Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante
As we in America recently learned from an article in the venerable Cape Charles Mirror, Bob Woodward, born March 26, 1943, a journalist long associated with the Washington Post, where he is an associate editor who gets to determine what is news in America and what shall not be news, has released a book on the Trump administration which is said to have created an avalanche of backlash and an earthquake whiplash with both the media and the public.
According to the CCM article, the picture painted by American investigative journalist Robert Upshur Woodward, who while at Yale joined the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity and was a member of the prestigious secret society Book and Snake, of our present Commander-In-Chief is one of a paranoid, unprepared president who is out of touch with the reality of today’s America, someone who tape-loops over and over those political points that keep winning him favor with his base; in short, a master at deception only because it is what he knows and has used for his entire life to manipulate the situation for the betterment of his personal gain and position.
All in all, when one not in thrall to either the Democrat party or the Republican party, and thus, not being indoctrinated, is able to think clearly and engage in critical thinking based on analysis of facts, actually takes a moment to ponder that description of Trump as a master at deception only because it is what he knows and has used for his entire life to manipulate the situation for the betterment of his personal gain and position, one can readily see that in that regard, Trump is no different than his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama, a master at the art of getting over on people from the time he was young and smoking dope and snorting cocaine as a supposed student at the elite and exclusive Punahou School in Hawaii, from which he graduated in 1979, which makes Obama more or less a contemporary of Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination seems to me to be hard on the rocks right now with gale force winds blowing.
And it is that thought that brings me, an older American who is a contemporary of Washington Post editor Bob Woodward, back to this characterization of Trump, another contemporary of Bob Woodward, as a paranoid, unprepared president who is out of touch with the reality of today’s America.
As a contemporary of Bob Woodward, one who has been following presidential politics in this country since the 1950s, and one who has lived through the VEET NAM times, with all the famous lies Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson told us during that fiasco, followed by Watergate, which made Bob Woodward famous, I quite frankly am curious as to what “the reality of today’s America” really is.
If we go by the dictionary definition of “reality,” we are told that it is a noun that means “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them,” as in “Trump apparently refuses to face reality,” with synonyms to include “the real world,” “real life,” and “actuality,” as in “distinguishing fantasy from reality,” or the “state or quality of having existence or substance.”
So with respect to “the reality of today’s America” that Trump is supposedly out of touch with, especially with his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the same Supreme Court Obama and the Democrats put Sonia Sotomayor on, what is it?
If Bob Woodward can say with any degree of truth, candor and veracity that Trump is “out of touch” with the “reality of today’s America,” especially as a famous author and editor of the Washington Post (“Democracy dies in darkness”), does that mean that Bob Woodward down there in the fetid swamp of Washington, D.C. has a handle on what the reality of “today’s America” really is?
Is Bob Woodward, a contemporary of mine, the ultimate arbiter of what the “reality” of today’s America really is?
Is he the fount of knowledge we all must turn to if we really want to know about reality in America today?
Should we accept his judgment without question as to what reality in America today is, while rejecting our own, because he is a newspaper editor and famous author who went to Yale, while we are not?
Personally, being a contemporary of Bob Woodward who was taught when young to think for myself and to always be skeptical of what is in the newspapers edited by people like Bob Woodward, I don’t think or believe or accept that his judgment about anything is either accurate or superior to mine, especially with respect to reality, which brings me to a NBC News article entitled “Accuser’s schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident” by Ken Dilanian and Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Popken on 19 September 2018, where we are given this dose of reality in modern Americas, to wit:
WASHINGTON — A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault incident involving the future Supreme Court nominee, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims.
“Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me,” wrote the woman, Cristina Miranda King, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City.
“I did not know her personally but I remember her.”
“This incident did happen.”
End quotes
WOW is my reaction to that – “I heard about something, ergo, it happened!” which point is made in the next sentence of that NBC News article as follows:
She added, “Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details.”
“However Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”
End quotes
That’s it, people – in the reality of today’s America, that is all that is needed to convict someone of something – hearing a “buzz” about it.
So what was the “buzz” all about?
Let’s see what the NBC News article had to say about that, which is as follows:
Blasey Ford, a research psychologist in Northern California, has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than 30 years ago at a drunken high school party.
End quotes
HUH?
A drunken high school party from more than 30 years ago?
That is what the Democrats want the FBI to investigate – what went on at a drunken high school party more than 30 years ago?
How, pray tell, is the FBI going to accomplish that?
Getting back to reality as the NBC News article portrays it, we have:
The assertion that other people heard about and discussed an incident between Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh at the time it is alleged to have happened could loom as an important factor in any investigation of the claim.
Democrats are calling for the FBI to investigate, but the bureau cannot do so unless the White House asks it to.
There is no allegation of a federal crime, so the bureau’s role would be to examine the matter as part of its background check into the fitness and character of a Supreme Court nominee.
End quotes
Are you kidding me?
