Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
And actually, people there are a lot more than just five, as is made clear this morning, that being 28 September 2018, by CNN, which is advertising “10 takeaways from the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford hearings,” the first one being “Beware the Woman Scorned” when that woman scorned happens to be none other than twice-failed Democrat presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has a long memory of every glove that laid her down or cut her til she cried out in her anger and her shame “I am leaving, I am leaving,” but as was made incandescently clear yesterday, the fighter still remains; but both Bob Woodward’s Washington Post (“democracy dies in darkness”) and ABC News are going with only five, so as to not overly tax the intellects of their readers and followers, so I thought I would lead in with the lesser amount myself, out of deference to the readers of Bob Woodward’s Washington Post who come here to get Bob Woodward’s editorial output properly fact-checked, even though I can think off the top of my head of at least sixteen or seventeen takeaways from the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford hearings, starting with how very masterful and professional and scientific Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s performance was yesterday at the Senate hearing before several hundred million people here in America and countless other millions out there in the candid world, all of whom were riveted to their TVs, or hand-held devices, waiting for her story of childhood rape at the hands of a Republican Supreme Court nominee thirty-six (36) years ago, when she was just fifteen years old, an innocent young girl thrown like a piece of meat to a raging lion like Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a notorious drunk, by the country-club society in tony, Montgomery County, Maryland that she was able to escape from so as to be able to go out to California and re-invent herself as a surfer girl.
Not at all surprisingly, given the compassion the American people have for sex-crimes victims like Christine Blasey Ford, the praise for the masterful performance of Dr. Ford, yesterday, who was at the same time during the hearing the young girl about to be raped, scared for her very life, thinking she might die during the rape, and the grown-up psychologist who was able to act as the scared, young girl’s expert witness, explaining why the scared, young girl was able to vividly remember some things, but naturally would be fuzzy on others, is coming in from all quarters, as we can clearly see from this e-mail sent out yesterday to virtually everyone in America by Lauren Windsor, Executive Director, American Family Voices, where she tells the people of America as follows, to wit:
Today, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford displayed incredible courage in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we believe her.
This week we released “Sex Abusers for Kavanaugh,” a parody video of the pro-Kavanaugh ad produced by the Judicial Crisis Network, to highlight the absurdity of moving forward with a Supreme Court nominee accused by multiple credible women of sexual assault.
You can watch it on YouTube.
We demand that President Trump withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, and to ask the FBI to investigate these serious allegations.
If the FBI investigation finds credible evidence that Kavanaugh has abused these women, we urge the House to move forward on impeachment and remove him from his current position on the federal bench.
Call your senators NOW at 202-224-3121 and tell them NOT to #StandWithSexAbusers, and please like our video and share it on Facebook to urge others to do the same!
In solidarity,
End quotes
Now, people, is that a takeaway, or is that a takeaway, and don’t go looking for it at the insipid Washington Post, or ABC News, because you won’t find it there, only here in the CCM.
As an aside, if they are going to have Kavanaugh impeached, they should not stop there, but should demand the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as well, if they truly want to see substantial justice done, which is another takeaway of the Ford hearings yesterday, but more on that for later, since this is about Dr. Ford, the brave and heroic victim and her steller performance yesterday, which has served to define what victimhood in the reality of modern America is really all about.
As to the incredible courage Dr. Ford displayed in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that causes Lauren Windsor, Executive Director of American Family Voices to believe her, that subject is covered more than adequately by the famous and venerable “Grey Lady,” the New York Times, in the riveting, tear-jerker of a story entitled “With Caffeine and Determination, Christine Blasey Ford Relives Her Trauma” by Julie Hirschfeld Davis on 28 September 2018, where America and the candid world learned of the encounter as follows:
WASHINGTON — She was terrified.
She did not want to be there.
She was badly in need of caffeine.
End quotes
Now tell me, people, is that a classic story opening for this dramatic story of courage and outrage and a quest for justice overcoming fear, or what?
That, people, is why the New York Times is so great – because it can come up with a such a dramatic lead-in to a story like that, while Bob Woodward’s failing Washington Post can merely struggle.
“She was badly in need of caffeine,” people!
Can you just feel the pain, yourselves?
Ah, the sheer poignancy in that line, where “poignancy” is defined as “the quality of evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret,” with synonyms such as pathos, pitifulness, piteousness, sadness, sorrow, mournfulness, wretchedness, misery, and tragedy.
Except in this case, it was tragedy overcome, as we further learn from the New York Times as follows:
When Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year-old California university professor, entered a hearing room on Capitol Hill on Thursday morning — returning to a city she fled decades ago to publicly relive the sexual assault that first prompted her to leave — she was not sure she would make it through her opening statement.
But Dr. Blasey, surrounded by her lawyers, publicists and a sisterhood of friends who had convened to support her and zealously protect her privacy, said her piece.
She delivered a harrowing tale of casual teenage violence that put a human face on an allegation that has threatened a Supreme Court nomination and captured the attention of the nation in the throes of a profound reckoning with the realities of sexual assault.
End quotes
Now, somebody out there tell me the New York Times does not know how to grab our attention, and then hold it there until we reach the end of the story, which follows:
Visibly anxious but firm in her recollections, traumatized but graphic in her description of what she called a life-altering trauma, Dr. Blasey testified over three hours of questioning about the night in the Washington suburbs 36 years ago when she said an incoherently drunk Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, pinned her down on a bed and ground his body against hers, trying to remove her clothing as he clamped a hand over her mouth to stifle her screams while a friend watched.
End quotes
Now, here, people, and let me tell you, I WANT to believe Dr. Ford, we come to one of those nagging inconsistencies in her story, how the friend managed to get into the locked room she and the incoherently drunk Brett Kavanaugh were in, but the New York Times story anticipates our confusion over the shifting details, and explains it as follows, using the expert witness testimony of the grown-up trained psychologist Dr. Ford, as follows:
“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter — the uproarious laughter — between the two, and their having fun at my expense,” said Dr. Blasey, a research psychologist, using the clinical language of neuroscience to describe a horrifying recollection of Judge Kavanaugh and the friend, in essence acting as both victim and expert witness in her own story.
