Armed Leftists Call for Mass Violence if Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed to SCOTUS


Armed Leftists Call for Mass Violence if Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed to SCOTUS

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
September 28, 2018

Far left activists are already plotting their next move if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Following yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearings, prominent activist Emily G called for a violent general strike if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Accordiing to Far Left Watch
Emily G is no random leftist kook. She is one of 3,641 people followed by Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey and one of 503 people followed by the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s “Hate Watch” account.

On Thursday leftists on Twitter began discussing the need for a “violent general strike” if he were to be confirmed. This comes just days after a violent antifa group confronted Senator Ted Cruz and his family at a restaurant and then made credible threats against the lives of Senator Cruz, Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump, and others from their Twitter and Facebook accounts.

The original Twitter thread (archived here) came from Data Scientist and left-wing activist, Emily Gorcenski.

Read more on the left’s plans for violence at Far Left Watch.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

Announcement: We have disabled the ability to post graphics after experiencing an attack of inappropriate image spam over the last several days. Thanks for your understanding.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Must See=> Updated Timeline of Christine Blasey Ford’s Contacts with Democrats

Judge Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford first reportedly contacted Democratic lawmakers on July 6th.

Since then there have been several communications between Ford and leading Democrats.

Here is the latest timeline of Christine Ford’s numerous contacts with Democrats.

UPDATED TIMELINE OF CHRISTINE FORD’S CONTACTS WITH DEMOCRATS

The information below is from the charts listed above with the links to the sources.

 

The post Must See=> Updated Timeline of Christine Blasey Ford’s Contacts with Democrats appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Date Event Description/Notes Citation
July 6 Ford speaks with Eshoo’s staff. Ford called Eshoo’s office and requested a meeting. A staffer spoke with Ford in advance of the meeting.

 

In her letter to Feinstein, Ford wrote, “On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed . . . .”