Are these Democrats expecting us to take this seriously – that the FBI can hunt down a bunch of drunken, underage high school students who were at a drunken high school party more than 30 years ago, so they can ferret out the truth?
Getting back to this latest “witness” being brought forth to bury Kavanaugh by NBC News, this is what she had to say about what she recalls from that drunken high school party more than 30 years ago, to wit:
“To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine.”
“That’s it.”
“I don’t have more to say on the subject.”
“Please don’t contact me further.”
End quotes
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I now rest my case, and based upon that evidence, which is really no evidence at all, but let’s disregard that, you must do your duty and convict the defendant!”
In the meantime, according to reality as it is put forth by NBC News, Blasey Ford’s lawyer has said she wants the FBI to conduct an inquiry before she testifies in a public hearing.
Okay, how about starting with whose house the drunken high school party was held at where underage drinking was taking place, and who supplied the alcohol?
Getting back to reality as presented by NBC News, we have:
In her original post, King said she knew Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, the man Blasey Ford says was present during the alleged assault.
Judge has said through his attorney he remembers no such incident.
King graduated in 1983 from Holton-Arms, the elite all-female private school that Blasey Ford also attended, according to an open letter King and many other alumnae signed in support of Ford.
King’s post described a culture of heavy drinking among the students of the elite male and female private schools of Washington, D.C., including her own Holton-Arms and also Georgetown Preparatory School, which Judge and Kavanaugh attended.
End quotes
WHOA, people, there is some real red meat for the FBI to investigate, and investigate they should, along with who was supplying Obama with all his dope and coke when he was a teenager – this culture of heavy drinking among the students of the elite male and female private schools of Washington, D.C., including Holton-Arms and also Georgetown Preparatory School.
According to NBC News, Judge, the friend of Kavanaugh, has written not one, but two memoirs acknowledging his heavy drinking during that period, with NBC News telling us that his 1997 memoir was entitled “Wasted,” which actually sounds like it could have been written about the teen-aged Obama, who epitomizes “reality” in America today.
So where is this saga headed?
Will the FBI step up to the plate here and do its job in a non-partisan fashion so the truth will out?
Will the Democrats accept that truth, assuming the FBI can find someone from that drunken high school party who was actually sober enough to remember with clarity what actually happened between a bunch of drunken, underage high students more than 30 years ago?
All I can say is what I always end up saying each time we try to determine what reality in America today actually is – stay tuned because more than likely, especially with this story, there is much more yet to come from the Democrats, so don’t touch that dial, while we pause to take a break for station identification.
As we continue to ponder the “reality of today’s America” in here, let me start out by saying that while I have no personal knowledge that a 15-year old Christine Blasey Ford really was at a drunken, underage high school drinking party where an allegedly drunk 17-year old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly laid on top of her and tried to take off her clothes with one hand while holding his other hand over her mouth so she couldn’t scream to Kavanaugh’s allegedly drunk friend Mark Judge, who was in the room, apparently on top of Kavanaugh while he was on top of Blasey Ford, I do accept that she believes it happened, and further, and more importantly, perhaps, based on all the evidence in the case I have heard to date, and it has been considerable, especially in the last couple of days, I seriously believe that Christine Blasey Ford is a victim here, as United States Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and high-powered lawyerette Debra Katz want us to believe, and that is what I see as being the real important element here with respect to the reality of modern America – the victimhood of Christine Blasey Ford because she happens to be a woman in a male-dominated world where men like Brett Kavanaugh get to be on top, because they are men, and women like Christine Blasey Ford are therefore relegated to having to be on the bottom.
Which brings us to this further dose of the reality of modern America as expressed by Ford lawyerette Debra Katz and Democrat Senator Feinstein in the Associated Press article “Kavanaugh accuser accepts senators’ request to testify” on 22 September 2018, as follows:
In requesting another day to decide, Ford lawyer Debra Katz called Grassley’s original deadline “arbitrary” and said its “sole purpose is to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family.”
The committee’s top Democrat expressed fury at Grassley’s negotiating position with Ford and maintained Democrats’ effort to build the battle into a larger election-year question about the treatment of women.
“Bullying a survivor of attempted rape in order to confirm a nominee — particularly at a time when she’s receiving death threats — is an extreme abuse of power,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said.
end quotes
Context, people, defined as “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed,” as in “the wider historical context.”
That is what we are pondering in here, and with that established, please stay tuned.
More is yet to come, for sure, if Dianne Feinstein and Debra Katz have anything to do with it, and given that it is they who are calling the tune, I am sure that will be the case, as we, the people, consider exactly what it is the vaunted FBI should be investigating here that caused Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim here in the first place in the reality of modern America that Washington Post editor Bob Woodward says Trump is out of touch with.
