Posts

Harvard Poll: Without Corroboration of Allegations, Large Majority of Americans Want Kavanaugh Confirmed

Let’s begin with some interesting national polling numbers about the Kavanaugh confirmation imbroglio, broken down by Democratic pollster Mark Penn. He notes that as things stand right now, Americans tip slightly against Kavanaugh’s confirmation — but absent any strong corroboration of the charges against the nominee, a substantial majority would like to see him approved (via HotAir and The Hill):

If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed, according to a weekend Harvard CAPS/Harris poll…Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), feeling rather directly the corrosive split within the nation, has the support of the country in insisting upon a brief and limited FBI investigation before the final vote. Sixty-six percent of Americans support that decision, and that includes 80 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents but only 45 percent of Republicans…the credibility of their testimony does not appear to be the decisive factor. Rather, the question comes down to corroboration as the standard for tipping public opinion on whether Kavanaugh should ascend to the high court. In terms of the overall needle, after the testimony was heard, 37 percent say confirm the nomination, 44 percent say reject it, and 18 percent remain undecided, with Democrats going one way and Republicans the other. But once the voters are told that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation — and that goes up to 60 percent, if the FBI agrees there is no corroboration.

So a supermajority of independents, and nearly half of Republicans, favor the truncated and expedited FBI probe. This reinforces the instinct and logic I laid out in recommending this course of action late last week: It adds a layer of needed legitimacy to an eventual confirmation vote, all else being equal. If the FBI cannot find corroboration for the charges against Kavanaugh, 60 percent of Americans favor confirmation. As it stands, the more people learn about the facts of the case, the more likely they are to support Kavanaugh’s approval. Penn points out that when a question correctly states that the named witnesses (by both Ford and Ramirez) cannot corroborate the accusations, confirmation support shoots up by 20 points to 57 percent.

(Read more from “Harvard Poll: Without Corroboration of Allegations, Large Majority of Americans Want Kavanaugh Confirmed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Expands Probe, Interviews Kavanaugh Friend Who Hosted Party Mentioned in Calendar

By Townhall. According to both national and local Denver news sources, FBI agents participating in the Brett Kavanaugh investigation spent time interviewing Tim Gaudette on Tuesday. Gaudette, who is now living in the Park Hill neighborhood of Denver, Colorado, was a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep.

The FBI’s interview with Gaudette is significant, because of an alleged July 1, 1982 gathering referenced on Judge Kavanaugh’s high school calendar. The event was supposed to have taken place at “Timmy’s” house. The “Timmy” referenced is known to be Tim Gaudette. . .

But according to the Washington Post, Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry “has become the focus of lawmakers’ concerns.” Democratic senators on the committee have questioned whether or not that gathering could have been the location of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s alleged sexual assault. Ford claims that while she is “100%” sure that Brett Kavanaugh was her attacker, she does not recall the specific date, time, or place of said assault. . .

Tim Gaudette’s attorney, Kenneth Eichner, confirmed to the Washington Post that his client was indeed interviewed on Tuesday in Denver by the FBI, but declined to comment further.

The recent FBI interview with Gaudette came after President Donald Trump authorized the FBI to broaden the scope of the Kavanaugh investigation. The FBI had already conducted interviews with Mark Judge, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s. Judge has repeatedly denied having any knowledge of the alleged sexual assault on Dr. Ford, and has also denied the now largely-discredited accusations from Julie Swetnick–namely, that both Judge and Kavanaugh were present at parties where women were routinely drugged and gang-raped. (Read more from “FBI Expands Probe, Interviews Kavanaugh Friend Who Hosted Party Mentioned in Calendar” HERE)

________________________________________________

The FBI Confidential Kavanaugh Report: Who’s Allowed to Read It and Where

By NBC News. The much-awaited FBI’s supplemental background investigation will be delivered on Wednesday night to Capitol Hill, added to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s current file, and lawmakers will start reading it on Thursday morning.

