Spot the Glaring Contradictions Between Ford’s Written Allegations Against Kavanaugh?

By Townhall. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph examination results were released on Wednesday. The polygraph was conducted on Aug. 7 by Virginia-based examiner Jeremiah Hanafin. . .

In her July 30th letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ford said, “The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and 4 others.”

In her Aug. 7th polygraph letter, she said, “There were 4 boys and a couple of girls.”

. . .

In the Feinstein letter, Ford said, “Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stairwell from the living room.”

In the the polygraph letter, Ford said, “At that point I was pushed into the bedroom by two persons into a bedroom and was locked in the room and pushed onto a bed.” (Read more from “Spot the Glaring Contradictions Between Ford’s Written Allegations Against Kavanaugh?” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Christine Blasey Ford’s Opening Statement: ‘I Believed He Was Going to Rape Me’

By ABC News. In prepared testimony released before Thursday’s showdown hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford said she is “terrified,” but considers giving her account of what she has said was his sexual assault on her when they were both in high school part of her “civic duty.”

In her prepared testimony, Ford says, “I believed he was trying to rape me,” referring to an incident she has said happened at house party in the 1980s, during which she said a drunken Kavanaugh, along with another teenager, locked her in a room, and that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and covered her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. (Read more from “Christine Blasey Ford’s Opening Statement: ‘I Believed He Was Going to Rape Me'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Critic: Kavanaugh Fiasco Proves Trump Voters Were Actually Right All Along

. . .However, Trump critic Rich Lowry may have just presented the clearest outline of why the nation needed a President Trump at this time in our history and why he continues to have the support of Americans across the nation.

On Tuesday, National Review published Lowry’s editorial in which he makes no bones about the atrocity the Kavanaugh hearings have become and why the “political assassination of Brett Kavanaugh is bad for the country, but good for a Trumpian attitude toward American politics.”

While many of us knew it before, it took the very public Kavanaugh “political assassination” for people to get a tangible grasp on just how low the left has sunk in their efforts to regain power and further drag the country into a socialist state.

It also switched on the lightbulb of those anti-Trumpers who before could not understand why anyone would support him under any conditions, but now are reconsidering their views on the president.

In short, they realized President Trump was right. Suddenly things were very clear. “The last-minute ambush validates key assumptions of Donald Trump’s supporters that fueled his rise and buttress him in office, no matter how rocky the ride has been or will become,” Lowry wrote. (Read more from “Trump Critic: Kavanaugh Fiasco Proves Trump Voters Were Actually Right All Along” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh

It has become transparently obvious over the past two weeks that Democrats and their liberal media allies are engaged in a coordinated effort to smear Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with vague allegations of sexual misconduct designed solely to derail his nomination to the high court.

Perhaps in a bid to help bolster the crumbling narrative surrounding California professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old unsubstantiated accusations against Kavanaugh, The New York Times just did a purported deep dive into Kavanaugh’s 1983 high school yearbook from Georgetown Preparatory School.

The Times heavily implied in the article that Kavanaugh and his friends were some kind of sex-obsessed gang that openly bragged in the yearbook about their sexual conquests, especially with regard to one female student in particular named Renate Schroeder Dolphin, as they referred to themselves in a group picture as “Renate Alumni.”

But as Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist painstakingly pointed out, there are several glaring problems with the article from The Times that have rendered the story “fake news” and, if The Times had any integrity left, would seem to merit a full retraction and issuance of public apologies, rather than a handful of quiet and unexplained edits.

The first problem appears to be that The Times attempted to delete the name of a source for their smear against Kavanaugh and his friends. The original online post of the article cited a source named only as “Mr. Madaleno,” a singular reference to the source that has since been completely deleted from subsequent versions of the article, according to a site known as NewsDiffs that tracks such changes via online archives.

Standard editorial procedure for The Times is to introduce a source by their full name when first mentioned in an article, followed by the individual’s last name and title for any future references to them. However, any such reference to “Mr. Madaleno” is decidedly lacking in this piece by The Times.

