At the risk of becoming an all-Kavanaugh all the time blog, events have transpired to provoke this update on Democrat machinations, covert and overt. The two female leftist thugs that ambushed Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator, and just happened to have a CNN cameraman along, are operatives in a lavishly funded George Soros front group, as National Review Online reports:
Ana Maria Archila and Maggie Gallagher were the two women who confronted Flake inside the elevator to express, as the New York Times put it, ‘a rising anger among many who feel that, too often, women’s voices are silenced and their pain ignored.’
Perhaps because the women expressed such raw emotion, few media outlets dug into their political activism. Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.
We now know Flake conspired with Democrat Senator Chris Coons (D- Delaware) to demand a week-long FBI investigation to delay Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. It would not be surprising to learn that Flake was complicit in his ambush as well, but I have no particular information to confirm that suspicion. In any case, nothing the FBI could discover will convince Democrats to change their minds. They announced their intention to do whatever was necessary to destroy Kavanaugh within minutes of the announcement of his nomination.
Only three days later (10-01-18), several women from the same Leftist organization ambushed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at Reagan National Airport, also with the help of a cameraman. Unlike the calculatedly feckless Flake, McConnell ignored the women and walked away from them with the help of his security detail. By all means, take the Fox link and watch the women try to provoke a physical confrontation.
These days, it’s not uncommon to hear even former Democrats ask, rhetorically, whether it is possible for the Left to sink any lower. Consider this editorial cartoon from one Chris Britt:
While depraved, it’s not unusual for the left. Why should people who claimed President Trump had an incestuous relationship with his daughter shrink from suggesting he, along with Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Kavanaugh, are child molesters? After all, evidence is irrelevant these days. But just when one might think the left had reached the depths of depravity, they move the goalposts yet again:
Far too many Democrats found the cartoon delightful, which eloquently demonstrates what evil thugs they are. Civilized, decent, humane people leave children out of politics. Wise people don’t taunt the Almighty. Democrats have no such inhibitions. The Illinois Times, which Britt claimed to represent with his perverse and wicked ‘toon went so far as to distance themselves from it:
There appears to be a great deal of confusion surrounding the recent Chris Britt cartoon featuring Judge Kavanaugh’s daughter. I saw that you shared it on your website and I know it has been shared on various other social media sites and attributed to our publication. However, we did not publish this cartoon, either in our paper or on our website. Chris posted it to his own Facebook page and tagged us in it, which we asked him to remove as soon as we became aware of it.
Chris Britt is not an employee of ours, he is a nationally syndicated cartoonist. While we have published other cartoons of his, we had not seen this particular one and had no knowledge of it until the death threats and hate mail started pouring in. I saw it for the first time myself yesterday.
I would be glad to speak with you about this situation if you would like to talk directly, but I am hoping that you will be willing to issue a clarification on your site. If people have issues with the cartoon, they can certainly take it up with Chris, but we had no knowledge of this cartoon and were not a part of promoting it. I happen to agree with you that children should be left out of political discussions.
Well, that’s mildly encouraging, though I somehow suspect The Illinois Times, if they use Britt’s work at all, is not at all shy about cruelly and unfairly attacking their political enemies. Leftists are, however, admirably consistent. When they think they have a useful narrative, no matter how false, ugly and plainly stupid, they ride it into the ground:
Anyone that still harbored the delusion that USA Today was a legitimate newspaper can dump that unsightly baggage without regret:
Consider this from Britt Hume. He is remarkably kind:
Julie Swetnick, who claimed Kavanaugh led a teenaged rape ring some 35 years ago, backtracked so fast during an NBC interview, even the stalwart journalists of that normal American hating network had an “aw s**t” moment. Fox reports:
Swetnick, in a sworn statement last month, claimed she had seen Kavanaugh ‘engage in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls’ including ‘grinding’ against girls and attempting to remove their clothes in the early ’80s. She also claimed she “became aware of efforts by [friend] Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to ‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties” with drugs or alcohols to lower girls’ defenses and get them disoriented so they could be ‘gang raped’ in a side room by a ‘train’ of 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,’ she said. ‘These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.’ She said she later became a victim of one of these gang rapes, at which she said Kavanaugh and Judge were present. The allegations represented the third sexual assault claim against Kavanaugh, but by far the most lurid and serious.
Yet in an interview with NBC News, she appeared to walk back some of the claims about Kavanaugh, while standing by her claims of sexually aggressive behavior. While she said in her statement she became aware of “efforts” by Kavanaugh to spike the punch, she said in the interview she was unclear about what Kavanaugh was actually doing.