Casey Tolan, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo First To Hear Blasey Ford’s Story: ‘I Told Her I Believed Her, Mercury News (Sep. 18, 2018), https://‌www.mercurynews.com/‌2018/‌09/18/christine-blasey-ford-first-meeting-anna-eshoo-brett-kavanaugh/; Read the Letter Christine Blasey Ford Sent Accusing Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct, CNN (Sep. 17, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/‌2018/‌09/‌16/‌politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html.
Ford texts the Washington Post tipline using What’s App. Produced documents
July 9 Ford speaks with Eschoo’s staff on the phone. Transcript
July 10 Ford contacts the Washington Post again. “Been advised to contact senators or NYT. Haven’t heard back from WaPo.” Produced documents
At some point between July 10 and September 16 Ford speaks with Emma Brown, a Washington Post reporter. Transcript
July 18 Ford meets with Eschoo’s staff. Transcript
July 20 Ford speaks with Eshoo. Ford and Eshoo met for “more than an hour and half” in a “conference room.” Eshoo suggested that she write a letter detailing her claims to Senator Feinstein. Casey Tolan, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo First To Hear Blasey Ford’s Story: ‘I Told Her I Believed Her, Mercury News (Sep. 18, 2018), https://www.mercurynews.com/‌2018/‌09/‌18/‌christine-blasey-ford-first-meeting-anna-eshoo-brett-kavanaugh/.
July 30 The letter, dated July 30, is delivered to Feinstein’s D.C. office. “Eshoo said she hasn’t met with the professor since that July afternoon, although her staff has been in contact with her since she came forward.” Casey Tolan, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo First To Hear Blasey Ford’s Story: ‘I Told Her I Believed Her, Mercury News (Sep. 18, 2018), https://‌www.‌mercurynews.com/‌2018/‌09/‌18/christine-blasey-ford-first-meeting-anna-eshoo-brett-kavanaugh/.
Between July 30 and August 7 Ford speaks by phone with Senator Feinstein. Transcript
After July 30 Ford speaks with Feinstein’s staff, who recommends that she engage Debra Katz. Transcript
August 7 Ford takes a polygraph test after she engages Katz. Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. Katz provided the results to the Washington Post. They showed that she “was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.” Emma Brown, California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault, Washington Post (Sep. 16, 2018), https://‌www.‌washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html.
August 20 Feinstein meets one-on-one with Kavanaugh.   Michael Macagnone & Jimmy Hoover, Kavanaugh Meets Top Senate Dem Opposing His Confirmation, Law360 (Aug. 20, 2018), https://www.law360.com/‌articles/1075169/kavanaugh-meets-top-senate-dem-opposing-his-confirmation.
August 28 Feinstein’s staff participates in the first Background Investigation (BI) call. Phil and Gab from Feinstein’s staff participated on the call. Committee records
September 4-7 SJC holds a public hearing on Kavanaugh’s nomination.   Committee records
September 6 SJC gives Senators an opportunity to question Kavanaugh at a closed session.   Committee records
September 12 The Intercept reports that SJC Democrats have requested to view a “Kavanaugh-related document” in the possession of Feinstein The article reported that a letter in the possession of Feinstein “purportedly describe[d] an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents the area.” Ryan Grim, Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats, Intercept (Sep. 12, 2018), https://theintercept.‌com/‌2018/‌09/‌12/‌brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/.
September 13 Feinstein refers the letter to the FBI.   Burgess Everett & Edward-Isaac Dovere, Feinstein Asks Feds To Investigate Kavanaugh Claims in Letter, Politico (Sep. 30, 2018), https://www.politico.com/‌story/‌2018/09/13/‌feinstein-kavanaugh-investigation-letter-822902
September 14 The New Yorker reports on an interview with Ford but does not identify her by name. The article described the incident in detail. Ronan Farrow & Jane Mayer, A Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress, New Yorker (Sep. 14, 2018), https://www.newyorker.‌com/‌news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress.
September 16 The Washington Post reports on an interview with Ford. The article described the incident in detail. Emma Brown, California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault, Washington Post (Sep. 16, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html.
September 17 SJC has a follow-up BI call with Kavanaugh on the Ford letter. Feinstein does not participate. Feinstein’s staff did not show up. Committee records
September 25 SJC speaks with Kavanaugh about the allegations against him. Feinstein’s staff declared that they were present “under protest” and did not participate. Committee records
September 26 SJC speaks with Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations against him. Feinstein’s staff declared that they were present “under protest” and did not participate. Committee records

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation


If you had the stout constitution to sit through every moment of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings Thursday, I’m both envious and curious. The envy stems from the fact that you could watch a room of craven politicians preen for the camera and donor-email clips and not lose interest. The curiosity stems from the fact that I get paid to do it, while most of our readership does not.

If you waited until the end, however, you got to glimpse the guiding spirit of the whole affair — or what a certain anonymous Op-Ed writer might have called the “lodestar” that directed the proceedings — in a line from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After being accused of leaking the letter that set this whole thing rolling, the California senator denied either she or her staff released it. Instead, she blamed the leak on a woman who was now utterly disposable to her — Christine Blasey Ford.

The exchange began after Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz questioned the leaking of the letter, which had been passed on to Sen. Feinstein.

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

“We also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process,” Cruz said.

“The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for sixty days, that was sixty days ago, the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation.

“This committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford’s privacy,” Cruz continued.

“Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter, were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress.

Do you think Dianne Feinstein bears responsibility for the circus we saw Thursday?

“And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people who could have released the letter were either the ranking member (Sen. Feinstein) and her staff, or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

“That is not a fair process,” Cruz said.

There were two options for Sen. Feinstein in this situation: a) apologize or b) deny. If she chose option b), however, there wasn’t the obligation to take path c): throw Christine Blasey Ford under an entire Greyhound station of buses.

That’s what she decided to do, however.

“Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story, she asked me to keep it confidential and I kept if confidential as she asked,” Feinstein said in response.

RELATED: Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham Deliver Proof That Dems Orchestrated Kavanaugh Hit Job

“She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear was realized,” Feinstein continued.

“She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home.”

After blaming the Republicans for their investigation, which she called “a partisan practice,” she continued to talk up the possible imperilment Ford was in.

“I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential, and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward,” Feinstein said.