What will be delivered, according to aides and senators, are the “302” forms of the FBI interviews, which summarize the contents of the interviews. The FBI, which has spent only a few days on the investigation, will not be submitting a conclusion as to who’s telling the truth in the case.

All 100 Senators will have access to the new information, but not their staffs. There also are 10 Judiciary Committee staffers who have access to the secret Kavanaugh file, which is a paper report — there are no pdf’s or emails of it. And it will not be made public.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who has said he wants a confirmation vote this week, said on the Senate floor Wednesday night that the FBI report would be provided by the FBI to the Senate that night. McConnell set a key procedural vote for Friday that would set the stage for a possible full Senate vote as early as Saturday. (Read more from “The FBI Confidential Kavanaugh Report: Who’s Allowed to Read It and Where” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bombshell: Ford Lied Under Oath

By Daily Wire. A new letter, released by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), states that a former boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph test, despite the fact that she testified under oath that she had never done so.

“The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations,” Grassley wrote.

Ford’s ex-boyfriend said in his letter that Ford coached Monica L. McLean on how to pass a polygraph test, saying that she “explained in detail what to expect” during the polygraph and how to be “less nervous” about the test.

A source familiar with the matter told The Daily Wire that there is potentially a second witness who can corroborate the claims made by Ford’s ex-boyfriend.

(Read more from “Bombshell: Ford Lied Under Oath” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford

By Washington Post. President Trump mocked the account of a woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of assault and told a Mississippi crowd that the #MeToo movement was unfairly hurting men.

Trump, in a riff that has been dreaded by White House and Senate aides, attacked the story of Christine Blasey Ford at length — drawing laughs from the crowd. The remarks were his strongest attacks yet of her testimony.

“ ‘I don’t know. I don’t know.’ ‘Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it?’ ‘I don’t know. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember,’ ” Trump said of Ford, as he impersonated her on stage.

“I don’t remember,” he said repeatedly, apparently mocking her testimony. (Read more from “Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Navy SEAL Drops Truth Bomb on Kavanaugh Accuser Believers

Robert O’Neill, the famous Navy SEAL who helped kill Osama bin Laden, says the “believe survivors” refrain surrounding Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accuser is never used in conjunction with the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The SEAL Team 6 member who took out the United States’ most wanted terrorist during operation Neptune’s Spear added some military perspective this weekend to the controversy surrounding President Trump’s top pick to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. O’Neill asked his social media followers why sexual misconduct allegations — like those leveled by California college professor Christine Blasey Ford towards Judge Kavanaugh — are supposed to be believed wholesale by the public, while Benghazi terror attack survivors like Kris Paronto are seemingly ignored.

Ms. Blasey Ford claims that Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at an unspecified home during the summer of 1982. Individuals she cited as witnesses have failed to corroborate her claims. . .

Mr. O’Neill’s tweet references the terrorist siege in Libya that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty at a CIA compound. (Read more from “Navy SEAL Drops Truth Bomb on Kavanaugh Accuser Believers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Julie Swetnik’s Former Fling: She Enjoyed Sex With Multiple Men at Once and Isn’t Telling the Truth About Brett Kavanaugh

By Townhall. Former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington D.C. Dennis Ketterer has sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Julie Swetnik. Swetnik has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

In the letter, which was submitted as a statement to the Committee under penalty of perjury, Ketterer says Swetnik told him in the 1990s that she enjoyed sex with multiple men at the same time. Ketterer, who doesn’t drink alcohol, says he met Swetnik at a bar on Wisconsin Circle. He was there to buy a soda after a goodbye party for a co-worker in 1993 and was having marital issues at the time. Swetnik approached him, they developed a conversation and ultimately a relationship.

“During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship,” the letter states. “I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.”

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity,” he continued. . .