End quotes
That, people, is what made the testimony of Dr. Ford so very powerful, yesterday, beyond her impeccable victimhood – the uncontroverted scientific testimony of her on her own behalf as a famed research scientist in matters of trauma such as hers, as we again see from the New York Times article, to wit:
“I’ve had to relive this trauma in front of the world,” she said later.
End quotes
There it is, people, instant stardom!
Overnight, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has become a celebrity, not only in America, but in the world, as well.
As the New York Times tells us:
Dr. Blasey, who is fearful of flying, made the journey to Washington without her husband, Russell Ford, who stayed behind in California to tend to their children amid security threats that have dogged her and her family since she went public with her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh nearly two weeks ago.
But she was accompanied by a phalanx of friends — many of them high school classmates from the all-girls Holton-Arms School — who have rallied to her side with offers of logistical help, public-relations advice, and even meditation and breathing techniques to calm her.
End quotes
Now, here is another of those interesting details that is somewhat confusing, as we see in the following sentence from the NY Times article, to wit:
“I anticipate needing some caffeine,” Dr. Blasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee moments after she took her seat at a wooden witness table facing an array of senators and several ultrabright lights.
She would go through two cups of coffee and a bottle of Coke before her turn in the national spotlight was over.
When she was not fielding questions, Dr. Blasey — who was guarded by at least two large plainclothes officers as she made her way around Capitol Hill — retired to a small room reserved for her, to calm herself with breathing exercises and confer with her legal team.
End quotes
I myself am a multiple trauma victim, having been wounded in the head and left for dead in Viet Nam in 1969, and not wanting to become some kind of drug addict or pill head as a result, I took the natural holistic path of learning to meditate and calm myself with breathing exercises, which are very effective if you can get your mind engaged, so to me, anyway, and no, I am not a trained psychologist like Dr. Ford, it seems to me to be kind of counter-productive to have gotten all hyped up in the first place and jazzed with all that Coke and coffee, but hey, that is just me.
Still, if I had been invited to testify before that same panel back in 2009 when the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor was being discussed, as I actually thought was going to happen, me being a victim of her injustice as a circuit judge on the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, I would have been using those breathing exercises before I started my testimony, not after I was all jazzed up from drinking too much Coke, but since it never happened, since I was never contacted by any Senate investigators to tell my story, that remains mere speculation.
Which brings this chapter of the Christine Blasey Ford story to a close, so we can pause for station identification.
But don’t touch that dial, and don’t go away, because this story hasn’t ended; to the contrary, it has just begun.
Discover more from CAPE CHARLES MIRROR
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And today, it is about 165 and still rising, the number of takeaways from the Ford/Kavanaugh hearings, which keep flooding in faster than I can keep up with them, actually, as this story with its long legs keeps galloping along.
One thing is for sure, the Washington Post is just loving this story because it is writing itself, courtesy of the Democrat “messaging arm,” so all they have to do is copy the press releases and regurgitate them as news, which requires absolutely no thinking whatsoever on their part, which for them is a dream come true.
Speaking of that, we have from the Washington Post (“democracy dies in darkness”) the heart-rending story “‘I was demanding a connection’: Ana Maria Archila reflects on confronting Jeff Flake over Kavanaugh nomination” by Elise Viebeck on 30 September 2018, where we learn as follows:
Ana Maria Archila had never told her father that she was sexually abused as a child.
But after she confronted a U.S. senator about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the video started going viral, she thought it was time to share her story.
The encounter on Friday morning between Archila, a second woman and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has already become an iconic moment in the debate over Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
end quotes
An iconic moment, indeed, although it was a lot longer than a moment, as we see from the following from that same story:
With a CNN camera behind them broadcasting live, Archila and Maria Gallagher blocked the doors of an elevator for about five minutes in an effort to confront Flake about his just-announced support for Kavanaugh, who is facing several allegations of sexual misconduct.
end quotes
Poor Flake and the other people on that elevator as they huddled there while this woman kept her foot on the door so it wouldn’t close, while she had her finger going at Flake and her mouth running 240, as again we see from the Washington Post article, as follows:
Both Archila and Gallagher described themselves as survivors of sexual assault, making tearful and impassioned pleas for Flake to reconsider his position.
“I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me,” Gallagher said.
“I didn’t tell anyone, and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet, because if they tell you what happened to them you are going to ignore them.”
end quotes
Now, let me say that as a fellow human being, I really feel for these two women, and yes, I share their pain, but really, people, a couple of things come to mind here, the first being that if in fact these two women are “survivors of sexual assault” as they call themselves, and I’ll believe they are, since they are obviously still alive in the video of them confronting poor Flake in the elevator that has now gone viral, all over the world, what exactly do they expect a United States Senator to do about it?
Go find whoever did it and kick his or her *** but good?
Pass an ex poste facto bill and have them arrested for it, despite a Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws in this country in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution?
And look at what the one poor distraught woman was saying to Flake here, according to the Washington Post, anyway:
“I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me,” Gallagher said.
“I didn’t tell anyone.”
end quotes
Pardon me here, people, but that has me confused, and from the look on the face of Flake and the two women on the elevator with him who I thought looked frightened of Archila, who looked about ready to go postal on Flake, they were confused as well – if the woman did not tell anyone she was “sexually assaulted,” which seems to be a very nebulous term encompassing a wide range of behavior, then how can she say in the same breath that nobody believed her?
What was Flake supposed to say to that, I wonder, assuming Archila would have paused in her finger-pointing tirade to give him a chance to respond?