She was then asked if her staff had leaked the letter by Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican.

“I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe — the answer is no,” Feinstein responded. “The staff, they did not.”

“Well, somebody leaked it if wasn’t you,” Cornyn said.

“I did not, I was asked to keep it confidential, and I’m criticized for that too!” she said.

“It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public, and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked, and she had been asked by press.

“But it did not leak from us,” Feinstein concluded. “I assure you of that.”

Yes, the letter leaked because this woman, who thought she was in grave jeopardy, leaked the whole thing to the press by telling her friends, who were willing to put her in that grave jeopardy by passing it on.

It had nothing — nothing — to do with the Democrats who would have benefited most from this and would have had the motivation to pass it on.

Right.

Every single problem with this entire process can be, in some way, traced back to Dianne Feinstein. She’s the one who sat on the letter, refusing to bring it up when it should have been addressed. She’s the one whose cryptic statements helped stoke the embers of curiosity. She’s the one who would call for an FBI investigation even though the FBI added the letter to Kavanaugh’s background file and moved on. She’s the one who helped oversee the circus we witnessed Thursday.

And, once Christine Blasey Ford was finally disposable to her, she was tossed to the tigers as an encore.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Fiery Huckabee Says Any RINOs Who Vote ‘No’ on Kavanaugh Have ‘Crapped on the Constitution’


In the wake of the Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh hearings on Thursday, former Arkansas governor and political pundit, Mike Huckabee, pointed out that any Republican who voted no on Kavanaugh wasn’t fulfilling their sworn duty.

Well, he put it rather more bluntly: He said they will have “crapped upon the Constitution.”

In a fiery tweet after Thursday’s day-long innuendo festival on Capitol Hill, Huckabee — better known these days as the father of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders — retweeted an equally fiery speech by Lindsey Graham in which he eviscerated Democrats for their treatment of the nominee and the allegations against him.

“These comments by @LindseyGrahamSC will be forever remembered as a seminal moment that defined what Democrats really care about,” Huckabee tweeted.

“And if ANY GOP Senator votes ‘no’ they have crapped on the Constitution and should slither home in disgrace.”

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

Huckabee’s words, surprisingly, weren’t even as perfervid as Graham’s when it came to the Democrats and the RINOs.

“If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could have come to us,” the South Carolina senator said, addressing Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me,” he continued.

Do you think the Democrats are a disgrace to our country?

“When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy.

“This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics, and if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy,” Graham said.

“Boy, y’all want power. Boy, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it.”

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it,” he added.

RELATED: After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation

Both Huckabee and Graham are fairly reserved when it comes to politicians, which is what makes both of these astounding.

When something gets Graham to go full William Jennings Bryan and Huckabee — a Baptist minister — to talk about Republicans having “crapped on the Constitution,” you can wager it’s something that’s moved them rather strongly.

Kavanaugh and other conservatives can only hope the rest of the party feels the same way.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Post-Kavanaugh, Democrats will reap the whirlwind


The hearing yesterday was a shameful exercise in abuse, unspeakable abuse by Democrats, of both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.  Blasey Ford did show up and testify, her two Democrat activist lawyers, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich, by her side.  She was not credible, but we should all feel sorry for her.


She is fifty-two years old but seemed childlike.  She speaks in a child’s voice, which rose in pitch at the end of every sentence as though she is unsure about the validity of her own words.  She was at times cheerful and giddy, which was off-putting, given the reason she was there: to shatter a fine man’s life’s work.  She has traveled the world but had told the committee she was afraid to fly.  So she is not an honest person.  But she is clearly damaged, and those lawyers and whoever recruited them should be indicted for cruelty to an unstable person.  Her lawyers and Dianne Feinstein have abused her horribly and used her as their tool to ruin Kavanaugh.



The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee revealed their inner selves yesterday, and it was an ugly, ugly picture.  Every one of them attacked, demeaned, and verbally assaulted Judge Kavanaugh.  Not one of them was civil or respectful to this man, who has led a life of high achievement, service, grace, and class.  Booker, Harris, Durbin, Blumenthal, et al. are thugs.  They are bullies in search of power with no regard for the truth or decency.  No one should ever again vote for any of them.  Every one of them has permanently stained their committee and the confirmation process.  They have also forever destroyed their own legacies.  Their performances today are what each of them will be remembered for. 


