Feinstein v. Kavanaugh
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's distortion of data points to the agenda driving this new discussion from the left to derail the Kavanaugh vote by any means necessary. Nothing, certainly not facts, will get in their way.
While questioning Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about abortion during his Senate confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein grossly misstated statistics about abortion deaths before Roe v. Wade.
"In the 1950s and 1960s, two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That's according to the Guttmacher Institute."
The Guttmacher Institute has very close ties to the abortion lobby, but even their numbers proved Feinstein way off base.
The Guttmacher study actually reported 200,000 to 1.2 million as the number of procedures. Regarding actual deaths, in 1965, for example, there were 200, according to Guttmacher.
When corrected, Feinstein was dismissive of the gravity of her error. "So, a lot of women died in that period," she demurred.
Feinstein's distortion of data points to the agenda driving this new discussion from the left to derail the Kavanaugh vote by any means necessary.
Nothing, certainly not facts, will get in the way of their attempts to control the courts, regardless of any collateral damage done to the reputation of an upstanding and decent man.
Thus we can understand the sudden emergence of Christine Blasey Ford and her claim that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, when she was 15 and he was 17.
As reported in The Washington Post, Ford, a vocal progressive and pro-Democrat donor, wrote to Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, describing the incident but requesting anonymity, in July.
Apparently, Feinstein was so moved to keep the letter anonymous that she buried the contents as well as the identity of the author.
Per reports, Feinstein did not ask Kavanaugh about this in her interview with him prior to the hearings. Nor did she question Kavanaugh about it during the hearings.
Suddenly, two months after Feinstein received Ford's letter, she announced she had information about Kavanaugh that she reported to the FBI.
Then a story revealing the contents of Ford's letter appeared in the press. Days later, Ford concluded her "civic responsibility" compelled her to shed anonymity and step forward, armed with a polygraph test corroborating her story and a seasoned, progressive legal advisor.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Even liberals should concede that in America one is innocent until proven guilty. Particularly with 36-year-old allegations that are impossible to corroborate.
Kavanaugh has had a long, distinguished career, serving as counsel in the White House and for the last 12 years as a federal district appeals court judge. Along with this, he has undergone a half-dozen FBI background checks, with no irregularities arising.
This is now standard fare for Democrats. When they perceive that our constitutionally defined machinery of government is not serving their far-left interests, they reach into the "dirty tricks" bag and pull out racist or sexual accusations to derail things.
This is exactly the swamp in Washington that President Trump was elected to drain.
If Feinstein thought Ford's accusations had teeth, then she had two months to vet them. It is a travesty to our system of government and justice to now interrupt the progress of Kavanaugh's confirmation with these tenuous claims. Feinstein had her chance.
It is transparent that this is about Democrats wishing to cause a delay until after November, opening the door for a new, progressive nominee, should Democrats gain control of Congress.
Nothing prevents Democrats from continuing to investigate Kavanaugh after he is confirmed – if they so wish.
The abuse that concerns me now is the abuse of our system of government by devious progressive political operatives.
It is imperative that Republicans show leadership now, before the election in November, and move forward immediately to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
Star Parker (starparker@urbancure.org) is an author and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
Sounds like Obama was actually right...…"The Russians aren't the problem".
[Removed]
Whatever else we've learned, we now know that the accuser is not just a regular person coming forward, but a Democratic activist perfectly willing to act as a Democrat pawn. Since she came forward when the Dems desperately needed a reason to delay the vote, everything she's done has been alignment with the partisan agenda of the Democrats. From refusing to turn over the letter she wrote, hiring Democratic activists as her lawyers, claiming she wants to testify, and then making ridiculous demands to keep from testifying, it all in service of the Democrats.
Asking for another 24 delay to supposedly "make up her mind" after she announced last week her willingness to testify is just her embracing the role of a partisan. She's sticking it to Grassley and the Republicans. She'll be a featured speaker for the Democrats on the campaign trial, no matter how this plays out. She's doing her part for the party.
Whatever else we've learned, we now know that the accuser is not just a regular person coming forward, but a Democratic activist perfectly willing to act as a Democrat pawn.
Tell you what, Sean, let's put your allegation to the test … whether or not Ford is a Democratic activist, and whether or not that is the bottom line in an attempted rape charge … can be put to the test …
… so …
Let me POSIT A PLAUSIBLE REACTION TO CHUCK GRASSLEY'S DENIAL OF DR. FORD'S REQUEST THAT WITNESSES TO THE ALLEGED ATTEMPTED RAPE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE … and, to your contention.