“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend. I also know what it’s like to be accused of something significant that I didn’t do and not be believed,” he wrote. (Read more from “Julie Swetnik’s Former Fling: She Enjoyed Sex With Multiple Men at Once and Isn’t Telling the Truth About Brett Kavanaugh” HERE)

________________________________________________________

Avenatti Submits Declaration From a Witness That ‘Confirms Number’ of Julie Swetnick’s Claims

By Townhall. Early Tuesday evening attorney Michael Avenatti, who represents Julie Swetnick, tweeted a letter from a witness who declared, under penalty of perjury, that Brett Kavanaugh “drank excessively,” was “overly aggressive and verbally abusive towards girls” and he would “spike punch” at parties as a means of “making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say ‘no.'”

(Read more from “Avenatti Submits Declaration From a Witness That ‘Confirms Number’ of Julie Swetnick’s Claims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Question Conservatives Should Ask After the Unifying Kavanaugh Moment

Friday was a surreal day for everyone who considers themselves conservative or Republican.

On the one hand, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Kavanaugh in a shocking and unusual display of intrepidness from Republican members. On the other hand, at high noon, President Trump signed into law the worst budget and policy betrayal of any majority party against its voters in recent memory.

So where do things stand?

Putting the hard-core RINOs like Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins aside, have Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley really learned their lesson of holding the line on principle and recognizing they can’t negotiate in good faith with opponents who will use their goodwill to cut their hearts out? Will they finally look across the aisle – not just in the context of Supreme Court nominees – and view the other side the way Democrats incorrigibly view them?

It has been observed that last Thursday’s crescendo of emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in conjunction with the culmination of the truly evil behavior from Democrats, was a galvanizing and unifying moment for the disparate and conflicting elements of the barely coherent Republican Party. But there is no evidence to support the assumption that Republicans have learned their lesson on any other issue in dealing with Democrats.

We must not trust and hope that Republicans will begin fighting for us; we must demand it and verify it. They hold the line, or try to, on SCOTUS nominees because of what’s at stake for them if they don’t, and no amount of angry rhetoric on the Kavanaugh situation indicates that they will change this mode of operation.

Put simply, Republicans need to hold the line on the Supreme Court because it is their cover for elections and for governance. They fight emphatically on nominees and even held open a seat under Obama because it covers up their capitulations on 99 percent of the other issues. Thus, they can’t afford to cave on the Supreme Court. Plus, by exalting the role of the court to that of the supreme body of government, they excuse themselves from actually promoting tough reforms and taking power back from the courts. They outsource governing to the unelected courts and promise to make the courts better simply by “appointing better judges.” It’s the perfect scam to keep their culture of capitulation intact while still forcing conservatives to remain on their plantation every other November.

Thus, their strong position on “appointing and confirming better judges” really comes from their bad view of the role of the courts and their preference for distracting conservatives from all their other failures and betrayals on spending, abortion, traditional values, health care, immigration, and free markets.

But on this one issue of SCOTUS justices, where mainstream leadership members want to hold the line, they can’t even move the ball past the goal line because of the three or four RINOs at the fringe of the conference who are now obstructing confirmation. Some might sympathize with the leadership types – McConnell, Cornyn, and Grassley – because they would have confirmed Kavanaugh already if not for the wayward RINOs. Perhaps we just need to “elect more Republicans.” But the reason we have these RINOs is because of the failed leadership.

Every time conservatives push to nominate candidates who actually support the party’s platform, McConnell and crew burn down our candidates with the same vigor the Left is employing against Kavanaugh. They are personally destroyed. We could easily gotten Joe Miller in Alaska last time instead of Lisa Murkowski, but the establishment has no standards.

It’s not like Republicans are attempting to improve their roster, either. They have all backed Mitt Romney, against all competition, to win a Senate seat in ruby-red Utah. Now, Mitt Romney, who will likely become the new John McCain, is extolling Democrat demands on Kavanaugh. We have him to look forward to as the light at the end of this election. Even Marco Rubio is wavering on the issue. It’s no surprise, given that he and Tim Scott have already teamed up to sink a solid Ninth Circuit nominee, which likely taught Democrats that using identity politics and sensationalism can pick the Republican lock on even on the sacred issue of judicial nominees. The number of potential RINOs on any given issue is infinite because the party has no core beliefs and no process through which to vet candidates like Democrats do. Democrats run a right ship. Even Democratic members who hail from solid red states stick with the party and are voting against Kavanaugh. They don’t have a “DINO” problem because their party exudes core convictions on a daily basis.

