[Real Clear Politics] Bill O'Reilly breaks down the latest Kavanaugh Hearing; discussing both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's and Brett Kavanaugh's testimonies.
O'Reilly delivers his message of the day:
Somebody is lying. Either Judge Kavanaugh committed heinous acts or his accusers are bearing false witness against him. No in-between.
I don’t know what occurred. I do know that a young woman attending ten parties where gang-rapes are happening has some explaining to do. Why would any decent human being go to parties like that? Ten times? Come on.
The woman who says that happened has a dubious past, and it is coming out.
My instinct is that the accusations against Kavanaugh will fall apart. If that happens, the Democratic Party will be in deep trouble. Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Blumenthal, and others have all convicted Kavanaugh. I have not seen one elected Democrat call for due process. Not one.
#1
Due process has gone to the Memory Hole. Either you are (R) guilty, or (D) No Big Deal, Nothing To See Here, Move Along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/02/2018 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wait, O'Reilly is still around? And somehow relevant?
I give him credit, he sees it like I see it.
"I have not seen one elected Democrat call for due process. Not one."
[Daily Caller] Dershowitz claimed during an interview on Fox News that if a Muslim nominee were being accused of terrorism, the ACLU would jump to defend him. However, because Kavanaugh is a white man, "all the rules are called off."
"When the shoe is on the other foot, when it’s a white man being accused by the left of sexual offenses, all the rules are called off," Dershowitz said. "The rules of presumption of innocence, the rules of due process."
"We know he’s guilty because he’s a white man, she’s a woman, she’s a survivor, that’s the end of the inquiry," he concluded.
Three women are accusing Kavanugh of sexual misconduct, ranging from unwanted groping to waiting in line during gang rapes. Kavanaugh denies all of the allegations and the FBI is currently conducting a limited background investigation into the women’s claims.
A Georgetown University professor (first red flag), (((Christine Fair))) (second red flag — you could set your watch to this), who is as far as a quick duckduckgo search could reveal both unmarried and childless (third and fourth red flags — but thank Yahweh for small favors) has stated she wants to see White Republican men castrated and their corpses fed to swine.
A professor at Georgetown University known for making incendiary comments against supporters of President Donald Trump said white men deserve “miserable deaths” for supporting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown in the School of Foreign Service, tweeted Saturday, saying white Republican men should die and an added bonus would be if women “castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”
Georgetown University, naturally, is standing by their Death Wish Dame, because Georgetown, like almost every American institution of higher un-learning, is filled floor to rafters with despicable anti-White, anti-male, and anti-Christian bolsheviks running the place into the ground.
Fair (what a Waugh-ian name) believes “entitled White men…deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps.” And — this should surprise no one — she’s a pitmommy who runs a blog called “Shit Men Say”.
Fair’s Twitter page has a banner that reads, “DON’T GRAB MY PUSSY.” She bills herself in her Twitter bio as a “Scholar of South Asian pol-mil affairs, inter-sectional feminist, pitbull apostle, scotch devotee, nontheist, resister.”
She also runs a blog called ShitMenSay where she doxxes people. It’s about ‘accountability’, she claims. It is a hateful blog.
On that blog, she basically used the space to dox anyone who disagreed with her online.
C. Christine Fair, a Provost’s Distinguished associate professor of security studies at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, started the blog “Shit Men Say” in January 2017. According to the description of the blog, Fair shares “snarcastic missives based upon the shit men (and sometimes women ) say to me via email, voicemail and comments ‘deposited’ on my various social media” on her page.
In Fair’s posts, she reveals messages she received online along with the personal information pertaining to the people who sent her the messages. She posts her victims’ social media URLs, photos (including family photos), full names, locations, addresses, work information, phone numbers, and email addresses. […]
MRCTV counted approximately 80 posts on Fair’s blog in which she disclosed the personal information of people who sent her messages.
In addition to simply posting personal information, Fair repeatedly shares her victims’ personal information by reblogging the posts so they will result in higher Google search results.
Fair’s Tumblr blog is connected to her Twitter account, which means when she posts someone’s personal information on Tumblr, it is also shared on Twitter.