Given the real possibility Brett Kavanaugh could still face charges for Attempted Rape in Maryland since Maryland has no statute of limitations for attempted rape, and the Attorney General is being encouraged by members of the public to investigate …
Hey, Sean, Chuck, Mitch, Donald, Brett et al …
I say … "In the absence of an open, FAIR HEARING FOR DR. FORD … I would urge her attorney to call for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to open an investigation, especially if the FBI doesn’t. And, depending on what may be found … FILE CHARGES!"
_______________________________________________________________________
Gee, I miss my old job … to quote Wilford Brimley's character in the film, Absence of Malice …
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: "Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.
The FBI does investigate, that is what the I in FBI stands for so, they can INVESTIGATE this, IF THE PRESIDENT TELLS THEM TO, this happened during George H. W. Bush's administration and, it can happen now, if the president (Trump) wanted it to so, the question I posit is this, why doesn't Trump and, Grassley want the FBI to look into it? Don't bother answering, I already know the REAL answer, they're afraid of what the FBI will find.
The FBI does the background checks on SCOTUS nominees and this allegation must be investigated as a continuation of the Kavanaugh background check; since the White House nominates candidates, it is incumbent upon the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegation.
Beyond this, the FBI can issue ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS for cases involving child abuse … and Ford's allegation states that she was a MINOR at the time of the alleged incident.
"FORD'S REQUEST THAT WITNESSES TO THE ALLEGED ATTEMPTED RAPE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
They've already submitted evidence to the committee, and if they lied they can go to jail. The only identified person who yet to put themselves in legal jeopardy for lying to Congress is Dr. Ford. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps you might want to revisit that quote you posted about what innocent people do? Kavanuagh wrote yet another letter asking Grassley to testify under oath, publicly, as soon as possible while Dr. Ford keeps making excuses not to be forthcoming.
Just think about what you wrote yesterday.
In the absence of an open, FAIR HEARING FOR DR. FORD
I think you mean Kavanaugh. Ford is dictating the terms of the hearing, yet still refuses to commit to testifying and is hiding the key piece of evidence (her original letter). Kavanugh is willing to submit to Democratic questioning without making ridiculous demands.
In the name of open fair hearings, how is it possible that her letter is still being hidden from the accused?
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to open an investigation
By all means, it's a local crime. Of course the first step is for the accuser to tell her story so, why is she so hesitant to do what she promised to do? Do you think her story will change depending on who asks the questions? All she has to do is tell her version of what happened 40 years ago. If she's honest, it will be the same whether she's talking to the FBI, The Senate, or the Maryland State police.
There are witness's that Grassley has flat out denied can be heard at the hearing, the FBI can question them and, get their testimony which can be presented to the committee, yet, Grassley doesn't want the FBI to do it, he wants his people to do it and, they've already shown that they are biased towards Dr. Ford, if this goes forward without Dr. Ford's witness's then this is nothing more than a kangaroo court to smear her name.
I should mean "Kavanaugh," but given that Grassley and Hatch and you and the right-wing media have decided Ford's allegation is not credible … the alleged VICTIM, like Anita Hill, will be the Republican focus of the hearing, Sean.
By all means, it's a local crime. Of course the first step is for the accuser to tell her story so, why is she so hesitant to do what she promised to do?
In the absence of her ability to allow witnesses to be questioned UNDER OATH before the committee, her attorney may likely file.
Do you think her story will change depending on who asks the questions? All she has to do is tell her version of what happened 40 years ago. If she's honest, it will be the same whether she's talking to the FBI, The Senate, or the Maryland State police.
The difference between an "investigation" by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and one conducted via a legal filing and the ACTUAL INVESTIGATION in conjunction is obvious to the point of being rhetorical, Sean.
It's not that I think her story will change, it's that I fear how her story will be considered by the likes of Hatch, Grassley et al.
That depends on what is or is not determined by a credible investigation; let the witness make his statement under oath.
Most of those things simply make a person naive, superstitious and gullible, but at least one makes a person a greedy opponent of equal civil rights and a supporter of sharia law.
So, anyone that has a 30+ year allegation of anything should be allowed to testify before the full senate committee on any nomination without being vetted as to if her testimony is beliveable or not? Will those rules work for democrat nominatees when the dems are in power?
Also, there is no need for caps, bolding and coloring. We are all adults enough to read what you have to say.
Um, at 17, so was Judge Kavanaugh. So, he wouild have to be sent to Juvenile Detention if he was found guilty of this spurrious, at best, accusation?