And now that we have established some context here so that we can continue to ponder the reality of modern America that Washington Post editor Bob Woodward says Trump is out of touch with, where Ford lawyer Debra Katz called Grassley’s original deadline “arbitrary” and said its “sole purpose is to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family,” and the committee’s top Democrat expressed fury at Grassley’s negotiating position with Ford and maintained Democrats’ effort to build the battle into a larger election-year question about the treatment of women, telling us “(B)ullying a survivor of attempted rape in order to confirm a nominee — particularly at a time when she’s receiving death threats — is an extreme abuse of power,” that takes us to an article in The Hill entitled, not at all surprisingly, “Dems see Kavanaugh saga as playing to their advantage” by Mike Lillis and Scott Wong on 09/23/18, as follows:
House Democrats increasingly see the controversy swirling around Brett Kavanaugh as a political boon just weeks ahead of the midterm elections — a saga they think will energize female voters already put off by President Trump and threatening to bring their frustrations to the polls.
“Beware of the wrath of women scorned, Mr. President and Majority Leader [Mitch] McConnell,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).
“It will be your party’s downfall.”
end quotes
There, people, staring us right in the face, is the reality of modern America – beware of the wrath of women scorned!
And to gain some more perspective here as to context and scorned women, we need to go back to a Marketwatch article entitled “Sen. Grassley says it’s not FBI’s role to investigate Kavanaugh accuser’s allegations” by Robert Schroeder published Sept. 19, 2018, wherein was stated as follows, to wit:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley told lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford that it is not the FBI’s role to investigate her allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault and her lawyers have said a full investigation by law enforcement is needed before she can testify.
end quotes
There is what set Ford lawyer Debra Katz off earlier in this saga when she called Grassley’s original deadline “arbitrary” and said its “sole purpose was to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family.”
Now, as an aside here, a simple person like myself thought Dr. Ford had already made a considered decision that Katz says has life-altering implications for Dr. Ford and her family, when she came out in public claiming that a drunken 17-year old Kavanaugh tried to take off her clothes at an underage drinking party when she was 15, but I was obviously wrong.
When Dr. Ford came out in public claiming that a drunken 17-year old Kavanaugh tried to take off her clothes at an underage drinking party when she was 15, according to Katz, who is a high-powered “fancy class” lawywer and thus would know these things, where I being simple, would not, Dr. Ford had not yet made the the considered decision that Katz says has life-altering implications for Dr. Ford and her family.
That came later somewhere else in the saga, although where that was eludes me right now, which takes us back to the story in The Hill, as follows:,
In the #MeToo era, Democrats think the Kavanaugh controversy poses a huge political risk to Republicans.
“It is making absolutely sure that women across the country — in both parties, frankly — are paying attention.”
“… That is not good for the Republicans,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Friday in a phone call.
“Many of the races for the midterms will depend on what women, including suburban women and rural women, do.”
end quotes
Uh, again, pardon me for being simple here, but does anyone think that this might in some way be politically motivated?
I mean, it seems so to me when we go back to The Hill article where we find as follows:
Democrats have long-accused Republicans of waging a “war on women” when it comes to federal policy, pointing to issues as varied as abortion rights, pay equity, paid family leave and efforts to combat domestic violence.
They see the Republican attacks on Ford — including a tweet from Trump on Friday — as an extension of that broader theme.
“We are already motivated, Democratic women, and I can tell you this is not going to tamp down the enthusiasm,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), who heads the Democrats’ messaging arm, said Friday by phone.
“If Republicans don’t want to get to the truth on this, that is not going to help them politically.”
end quotes
Ah, yes, people – THE TRUTH!
Let us not get distracted in here by the reality of modern America and think that this is simply a politically motivated stunt on the part of the Democrats to gain control of the United States Senate and House of Representatives this fall, so they can impose their Democrat agenda on all of us, and God help those in the country who aren’t Democrats if that happens, especially those in Hillary Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables!”
An d notice that Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) is not just any Democrat – she is the one who heads the Democrats’ messaging arm, so if anybody on the Democrat team should know what he or she was talking about, it would be Bustos, who represents a rural Illinois district that Trump carried in 2016, and she told The Hill in that article that the issue is front-and-center on the minds of voters in her region, whose responses have been “all over the board.”
There is, however, a common thread: Voters of all stripes, she said, want the truth surrounding the allegations to emerge before Kavanaugh is confirmed for a lifetime post.
And for the record, even though I don’t live in Illinois where her district is, I too want the truth surrounding the Ford allegations to emerge before Kavanaugh is confirmed for a lifetime post as a federal judge, even though he already is a federal judge with a lifetime post.
Getting back to Bustos, the head of the Democrats’ messaging arm in this saga, according to what she told The Hill, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee — all of them male — risk a backlash if they ignore those pleas, Bustos warned.
“I think she’s credible; I think she’s believable; and I don’t think [Sens.] Charles Grassley or Orrin Hatch or anybody else on the Senate Judiciary [Committee]understands how the girls feel in that situation,” Bustos said.