Ford’s original letter to Feinstein is so badly written that it is hard to believe it was drafted by an educated person.  Dr. Ford did not know the word “exculpatory” but has a Ph.D.  Ford seemed as though she was in a dissociative state.  She was reciting a studied script, blanks and all, as though she had been hypnotized.  She had no reasonable explanation for why each of the witnesses she named denies ever being at such a party.  She did not address the fact that one of them, her girlfriend, made a statement under oath that she had never met Kavanaugh and remembered no such gathering.  The Democrats in the room badgered Kavanaugh relentlessly but ignored the fact that there is still no corroborating evidence, no witnesses, no proof that the incident ever happened.  There is only this sad woman’s distant, incomplete, and flawed memory.  The Democrats don’t care.  All they care about is keeping that seat vacant. 


When asked who paid for her polygraph and who was paying her lawyers, Ford said she did not know.  She said she thought there were some GoFundMe pages, but she had no idea how to manage them.  She said she did not know that Sen. Grassley had offered to come to California to interview her.  Her head must have been in the sand.  Most likely, her lawyers wanted the spectacle we saw.  They have been certain they could force Kavanaugh to withdraw.  They badly misjudged the man they have tried to destroy.  Kavanaugh rightly eviscerated them.  It was his testimony that was truly heart-wrenching.  It is likely that the millions of those who watched cried more than the judge did.


That any of this happened is the historical low point in American politics – and make no mistake: this was all about politics, not Kavanaugh.  If there was any doubt before, there is no longer: the American left today is malevolent.


The Democratic Party has demonstrated for all to see just how soulless it has become.  The Democrats on the committee disgraced themselves.  The two youngsters, Harris and Booker (neither of them will ever be president), are callow, shallow, rude, and power-mad.  We have seen what they are made of: pure narcissism.


What we saw today was the judiciary committee Democrats mercilessly abusing Kavanaugh, again, having already abused Blasey Ford into a stupor.  Kavanaugh was justifiably enraged and fought hard against his abusers.  He did a magnificent job.  So did Sen. Graham in defense of Kavanaugh.


Any senator who votes against Kavanaugh now is betraying his own inability to see the truth when it is sitting right in front of him.  Any senator who votes against this man now is signaling his approval of wholesale character assassination for sordid political purposes.  The Democrats in the Senate might consider that.


no vote is a vote for more of the horrific circus we saw today.  Redeem yourselves, Democrats.  Vote to confirm this good man.


The hearing yesterday was a shameful exercise in abuse, unspeakable abuse by Democrats, of both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.  Blasey Ford did show up and testify, her two Democrat activist lawyers, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich, by her side.  She was not credible, but we should all feel sorry for her.


She is fifty-two years old but seemed childlike.  She speaks in a child’s voice, which rose in pitch at the end of every sentence as though she is unsure about the validity of her own words.  She was at times cheerful and giddy, which was off-putting, given the reason she was there: to shatter a fine man’s life’s work.  She has traveled the world but had told the committee she was afraid to fly.  So she is not an honest person.  But she is clearly damaged, and those lawyers and whoever recruited them should be indicted for cruelty to an unstable person.  Her lawyers and Dianne Feinstein have abused her horribly and used her as their tool to ruin Kavanaugh.


The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee revealed their inner selves yesterday, and it was an ugly, ugly picture.  Every one of them attacked, demeaned, and verbally assaulted Judge Kavanaugh.  Not one of them was civil or respectful to this man, who has led a life of high achievement, service, grace, and class.  Booker, Harris, Durbin, Blumenthal, et al. are thugs.  They are bullies in search of power with no regard for the truth or decency.  No one should ever again vote for any of them.  Every one of them has permanently stained their committee and the confirmation process.  They have also forever destroyed their own legacies.  Their performances today are what each of them will be remembered for. 