Hemingway pointed out that the “Mr. Madaleno” in question is most likely a Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh’s named Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a Maryland state senator who is virulently anti-Trump and just unsuccessfully ran for governor in the state on a platform that consisted largely of touting how his being gay and progressive would “infuriate” President Donald Trump.

Considering Madaleno’s obvious animus toward all things Trump, ethics would seem to dictate that The Times identify him so readers could gauge his particular motivations for making claims against Kavanaugh. Yet they did not, nor did they provide any explanation for why not or why his name was ultimately deleted completely from the article.

Furthermore, The Times also left unmentioned in the piece several key pieces of information that contradict or undermine the claims made by the article, such as the fact that another source who was actually named, William Fishburne, was an active campaign surrogate on behalf of Madaleno’s failed gubernatorial bid, a rather pertinent fact that again goes toward motivation.

On top of that, The Times also cited a classmate named Sean Hagan as condemning the jokes in the yearbook about Dolphin, but failed to note that Hagan was the editor of that yearbook — and thus allowed what was written to be published — or that he is friends on Facebook with Madaleno and “likes” socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other anti-Trump pages.

The article did mention that “(Dolphin) and a second friend of Ms. Dolphin’s denied that there was any sexual contact between Ms. Dolphin and Judge Kavanaugh or anyone else in his circle,” but failed to include a similar statement of denial issued by Kavanaugh’s friends, which stated in part, “None of us has ever taken part in any kind of verbal conduct or physical actions described by the Times and never bragged about or suggested any such thing.”

Indeed, the men all insisted that there was nothing sexual about the references to “Renate” in the yearbook, but merely a notation that all of the friends had at one point or another dated, danced with or kissed Dolphin … all completely innocent behavior for teenage high school boys and girls.

Some of the men even claimed to have remained good friends with Dolphins over the years since then as well, all of which would undermine the narrative that she was some sort of sexual conquest the group of boys was bragging about and disrespecting.

“The New York Times’ callous treatment of the yearbook references to our friend have now destroyed relationships that span four decades. These friendships can’t be recovered and will never be replaced. The anguish caused to our friend is immeasurable; the loss of her trust and respect is devastating,” said one of the group members, who requested anonymity out of fear that The Times and the left would retaliate against him.

The New York Times purports to be the “paper of record,” but they appear to have been caught red-handed in an obvious hit job on Kavanaugh that is disgustingly beneath a supposedly objective media outlet with integrity.

In all likelihood, this article by The Times never should have been published, at least not in the manner that it was, and now The Times is panicking as they attempt to clear up yet another brightly blinking example of their slanted liberal bias and apparent animus toward Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, which in all honesty is just a useful extension of their base anti-Trump bias. (For more from the author of “Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Judiciary: Witness Believes Ford May Have Mistaken Him for Kavanaugh

By Townhall. In a late night, last minute turn of events, the Senate Judiciary Committee released new information about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

According to Fox News’ Ed Henry, a man came forward on Monday and said he believes Ford confused him with Kavanaugh. The Committee had multiple conversations with the man, which has some speculating just how credible this witness may be.

“Tuesday, September 25th, according to Chairman Grassley, ‘Committee staff had a second interview with a man who believes he not Judge Kavanaugh had the encounter with Dr. Ford in the summer of ’82, which is the basis of our allegation,'” Henry quoted. “Here’s the key line: ‘He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail, as if this person has some more details, some more recollection than Judge Kavanaugh, who has denied it.'”

(Read more from “Senate Judiciary: Witness Believes Ford May Have Mistaken Him for Kavanaugh” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Two Men Claiming to Be the One Involved in Ford Encounter, Not Kavanaugh, Interviewed by Senate Staffers

By Washington Examiner. Senate Judiciary Committee staffers have spoken to two men who separately claim they could be the one described by Christine Blasey Ford, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Aides to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, met with the one of the men Monday after he sent them a written statement asserting he “had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982,” according to a summary of the panel’s efforts to investigate Ford’s allegation. They then interviewed the unidentified man a second time before obtaining a more in-depth written account from him on Wednesday.