“I don’t think Charles Grassley has ever had a man jump on top of him, cover his mouth and try to rip off his clothes.”
end quotes
Now, speaking of THE TRUTH that needs to come out, there is another dose of it right there – has Charles Grassley ever had a man jump on top of him, cover his mouth and try to rip off his clothes?
Add that question to the list of things the FBI needs to investigate in this matter so we can finally separate the wheat from the chaff to arrive at THE TRUTH!
Getting back to The Hill and Trump being out of touch with the reality on modern America as Bob Woodward of Watergate fames claims, we have:
Trump’s remarks Friday that questioned why Ford didn’t come forward earlier with her accusations ended a stretch where he’s stayed on message over the issue, and earned a quick rebuke from a pivotal GOP senator.
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) has not decided how she will vote on the Kavanaugh nomination, but made clear she was “appalled by the president’s tweet.”
“First of all, we know that allegations of sexual assault – I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case – but we know allegations of sexual assault are one of the most unreported crimes that exist,” Collins said at an event in Portland, Maine.
“So I thought that the president’s tweet was completely inappropriate and wrong.”
Collins said she preferred to have Kavanaugh and Ford testify on Monday, but had no problem delaying the hearing until Wednesday or Thursday.
Rep. Mimi Walters (R-Calif.), who is being targeted by Democrats in an Orange County district that’s turning bluer, agreed with Collins and urged the Senate not to rush to confirm Kavanaugh.
“Christine Ford has raised a very serious issue and it is not uncommon for victims to wait months or even years to come forward,” Walters said in a statement.
“The Senate needs to give her the opportunity to be heard and needs to consider all the facts and testimony before any vote takes place.”
end quotes
And people, let me say that I am right in there with her on that – the Senate clearly needs to give Dr. Ford the opportunity to be heard and needs to consider all the facts and testimony before any vote takes place.
Now, if only lawyer Debra Katz and the Democrats stop impeding that process, perhaps we could finally make some headway here, which brings us back to The Hill, as follows:
The Democrats’ national campaign team, meanwhile, has pounced on the Kavanaugh saga in an effort to rally Democrats ahead of November’s elections.
Twice this week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has blasted fundraising emails highlighting the assault allegations and hammering Senate Republicans for pressing forward with the confirmation process.
It remains unclear, however, how aggressively the Democrats will push the Kavanaugh issue in the weeks to come before the elections.
A DCCC spokesperson declined multiple requests for comment this week.
If Speier is any indication, though, Democrats have no plans to let up.
“American women aren’t stupid and weren’t born yesterday.”
“They see through the contorted, pretzel-like effort by Senate Republicans who are trying to put Dr. Blasey Ford on trial and undermine her credibility,” she said.
“Republicans are going to see a backlash at the polls this November.”
end quotes
And there, people, is what reality in modern America looks like right now, but believe me. it doesn’t end there, so again, stay tuned, for much more is yet to come in this saga of political intrigue here in modern America!
And seriously, people, talk about Theater of the Absurd, which is drama using the abandonment of conventional dramatic form to portray the futility of human struggle in a senseless world, this Kavanaugh Kerfuffle takes the cake!
The latest news coming at us amid a veritable barrage of news, this latest news from the Newsweek story “Ford’s Lawyer Slams Plan to Use Prosecutor at Hearing” by Chantal Da Silva 25 September 2018 puts a whole new spin on things with regard to the reality of modern America, as follows:
Doubt has been cast over whether Christine Blasey Ford will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday after her legal team sent a letter to committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) railing against the Republican’s decision to hire an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” for the hearing.
end quotes
To which I can only reply, “HUH?”
I mean, really, people.
We just had Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), who heads the Democrats’ messaging arm, saying Friday by phone that “(I)f Republicans don’t want to get to the truth on this, that is not going to help them politically,” and now that they appear to be making a greater effort to get to the truth on this by hiring an experienced sex crimes prosecutor for the hearing, which Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein has clearly said is for “a survivor of attempted rape,” all of a sudden, the high-powered legal team of alleged sexual assault victim Christine Blasey Ford is balking.
So what on earth is up with that, then?
As an aside, for those of you who are unfamiliar with her, the head of the Democrats’ messaging arm in this matter, Cheryl Lea Bustos, born October 17, 1961, is an American journalist, healthcare executive, and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 17th congressional district since 2013.
A member of the Democratic Party, Bustos is the first woman elected to Congress from her district.
Cheri, as she is known in Congress, was born in Springfield, Illinois, one of three children of Gene and Ann Callahan and her grandfather was a hog farmer who was also a state legislator.
“We had governors over to our house.”
“We had lieutenant governors,” Bustos later said, which makes her a natural to be heading up the Democrats’ messaging arm in this matter, along with the fact that her father worked for The State Journal-Register, then served as assistant press secretary to Governor Samuel Shapiro, press secretary to Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon, and chief of staff to Senator Alan Dixon.
As a girl, Cheri babysat U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin’s children and her mother worked as a teacher.