‘Well I saw—I saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls during that time frame, and there was grain punch at those parties,’ she said. ‘I saw him around the punch—I won’t say bowls, the punch containers. I don’t know what he did, but I saw him by them.’
As for the claim about ‘trains’ of boys lining up outside rooms to rape girls, she said in the interview she saw boys including Kavanaugh and Judge ‘huddled by doors.’ Asked if she was suggesting she thought Kavanaugh was involved, she answered: ‘I would say yes, it’s just too coincidental.’ She did not offer further details to support the claim he was waiting his ‘turn.’
She also clarified that while she saw Kavanaugh and Judge at the party and where other boys were gathered, she ‘cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me’ — her original statement did not specifically accuse them of assaulting her, either.
It is interesting to note that like Christine Blasey Ford, Swetnick appears to have no one to corroborate her claims. A number of people she named, including a police officer that supposedly took her rape report, are conveniently dead, and others are not returning anyone’s calls, while at least one, who Swetnick claims was at rape parties with her, denies knowing Swetnick at all. Her backtracking on the NBC interview might very well make her liable for perjury, and it couldn’t happen to a less honest girl.
As anyone with a room temperature IQ could have predicted, the Democrats are attempting to move the goalposts. The FBI doesn’t have enough time to do an investigation; look: squirrels! We must investigate this and that and things we haven’t thought of yet, but give us time…
Democrats are now trying to insinuate Kavanaugh somehow lied about his teenaged drinking. The point is apparently to demonstrate he was so drunk during those years he must have blacked out–for as much as a five year span–and raped Ford, but doesn’t remember it. Yeah, that’s it! That’s the ticket! That’ll keep him off the Supreme Court! The Washington Examiner explains:
Kavanaugh repeated it all when the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, questioned him.
‘Yes, we drank beer,’ he said. ‘My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers.”
Mitchell pressed Kavanaugh on whether he sometimes drank so much that he forgot what he did when he was drinking.
‘Have you ever passed out from drinking?’
‘I — passed out would be — no, but I’ve gone to sleep, but — but I’ve never blacked out,’ Kavanaugh said. ‘That’s the — that’s the — the allegation, and that — that — that’s wrong.’ [skip]
‘Did you ever tell — did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn’t remember during a time that you had been drinking?’
‘During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember?’
Considering his clear and forthcoming testimony about this issue, it’s highly unlikely the Democrats will come up with anything. If someone from 36 years ago claims Kavanaugh drank a lot, he’s already admitted it. If they claim they saw him asleep, he’s admitted that. Besides, Ford still has no idea when any of her accusations happened. There is nothing to connect Kavanaugh to any accusation of wrongdoing, not that that has stopped Democrats thus far. What remains elusive is the slightest corroboration of Ford’s claims.
Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor that conducted a less than effective questioning of Ford has issued a report of her conclusions. Unsurprisingly, she finds there is not enough evidence to obtain so much as a search warrant, let alone to make an arrest, and a prosecution is out of the question. Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection provides this:
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Here are some key observations, each of which Mitchell supports with detailed analysis:
*Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened
*Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
*When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
*Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
*Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.
*Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
*Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
*Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
*The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.
Take the link and read the entire article, which includes a link to Mitchell’s complete report. I could go on endlessly, but one final bit of insanity from a female Georgetown University professor:
Yeah, I’d love to pay tens of thousands to hear that kind of professional discourse, though all men might want to wear kevlar groin protection. A university professor? Those are the ravings of a mentally ill C-movie snuff film screenwriter. Georgetown is taking the matter as seriously as one might expect of an august institution of higher learning
Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas, even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable,’ the statement said. ‘While faculty members may exercise freedom of speech, we expect that their classrooms and interaction with students be free of bias and geared toward thoughtful, respectful dialogue.
Hey, as long as one is suggesting murderous violence against men, particularly Republican men, all’s fair in love and mutilation.
“He said/she said” accusations sometime lack physical evidence. Those that have evidence of sexual contact generally prove no more than that the people involved had sexual contact. Both parties admit as much. The issue is whether it was consensual, and often, that consent may have been explicitly given, sort of withdrawn, given again, implied, and ultimately given, only to be regretted later. However, something virtually every such case has is a place and a time. Things must happen somewhere and somewhen. In such cases, there will be no prosecution, and while people may believe whatever they please, no civilized society can afford to ostracize and destroy people based on unfound, uncorroborated accusations, particularly those that are unquestionably politically motivated and financed.
The unrestrained, barbaric cruelty and physically dangerous tactics of the Left should give any person of good will pause, and convince them these brutal thugs must never again have political power. They’ve demonstrated exactly what they intend to do with it.