We both know this is an attempt to derail the President's Nominee. If it wasn't, Dr. Ford would have gone to a law enforcement agency, not to a politician.
Remember, the allegation is that they were both under the age of 17. Where do you think the charges will go? Usually, most cases involving underaged people go to juvenile court and are then SEALED and cannot be used to affect future employment. So, is supposed to spend time in Juvenile Hall over this should they bring charges?
So far every single witness that Ford has pointed to has no recollection of the party let alone the alleged assault. Ford can't remember time or place of the alleged assault. So, what can the Maryland DA do? If he brings any charges right now, he would be doing exactly the same thing that got Nifong sent to jail and disbarred for in the Duke Lacrosse team scandal.
So glad you know that there is nothing to find. Does Mueller brief you daily?
The proof about how this political is to compare how democrats treat one of their own, Kieth Elliison who is facing a second allegation of assualting women.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is accused, again, and the Democrats respond with crickets.
Anyone who thinks the Democrats would care about Dr. Ford if she was a Republican activist who came forward with the exact same allegations about a Democratic Supreme Court nominee on the eve of confirmation is either lying or delusional. Democratic media like the Times wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
I'm a Democrat, Sean, and my position is … "when an allegation is made and the maker of the allegation asks for an investigation as a means of satisfying the 'burden of proof,' such an investigation should go forward and, consequences, be they ultimately on the accused or the accuser … or, on neither due to inconclusive results, should stand. And unless some evidence surfaces in the future (double jeopardy aside should a trial result in a "not guilty") … the allegations remain in the past."
So, let's begin with allegations against the current POTUS …
… otherwise … let's not call "crickets".
Funny how you have to drag Trump into an allegation against Ellison.
Defend the kid gloves treatment of the multiply accused Ellison on it's own.
If you can.
Great! Let's lock him up with some others since you're playing tit-for-tat Jim Knoblach.
A Republican, diddling his daughter for 10 years...where is that outrage? He quit now...had to read up on more of the Republican family values...
Well, he got the family part.
I haven’t defended either one ... just citing your selective indignation; what did I say about responding to allegations?
What did I say about investigations in response to allegations?
Before you criticize any of my positions, quote me specifically at the top of your critical comment.
But, he is the New Chosen One
This is not a criminal trial. We are not deciding whether or not to throw Judge Liar in jail for attempted rape. We are vetting Judge Liar to see if he has the impeccable morals and integrity that we SHOULD demand in a SCJ. It is Judge Liar's job interview and HE should be the one getting grilled, asked about how much he drank back then, etc. HIS reputation is what we should be scrutinizing here, not hers. BTW, Judge Liar has already failed miserably in his interview, before this allegation even surfaced.
And it has been. Six times by the FBI and again in the last several weeks by many many people. We're supposed to throw all that out in favor of an accusation that he did something as a minor, even though the accuser can't remember when or where it happened and the people she claims were there refute her story. Is that what you're asking for?
If his nomination is an intended set up predicated on stacking the court with a fifth Republican appointee … which will likely enable all 5-4 outcomes to preclude Trump's being questioned, subpoenaed, indicted and/or locked up no matter how egregious his misfeasance or crimes … that may well suit religionists who seem to want America to be a "Christian nation," and, nationalist who see Trump as their "Jess Willard," but both objectives are dangerous.
Kavanaugh is the hand picked plant of the Heritage foundation and the Federalist Society ... he is Trump's get out of jail free card and enabler of his coronation!
Kavanaugh could become one of the five "tailors" who could sew the emperor’s new clothes for the first King of America!
Who was Trump's alternative to Kavanaugh.....Torquemada?
As quite a few political scientists have noted it's not a surprise that racist and reactionary conservatives reacted badly to the first black president. So the alternative they sought was the King of the Birthers, a racist who conveniently also shared their homophobic, misogynistic, Islamophobic and xenophobic views. It doesn't matter that he's incompetent and wholly unfit for office......at least he shares their phobias.
And given Trump's support for torture there's little doubt that he'd nominate Torquemada if he were available.
A very odd comment given that the majority of voters chose Clinton. Apparently most voters opposed Trump and shit themselves when the EC installed him.
E.A How about the Fact::
The US of A is not a Democracy but a Federal Republic?
That the Foundation of the Country was based upon " God We Trust " Because of the Horrendous treatment of other forms of Govern Ment world wide?
Radical Christian extremist.