Cheri graduated from Springfield High School in 1979 and then attended Illinois College, after which she transferred to the University of Maryland, College Park, from which she received a bachelor’s degree in political science in 1983.
She then went on to receive a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Illinois, Springfield in 1985.
In 1985 she moved to the Quad Cities to work as a night-shift police reporter for the Quad-City Times, working there for seventeen years, first as a reporter, and then as an editor.
So if anyone on the Democrat team is qualified to be head of the Democrats’ messaging arm in this matter, it is Cheri Bustos, for sure, so well done Democrats for that choice, elsewise, we might still be confused as to what is actually going on here, which takes us back to the Newsweek article as follows:
Both Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are slated to appear before the judiciary committee to provide their testimonies on Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a house party in the summer of 1982, when both were still in high school.
However, Ford’s legal team said an apparent decision to bring in outside counsel was neither “fair” or “respectful.”
end quotes
To which I can only say, “HUH,” all over again.
And to understand why I am forced to have to say “HUH,” it is necessary to drop back to the Washington Post story “‘Why didn’t she bring it up?’: Feinstein under scrutiny for handling of allegations against Kavanaugh” by Sean Sullivan on 19 September 2018 where we were in formed as follows on that score, to wit:
Twenty-six years after she won a Senate seat in the “Year of the Woman,” Dianne Feinstein stands as a central figure in deciding the fate of Brett M. Kavanaugh, whose Supreme Court nomination is in jeopardy after a woman accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school.
The episode has put the 85-year-old senator from California, who is seeking a sixth term in November, in the middle of a fast-moving and explosive cultural, political and social firestorm charged by forces of the #MeToo movement and Trump’s divisive presidency.
Now, Feinstein faces a legacy-defining moment as one of the most powerful women in the country and the first to hold several prominent posts.
As the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein is helping her party prepare for an unprecedented public hearing scheduled for Monday at which Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, have been invited to testify.
The hearing was cast into uncertainty late Tuesday, as the lawyers for Ford said in a letter to the Judiciary Committee that an FBI investigation of the alleged sexual assault should come first.
Feinstein quickly issued a statement saying the Senate should respect Ford’s wishes and “delay this hearing.”
As she plots the next steps, Feinstein is dealing with questions about her recent ones — most notably her decision to wait weeks before sharing Ford’s letter, only issuing a cryptic statement last Thursday when word surfaced of its existence.
The revelation came almost a week after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings wrapped up.
Privately, some Democratic senators wished that Feinstein had come to them sooner with the allegation, according to a Democrat with direct knowledge of internal Senate dynamics.
It was late July when Feinstein received the letter from Ford detailing the allegations from decades ago against Kavanaugh.
It was not until a private meeting last Wednesday, after a report by the Intercept, that Feinstein revealed the letter to her Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
On Tuesday, Feinstein said she explored ways to discreetly investigate the accusation.
“We were looking for a way to get it investigated by an outside investigator,” she told reporters.
Her spokesman, Tom Mentzer, said her staff spoke with the Ethics Committee about whether the Judiciary Committee could hire an independent, outside counsel to assist an unnamed individual.
Officials advised the aides that the Senate Rules Committee would have to approve such a request, Mentzer said, which would have meant alerting leading Republican senators and therefore running afoul of Ford’s request to remain confidential.
end quotes
So now, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have acceded to Dianne Feinstein’s desire for an outside counsel, and that has Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s high-powered legal team calling foul, as we see from the Newsweek article as follows:
In a letter to Grassley, Ford’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said: “This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” according to CNN.
“Neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh is on trial.”
“The goal should be to develop the relevant facts, not try a case,” Bromwich said.
end quotes
Kavanaugh is not on trial?
Sure does look like he is to me, what with being charged by the Democrats with attempted rape and sexual assault, both of which are in fact crimes.
As to the goal being to develop the relevant facts, not try a case, which in fact is what they are doing, in another late breaking news item, this one in The Hill article “Murkowski: FBI investigation into Kavanaugh would ‘clear up all the questions’” by Michael Burke on 09/25/18, we learn as follows concerning that score:
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) on Tuesday said an FBI investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh would “clear up all the questions” surrounding the Supreme Court nominee.
“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?” she said when asked if there should be a further FBI investigation into the nominee’s past.
end quotes
So there we have it, people – it is a matter of sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, which would seem to mandate that an experienced sex crimes prosecutor be brought in to build a case against Kavanaugh, but again, the high-powered legal team of Dr. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford doesn’t want that, which raises the question of why that is.
Given that they want Kavanaugh hung, one would think they would welcome an experienced sex crimes prosecutor who could do exactly that.
Getting back to that article in The Hill for the moment, it further informs us as follows:
Democrats began calling on the FBI open an investigation after Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a high school party in the 1980s.
Republicans have largely said that an FBI investigation is unnecessary and that it is up to senators to determine whether Ford is telling the truth.