Which brings us to the post-Kavanagh dynamic. Have these Republicans learned anything? Will Lindsey Graham suddenly serve as a bulwark against Democrats immorality, motivated by the same power-hungry truculence, on other issues such as border security and health care?

During last Friday’s vote on Kavanaugh, John Cornyn, the number two ranking Republican, referred to Democrat members of the committee as “cruel, reckless, and having no sense of decency.” I think he genuinely meant what he said and was sincerely pained by their behavior. But now that he recognizes that these people have no sense of decency, why is it that they he and others sit down with them and either fully or partially agree with their plans for crime, immigration, health care, budget, or any other issue? Don’t they see that everything about Democrats is motivated by power and that they will be cruel, reckless, and lack decency in pursuit of all those policy goals, particularly when they are designed to cement their political power, as is evident on issues like health care and immigration?

What few people outside Washington realize is that 90 percent of the work in Congress is remarkably bipartisan – and all in one direction. That is not the direction of conservatism. There is no evidence that what is happening to Kavanaugh will serve as a watershed moment for these people to change the way they do business with Democrats. Indeed, they just passed a budget supported by every cruel, reckless, and indecent Democrat member of that committee, including Kamala Harris, Mazie Hirono, and Cory “Spartacus” Booker.

Conservatives would be making a grave mistake to trust an unverified change in the behavior of GOP leadership. We have a lot more work to do than simply “voting Republican” for five minutes behind a booth on a Tuesday every other November. (For more from the author of “The Question Conservatives Should Ask After the Unifying Kavanaugh Moment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Anchor Makes Stunning Admissions About Interview With Kavanaugh Accuser

MSNBC anchor Kate Snow admitted that NBC News could not corroborate the claims of a woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of heinous charges, but they were going to air her interview anyway.

Snow aired an exclusive interview with Julie Swetnick, who was represented by Stormy Daniels lawyer Michael Avenatti, and made serious allegations against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh. . .

“There are things that she told us on camera that differ from her written statement last week,” Snow continued.

Swetnick said in the interview that she could not be certain if Kavanaugh was present when she says she was gang raped. She also could not definitively state that she saw him and his friend “spike” punch bowls at parties to get girls surreptitiously inebriated.

“We’ve been trying independently to reach out to anyone who remembers attending parties with Julie Swetnick and Brett Kavanaugh,” she added, “and we’ve been asking her attorney for names. So far, we’ve not found anyone who remembers that.” (Read more from “Anchor Makes Stunning Admissions About Interview With Kavanaugh Accuser” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Details Massive Inconsistencies in Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story

By The Federalist. The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has released a memo detailing inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony.

“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” Rachel Mitchell wrote in a five-page-long memo obtained by The Washington Post. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

Ford named a friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, as at the drunken high school party where Ford says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Keyser has repeatedly said that she does not remember any such event and has refused to corroborate Ford’s story. . .

Initially, Ford kept altering the timeline about when the alleged attack took place, then suddenly narrowed it down to the summer of 1982 just before her testimony without explaining how she was able to do that. . .

Leading up to the hearing, Ford told The Post she had therapy notes from a marriage counseling session in 2012 in which she outlined the alleged assault. Post reporter Emma Brown noted that Ford did not name Kavanaugh as the assailant in these notes. The only time Ford has named Kavanaugh as the assailant on the record was after he was nominated as a Supreme Court justice. (Read more from “Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Details Massive Inconsistencies in Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story” HERE)

______________________________________________________

The Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Blasey Ford in Senate Hearing Says Her Case Against Kavanaugh Is Weak

By Business Insider. The prosecutor who questioned professor Christine Blasey Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over sexual assault allegations wrote in a memo that Ford’s case against Kavanaugh is weak.