As to ex post facto laws, God bless the Democrats, at least in Maryland, because Constitution be damned, they are not afraid to go there, as we learn from the Fox News story “Maryland authorities say they’ll investigate Kavanaugh — if a victim files a complaint” by Louis Casiano on 30 September 2018, as follows:
Authorities in Maryland on Friday said they were prepared to conduct a state-level criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh — provided that a victim comes forward.
Earlier this week, a group of Maryland lawmakers, all Democrats, called for the state to conduct its own criminal investigation into decades-old sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, Trump’s pick to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by the retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.
In their letter Tuesday, the Democrats said they were writing to “express our concern about the need for an investigation into recent high-profile allegations of sex assault in our county.”
“… We believe local law enforcement has the authority to investigate allegations of crimes without need for a formal complaint, and we further believe third parties have standing to bring such complaints.”
Kavanaugh was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexually assaulting her at a party in Montgomery County in the early 1980s.
end quotes
That is the nice thing about being a democrat, I have found from my observations of them – the law is whatever you feel the law should be, or it is what you want to believe it is – what is actually written down as “law” is really quite irrelevant to a Democrat, as we see from that same Fox News story, to wit:
The disclosure by Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger and Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy came Friday, the same day that President Trump ordered the FBI to conduct a limited “supplemental” investigation.
But Manger and McCarthy noted that prosecution was unlikely in Maryland because authorities would have to apply the law that existed at the time of the offense, not the law that exists now, Baltimore’s FOX 45 News reported.
“For example, in 1982, assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a one-year statute of limitations,” they wrote.
end quotes
But here we have a special case, so that law with the one-year statute of limitations really should not apply.
And this line from the Democrats of Maryland is a real classic, to wit: “We believe local law enforcement has the authority to investigate allegations of crimes without need for a formal complaint, and we further believe third parties have standing to bring such complaints.”
Now, if someone thinks that that smacks of something you would hear being expressed in some third-world ****hole with a tin-pot dictator in charge of it, you are not wrong.
And here again I will rest because these takeaways are still piling up, with maybe a hundred more being added to the pile just in the time it took me to pen these words, but again, don’t touch that dial while we pause for station identification, because we will be right back with more breaking news in this long-legged story that is galloping across the steppes of Washington. D.C. carrying Kavanaugh on its back like the horse that carried the naked Mazeppa across the steppes of the Ukraine, which story was masterfully told in a narrative poem written by the English romantic poet Lord Byron in 1819, based on a popular legend about the early life of Ivan Mazepa (1639–1709), who later became Hetman (military leader) of Ukraine.
For those unfamiliar with it, Byron’s poem was immediately translated into French, where it inspired a series of works in various art forms.
The cultural legacy of Mazeppa was revitalised with the independence of Ukraine in 1992.
According to the poem, the young Mazeppa has a love affair with a Polish Countess Theresa while serving as a page at the Court of King John II Casimir Vasa.
Countess Theresa was married to a much older Count.
On discovering the affair, the Count punishes Mazeppa by tying him naked to a wild horse and setting the horse loose.
The bulk of the poem describes the traumatic journey of the hero strapped to the horse.
The poem has been praised for its “vigor of style and its sharp realization of the feelings of suffering and endurance”.
And its up to 324 and counting as of this moment, all the various takeaways of the Ford/Kavanaugh hearings, which brings us to this classic line which seems to sum up very well the Democrat position with regard to these “hearings,” which really are very reminiscent of a classical political circus, from the Washington Post article “Amy Klobuchar’s big Brett Kavanaugh moment earned rave reviews. But is it what Democrats demand for 2020?” by Aaron Blake and David Weigel on 30 September 2018, as follows:
“I think Democrats are looking for someone who is the partisan bomb-thrower.”
end quotes
Amen to that in spades is my thought, anyway, how on the money that statement, coming to us from Minnesota Republican consultant Mark Drake courtesy of the Washington Post (“democracy dies in darkness”), really is.
And speaking of the epitome of a partisan Democrat bomb-thrower par excellence, let’s head to the CBS News article “Pelosi calls Kavanaugh ‘hysterical,’ says he’s unfit for Supreme Court” by Grace Segers 0n 30 September 2018, where we hear about Nancy, a top fundraiser for the Democrats who was selling access to her office as Speaker of the House to the highest bidders when she held the office, as follows:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “hysterical” and said that he was temperamentally unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Pelosi made the comments in an interview Saturday at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin.
“I couldn’t help but think that if a woman had ever performed that way, they would say ‘hysterical,'” Pelosi said about her reaction to Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
end quotes
That, of course, is pure Nancy right there, which is why she is such a high-ranking Democrat.
Why she is calling Kavanaugh “hysterical in summed up by CBS News, as follows:
Kavanaugh emotionally denied allegations that he had sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when they were both teenagers.
During his opening statement, Kavanaugh was very emotional, at times nearly shouting and choking up while discussing his family and his high school years.
He also explicitly condemned Democrats on the committee, calling the allegations against him a “grotesque and coordinated character assassination” organized by liberals angry that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election.
end quotes
Now, here it has to be said that “hysterical, ” which is defined as “deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion,” as in “hysterical laughter,” with such synonyms as overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, or crazed, is very much in the eye of the beholder, and with that said, one could well say that Nancy Pelosi is being hysterical here calling Brett Kavanaugh hysterical, but that is what partisan politics in Washington, D.C. today are really all about, which is why the Kavanaugh hearings are being called a circus.
Getting back to the hysteria of Nancy Pelosi as expressed by CBS News, we have:
Pelosi said that she believed Kavanaugh’s testimony proved that he could not serve on the Supreme Court, because it showed that he is biased against Democrats.
“I think that he disqualifies himself with those statements and the manner in which he went after the Clintons and the Democrats,” she said.
end quotes
Ah, Nancy!
The message there is that if Kavanaugh had made it a Clinton love fest, and if he had expressed his undying love and devotion to the Democrat party of Nancy Pelosi, she would have found him eminently qualified.