Ford has said that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothes.
Senate Democrats are also investigating a second allegation dating back to Kavanaugh’s freshman year at Yale University, The New Yorker reported on Sunday.
Deborah Ramirez told the magazine that Kavanaugh thrust his exposed penis in her face, causing her to touch it without her consent at a party in a dormitory.
end quotes
So talk about a story with long legs and room to run, this is it in spades, which takes us back to the Newsweek story, as follows:
Bromwich said Ford’s legal team had yet to even be made aware of who the outside counsel would be, asserting that the “hearing plan” did not appear to be “designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment.”
“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’… is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” Bromwich wrote.
end quotes
Now, talk about abstruse, people, there it is in plain sight in that lawyer’s statement about the Committee members fulfilling their constitutional obligations.
Getting back to Newsweek:
“It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning.”
end quores
And that brings us back to the CBS News story “Kavanaugh accuser lays out conditions for Senate testimony” by Jan Crawford and Adam Verdugo on 21 September 2018, where this part of the story was told, to wit:
The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when they were both in high school, Christine Blasey Ford, has been negotiating the conditions under which she would testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The note, signed by attorney Debra Katz, reiterated that it would be a “deal breaker” to demand Ford testify Monday, and further, submitting written testimony by Friday at 10 a.m. would be “a non-starter” because “[i]t is simply not possible for her to prepare such testimony while at the same time trying to take appropriate security precautions in the face of the avalanche of threats she has been receiving.”
Katz also said that Senators should be the questioners, not outside counsel.
During their call with the committee Ford’s lawyers outlined these demands, according to a source close to the process:
No questions to be asked at hearing by any outside counsel — only by Senators.
end quotes
Which takes us to a Marketwatch article “Opinion: Republicans’ response to Kavanaugh’s accuser shows what they really think of women” by Chris Edelson published Sept. 20, 2018, where the distinguished assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs reminds us as follows:
Recall how Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991 — featuring an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee raking Anita Hill over the coals after she accused Thomas of sexual harassment — led to 1992’s “Year of the Woman,” in which dozens of female candidates won elections to the Senate, House and state and local office.
With Kavanaugh’s hearings taking place just weeks before the U.S. midterm elections in November, against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement and with an unprecedented number of women running for office (mainly as Democrats), Republicans might well face a similar backlash.
end quotes
There is what the Democrats need and are hoping for in this matter all over again – the Republican males on the Senate Judiciary Committee raking Dr. Christine Blasey Ford over the coals after she accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and by hiring an outside sex crimes prosecutor the Republicans have effectively thwarted that Democrat need and desire, which now has the high-powered legal team of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford howling in the Newsweek article as follows:
“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” he said.
Ford’s legal team has requested that the judiciary committee share the identity and résumé of the sex crimes prosecutor committee members plan on including in the hearing.
end quotes
Confusing, people?
As they say out in North Dakota, you betcha!
But it still is not over, so don’t go away, as we wait for the next installment of this real-life soap opera known as the Kavanaugh Kerfuffle.
More twists and turns than 40 miles of bad road is all I can say in response to the reality of modern America, at least as it pertains to this ongoing Kavanaugh Kerfuffle, where not surprisingly, Democrat Charley “Chuck” Schumer, the top Democrat of all the Democrats in the United States Senate has come out in the British publication The Guardian story “Chuck Schumer calls on supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to withdraw – Democratic leader says Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration in light of multiple sexual misconduct allegations” by Lauren Gambino in Washington and Joanna Walters in New York published on 26 Sept. 2018 calling for Brett Kavanaugh to withdraw, as follows:
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has called on US supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to withdraw in light of the multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him, and said if he does not, an FBI investigation is needed before any Senate vote.
“I strongly believe Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration.”
“If he will not, at the very least, the hearing and vote should be postponed while the FBI investigates all of these allegations,” Schumer said in a statement.
“If our Republican colleagues proceed without an investigation, it would be a travesty for the honor of the supreme court and our country.”
end quotes
Sorry to bust your carefully constructed bubbles, Charley “Chuck,” but the Supreme Court hasn’t had a lot of honor going back to at least 1857 when Democrat Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War with the infamous Dred Scott decision, and what shreds of honor it might have had were further diminished when Barack Obama and the Democrats put Sonia Sotomayor on it in August of 2009.
As to the role Charley “Chuck” Schumer is playing in this masterfully-scripted, made-for-prime-time-TV drama, as we all will recall, Charley “Chuck” was featured in an article in the Gothamist, a New York City publication, entitled “New Yorkers Put Schumer On Blast: Stand Up Or Get Out Of The Way” by Raphael Pope-Sussman on February 1, 2017 as the “leader of the Trump resistance,” as follows:
Hundreds of New Yorkers braved freezing temperatures Tuesday night on Brooklyn’s Grand Army Plaza at a rally calling upon U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to take a firm stand against the Trump administration.
