Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Some Republicans had hoped senators would stay in town to work on all 49 judicial picks who’d been ready for floor votes. But the 15 was the best deal the GOP could get, representing the amount of judges who could realistically have been confirmed if the Senate had devoted full time to confirmations over the next few weeks. Liberal activists were incensed that Democratic leaders agreed to the votes. “This deal was totally unnecessary and it is a bitter pill to swallow so soon after the Kavanaugh fight that so many progressive activists poured their hearts and souls into,” said Chris Kang, chief counsel for Demand Justice. Conservative activists had been hoping for even more judges, but were enthusiastic about the 15 who did clear. “I’d love for them to stay and grind them into the ground over the next four weeks, but truth be told, if you got 15 — that’s huge,” said Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government. The three circuit court nominees confirmed were David Porter for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 50-45 vote; Ryan Douglas Nelson for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 51-44; and Richard J. Sullivan for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 79-16. Hours before the floor vote the Judiciary Committee approved eight more judicial nominees and readied them for the floor. That means there will be 34 judicial nominees waiting for votes when the Senate returns in November for a lame-duck session.

This was a smart deal..  For more, click on the text above.

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.”