It hasn’t hit the news yet, but it will.
There is a credible report that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a thief.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is planning a press conference to break the big news about Kavanaugh.
How could the Republicans even consider appointing Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court when an as yet unnamed fellow student clearly remembers Kavanaugh stealing?
That’s right. When Kavanaugh was in kindergarten he stole two of a classmate’s crayons, claimed they were his own and had trouble stuffing them in his own crayon box, which was bursting at the seams.
His classmate doesn’t remember exactly which two he stole, but she does remember that one of them was pink because that was her favorite color. She also doesn’t remember when it was because it could have been pre-kindergarten; and she’s not entirely sure which school it was but she is dead certain that it was a Trump Supreme Court nominee who did the stealing.
If it wasn’t Kavanaugh then it was the next person President Donald Trump nominates to the Supreme Court, whoever that will be.
It’s going to be a huge scandal.
OK, so I made that up, but really, some woman claiming that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh at a party when they were in high school? If we’re going to go back to high school, why not kindergarten?
This is the best the Democrats can do. You know that they have talked to everyone who ever even met Kavanaugh in passing, and this is the best they can do. The man must be a saint. And, in the best dreadful behavior story they can come up with, nothing happened, even according to Ford’s story.
It’s amazing. You would think they could have found a neighbor who would report that Kavanaugh once let his grass get over 6 inches tall, which is “against the law.” Or they could have found an unpaid parking ticket, or something.
This is lame. The fact that it is holding up a Supreme Court nominee is simply more evidence that this country has absolutely lost its mind.
Of course, it wouldn’t have held up the nomination if Kavanaugh had been accused of stealing, cheating, armed robbery or murder. What makes this so egregious is that Kavanaugh, a male, is accused of sexual assault of Christine Ford, a female.
What we have learned is that when a woman accuses a man of sexual assault she is always right and he is always wrong.
At some point the pendulum will swing back, but currently in our society a man accused of sexual assault isn’t even given the chance to defend himself. He is deemed guilty by the accusation itself.
In this case the stakes are so high and the accusation so incredibly lame that Kavanaugh is being given the opportunity to defend himself, but he has already been deemed guilty by many, just not by the Republican senators who count.
It is incredible that this even made the news. The accuser, Ford, doesn’t even remember what year it happened, or where it happened. The therapist’s notes, which she submits as evidence, state that she said four boys were involved.
I suppose that since only one is a Republican who has been nominated for the Supreme Court, she decided to reduce that to two. Having two men deny they did something in high school is not as powerful as having four men deny it.
She thinks she might have been 15 at the time. But what she does remember without question is that she had been drinking beer, but only drank one.
Isn’t it incredible she can’t remember where it happened, when it happened or how many people were involved, but she remembers exactly how many beers she drank on that day, wherever and whenever it was?
This doesn’t even begin to pass the smell test. It’s also possible that she had 10 beers, passed out in an upstairs bedroom and two or four boys were trying to carry her out of the house because the parents were coming home. She came to while they were trying to pick her back up after dropping her once and she thought she was being kidnapped.
Kavanaugh can deny the accusation, but he’s going to have a lot of trouble proving he wasn’t there because how do you prove you weren’t somewhere when you don’t know where the somewhere was or when it was?
Let’s say for instance that Kavanaugh said, “In the summer of 1982, I was in an exchange program and was in Japan all summer.”
Ford comes back with, did you say 1982? Now that I think about it, I believe it was the summer of 1983.
He can hardly claim he was never in any house in Montgomery County while he was in high school.
What if he says, I heard about the party but I went to a movie that night? She then says, not that night, the other night.
It doesn’t even rise to the level of he said, she said. It’s more of a he said and she thinks maybe.
It makes it a better story from the Democratic side because it is harder to deny.
The one beer was probably advice from an attorney who said that after one beer you wouldn’t be impaired.
There is a good bit of evidence that the Democrats came up with the story and then had to find a storyteller. It would explain why Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she had the letter but didn’t mention it during the confirmation hearing or during her private meeting with Kavanaugh. Without an actual accuser the story, although clever, would have died a natural death.
The Democratic strategy as we get closer to the scheduled Monday hearing is becoming more apparent. Ford has hired well-known Democratic operative Debra Katz as her attorney and is currently saying that she won’t testify if there is not an FBI investigation. An FBI investigation of a 36-year-old allegation would push her testimony out past the midterm election.
That is, unless the FBI used the same technique to investigate her allegation that they used to investigate the 694,000 emails discovered on Anthony Weiner’s computer; the FBI investigated those and rendered an opinion in one night.