I bet you’re wondering if her phyzz matches the picture of her you have in your mind: More at the link
[American Thinker] Like the Energizer Bunny, the Trump economy just keeps marching ahead and pounding that drum. Last week, Boeing announced that it has been awarded a $9.2-billion contract from the DoD to produce the new T-X jet trainer and training program the USAF will use to train pilots for the foreseeable future. I confess that when I first heard during the Obama administration that Saab was involved with the Boeing proposal, my immediate suspicion was that the jobs and income from this lucrative contract might be going offshore, as both Italy and South Korea were also in the running. It was all too easy to imagine a new economically incompetent or, worse, corrupt Clinton administration handing this fat domestic plum to a foreign aircraft-fabricator to piously and foolishly signal their utopian assurances to the larger community of the world.
But that was before Trump's election and his promised Make America Great Again economic renaissance made my concerns as obsolete as the fifty-year-old training aircraft in current use. Yes, Saab is partnered with Boeing and will share in the federal largesse, but this beautiful new aircraft will be 90% American-built, creating 17,000 lucrative aviation industry jobs in 34 states.
[WSJ] As malignant as were the campaigns against Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, even they didn’t face accusations as vile and unrelenting as the unsubstantiated charges against Brett Kavanaugh. Adding to the injustice is that the frenzy surrounding his nomination isn’t really about him.
It’s about Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Supreme Court decision upended the laws of all 50 states on behalf of a constitutional right to abortion the Constitution somehow neglects to mention. Since then, the advocates of a living Constitution posit that while our Founding document is infinitely malleable, this one ruling is fixed and sacred.
Judge Kavanaugh’s great misfortune is to have been nominated at a moment when the party in opposition frets this fixed and sacred ruling could be overturned.
Never mind that Chief Justice John Roberts is unlikely to acquiesce to a move that would bring down the furies on his court. Or that it’s not clear Judge Kavanaugh would be any different, having assured senators that he regards Roe as "settled" and "an important precedent" whose central holding had been reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey(1992). Or that overturning Roe still wouldn’t make abortion illegal.
The problem is that even Roe’s most ardent champions know it is devoid of legal and constitutional substance. So they know it is vulnerable to a closer look by any serious jurist, including those who are themselves pro-choice. No wonder Sen. Dianne Feinstein tweeted, "It’s not enough for Brett Kavanaugh to say that Roe v. Wade is ’settled law.’ "
Let me translate: Nothing personal, judge. But if you won’t declare that a decision laid down by seven unelected men in robes is untouchable, we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to keep you off the high court. This is what Democrats do when they see a possible fifth vote against Roe in play.
It’s what they did in 1987 when they transformed "Bork" into a verb. It’s what they are now doing to Judge Kavanaugh. They do it with the eager help of a press that has abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, and institutions such as the American Bar Association and American Civil Liberties Union, which have betrayed their own principles in the effort to bring this man down.
In this cause, there is no room for fairness and decency. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Sen. Mazie Hirono if Judge Kavanaugh deserved "the same presumption of innocence as anyone else" about the sexual-assault accusations against him, the Hawaii Democrat gave the game away.
"I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases," she replied, noting he "very much is against women’s reproductive choice."
Mr. Tapper understood instantly. "It sounds to me like you’re saying, because you don’t trust him on policy and because you don’t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you don’t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982" he asked.
Bingo.
Once again Antonin Scalia saw it all coming before anyone else. He laid it out in a biting dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Amid the circus the Kavanaugh nomination has become, it bears rereading.
Many assume the Roman Catholic jurist’s dissent was rooted in his personal opposition to abortion. But Scalia never spoke of his own views. And his Casey dissent is something to which even the most robustly pro-choice Americans could sign their names.
Far from settling the issue, Scalia wrote, Roe remains brittle because it lacks constitutional warrant. It represents the triumph of an "Imperial Judiciary" which "intensifies" the polarization over abortion by keeping the issue out of the democratic process, thus depriving the losers the compensating "satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight."