Ford’s original letter to Feinstein is so badly written that it is hard to believe it was drafted by an educated person.  Dr. Ford did not know the word “exculpatory” but has a Ph.D.  Ford seemed as though she was in a dissociative state.  She was reciting a studied script, blanks and all, as though she had been hypnotized.  She had no reasonable explanation for why each of the witnesses she named denies ever being at such a party.  She did not address the fact that one of them, her girlfriend, made a statement under oath that she had never met Kavanaugh and remembered no such gathering.  The Democrats in the room badgered Kavanaugh relentlessly but ignored the fact that there is still no corroborating evidence, no witnesses, no proof that the incident ever happened.  There is only this sad woman’s distant, incomplete, and flawed memory.  The Democrats don’t care.  All they care about is keeping that seat vacant. 


When asked who paid for her polygraph and who was paying her lawyers, Ford said she did not know.  She said she thought there were some GoFundMe pages, but she had no idea how to manage them.  She said she did not know that Sen. Grassley had offered to come to California to interview her.  Her head must have been in the sand.  Most likely, her lawyers wanted the spectacle we saw.  They have been certain they could force Kavanaugh to withdraw.  They badly misjudged the man they have tried to destroy.  Kavanaugh rightly eviscerated them.  It was his testimony that was truly heart-wrenching.  It is likely that the millions of those who watched cried more than the judge did.


That any of this happened is the historical low point in American politics – and make no mistake: this was all about politics, not Kavanaugh.  If there was any doubt before, there is no longer: the American left today is malevolent.


The Democratic Party has demonstrated for all to see just how soulless it has become.  The Democrats on the committee disgraced themselves.  The two youngsters, Harris and Booker (neither of them will ever be president), are callow, shallow, rude, and power-mad.  We have seen what they are made of: pure narcissism.


What we saw today was the judiciary committee Democrats mercilessly abusing Kavanaugh, again, having already abused Blasey Ford into a stupor.  Kavanaugh was justifiably enraged and fought hard against his abusers.  He did a magnificent job.  So did Sen. Graham in defense of Kavanaugh.


Any senator who votes against Kavanaugh now is betraying his own inability to see the truth when it is sitting right in front of him.  Any senator who votes against this man now is signaling his approval of wholesale character assassination for sordid political purposes.  The Democrats in the Senate might consider that.


no vote is a vote for more of the horrific circus we saw today.  Redeem yourselves, Democrats.  Vote to confirm this good man.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Photos: Dianne Feinstein Looks ‘Near Death’ as Angry Brett Kavanaugh Responds to Sex Assault Smears


Photos: Dianne Feinstein Looks ‘Near Death’ as Angry Brett Kavanaugh Responds to Sex Assault Smears


by Kristinn Taylor
September 27, 2018

Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had a deathly pallor as she listened to an angry, indignant Judge Brett Kavanaugh respond to questioning from her at Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee to hear an uncorroborated allegation by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her decades ago at a small high school party.

Screen images from C-SPAN 3 show the 85-year-old Feinstein appearing like the life is draining out of her as Kavanaugh addresses her questions. Feinstein sat on the accusation by Ford for almost two months, not telling the GOP majority on the committee and never questioning Kavanaugh about it despite numerous opportunities to do so in public and private.

Video of the exchange:

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

Announcement: We have disabled the ability to post graphics after experiencing an attack of inappropriate image spam over the last several days. Thanks for your understanding.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Watch: Dem Rep. Slips Ford Attorney Small Packet, Checks the Room Instantly


The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Thursday to receive sworn testimony from liberal California professor Christine Blasey Ford, who has leveled a 36-year-old accusation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, as well as Kavanaugh’s testimony in rebuttal to the allegation.

But amid the hours of testimony, a few quick seconds are getting loads of attention.

Ford, now a professor at Palo Alto University, has alleged that, when both she and Kavanaugh were high school students, he groped and attempted to disrobe her while at a party believed to have taken place in the summer of 1982. Kavanaugh has flatly denied such an incident ever occurred, as have other alleged witnesses named by Ford.