So using a similar technique investigating an allegation of sexual assault 36 years ago might take the FBI seven minutes.
It’s too bad FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired, because he could no doubt write the report on the investigation first and then do the “complete” investigation in less than a day. Of course, as far as the public knows, Strzok only used the technique of writing the report first when he was investigating Hillary Clinton.
Also, knowing Strzok’s opinion of Trump and how his political opinion seemed to determine the outcome of his investigations, Strzok could probably write that report and find that Kavanaugh was lying and only do a three-minute investigation to prove that his report was true.
But back to Ford. Making the allegations in the final days before the committee vote and then asking for a further delay is strong evidence that this is all an attempt by the Democrats to delay the vote because they know they don’t have the votes to defeat Kavanaugh outright.
It would appear that the Democrats were hopeful that they could come up with something more powerful than a 36-year-old allegation against Kavanaugh but realized that they weren’t, so the Democrats went with what they had.
In a rare moment of honesty, even Feinstein admitted that she didn’t know if everything Ford said was true. If Feinstein doesn’t believe Ford is entirely credible then why even bring the allegation forward?
It seems unlikely that Ford has come this far and is not going to testify before the Senate committee. However, the refusal to testify is a good negotiating tactic to get whatever conditions she wants.
The Democrats are doing all of this, but it has gone this far because Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, both never Trumpers, have said they want the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings.
The Republicans can only give up one vote and still get Kavanaugh confirmed, so these two senators who had agreed to vote for Kavanaugh would love to have an excuse to stick it to Trump and deny his nominee.
The downside of this whole scenario is that if the Republicans can’t get Kavanaugh confirmed, that means they can’t get any conservative confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Democrats can drag up some vague accusation about any nominee Trump makes. All they have to do is find someone who had some contact with the nominee at some point in his or her life, or maybe not even any real contact, but some possible contact, meaning like Ford they lived in the same area at the same time and knew some people in common.
Can anyone name everyone who was every party they ever attended in their life? Someone who attended a wedding, who lived in the neighborhood or attended a different but nearby school? The bar will have been moved so low if this accusation works that all the Democrats will need is to find one person who could have possibly had contact with the nominee at some point in his or her life and they can make an accusation.
The mainstream media went nuts over Hurricane Florence. When it appeared a Category 4 hurricane was going to hit the North Carolina coast, they made all of these dire predictions. Then it came ashore as a Category 1. It was still a hurricane and caused flooding and lots of damage, but it was not a Category 4, which is a different animal.
But it seems the mainstream media never backed off. They were still covering the most devastating hurricane ever in the history of the world. The fact that the hurricane didn’t cooperate was not their problem.
And it was all caused by global warming.
The fact that the US went 11 years without a major hurricane making landfall in the US notwithstanding, hurricanes are still, according to global warmers, getting bigger and more frequent despite the fact that this was a Category 1 and not a Category 4.
It’s hard to even figure how we can be having more hurricanes because of global warming, because we are not having more hurricanes.
If we were, the graph should show a steady upward trend. That doesn’t mean more hurricanes every year than the year before, but overall if the global warming disciples were right the trend would be up like the stock market. It doesn’t mean every day is higher, but overall it is trending up.
Hurricanes are not. Since hurricanes are not trending up in frequency or strength, why don’t they simply cut that out of the global warming playbook and admit that, about that one thing, they were wrong.
Just like they have been wrong about the rising sea level. The sea level is rising; the trend there is up and has been for the past 20,000 years. What sea levels have not done is shown a big jump in the rate of increase like they keep predicting. It is always just about to happen.
Why is it that global warming predictions don’t have to be accurate? If global warming were rapidly increasing because of man’s activities then these predictions should be true. It should be getting hotter every year by a larger increase than it has been getting hotter for the past 20,000 years, but once again it is not.
The whole global warming movement has little to do with climate, which is constantly changing. It has to do with first world people feeling guilty about having so much more than the rest of the world.
But these global warming people don’t feel so guilty that they stop living the first world life. They don’t stop flying around the world in private jets, or ride bikes to speeches instead of taking limousines. No, they are not causing the problem with their carbon footprint; it is the evil industries that are doing it and they must be stopped.
It has cost the industrialized world billions, probably trillions of dollars in lost production. One reason industries left the US was because of the costly restrictions on what they could do.
They don’t have those restrictions in the third world because for some strange reason carbon emissions in the rest of the world don’t cause global warming. It is an amazing theory. When it is hotter, that is caused by global warming, but colder winters are also caused by global warming. The droughts, which have always been with us, are now caused by global warming, but so are the floods.