He went on. If the Supreme Court is simply to be a vehicle for choosing among competing values, in a democracy it should be the values of the voters that prevail. Thus, "confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question and answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents’ most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights."
Today the nation marches to the beat of the dysfunctions Scalia laid out so well in his Caseydissent, to the point where we have just allowed the nominations process itself to be blown up. When the day comes that the Court reconsiders Roe, the justices will no doubt take seriously the arguments from stare decisis for leaving it be. Let us hope they consider as well the poisons Roe continues to inject into the American body politic, not least of which is the incentive to reward the character assassination of Republican nominees.
Brett Kavanaugh is a decent man with a lovely wife and two sweet daughters. He is also what the Democrats fear most on the courts: an honest judge. Which is why he and his innocent family are being destroyed before our very eyes.
#1
Does the Left (or anybody else) really, truly believe that Kavanaugh is single-handedly going to revoke Roe against Wade? Or, if not by himself, with the (potentially) eight other justices? It just ain't happening.
#2
When you are a Totalitarian there is literally no limit on your actions: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing agaisnt the state”
― Benito Mussolini
[WSJ] The bipartisan bonhomie occasioned by the reopening of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s background investigation dissipated quickly. By the weekend, Senate Democrats‐who had demanded the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation‐were challenging its credibility, objecting to its scope and focus, and lamenting that the White House had any involvement in shaping the process.
The reopened investigation, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham‐reflecting the White House’s view‐potentially entailed interviewing Deborah Ramirez, who claims that Judge Kavanaugh committed lewd conduct while a freshmen at Yale, and the three purported witnesses named by first accuser Christine Blasey Ford‐Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser‐all of whom have attested they have no memory that would corroborate her accusation. Julie Swetnick’s sordid and implausible claims were to be left out, and if any new allegations against Judge Kavanaugh were to emerge, these also wouldn’t be investigated.
President Trump told reporters Monday: "The FBI should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason." That qualification is crucial. It is clear that Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents are clamoring for an open-ended fishing expedition that, probably by design, would go on much longer than a week. They are insisting that the FBI investigate Judge Kavanaugh’s drinking while in high school and college and interview anyone who might know about it. Two such people have already come forward, and there are no disincentives for new claimants, possibly driven by partisan or personal animus, to emerge.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) tried to justify his demand to broaden the FBI investigation by claiming that heavy drinking was "directly relevant" to the sexual-assault allegations. If this approach were adopted, the FBI would have to interview a very large pool of witnesses about Judge Kavanaugh’s alcohol intake, and possibly many other personal traits, over many years. Never mind that alcohol use is a standard FBI question, certainly asked in the course of Judge Kavanaugh’s previous six background investigations.
Kavanaugh foes also want the FBI to interview people who might challenge the credibility of pro-Kavanaugh witnesses. Mr. Judge is a prominent target here. His former girlfriend Elizabeth Rasor has stated publicly that he has disclosed to her facts relating to his past sexual activities that have nothing to do with Judge Kavanaugh, but cast Mr. Judge in a negative light. This approach could also open up a never-ending investigation, in which the FBI inquires into the credibility of all witnesses, whether pro- or anti-Kavanaugh, including witnesses interviewed to test other witnesses’ credibility.
The demands get even more absurd. "For its investigation to be comprehensive, the FBI must also get to the bottom of what ’boofing’ means," wrote Brian Fallon, who worked as press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, in Politico on Monday. That’s a reference to a joke in Mr. Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook entry. As Mr. Fallon notes, "Kavanaugh said it referred to ’flatulence.’ "
The entire debate is complicated by confusion about what the FBI does in a background investigation. Even former Director James Comey is mixed up. He penned a vastly misleading New York Times op-ed Sunday, in which he seemed to conflate background checks with criminal probes. "It is one thing to have your lawyer submit a statement on your behalf," Mr. Comey wrote. "It is a very different thing to sit across from two F.B.I. special agents and answer their relentless questions."