Hae-Lin Choi, of the Democratic Socialists of America and Resist Trump NY, took the stage first, announcing herself as an immigrant and telling the crowd why organizers had called for the protest.
Senator Schumer must be bold and stand with the working class, she cried over the loudspeaker.
He has to champion the resistance or get out of the way and we’ll find someone that will.
end quotes
Hearing that the Democratic Socialists of America were going to replace him with someone else if he didn’t champion the resistance to Trump for them, Schumer caved in a New York minute, and ever since, he has been the tool or lackey or running dog of the Democratic Socialists in our U.S. Senate, so it is hardly surprising to hear in The Guardian today that Schumer’s statement was released shortly after a third woman went public with allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.
With respect to that, as The Guardian tells us, in a sworn declaration released through her lawyer Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels, who sees himself as presidential material to replace Trump in 2020, Julie Swetnick, the latest accuser to come forth in the flood of accusers coming forth in the last couple of days, says she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and others “to cause girls to become inebriated … so they could then be gang-raped”.
end quotes
So talk about an evolving story with very long legs and room to run, people, along with every possible plot twist and turn there can be, this is it, and speaking of story plots, The Guardian gives us this response from Kavanaugh, to wit:
“This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.”
“I don’t know who this is and this never happened,” the White House said in a statement from Kavanaugh.
end quotes
For you younger Americans, The Twilight Zone was an American media franchise based on the anthology television series created by Rod Serling and the episodes were in various genres, including fantasy, science fiction, suspense, and psychological thriller, often concluding with a macabre or unexpected twist, and usually with a moral.
A popular and critical success, it introduced many Americans to common science fiction and fantasy tropes.
The original series, shot entirely in black and white, ran on CBS for five seasons from 1959 to 1964.
The Twilight Zone followed in the tradition of earlier television shows such as Tales of Tomorrow (1951–53, which also dramatized the short story “What You Need”) and Science Fiction Theatre (1955–57); radio programs such as The Weird Circle, Dimension X, and X Minus One; and the radio work of one of Serling’s inspirations, Norman Corwin.
The success of the series led to a feature film, a radio series, a comic book, a magazine, a theme park attraction, and various other spin-offs that spanned five decades, including two revival television series.
The first revival ran on CBS and in syndication in the 1980s, while the second ran on UPN from 2002 to 2003.
And now, lucky us, thanks to Dianne Feinstein, Charley “Chuck” Schumer, and the Democratic Socialists of America, we are having a third revival taking place right now in Washington, D.C., the ground zero for absolute weirdness in America today, as I write these words.
Getting back to the latest news of this weird drama as told to us by The Guardian, following the fresh allegations, the 10 Democrats on the judicial committee sent a letter to Trump imploring him to withdraw the judge’s nomination, to wit:
“Judge Kavanaugh is being considered for a promotion.”
“He is asking for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court where he will have the opportunity to rule on matters that will impact Americans for decades,” the letter said.
“The standard of character and fitness for a position on the nation’s highest court must be higher than this.”
“Judge Kavanaugh has staunchly declared his respect for women and issued blanket denials of any possible misconduct, but those declarations are in serious doubt.”
end quotes
Actually, people, this is a complete farce, because the members of the Senate who put Brett Kavanaugh on the federal bench in the first place with a lifetime appointment were well aware of his background as a drunken high school student, which has never been a secret.
On July 11, 2018, Forbes had an article entitled “Confirming Brett Kavanaugh Twelve Years Ago And His Prospects Today” by William Harrison Frist Sr., born February 22, 1952, an American physician, businessman, and politician who began his career as a heart and lung transplant surgeon and later served two terms as a Republican United States Senator representing Tennessee, and was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003 to 2007, wherein he stated as follows concerning Kavanaugh, who today stands accused by the Democrats of some pretty serious and heinous sex crimes, to wit:
Brett Kavanaugh will make a terrific Supreme Court Justice, and I know from firsthand experience.
Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a photo of me with Kavanaugh taken over 12 years ago when then-Majority Whip Mitch McConnell and I spearheaded his Senate confirmation.
Seeing that photo brought me back to my time as Majority Leader — I had made it a priority to advance judicial nominees who would practice judicial restraint and interpret the law strictly and impartially.
Brett Kavanaugh was one of those nominees, first selected in 2003 by President George W. Bush to serve on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
But his nomination languished in a Senate with a slim two-vote GOP majority.
At the time, Senate Democrats were increasingly using the filibuster to halt nominations, which meant we needed 60 votes to clear this procedural hurdle and proceed to the up-or-down nomination vote.
In the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the minority blocked ten judicial nominees.
It was a challenging time and one that certainly made me question whether to rewrite the Senate rules (the Senate has constitutional power to define its practices and procedures) and allow for judicial nominees to pass on a simple majority vote (Democratic Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid finally did this in 2013, exercising what has been known as the “nuclear option”).