Are you talking about the theocrat who has just 10 months of experience as a judge?
That would be 10 months more experience as a judge than Elena Kazan had.
Always a pleasure talking to you Arkpdx,
Since Elena Kazan is a famous Russian model I'm assuming you mean Elena Kagan?
So yes, i would posit that she has a ton more experience than either Elena Kazan or Amy Coney Barrett.
Yes it was supposed to be Kagan. I hate autocorrect .
You just missed one point .Both Skrekk and I specifically stated experience as a judge of which Elana Kagan had none prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court .
SO, no biggie. 200 is sorta close to 200,000 or 1.2 million after all. At best she's off by a factor of 1,000 and at worst, by a factor of a mere 6,000.
That's TOTALLY the same kinda thing!
Liberal math...
PREDICTION:
For political expediency, Trump will privately tell Kavanaugh to withdraw his name from nomination citing as his “reason” ... “None of the allegations made against me are true, however, I do not want my family to endure any more of this.”
my bet is kavanaugh is confirmed.
c-ya back here friday
cheers
Good luck with that bet.
it is still a solid bet.
cheers
the judiciary committee votes in 40 mins.
place your bets
he passed committee
now the bet is he will be confirmed by the senate -
but in the meantime... I hope the fbi can find the location of fords party
and that name she would not release? she will now
she will be investigated just as much as kavanaugh.
35yrs of her past with every word said, every possible motive for every accusation made.
I hope she can handle it
Perhaps they will raid her attorney's office.
Does this include Feinstein and her staff? Who leaked the letter?
Democrats and Flake opened a whole can worms.
kavanaugh has been thru many fbi investigations. other than saying "NO" and "that is bs" a few more times, this fbi check will be no different for him.
besides... worms are fun enough, lets dig them ALL up
who knows... a worm may pop up that changes my mind.
cheers
In other words they don't have the votes unless there's an FBI investigation.
What are the odds now? Is Mark Judge still in hiding?
.
It seems they missed this.
Maybe, I think they need all the worms they can get for their fishing trip.
ive been diggin around.
trump called for a limited "supplemental investigation"
translation, fast and cheap. nothing new will come from it.
I think just maybe.... chuck grassley snookered flake and the dems with that "so-called agreement"
time will tell
and so far, every time, you have been wrong.
just sayin :)
A second and possibly third accuser have come forward with new allegations against Kavanaugh and apparently Republicans on the Judiciary Committee knew about them at least a week ago ... and pushed for a rushed confirmation vote as a result.
I double down on my prediction that Kavanaugh will not be confirmed.
I'm not surprised that more women have come forward. Once the dam breaks.....
Looking forward to more pronouncements, taunts and mockery ... and seeing if I can find which Republican members of the Judiciary Committee had the information of the new allegations and tried to ramrod Kavanaugh’s confirmation ahead of the breaking story.
FYI:
Nothing about the Republicans’ attitude toward sexual abuse of women should be a surprise. It, too, is a pattern. When the Senate voted on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA), only twenty-two members were opposed. All were Republicans.
Among those twenty-two Republicans were the six current senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Chuck Grassley.
___________________________________________________________________
When an accuser makes an allegation, if/when the accused claims "innocence," and, both accuser and the accused remain steadfast in their positions, the only logical way to potentially break the impasse, is via a neutral third-party/entity INVESTIGATION.
In such an investigation, there are only three possible outcomes … • evidence more-or-less validating the allegation, • evidence contrary to the allegation raising questions about the credibility of the accuser, or, • ABSENCE OF -- FAILURE TO FIND EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND (thus enabling the accused to declare, i.e. "Of course no evidence was found because the allegation is false!"
Thus, two-out-of-three investigatory outcomes, FAVOR THE ACCUSED!
I contend that, if/when either the accused or accuser resists the idea of an investigation, the one who resists manifests "consciousness of guilt" in fear of what truth(s) may be revealed!
By all means AMAC, let's discuss Democrat's attitudes towards women.
Let's start with how many current Senators have beaten their wives? Count the Republican wife beaters and the Democratic and get back to me.
And of course, which party has a Vice Chairman who has been accused of beating multiple women?
this is fast becoming a comedy...
Yes. Women and minority voters are going to deliver the punch line in Nov.
I heard that old joke in 2016. try stand up... online comedy is not your thing.
Here's a new one....the Republicans were already losing female voters before Kavanaugh....go ahead and confirm him.
LOL
OK then.
thanks for your support
and back to work, seems they have a busy morning planned