It appears that all weather events that are deemed bad or harmful are caused by global warming.
People who get their news from the mainstream media were almost universally all bent out of shape about Hurricane Florence.
On Monday, out my window I could see blue sky and sunshine, so my guess was that the hurricane had passed, but who knows.
Television had scheduled a lot of time for the “storm of the century,” or whatever the various networks were calling it. They had scheduled time and sold it to advertisers, so they were stuck showing endless hours of rain.
Florence did not make landfill as a Category 4 hurricane as predicted but as a Category 1. No hurricane is to be trifled with, but this is North Carolina and we do get hurricanes.
Wrightsville Beach was reopened to homeowners on Tuesday and the reports were that even though Hurricane Florence made landfall at Wrightsville Beach, the damage was not nearly as severe as from previous hurricanes.
By the time the storm of the century made its way to South Carolina, it was no longer a hurricane but had been downgraded to a tropical storm.
The damage, so far, seems to have been largely caused by the rain Florence brought and not the wind.
All these predictions about a blue wave ignore one of the realities of elections, which is they boil down to two people, and in congressional elections usually two people that the voters have some personal feelings about. They may not actually know the candidates, but they know enough about them to have formed an opinion.
A blue wave or a red wave isn’t going to change the personalities of the people running for office.
It’s also interesting that someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won and nobody was predicting it. The race wasn’t out in flyover country somewhere, but in New York. If the pollsters and pundits have no idea what is happening politically in New York, how can they possibly know what is happening in Paducah or Poughkeepsie?
The truth is that the congressional races are really 435 individual political battles with all the idiosyncrasies of actual human beings.
I don’t see hurricanes as political. There are used as political pawns but whether a hurricane is red or blue is tough to determine. So I think hurricane coverage is probably a fair indication of the reliability of the current media and, certainly, in the coverage of Florence, the media proved not to be very honest.
It was going to be the storm of the century and it wasn’t.
Maybe the news media can’t be faulted for that. Weather predictions are notoriously unreliable. But they can be blamed for making the hurricane out to be much worse than it was.
You had that girl doing backflips on the beach behind Don Lemon of CNN, who said the beach was closed while the news ticker on the screen below him read, “Storm of the Century.” Clearly the family on the beach behind him didn’t agree or they wouldn’t have been out there with a young girl doing backflips.
Then there was the reporter for the Weather Channel caught pretending to be in wind so fierce he could barely keep his feet, when behind him two guys are seen strolling down the road without any problems at all.
The coverage was based on the assumption that this was “The Storm of the Century,” and when it turned out to be far less than that, the coverage didn’t change.
If any further proof is needed that the media are completely biased against Republicans in general and a thousand times more so against Trump, it is The New York Times report on the $52,000 curtains for the apartment of United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley in New York.
Spending that much federal money on curtains was a disgrace and another example of a Trump appointee abusing their position to buy expensive stuff for their government office, or in this case apartment. But as it turned out the curtains were ordered during the Obama administration, so never mind.
Suddenly $52,000 curtains were not a problem at all, just a normal government expense. So what becomes obvious is that it is wrong for the Trump administration to buy $52,000 curtains but perfectly acceptable for the Obama administration to buy $52,000 curtains.
They’re the same window coverings in the same apartment at the same cost. If it is wrong for the federal government to buy $52,000 curtains, it should be wrong whoever signed the check. But that isn’t the case.
The New York Times decided early in the Obama administration that President Barack Obama could do no wrong. Whatever Obama did was right and admirable by definition.
And The New York Times made the opposite decision about Trump. Everything that Trump does is by definition wrong and The New York Times doesn’t even need to do any research to discover why it’s wrong.
So it was a terrible thing for a Trump appointee to purchase $52,000 curtains but just the cost of doing business for an Obama appointee to do exactly the same thing.
What would be journalism would be if The New York Times did some research and could report how curtains could cost $52,000 and what exactly the same curtains would have cost if purchased by a private citizen.
Do these curtains have artificial intelligence with sensors on every surface that allows them to open and close the exact amount to allow perfect lighting in the apartment?
When Haley gets out of bed and is wearing a bathrobe do the curtains stay open, but if she is dashing around naked the curtains, having sensed the lack of clothing, remain closed?
If Haley is having a bad hair day, do the curtains automatically close so her neighbors can’t peer in and see her not looking her best?
Or perhaps since the curtains were purchased by the Obama administration, the curtains bear hand painted depictions of former President Obama at his best. Maybe one side is Barack Obama and the other side Michelle Obama and they come together in one scene when the curtains are closed.