And then CBS News takes us to the heart of the matter, as follows:
Pelosi demurred when asked if she would try to impeach Kavanaugh if he is confirmed, and if Democrats gain the majority in the House of Representatives.
“I will say this — if he is not telling the truth to Congress or to the FBI, then he’s not fit not only to be on the Supreme Court, but to be on the court he’s on right now,” Pelosi said.
Kavanaugh is currently a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
end quotes
Now, there I am not going to quibble with her on that sentiment, but I will say that if Kavanaugh is not fit to be a federal judge because he is a liar, then so too is Sonia Sotomayor unfit to be on the court she is on right now, which happens to be the same Supreme Court Nancy says Kavanaugh is unfit to be on.
If Kavanaugh is going to be impeached for being a liar, then justice demands that Sonia Sotomayor also be impeached for being a liar, which in the case of Sotomayor is fact, not speculation as it presently is in the case of Kavanaugh.
“It’s not time for a hysterical, biased person to go to the court and expect us to say, ‘isn’t that wonderful,'” Pelosi said in the CBS News article, and again, I won’t dispute that.
So why then did the Democrats say “isn’t that wonderful” when they put the biased Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court in 2009?
And not surprisingly, the “Woman Scorned,” herself, America’s Queen Mum Hillary Rodham Clinton, now has her mouth in the game here as we learn from the Newsweek article “Hillary Clinton Laughs at Brett Kavanaugh Claiming Allegations Are ‘Revenge on Behalf of the Clintons’” by Nicole Goodkind on 10/2/18, as follows:
Hillary Clinton addressed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct Tuesday at the Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., saying she found his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, very credible.
“You have to ask yourself, Why would anybody put themselves through this if they did not believe that they had important information to convey to the Senate?” the former secretary of state said.
“She basically said that she thought it was her civic duty.”
“I found her willingness to say ‘I don’t remember that, but I remember this’ to be very convincing.”
end quotes
HUH?
Ah, Hillary, does that make any sense whatsoever – that you found her willingness to say “I don’t remember that” to be very convincing?
How could it be otherwise, Hillary?
Of course it is convincing if someone says they don’t remember something.
So what was she doing testifying then, if she didn’t remember what she was supposed to be testifying about?
How is that failure to remember on her part in any way linked to the Constitutional duty of Dianne Feinstein to give advice on the Kavanaugh nomination?
What weight should Dianne Feinstein give to all the things Dr. Blasey Ford says she can’t remember?
Getting back to the Newsweek article:
At a Senate hearing investigating claims of Kavanaugh’s sexual assault Thursday, the judge blamed the Clinton family for his situation.
During his emotional opening remarks, he called the hearing a “calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”
Hillary laughed at the idea that anyone was seeking revenge on behalf of her and her family.
“I mean, really, yes, it deserves a lot of laughter,” she said.
end quotes
Oh, really, Hillary.
And why is that, Hillary, given the reputation you and hubby Bill have for getting revenge on those who you feel have wronged you at any time in the past?
Getting back to Newsweek:
Clinton said she wasn’t watching when Kavanaugh made the comments about her family, but that she heard about it later.
“Look, I thought it was just part of his very defensive and unconvincing presentation.”
“And I told someone later, ‘Boy, I tell you, they give us a lot of credit,'” she told a crowd to more laughter.
“Thirty-six years ago, we started this against him, in high school apparently,” she joked.
end quotes
Oh, bull****, Hillary, who are you trying to kid here, as if we were all stupid.
This did not start thirty-six years ago, Hillary, and you know that.
What you are doing is using something that can’t be proven that you say happened thirty-six years ago to get your revenge today, as we can clearly see from the Newsweek article as follows:
Kavanaugh worked closely with Ken Starr, special counsel on the Whitewater Investigation which exposed President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and eventually led to the former president’s impeachment trial.
end quotes
There, Hillary, is what you are getting your revenge on.
And then we come to this horsecrap from Hillary in the Newsweek article, to wit:
“But I think for anyone who believes there is such a thing as a judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court, to approach issues and plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, that there’s a lot to be concerned about.”
end quotes
Oh, really, Hillary, do tell!
Then what about Gary Sharpe, the Conservative Republican you put on the federal bench of the District court for the Northern District of New York in Albany, New York in 2004?
Certainly you remember Gary Sharpe, Hillary!
I mean, it’s all written down in the Congressional Record, Volume 150, Number 7 (Wednesday January 28 2004), as follows:
[Pages S304-S307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION – NOMINATION OF GARY L. SHARPE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this nomination.
I commend my colleague, Senator Schumer, for the important role he has played on the Judiciary Committee.
I second his comment that in New York we have worked together with the administration to nominate and confirm judges who will be a real credit, not only to the bench but to this administration and to our country.
Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe is at the top of that list.
I think he will not only serve with distinction in New York but demonstrate clearly that this is the kind of conservative Republican nominee whom we could be unanimously confirming.
end quotes
Do you remember that, Hillary?
And while you are prattling on Hillary about such a thing as a judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court, to approach issues and plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, do you then recall this from the New York Times by Benjamin Weiser on Jan. 28, 2011, as follows:
A federal appeals court in Manhattan overturned a six-and-a-half-year sentence in a child pornography case on Friday, saying the judge who imposed it improperly found that the defendant would return to viewing child pornography because of an as-of-yet undiscovered gene.
The judge, Gary L. Sharpe of Federal District Court in Albany, was quoted as saying, ”It is a gene you were born with.”
“And it’s not a gene you can get rid of,” before he sentenced the defendant, Gary Cossey, in December 2009.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said in ruling on the defendant’s appeal, ”It would be impermissible for the court to base its decision of recidivism on its unsupported theory of genetics.”
Judges Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker Jr. and Rosemary S. Pooler ruled that a sentence relying on findings not supported in the record seriously affects the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings.
The panel ordered that Mr. Cossey be resentenced by a different judge, a step it said was taken only where a judge’s fairness or the appearance of fairness was in doubt.