The Washington Post obtained the five-page memo prosecutor Rachel Mitchell sent to Senate Republicans Sunday night that said key inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee rendered the case too weak to pursue.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell wrote. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”

Mitchell pointed out in the memo that Ford wasn’t able to recall the date and never identified Kavanaugh by name in the evidence provided to the committee, which included notes from therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013. . .

Describing the allegations she first made known in a letter to members of the Judiciary Committee, Ford said Kavanaugh and a friend locked her in an upstairs bedroom at a party, pinned her to a bed, groped her, and held his hand over her mouth as she screamed. Mitchell wrote in the memo Ford’s failure to recall other key details about the incident’s date and location “raises significant questions” about her account. (Read more from “The Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Blasey Ford in Senate Hearing Says Her Case Against Kavanaugh Is Weak” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kavanaugh Critics: FBI Needs to Investigate What ‘Boofing’ Means

With the unsubstantiated allegations against Brett Kavanaugh continuing to pile up, some of his critics have zeroed in on a new gotcha on the SCOTUS nominee: the meaning of the words “boof” and “Devil’s Triangle” in his high school yearbook.

Even though the words “boof” and “Devil’s Triangle” may very well have had an entirely different meaning to a bunch of D.C. suburban teens in the early-’80s, Kavanaugh’s critics are promoting the narrative on social media that Kavanaugh lied under oath regarding the meaning of those terms. According to these critics, the “Devil’s Triangle” is not a drinking game, as Kavanaugh asserted during his testimony, but rather sex acts involving two guys and one girl; “Boof” refers to, well, something very NC-17; “Renate Alumnus” really was code for “I tapped that.”

Setting aside the problematic notion of combing through a high school yearbook and decoding inside jokes, for Kavanaugh to openly brag about it suggests a personality that was not only flippant but gleefully pernicious. Remember, many of those spreading this theory are the same people who have readily accepted that Kavanaugh was running a “gang rape” ring at age 15.

Politico is lending their weight to promoting the theory. In a piece published by Politico, Brian Fallon and Chris Kang, co-founders of a progressive group opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination, call for the FBI to fully probe the meaning of a 17-year-old teen’s reference to “boofing.”

The article, of course, neglects to mention the fact that over 60 women and several of Kavanaugh’s classmates have openly rejected the portrait that Ford and Ramirez have painted of him, both of whom have failed to identify a single witness that can corroborate their accounts. For his critics, their uncorroborated accounts are more truthful than Kavanaugh’s assertion that “boofing” referred to flatulence and “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game. (Read more from “Kavanaugh Critics: FBI Needs to Investigate What ‘Boofing’ Means” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Really Big Problems With Kavanaugh Accuser Swetnick’s Tale

Julie Swetnick, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of participating in gang rapes in the 1980s, has a problem with her story. Four problems, actually.

Swetnick, represented by porn star lawyer Michael Avanetti, claims Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were both at a party at which she was drugged and gang raped. On Monday, she did a lengthy interview on NBC News, in which she made several unsubstantiated claims.

NBC, toeing the liberal line as expected, put her on anyway. Before airing the interview with Swetnick, NBC News national correspondent Kate Snow said: “NBC News, for the record, has not been able to independently verify her claims. There are things she told us on camera that differ from her written statements last week.”

Swetnick “provided four names to NBC News that she said could confirm her descriptions of the parties in the 1980s. NBC News contacted all four: one said they did not remember a Julie Swetnick, one was dead, and two did not respond, per Snow,” Mediaite reported. . .

NBC News also noted that Swetnick appeared to change her initial statement about Kavanaugh being involved in gang rapes. Swetnick initially claimed: “I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.” (Read more from “Really Big Problems With Kavanaugh Accuser Swetnick’s Tale” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.