The committee’s investigative staff on Wednesday additionally spoke on the telephone with another man claiming he was the man described by Ford, Grassley’s summary continued. . .

The claims of the two unnamed men echo suggestions that Ford is mistaken about the identity of her alleged attacker. Ford, now a California-based professor, has rejected the possibility she confused Kavanaugh with another of his classmates from Georgetown Prep suggested by Ed Whelan. Whelan was placed on a leave of absence from the Ethics and Public Policy Center after he laid out his argument last week in a string of controversial tweets. (Read more from “Two Men Claiming to Be the One Involved in Ford Encounter, Not Kavanaugh, Interviewed by Senate Staffers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Stephen King Exposes the Real Reason the Left Hates Kavanaugh in Two Tweets

On Tuesday, author and ardent leftist Stephen King took to Twitter to unleash venom on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and in the process revealed one of the main reasons why the Left has such hatred for the man — and it’s certainly not because of these vague, unsubstantiated, and uncorroborated accusations enabled by shoddy reporting, either.

“If ‘white male entitlement’ was in the dictionary, it could be illustrated by Brett Kavanaugh’s photograph. The thought of this closed mind on the Supreme Court for the rest of my life sickens me,” wrote King in a tweet.

And there you have it: Kavanaugh is loathed because he is a successful white male, unable to claim any victimhood credit. The judge belonged to a frat, he played football, he’s religious, he claims he was a virgin until well after high school, he was popular and had lots of friends, graduated at the top of his class and has achieved real success. . .

King followed it up with more nonsense: “While in college, Brett Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker and an enthusiastic party-boy. Those behaviors change with age, but the attitudes and assumptions which drove the behaviors rarely do,” he wrote.

(Read more from “Stephen King Exposes the Real Reason the Left Hates Kavanaugh in Two Tweets” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Look Who’s Running the ‘Independent’ Keith Ellison Investigation

By The Daily Caller. Minnesota Democrats’ self-described “independent” investigation into domestic abuse allegations against Rep. Keith Ellison is being handled by the party attorney’s legal partner.

Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee and nominee for Minnesota attorney general, is accused of physically and emotionally abusing his ex-girlfriend, liberal Sierra Club activist Karen Monahan. Ellison has repeatedly denied Monahan’s accusations.

Minneapolis lawyer Susan Ellingstad took over the Ellison investigation from the state party’s attorney following Ellison’s primary victory in August, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin told the AP they hired Ellingstad to make sure the investigation “wouldn’t be colored by people with associations with the party.”

Ellingstad is a legal partner with the state party’s attorney, Charlie Nauen, who the AP reported handled the early stages of the investigation. Ellingstad and Nauen are partners at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., which bears the DFL attorney’s name. (Read more from “Look Who’s Running the ‘Independent’ Keith Ellison Investigation” HERE)

_______________________________________

Star Tribune Sues to Unseal U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s Divorce Records

By Star Tribune. The Star Tribune has joined a legal effort to unseal the divorce records of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, the Democratic candidate for attorney general.

Ellison and his ex-wife, Kim Ellison, divorced in 2012. The related records have been sealed, so the public cannot access the information.

The Star Tribune’s motion to intervene and unseal the records follows a similar action by Alpha News, a right-leaning online news and opinion site.

The efforts follow allegations by Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, that Ellison domestically abused her in 2016. He has denied the allegation repeatedly, and Monahan has continued to press her case in frequent tweets about Ellison.