This is one such instance, the panel said.
end quotes
Do you remember that, Hillary, because I certainly do.
So, so much for your judgment when it comes to federal judges – it is laughable.
And pardon me, people, but with the latest takeaways from this on-going story of the heroism of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a sexual assault survivor as the Democrats tell us, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of laying on top of her at a drunken, unchaperoned house party in 1982, when she was a tender 15 years old, and groping her while covering her mouth with his hand, either after she started hollering, or to keep her from hollering, depending on which version you want to believe, while his buddy Mark Judge was in the room laughing, the bull**** factor underlying this show is going right through the roof.
Said another way, if, it smells like bull****, and this certainly does, then it probably is bull****, especially when you have lawyers and Democrat politicians involved just before mid-term elections, and here I am referring to the Law & Crime article “‘It’s Disappointing’: Grassley Responds to Latest Request from Christine Ford’s Lawyers” by Matt Naham on 3 October 2018, where we learn as follows concerning this bull**** story starring Dr. Ford, who is either the world’s greatest con artist, or a dupe of the Senate Democrats and her legal team, to wit:
The legal team for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford on Wednesday shot down the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request to turn over evidence related to Ford’s therapy sessions and the polygraph test she took, saying that the FBI has not contacted them for an interview.
end quotes
Oh come on, people, what kind of crap is this?
Right above here, we have twice-failed Democrat presidential contender and America’s Queen Mum Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the Newsweek article “Hillary Clinton Laughs at Brett Kavanaugh Claiming Allegations Are ‘Revenge on Behalf of the Clintons’” by Nicole Goodkind on 10/2/18, telling us as follows:
Hillary Clinton addressed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct Tuesday at the Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., saying she found his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, very credible.
“You have to ask yourself, Why would anybody put themselves through this if they did not believe that they had important information to convey to the Senate?” the former secretary of state said.
“She basically said that she thought it was her civic duty.”
end quotes
So, okay, people – her civic duty.
So what then is her “civic duty?”
According to US Legal.com, the concept of civic duty is based on the principle that citizens owe some allegiance to their government and that government in turn protects its citizens.
Civic duties refer to the responsibilities of citizens.
Often rights enjoyed by citizens also implies corresponding responsibilities.
Citizenship carries with it both rights and responsibilities.
Civic duties include duties and responsibilities.
Duties are legally enforceable.
Citizens must do their duties.
Some examples of civic duties are obeying the law, serving on a jury, paying taxes and voting.
end quotes
So with all of that stated, exactly what were the civic duties of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with respect to giving sworn testimony about the fitness of Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate?
Did she swear to tell the whole truth?
Or just some of the truth?
Which brings us back to the Law & Crime article, as follows:
Earlier in the day, Ford attorneys Debra Katz and Lisa Banks said the following in a letter to Grassley: “Regarding the documents you have requested in your letter of October 2, 2018, Dr. Ford is prepared to provide those documents to the FBI when is interviewed.”
“We have not yet heard from the FBI about scheduling an interview with her,” they added.
end quotes
First of all, how the heck many lawyers does she have, anyway, and why does she need so many lawyers to simply “do her civic duty?”
Is she guilty of something?
Is she covering something up here?
If not, then why the flock of lawyers surrounding her and obfuscating on her behalf here?
Why does she need to hand these documents to the FBI, before the Senate Panel can see them?
Getting back to the bull**** game these lawyers are playing here, the Law & Crime article continues as follows:
“It’s disappointing that Dr. Ford’s attorneys were willing to share evidence with The Washington Post many weeks ago but to this day refuse to share the same evidence, which Dr. Ford relied on in her testimony, with the Senate,” Grassley responded Wednesday afternoon.
The evidence Grassley is referring to relates to the first known reference of the alleged assault, reportedly made during a 2012 couples therapy session.
Ford’s husband Russell recalled that she named Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker.
On Tuesday, Grassley said that these documents are “highly relevant” and asked for them to be handed over.
“The Washington Post reported that some notes were provided to the Post, and Dr. Ford’s testimony indicated that these notes were highly relevant to her allegations,” Grassley said.
“These notes have been repeatedly cited as corroboration even while written 30 years after the alleged event and in apparent contradiction with testimony and other public statements regarding several key details of the allegations.”
end quotes
In my opinion, Grassley is being quite polite and deferential to Dr. Ford here by calling it “disappointing!”
If he was being more candid, he would have called it for exactly what it is – lawyer’s bull****.
If she has proof of something, lawyers notwithstanding, then it is a part of her civic duty to put it on the table, not get lawyers to play games by hiding it.
And the fact that she has these lawyers playing games with her evidence only serves to put the stink of bull**** on this whole sorry story.
That is the key takeaway for today, but stay tuned and don’t touch that dial, because the list of takeaways is not pushing at least 600, and steadily climbing, perhaps to the moon before this saga is over, and that is a fact.
Ford is a Liberal Loon. I hope they charge her with perjury and he charges her with defamation/slander. I pray she goes to jail.
This whole sick show, produced and directed by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, is a mountain of bull****, horse**** and pig****, all intermingled and interspersed to make a real toxic mix for our Republican form of government in this country, which the Democrats want to disrupt and dismantle.
Each day of this sick soap opera has made that more and more apparent, especially with respect to the Marketwatch article “Democrats rip FBI Kavanaugh probe as ‘incomplete’ as Grassley says no misconduct found” by Robert Schroeder published Oct. 4, 2018, where we had as follows:
Sen. Chuck Grassley said an FBI report on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh showed “no hint of misconduct.”
Democrats said it was incomplete.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the probe “limited” and said he disagreed with Grassley’s statement that the report didn’t show misconduct.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters that the FBI’s report was the “product of an incomplete investigation” and noted that neither Kavanaugh nor one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, had been interviewed.
end quotes
What a load of hogwash Charley “Chuck” Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are peddling there, and you can tell it is complete bull**** when you see Charley “Chuck” Schumer, the U.S. senator from New York City, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Socialists of America, coming on the scene.