The FBI is primarily a law-enforcement agency. Its criminal investigations are often wide-ranging, can be potentially expanded into new areas, and have no preset time limits. Although the president has authority under the Constitution to direct the exercise of all federal law-enforcement activities, in practice the FBI enjoys great autonomy when conducting criminal investigations. Agents seek both to uncover the facts and to assess the credibility of everybody they interview. Their questioning is often aggressive and repetitive. Interviewees are warned they will face criminal penalties if they lie to the FBI.
FBI background investigations are a fundamentally different affair. They are not based on any explicit statutory authorization but are founded on regulations authorizing investigations of persons who seek federal government employment. The bureau’s authority to conduct investigations of nominees dates to at least President Eisenhower’s Executive Order 10450 of 1953, though some scholars credit the beginning of the process to President Hoover and his request of Attorney General William Mitchell to investigate the qualification of applicants for judicial positions.
FBI background investigations are carried out by a special team within the bureau called Special Inquiry and General Background Investigations Unit. SIGBIU functions as a gatherer of facts. It doesn’t cajole or challenge witnesses and routinely offers them anonymity. It never proffers any credibility assessments or speculates about the motives of witnesses.
SIGBIU operates on tight deadlines and usually moves faster with Supreme Court nominations. The process begins and is completed well before the nominee’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing takes place. Occasionally, SIGBIU is directed to conduct further interviews. Throughout the whole process, it operates under instructions from both the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office.
Significantly, there is a firewall between SIGBIU and FBI’s criminal-investigative divisions. SIGBIU’s goal is to have witnesses be open and forthcoming. Agents routinely assure witnesses that nothing that they say during the interview will be referred for criminal investigation. Even more fundamental, the FBI’s velvet-glove approach to background investigations reflects its recognition that people they interview are not suspected of any crimes and cannot be coerced into cooperating or threatened with a grand jury subpoena.
Running a background investigation as if it were a criminal one would destroy the FBI’s ability to conduct the former. It would cause many Americans to refuse to cooperate. It would cause the bureau to exceed its constitutionally proper remit. And having the FBI proffer credibility determinations in the context of a judicial appointment would politicize the bureau‐and, as then-Sen. Joe Biden correctly asserted during Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation hearings, it would usurp a function that properly belongs to the president and the Senate.
The demands by anti-Kavanaugh Democrats are blatantly partisan and unfair. What they seek has never been done with any judicial nominee in American history. They also run afoul of important legal and practical realities of FBI-conducted background investigations. If countenanced, they would politicize the FBI and destroy the judicial confirmation process.
[PJ] During an impromptu press conference in the White House Monday, President Donald Trump deployed a brutal new nickname for Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), mocking his past lies about serving in the Vietnam War.
"Look at some of these people asking the questions, okay?" Trump began. "Look at Blumenthal. He lied about Vietnam ... for 15 years he said he was a war hero!" the president exclaimed. "We call him Da Nang Richard. That's his nickname -- Da Nang. He never went to Vietnam!"
Trump continued, "He's up there saying, 'we need honesty and we need integrity.' This guy lied. When he was the attorney general of Connecticut, he lied! I don't mean a little bit."
"Here's a guy [who] lied and now he's up there talking like he's holier than thou!" the president added incredulously.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Real Clear Politics] Bill O'Reilly breaks down the latest Kavanaugh Hearing; discussing both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's and Brett Kavanaugh's testimonies. 
[American Thinker] Like the Energizer Bunny, the Trump economy just keeps marching ahead and pounding that drum. Last week, Boeing announced that it has been awarded a $9.2-billion contract from the DoD to produce the new T-X jet trainer and training program the USAF will use to train pilots for the foreseeable future. I confess that when I first heard during the Obama administration that Saab was involved with the Boeing proposal, my immediate suspicion was that the jobs and income from this lucrative contract might be going offshore, as both Italy and South Korea were also in the running. It was all too easy to imagine a new economically incompetent or, worse, corrupt Clinton administration handing this fat domestic plum to a foreign aircraft-fabricator to piously and foolishly signal their utopian assurances to the larger community of the world.
KC-390 airframe foto. 