Certainly The New York Times would agree that spending $52,000 on original paintings of the Obama’s would be money well spent.
It appears likely that former Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort may spend some time in prison.
Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has tried to fix the plea bargain so that Trump can’t pardon Manafort, but it’s difficult even for a special prosecutor, even one with unlimited powers to investigate, to override a constitutional authority.
Trump should pardon Manafort because Manafort has been convicted of crimes only because he was Trump’s campaign chair.
The FBI had already investigated the allegations against Manafort for money laundering, tax evasion and all those other financial shenanigans and the Justice Department under Obama had decided not to prosecute.
So Manafort had essentially gotten away with whatever it was that he had done that was illegal. Manafort was prosecuted, as the judge said in the case, because Mueller was trying to get him to go state’s evidence against Trump.
If Manafort had not accepted the unpaid job of campaign chairman for Trump he never would have been prosecuted. Furthermore, if Trump hadn’t been so naive about the ways of the federal government when he first took office, a special prosecutor never would have been appointed.
According to a jury of his peers Manafort is guilty of the crimes, but he never would have been in front of that jury if it weren’t for Trump.
It is a given that Trump will take some heat for pardoning Manafort, and because of that Trump may have to wait until after the 2020 election to use his get out of jail free card.
If, as the mainstream media are constantly proclaiming, this is going to be a blue wave year, how does a Republican state senator in Texas get elected in a district that went for Hillary Clinton by 12 points and hasn’t elected a Republican in over a century?
Voters in Texas Senate District 19 elected Republican Peter Flores over former Democratic Congressman Pete Gallego on Tuesday.
Just imagine the headlines and the shouts of glee by so-called unbiased television journalists if the opposite had been true and a Democrat had won a seat held by Republicans for a hundred years.
This election doesn’t fit with the scenario being promoted by the liberals, including the liberal mainstream media. The game plan is that by ignoring Republican successes and pumping up the successes by Democrats, the liberal mainstream media are hoping to create a climate of defeat for Republicans in November.
If the Republicans in Texas can win a seat held by the Democrats for over a century, do you really think that Sen. Ted Cruz is in trouble?
The Cruz race reminds me of North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr’s race in 2016. The predictions were dire; it was too close to call; at times Burr was behind in the polls. Burr, however, refused help from his Republican buddies in the Senate because he told them he didn’t need it.
Speaking of that, what does it take for a state to be considered a red state? North Carolina voted for Trump, has two Republican senators, has 10 out of 13 Republican congressmen, has veto-proof majorities in the state House and Senate, but it does have a Democratic governor. So maybe it’s Gov. Roy Cooper who makes the state purple.
But Cooper, although he was elected, didn’t win the governorship; former Gov. Pat McCrory lost it.
McCrory made a series of bad political decisions when he was in office and lost his base. Conservatives were upset with him because he opposed the legislature too many times. Pretty much everyone was mad with him over the handling of HB2, the bathroom bill, and then he lost his base with the I-77 toll road fiasco.
Cooper was elected but, as mentioned earlier, each race boils down to two candidates running against each other. Cooper was elected because McCrory lost.
It seems that race, coupled with the fact that Obama won the state in 2008, means North Carolina is a purple state.
Breitbart has a good story on an investigation it did of Mari Stull, senior advisor at the Department of State appointed by Trump.
Stull has been under attack by the deep state or, if you prefer, the long time federal employees at the State Department, since she took office.
The deep state did what has become almost routine in Washington; it leaked a bunch of anonymous derogatory stories about Stull to the media. The stories ran, were picked up and then run again.
Because of the news stories about the problems that Stull was causing in the State Department, Democratic US senators then asked that Stull be investigated.
It’s the same thing that since fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and fired agent Strzok were doing in the Trump Russian collusion probe and other investigations.
Chris Steele, the author of the infamous dossier, leaked the information to Yahoo News, and then the FBI used the Yahoo News article as corroboration of the Steele dossier in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application to spy on Carter Page.
Stull is bringing reforms ordered by Trump to the State Department, which the deep state opposes. Since the job of the State Department is to carry out the policies of the president, it can’t attack the policies, but it can and does attack the people who are carrying them out.
The same techniques have been used against other Trump appointees in other departments. Anonymous leaks to the media prompt demands for investigations by lawmakers.
It’s a pretty good system to undermine the policies of the Trump administration and more proof that Trump needs to work harder at cleaning out the swamp. The long time federal employees can act with impunity knowing that only 0.5 percent of federal employees are fired in any given year.