If there is a bigger bull**** peddler in the U.S. Senate than Charley “Chuck” Schumer, I don’t know who it would be, although Dianne Feinstein comes a close second.
And what is this pig**** Feinstein is peddling here?
How the hell many times does Christine Blasey Ford have to be interviewed, anyway, especially when her “team” of high-powered lawyers are doing everything min their power to make sure she can’t be interviewed?
In the CNN article “Senate Judiciary hires female outside counsel to question Kavanaugh accuser on Thursday” by Ariane de Vogue and Manu Raju on September 26, 2018, this is the crap we had from Blasey Ford’s team of lawyers, to wit:
All along, lawyers for Ford have objected to the Republicans’ plan of using an outside counsel to question their client.
“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Michael Bromwich, an attorney for Ford, wrote in a letter to the committee.
“The goal should be to develop the relevant facts, not try a case.”
end quotes
But that is nothing but obfuscation, because in fact Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, his client, was indeed accusing Brett Kavanaugh of conduct that was criminal in nature, and that lawyer would be well aware of that.
Then we had the Fox News article “Feinstein can’t guarantee Kavanaugh accuser shows, as Ford bristles over role of female attorney” by Brooke Singman on 26 September 2018, as follows:
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee acknowledged Tuesday she can’t guarantee the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault will show up to testify at a looming hearing, as her attorneys raise concerns about the format.
Feinstein, for her part, could not guarantee Ford would attend if the prosecutor were to lead questioning on behalf of Republican members.
“I have no way of knowing,” Feinstein told Fox News.
end quotes
And it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous after that, as we see again from that Marketwatch article as follows:
“The ‘investigation’ conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice,” wrote lawyers Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich.
end quotes
No, that is false – the only stain on OUR American ideal of justice is this bull**** show put on by Democrat Dianne Feinstein and this team of lawyers for Dr. Ford.
The fault and total responsibility falls at the feet of each and every one of you out there that votes for these Democrats. The blood is on your hands. At what point do your voting habits become such a problem that something must be done? That is the question.
First off, this to Miss 25 year old protestor who was heard on NPR News at noon today saying, in a real huffy sounding voice, “WOMEN DON’T MATTER, THAT’S THE MESSAGE I’M GETTING FROM EACH SENATOR WHO VOTES FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH,” you’re as full of **** as Democrat senator from New York City Charley “Chuck” Schumer, and that is an accomplishment for one so young, since Charley “Chuck” is full of **** right up to his eyebrows, but he has had years of political experience to perfect being full of ****, whereas you are still in your tender years, so perhaps for you, being full of **** was a talent you were born with, and I say all of that as a grandfather of granddaughters I care very much about to the point of not wanting them to grow up to be a scheming manipulator like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and I say that after having been one of her greatest supporters here in America, if not the greatest, as a grandfather with granddaughters, when her story first came out, or more properly when the first version of her story came out, that before all the other versions that have come out since, which has me wondering if she has some serious issues going on with her hippocampus, where all these memories are stored, and I say that as someone who is a trauma survivor with a documented case of PTSD that I have to deal with, on my own, each and every moment of each and every day of each and every year of my life, the “movie” in my head, so that perhaps my bull**** meter is more sensitive to bull**** such as Dr. Ford has been spewing about her supposed PTSD than the average person.
And lest someone think I am saying that the 25-year old protestor is full of **** for saying women don’t matter because I am a non-gay white man, let me refer everyone to the CBS News story “Senator says corroboration of Ford’s claims against Kavanaugh ‘wasn’t there'” by Emily Tillett on 2 October 2018, where we all learn as follows, to wit:
Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said that she will continue to support Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court should the FBI not find additional evidence or corroboration of accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault.
Ernst told “CBS This Morning” Tuesday that based off of Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the “corroboration wasn’t there” with the “witnesses she brought forward.”
Asked what a vote of support for Kavanaugh sends to women, particularly from a female senator, Ernst said her positive vote shows women that “we are innocent until proven guilty.”
end quotes
Now, there is my message back to this 25-year old protestor who was on the noon news on NPR today saying a vote for Brett Kavanaugh meant women didn’t matter.
As I said above, that is pure horse****, and I rest my case with these words of Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a woman, not a man, to wit: “her positive vote shows women that we are innocent until proven guilty.”
But that is a standard of our American ideal of justice that these protestors and these Democrats, starting with Dianne Feinstein and Charley “Chuck” Schumer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Dr. Ford legal team want to throw out the window, and have it instead be, guilty until proven innocent, and that based on nothing more that some Democrat saying “he did it to me, I don’t know where, I don’t know when, but I know it was him!”
That is the standard the Democrats want to replace the standard of our American ideal of justice with – when a Democrat says you are guilty of something, then by God, that is it – you are guilty, and anything you try to say in your defense is merely self-serving.
And before someone out there accuses Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, of being an unfeeling, hateful, spiteful misogynist, a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women, because she hangs out with Republican men, and no, I am not a Republican, this is how she continued in that CBS News article, to wit:
“I have absolutely no doubt after reviewing Dr. Ford’s testimony that she has suffered from something very traumatic in her lifetime, but simply the corroboration wasn’t there with even the witnesses that she brought forward,” Ernst said.
She added, “The witnesses that she named have either denied those claims or cannot corroborate, which I do believe hurt her even more so.”
“But again I do believe she has suffered from something very traumatic, I do have doubt that it was Brett Kavanaugh.”
end quotes
Of course none of that will make it on to NPR news to counter the bull**** that 25-year old protestor was spouting today on the 12 o’clock news on NPR, but such it is, and thank God we have the Cape Charles Mirror so that we common folks who don’t go to Washington, D.C. to protest can get our voices heard.