Kavanaugh’s accuser delivered her emotional testimony flanked by two high-profile attorneys, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich. She also had several supportive guests seated in the rows behind her, one of whom was Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.

During a break in the testimony, several individuals got up and approached Ford and her attorneys to speak and shake hands, including Lee. A short video clip that is going viral on social media captured the moment that Lee surreptitiously handed a thick envelope to Bromwich.

TRENDING: Avenatti Falls Apart on Air When Even the Hosts of ‘The View’ Question His Story

Lee shook hands with Bromwich and then lowered her eyes as she produced and passed a thick envelope to Bromwich at about waist level. She then appeared to glance around the room after the envelope had been handed off.

For his part, Bromwich rapidly pocketed the envelope inside his jacket with a quick nod and smile to Lee.

Does this envelope make you suspicious?

It must be noted that, obviously, nobody other than Lee or Bromwich knows exactly what was in that fat envelope, or why the hand-off was done in what appeared to be a sly manner.

Lee appeared to have a second envelope in her hand as well, and right before the clip ended seemed as though she were about to approach Ford’s other attorney, Katz, perhaps to hand her an envelope as well.

Speculation immediately began to flow among commenters on the post that the envelope contained some sort of payoff for Ford or her attorneys, either by Democrats or by a Democrat-aligned interest group.

RELATED: Accusation: WaPo Writer Indicates He’s Okay If Innocent Man’s Punished for Rape

Fueling that speculation was the statement issued a short time later in the hearing by Bromwich, who informed Rachel Mitchell, the attorney hired by the Judiciary Committee to question Ford, that both he and Katz were working “pro bono” on behalf of Ford and were not being paid for their service, nor did they have any “expectation of being paid,” according to The Associated Press.

That statement from Bromwich arose in response to Mitchell’s query of Ford as to who was paying the undoubtedly large legal fees charged by the high-profile attorneys at her sides.

Ford replied that she was aware of the several GoFundMe accounts that had been set up to raise money on her behalf, and also noted that family friends in Palo Alto were also helping to cover the security costs she had incurred over the past several weeks since the allegation was made public.

Ford also noted that she had hired Katz to represent her on the recommendation of Democrat California Sen. Feinstein, who is also the ranking member of the committee and is suspected of having leaked Ford’s previously confidential allegation to the media.

Again, it is entirely unclear what was contained inside the envelope handed to Bromwich by Lee, and unless either of them come forward to reveal what it was, we may never know for sure.

But one thing we do know is that it looks awfully suspicious, and unless Bromwich and Lee want the speculation to continue to run rampant, they ought to reveal what that quick little hand-off was all about.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

The Kavanaugh fight isn’t about abortion. It’s about guns.


Conventional wisdom says the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court because he’ll provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.


As much as I hate to admit it, I don’t think Roe will be overturned, and the Democrats know it, too.  Of course, they certainly want their gullible voter base to believe that Kavanaugh will overturn Roe to energize that base for the midterm elections.  But it’s not going to happen.



That’s not to say that Roe shouldn’t be overturned.  Roe is a disgrace, breathtaking for its lack of legal reasoning.  As the late Judge Robert Bork pointed out in The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, the Roe court didn’t even bother to decide whether the supposed “right of privacy” – transmuted into a “right to abortion” – was to be found in the Ninth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment.  The majority merely asserted that it was “broad enough” to include abortion and left it at that.


Despite four decades of Republican presidents pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” who would presumably overturn Roe, the case has been on the books for 45 years now.  It was thirteen years ago that Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe is “settled law.”  In his book A Matter of Interpretation, even the great Antonin Scalia strongly implied that strict constructionists should let sleeping dogs lie when confronted with old cases of liberal judicial activism.


The Kavanaugh confirmation is about the future, not refighting the cultural battles of the 1970s.  And next up on the Democratic agenda is sweeping, national gun control – and possibly even confiscation.  In the 2016 campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. needed to consider the Australian model of a national semi-automatic gun ban.  California congressman Eric Swalwell went even farther, explicitly endorsing an Australian-style mandatory gun “buyback” and “going after resisters” here in the U.S.  Prior to the passage of the infamous “SAFE” Act in 2013, New York’s Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that “confiscation could be an option.”  H.R. 5087, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, has nearly 200 Democratic sponsors.  It includes a total ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, plus a national ban on private transfers.