On Sunday, Monahan tweeted to Ellison: “This is not going away and you are making it worse for you, your family and district by lying, smearing, getting others to do your dirty work, victim shaming, etc.” She referred again to a video she says she has of Ellison dragging her off a bed, which he has said did not happen. She has declined to show the video, saying it is traumatizing. She also told CNN she misplaced it. Monahan also recently released a medical record that shows she told a doctor in 2017 that she had been in an abusive relationship with Ellison. (Read more from “Star Tribune Sues to Unseal U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s Divorce Records” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kavanaugh Accuser Refuses to Testify. Here’s Her Response to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

By Townhall. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s second sexual abuse accuser, Deborah Ramirez, will not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), a member of the Committee, said he spoke with Ramirez. She made it very clear that she gave her story to the press, which can be found in The New Yorker article that was posted late Sunday night, The Washington Times reported. . .

(Read more from “Kavanaugh Accuser Refuses to Testify. Here’s Her Response to the Senate Judiciary Committee.” HERE)

____________________________________________

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: White House ‘Open’ to Second Kavanaugh Accuser Testifying

By CNBC. The White House said Tuesday it would be “open” to allow Senate testimony from a second woman who accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

“Certainly we would be open to that, and that process could take place on Thursday,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on ABC News’ “Good Morning America.”

President Donald Trump has been clear, Sanders said: “Let them speak, but let’s also let Brett Kavanaugh speak, and let’s let him tell his side of the story before we allow allegations to determine his entire future.”

The White House’s stance appears to clash with the lines drawn around the Senate hearing by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who limited the hearing to two witnesses. Senators are currently scheduled to hear from Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers.

The second woman, Deborah Ramirez, has alleged that Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct came during a party at Yale University in the 1980s, when they were classmates. In a story published Sunday by The New Yorker, Ramirez claims Kavanaugh “exposed himself” to her, and caused her to touch his genitals “without her consent as she pushed him away.” (Read more from “Sarah Huckabee Sanders: White House ‘Open’ to Second Kavanaugh Accuser Testifying” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Thought Rosenstein Was Serious About Wiretapping Trump

While we’re on the eve of battle with Democrats over Brett Kavanaugh, let’s not forget the Rod Rosenstein watch, which could be just a head fake. Removing Rosenstein would create another political headache, though liberals are worried that the president will fire the deputy attorney general this Thursday, the day of the scheduled hearing of allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh who has been nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court. The allegations are unsubstantiated, unprovable, and lack in evidence. They’re also over 30-plus years old. That in itself doesn’t make it less serious, but when there are no corroborative witnesses because they all refute your story—the credibility is called into question. And both allegations have more holes than Swiss cheese.

Yet, back to Rosenstein, the deputy AG has been embattled for months, and he’s ready to be fired. That was reported eons ago—and yet, he remains. Rosenstein is overseeing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is now quarterbacking the FBI’s initial counterintelligence probe into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Firing him would send shockwaves, or at least in the minds of the elite news media that obsessed over this story all day yesterday; Kavanaugh was barely mentioned until the evening hours.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein has come back into the spotlight over a New York Times article that reported he suggested secretly record the interactions within the Trump White House in order to build support among his cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office. Rosenstein strongly denied the story, and said he has never witnessed anything from President Trump that would suggest the 25th Amendment would be necessary to even consider. Later, NBC News reported that Rosenstein said this in jest, but Lisa Page, the mistress to disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who was fired over his anti-Trump texts, reportedly wasn’t so sure if the deputy AG was joking (via Daily Beast):

A debate with major implications has broken out over whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was being sarcastic when, in the spring of 2017, he reportedly talked about covertly recording President Donald Trump.

A former career Justice Department official who was in the room when the topic arose told The Daily Beast he believes the deputy attorney general was being sarcastic. But another person in the room at the time has indicated she took it seriously.

(Read more from “Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Thought AG Rosenstein Was Serious About Wiretapping Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Another Turn in Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing

A lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford is now making more demands and objecting again to plans that have been made for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday.

Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct from an incident at a party in the 1980s when they were in high school. Kavanaugh has denied her claims. Last week, Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley invited Ford to appear at a hearing to tell her side of the story, while Kavanaugh can then tell his. After days of delays, Ford’s attorneys agreed Saturday that Ford would appear.

However, a Monday letter from Michael Bromwich, one of Ford’s attorneys, objected to plans for the hearing as well as Monday’s floor comments from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who lashed out at the “smear campaign” against Kavanaugh.