And speaking of Democrat bull**** and our American ideal of justice the Democrats are trying to tear down and scrap, we have the CBS News story “FBI dreads new political storm over Kavanaugh inquiry” on 2 October 2018 to consider, as follows:
The FBI has the authority to expand its once-abbreviated inquiry into sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
There’s dread at the FBI that this will be a political storm once again, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues.
The agency is not commenting publicly, perhaps because it is a political minefield for them just as the Russia investigation has been.
end quotes
It is a political minefield precisely because Democrats Charley “Chuck” Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, aided and abetted by the Ford legal team, have intentionally made it such, in an effort to make the FBI do their bidding and give them the results they want, despite there being no evidence to support those charges, at least according to Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, but hey, she is a Republican, so what does she know.
As to that FBI investigation that Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charley “Chuck” Schumer called “limited,” and Ford lawyers Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich called “a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice,” when the real stain was this bull**** show the master manipulator Dr. Ford has been putting on, the CBS News story continues as follows:
A former top FBI official, who has been in contact with those involved in the inquiry at the bureau, described a “war room” atmosphere around the case.
Agents are talking to the people at the core of the allegations and then working their way out to try to corroborate the information.
One former top FBI official who is familiar with these inquiries says that includes trying to locate records from a grocery store where Mark Judge worked.
A lawyer for Judge, who Christine Blasey Ford alleges was in the room when the attack took place, says Judge spoke with the FBI, but his interview has not been completed. Judge previously said
A lawyer for Patrick Smyth, who Ford also alleges was at the party, said in a statement that Smyth has “fully cooperated” with the FBI.
But he indicated “he has no knowledge of the small party or gathering” described.
Because this is an inquiry and not an investigation, the FBI can’t compel anyone to talk and these witnesses do not have to cooperate.
At its conclusion, the FBI will present interview summaries and corroborating materials to the White House, but no conclusions.
Chris Swecker, a former assistant director of the FBI, told Pegues that the agency has its best agents on the case, and just because this involves a Supreme Court nominee, it doesn’t change how the FBI does its work.
end quotes
So who are we going to go with here, Connie Taylor?
There is the question of the hour!
“At what point do your voting habits become such a problem that something must be done? That is the question.”
No, the question is: Do you understand how democracy works? If so, it sounds as if you would prefer a slightly more authoritarian approach to government.
How does democracy work, David Muir?
Can you tell us, given that the United States of America happens to be a REPUBLIC, where majority is supposed to rule, not a minority of shrieking, howling DEMOCRATS as we are seeing today?
If anyone would prefer a much more authoritarian approach to government, it is the Democrat party.
In FEDERALIST No. 22 from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, December 14, 1787, Alexander Hamilton stated in clear and unequivocal language that the fundamental maxim of republican government requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.
That is what the screaming, howling Democrat mob does not like, or want.
The Democrats wield the shriekers and howlers of their mob like a cudgel to inflict blunt force trauma on the rest of us who do not want to be subject to their authoritarian rule.
The Democrats seem very much to want a civil war in this country.
I personally see nothing untoward in Connie Taylor questioning that in here in the name of OUR Republic versus their democracy where the minority rules, and I am an American saying that, having no affiliation whatsoever with either worthless party.
David Muir, I follow you posts in here, and my impression is that you are thoughtful in your responses, as well as intelligent, and concerned with the direction the nation is now headed in.
Surely it cannot have escaped you that with these Ford hearings, which were a sham, a farce, a true stain on our American ideal of justice, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Charley “Chuck” Schumer have made a complete and total mockery of everything the United States Senate is supposed to stand for in our Republican frame of government as envisioned by the founders in the Federalist Papers.
Beyond that, and far more serious is the fact that without a shred of evidence, Charley “Chuck” and Dianne Feinstein are saying the the Federal Bureau of Investigation is essentially an “enemy of the people,” implying that it took a dive with respect to investigating these outlandish claims made against Kavanaugh, thereby undermining public faith in the FBI and vilifying members of the FBI who are doing their job in accordance with rules for keeping investigations confidential and closely held which were laid out in an agreement governing background checks dating from the Obama administration, that according to the Daily Mail article “‘This is NOT an investigation’: Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers blast FBI’s probe after Kavanaugh accuser was NOT interviewed” by Khaleda Rahman published 4 October 2018.
They are in essence provoking sedition, which is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the federal government, which is something that should be of major concern to each and every loyal American over the age of 18.
What we as a nation should now be demanding is that both Charley “Chuck”Schumer and Dianne Feinstein be expelled from the Senate.
Do you agree as a rational, loyal American citizen?
If you want to see an incipient authoritarian approach to government that has loyal Americans like myself who is not affiliated with either political party quite concerned, David Muir, I can think of no better recent example than the article from The Daily Wire entitled “Joe Biden Calls Trump Supporters ‘Virulent People,’ The ‘Dregs Of Society'” by Joseph Curl on September 17, 2018, as follows:
Joe Biden just had his “deplorables” moment.
Biden, who says he’ll decided in January whether to run for president in 2020 but who is making all the moves of a presidential candidate, used a pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign annual dinner on Saturday to rip President Trump.
And in so doing, Biden had a moment reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, when she called Trump supporters “deplorables.”
end quotes
Who are these people, David Muir, to be denouncing American citizens?
Reminds me of Adolph Hitler in Germany denouncing the Jews, to be very truthful with you, David Muir.
Getting back to that story of incipient Democrat authoritarianism in America, we have:
Biden did his old act, starting off soft and avuncular before booming through his power points, punching the air and flailing about.
“Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made,” he said.
“This time they — not you — have an ally in the White House.”
“This time they have an ally.”
“They’re a small percentage of the American people — virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.”
end quotes
Oh, really?
And I suppose these shriekers, and screamers and howlers the Democrats have been flooding the news with the last so many days as they rampage their mobs in Washington, D.C. are the cream of society in this country, along with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
And speaking of similarities to the rug-chewing madman Hitler, we have this from that same article, to wit:
Biden got himself lathered up into a full froth as he waxed poetic about his and “Barack’s” thoughts on Trump.