Experienced and talented legal minds like Brett Kavanaugh’s were being prevented from serving their country as D.C. became increasingly partisan.
As I explained on the Senate Floor after meeting with him on May 22, 2006:
He is an outstanding candidate, a candidate who has stellar credentials, both in the private sector and the public sector, working as counsel and adviser to the President.
He has had a distinguished legal career that has had him argue before the Supreme Court and appeals courts around the country.
He is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School where he served on the law journal.
He has, on three separate occasions, received the American Bar Association stamp of approval.
He was nominated 3 years ago.
He has waited 3 years for the vote we will have later this week, for that fair up-or-down vote.
It is time the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty, the advice and consent, by giving Mr. Kavanaugh that vote he deserves.
I look forward to moving ahead on his nomination and upholding the confirmation on process.
On May 26, 2006, four days after I called for the vote on Brett Kavanaugh, he was confirmed by a vote of 57 – 36, with the support of four Democrats.
end quotes
So come on here, people, WTF?
Are the Democrats just learning who Brett Kavanaugh is today?
And of course they are not – they have known about Brett Kavanaugh now for many years, so why now?
Or more to the point, why not back then?
Why did they let all of this slide back then, when they had a real chance to defend the standard of character and fitness for a position on the federal judiciary?
The Democrats today are saying the standard of character and fitness for a position on the nation’s highest court must be higher than “this,” whatever “this” actually is to the Democrats today, who had no trouble in 2009 lowering those standards so they could put Sonia Sotomayor, called “a solid, tested, and mainstream federal judge” by Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Press Release entitled “Senator Feinstein Statement Supporting Supreme Court Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor” on Aug. 04, 2009 because she is politically reliable to the Democrats, on the Supreme Court, so are they saying the standard of character and fitness for a position on one of the nation’s circuit courts can be a lot lower, given that this is the same Brett Kavanaugh four Democrats voted to put on the Washington. DC. circuit court on May 26, 2006?
Seems so, doesn’t it?
Getting back to The Guardian to bring this episode of the modern Democrat version of The Twilight Zone to a close, we have:
In a dramatic week, Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are scheduled to testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Thursday, in a fraught public hearing that could either sink or facilitate his nomination.
At the hearing, Kavanaugh will acknowledge drinking in high school with his friends in sworn testimony, but will say he’s never done anything “remotely resembling” the sexual misconduct alleged by Ford, who was the first woman to come forward earlier this month.
“I am innocent of this charge,” Kavanaugh will say, according to written testimony released Wednesday by the committee.
Kavanaugh says he has “never sexually assaulted anyone not in high school, not in college, not ever”.
end quotes
At least as of May 26, 2006, there was no evidence that he was guilty of the attempted rape of a minor, and the Bill Cosby-like rape of other minors by drugging them so they would “pull trains” for Kavanaugh and his friends, but Trump wasn’t president in 2006, and the Democratic Socialists did not yet have their champion Charley “Chuck” Schumer in place to lead the “resistance” for them, so times have obviously changed.
In the meantime, according to The Guardian:
In a speech on the chamber floor later in the day, senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Judicary Committee and a key Republican vote, said sexual assault is a serious allegation and questioned what message it sends to young women if they are dismissed without equally serious consideration.
The senator lamented the coarsening of American politics and revealed that he received a death threat against his family after he called for a hearing to allow Ford to testify.
“These past two years we have tested the limits of how low we can go and my colleagues, I say to you, that winning at all cost is too high a cost,” he said.
Flake said he is undecided on how he will vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, and will be guided by Thursday’s hearing.
He acknowledged, however, that whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, he is certain the vote will “forever be steeped in doubt”.
Meanwhile, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to halt the confirmation process.
In the suit, the senator alleges that the White House has obstructed his constitutional duty to advise and consent on supreme court nominees by refusing to release thousands of documents relating to the judge’s service working in the Bush administration.
“We have seen something that we have not seen in the history of the United States in terms of the executive branch reaching out in direct and extensive and substantial ways to interfere with the function of the Senate’s advise and consent responsibility,” he told reporters on Wednesday.
“This is uncharted territory,” he added.
He shrugged when asked about the timing of the lawsuit, filed just two days before the committee is scheduled to vote: “It’s ready now.”
Ford’s lawyers said on Wednesday they have given the US Senate sworn affidavits from four people who say she told them – well before Brett Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination – that she had been sexually assaulted when she was much younger.
And according to all four, she either named Kavanaugh as the assailant or described the attacker as a “federal judge”.
Deborah Ramirez became the second woman to identify herself earlier this week, alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her as a student at a party, amid the boozy culture of Yale University.
end quotes
Ah, yes, the boozy culture of Yale University!
Say, didn’t Bob Woodward of the Washington Post go to Yale?
And that brings this latest episode of the Kavanaugh Kerfuffle to a close, but don’t change that dial, because The Twilight Zone is far from over.