Bromwich objected to the fact that, as stated in a letter from committee staffer Mike Davis, an outside attorney might question Ford, Fox News reported.

“This hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich wrote. “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor,’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, 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 said there is no need for such as step, which Ford has opposed.

“It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning,” he wrote

“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” the letter said. “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 using outside counsel defies precedents.

“The central point is that there is no precedent for this Committee to bring in outside counsel for the sole purpose of shielding the members of the Committee from performing their responsibility to question witnesses,” Bromwich said, according to CNN.

Browmich demanded that counsel’s resume “immediately” and asked to meet with them Tuesday.

Bromwich added that McConnell’s remarks were unfair to Ford.

“We are finding it difficult to reconcile your letter and Mr. Davis’s note with the Majority Leader’s speech this afternoon on the Senate floor. As Dr. Blasey Ford has been clear since her experience was first made public, she came forward because she believes it is her civic duty to tell the truth about the sexual assault she experienced,” he wrote.

“You said in your letter that you intend to provide a ‘fair and credible’ process … Yet earlier today, the Majority Leader dismissed Dr. Ford’s experience as a ‘smear campaign,’ claiming mistakenly that the witnesses’ statements to the Committee constitute ‘a complete lack of evidence,’ implying that there has been a thorough investigation,” the letter read.

A vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination could come this week, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said Monday.

“I would defer to the chairman but I don’t think we would do it on Thursday,” said the Texas Republican. “Friday would be possible, but I’m gonna let him make those announcements.” (For more from the author of “Another Turn in Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Recent Poll Reveals Current Amount of American Republican Favorability

The results of a newly released Gallup poll indicated that the Republican Party is at a seven-year high in favorability among American voters.

The poll indicates that 45 percent of Americans have a positive view of the GOP, which is a nine-point gain over last year’s 36 percent.

January of 2011 was the last time favorability for Republicans was this high. At that time, 47 percent of voters thought well of Republicans, following when they regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections.

The same poll released today found that 44 percent of voters had a positive view of the Democratic Party. This is a change in position from their typical ranking, which Gallup reported is typically higher than that of Republicans.

“The parity in Republicans’ and Democrats’ favorable ratings marks a change from what has generally been the case since Barack Obama’s election as president in November 2008.

“Republicans have usually been rated less positively than Democrats over this time, with the Republican Party’s favorability rating for the last decade averaging 39%, compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%.

“Only one other time in the last decade has the Republican Party had a significantly higher score than the Democratic Party.

“That one exception came in November 2014, immediately after elections that saw Republicans capture control of the Senate and expand their majority in the House, when 42% rated the GOP favorably and 36% the Democrats.”

However, with Congress facing a history of a lower turnout for midterm elections than those including a presidential vote, this increase in favorability doesn’t necessarily translate to a midterm gain for Republicans.

While an increase in favorability is no doubt encouraging, conservatives risk a false sense of security, as Democrats’ views of the GOP and of their own party have not changed significantly, according to the same Gallup poll.

In addition to those potential handicaps, the party whose candidate holds the presidency has historically not fared well in midterm elections.

The Economist’s election prediction model estimates that Democrats have a two-in-three chance of winning the House of Representatives.

Gallup also noted that Republicans could suffer losses due to backlash from their previous wins:

” … Democrats have been buoyed by numerous projections that they will make major gains in November, which could lead to a result similar to what Republicans experienced in 2010, when they scored a big election victory at a time when favorable views of both parties were about the same.”

Republicans have suffered from favorability ratings that were below 40 percent for the past five years, which prior to that, had rarely happened in the prior 20 years, according to Gallup.

However, while Republican voters’ view of Congress isn’t as high as some might hope, their perceptions of President Donald Trump remain high.

The same poll indicates that the president is positively perceived by 81 percent of Republicans. (For more from the author of “Recent Poll Reveals Current Amount of American Republican Favorability” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.