“Barack and I agreed to remain silent for a while to give this administration the chance to get up and running in the first year,” Biden said.
“God forgive me,” he added, making the sign of the cross as the audience applauded.
“Those who try to excuse this kind of prejudice in the name of culture, I say, ‘Prejudice is prejudice and humanity is humanity — it is a crime,'” Biden said, urging those in the room to continue to oppose Trump.
“Our work is not yet done by any stretch of the imagination.”
“The stakes are much too high.”
And then he went even further. “This is deadly earnest, we are in a fight for America’s soul,” Biden said.
end quotes
Frankly, David Muir, those words about the Democrats “fighting for America’s soul” chill me to my very core, given my own personal experience with howling Democrat mobs over the years.
And back to the article once again, where we have as follows concerning Hillary, to wit:
Clinton used similar language when she called “half” of Trump’s supporters “deplorables” during the 2016 campaign.
“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said in September 2016.
“Right?”
Now, Biden has done much the same.
And just as Biden began his speech, a few people in the crowd yelled “Run Joe!”
He replied: “Thank you.”
See you in 2020, Joe.
end quotes
That should scare the hell out of every loyal American in this country including you, David Muir.
So, does it?
And while we are on the subject of all the multitude of takeaways from this recent Ford Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the key takeaways is how much of a mockery the legal team of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has made of the concept of lawyers having any ethics whatsoever, and how much contempt the Ford legal team has for the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as for the United States Supreme Court and its officers, including Brett Kavanaugh, who happens to be an associate Supreme Court Justice now, something known contempt of court if it were an ordinary person involved, as opposed to a boutique law firm with a Holton girl as its client.
And another key takeaway is the fact that NBC News seems to have devoted itself to promoting the martyrdom of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford at the hands of the Republicans, as we see from the story in The Hill entitled “Christine Blasey Ford still unable to live at home due to death threats, lawyers say” by Emily Birnbaum on 8 October 2018, as follows:
Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her, cannot move back to her home due to the volume of death threats she is still receiving, her lawyers told NBC on Sunday.
One of Ford’s attorneys, Debra Katz, told NBC’s Kasie Hunt that it’s going to be “quite some time” before Ford and her family can return home.
“Her family has been through a lot,” Katz said.
“They are not living at home.”
“It’s going to be quite some time before they’re able to live at home.”
“The threats have been unending.”
“It’s deplorable.”
“It’s been very frightening,” Katz added.
end quotes
Ah, yes, the mid-terms are coming, so get all our emotions whipped up into a froth and frenzy so we will all feel sorry for the con artist Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and thus, angry at the Republicans, who have re-victimized her, so we will vote Democrat to put them in charge of our federal government so they can punish the Republicans and Brett Kavanaugh for daring to not be Democrats.
And back to The Hill we go for more, to wit:
Ford two weeks ago publicly testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her allegation that Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to take off her clothes, at one point allegedly pressing his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, during a high school party in 1982.
end quotes
Now, not to question the memories of Dr. Ford, some of which may be in her hippocampus, while others might be in her amygdala, while others are simply gone for good, never to be retrieved again, and that due to cognitive losses due to her age, but in the Time magazine article “Kavanaugh Accuser Deborah Ramirez Says Senate Chose to ‘Look the Other Way’ on Supreme Court Nominee” by Gina Martinez on 6 October 2018, we have this:
Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party in the 1980s when they were both students at Yale University.
Her allegation came a week after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford claimed that Kavanaugh pinned her down and covered her mouth to conceal her screams as he grinded on her and attempted to remove her one-piece bathing suit.
end quotes
Now here is one of those times when somebody from the jury box like me would like to raise his hand and ask the witness, “Well, which was it, clothes, or the one-piece bathing suit, or are you saying they are the same thing?”
And don’t expect that NBC News is going to ask those kind of questions of Dr. Ford, for NBC News seems to have a Democrat dog in this hunt they are betting on, and you know what, people?
In America, NBC News has just as much right as the Washington Post to spew ignorant bull**** and call it news, because here in America, we cherish the right of the press to be free to make a fool of itself, and the Washington Post and NBC News are taking that right to be stupid to heart, which takes us back to the story in The Hill, as follows:
Ford’s lawyers during the NBC interview denounced the one-week FBI investigation into the women’s accusations, saying it was not thorough.
end quotes
And here again is one of those times when someone like myself would like to be able to stand up to these lawyers and say to them: “Where is your evidence that the investigation was not thorough?”
And that takes me to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Practice, entitled “Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions,” wherein is stated as follows:
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.
The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number.
Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit.
The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
end quotes
So here we see NBC News letting these Ford lawyers do out of court what they would never get away in court – making these disparaging comments about the FBI without a shred of proof to back them up, which takes us back to The Hill story, as follows:
Hunt asked Katz and Ford’s other attorney Lisa Banks if they believe Ford was treated better than Anita Hill, the woman who publicly testified in 1991 about her accusation that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.
Ford’s allegations and her treatment were frequently compared to Hill’s during the confirmation battle.
Hill’s hearing was preceded by a three-day FBI investigation.
“With Anita Hill, there was a full FBI investigation before there was ever a hearing,” Banks said.
“That did not occur here.”
“This process was far worse.”
end quotes
Again, oh really?
PROVE IT!
Except on NBC News, they don’t have to, as NBC News tries their case against the FBI for them in the court of public opinion, which again takes us back to The Hill, as follows:
Banks on NBC said Ford “knows” who assaulted her.
“She testified she knew him, he knew her, and she knows exactly who sexually assaulted her on that day,” Banks said.
end quotes
Ah, yeah, okay, sure, anything you say, because you are a lawyer and everybody knows the one thing a lawyer will never do is to tell a lie – that would violate their code of ethics, afterall, if they actually had one, that is.