These policies – and more – are already the law in the liberal bastions of New York, Massachusetts, and California.  All have been upheld by the federal Circuit Courts.


That’s where Kavanaugh enters the picture.  Sitting on a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh dissented when the panel upheld the District of Columbia’s “assault weapons” ban, explicitly stating that semi-automatic firearms are protected by the Second Amendment.  Presumably, his published dissent indicates how he would rule in similar cases on the Supreme Court.


That’s what the Democrats are afraid of.  Look at who leads the opposition to Kavanaugh: Dianne Feinstein, who stated on national television that if she could force Americans to turn in their guns, she would do it, and lifelong New York City gun-control freak Chuck Schumer, author of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” – which was positively tame compared to what is coming next.


With the exceptions of perhaps Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Heidi Heitkamp, pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats are all but extinct.  The party is irrevocably committed to national gun control, and the next time its members win a congressional majority, they will enact it.  The gays, the feminists, and the Antifa types in New York, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Austin are salivating over the prospect of disarming the “deplorables” in Texas, Idaho, and Appalachia.


Forever.


Kavanaugh stands in their way.


Conventional wisdom says the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court because he’ll provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.


As much as I hate to admit it, I don’t think Roe will be overturned, and the Democrats know it, too.  Of course, they certainly want their gullible voter base to believe that Kavanaugh will overturn Roe to energize that base for the midterm elections.  But it’s not going to happen.


That’s not to say that Roe shouldn’t be overturned.  Roe is a disgrace, breathtaking for its lack of legal reasoning.  As the late Judge Robert Bork pointed out in The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, the Roe court didn’t even bother to decide whether the supposed “right of privacy” – transmuted into a “right to abortion” – was to be found in the Ninth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment.  The majority merely asserted that it was “broad enough” to include abortion and left it at that.


Despite four decades of Republican presidents pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” who would presumably overturn Roe, the case has been on the books for 45 years now.  It was thirteen years ago that Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe is “settled law.”  In his book A Matter of Interpretation, even the great Antonin Scalia strongly implied that strict constructionists should let sleeping dogs lie when confronted with old cases of liberal judicial activism.


The Kavanaugh confirmation is about the future, not refighting the cultural battles of the 1970s.  And next up on the Democratic agenda is sweeping, national gun control – and possibly even confiscation.  In the 2016 campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. needed to consider the Australian model of a national semi-automatic gun ban.  California congressman Eric Swalwell went even farther, explicitly endorsing an Australian-style mandatory gun “buyback” and “going after resisters” here in the U.S.  Prior to the passage of the infamous “SAFE” Act in 2013, New York’s Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that “confiscation could be an option.”  H.R. 5087, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, has nearly 200 Democratic sponsors.  It includes a total ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, plus a national ban on private transfers.


These policies – and more – are already the law in the liberal bastions of New York, Massachusetts, and California.  All have been upheld by the federal Circuit Courts.


That’s where Kavanaugh enters the picture.  Sitting on a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh dissented when the panel upheld the District of Columbia’s “assault weapons” ban, explicitly stating that semi-automatic firearms are protected by the Second Amendment.  Presumably, his published dissent indicates how he would rule in similar cases on the Supreme Court.


That’s what the Democrats are afraid of.  Look at who leads the opposition to Kavanaugh: Dianne Feinstein, who stated on national television that if she could force Americans to turn in their guns, she would do it, and lifelong New York City gun-control freak Chuck Schumer, author of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” – which was positively tame compared to what is coming next.


With the exceptions of perhaps Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Heidi Heitkamp, pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats are all but extinct.  The party is irrevocably committed to national gun control, and the next time its members win a congressional majority, they will enact it.  The gays, the feminists, and the Antifa types in New York, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Austin are salivating over the prospect of disarming the “deplorables” in Texas, Idaho, and Appalachia.


Forever.


Kavanaugh stands in their way.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/