Woman Who Confronted Jeff Flake in Elevator Leads Soros-Funded Activist Group

Ana Maria Archila, one of the two women who confronted Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator on Friday, helps lead a progressive organization funded by billionaire George Soros that heads an $80 million activist effort characterized as part of the anti-Trump "resistance" movement.

via Breitbart News

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

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Mitchell’s memo notes nine significant problems with Ford’s testimony and underscores that her case is "even weaker" than a "he said, she said" case.

via Daily Wire

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

Modern Day Liberalism Has Perverted Justice

New Liberal Judicial System in America
One of my Harvard classmates raised some interesting questions as to the handling of the allegations raised by Professor Ford against Justice Kavanaugh. I tend to agree with a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which argues that recent events support the view that justice in America has been turned on its head.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

Where is the FBI Investigation of Blasey-Ford?

Christine Blasey Ford
If we’re going to rake the good Judge Brett Kavanaugh over the coals on a never-ending basis and require background checks (of him) by the FBI over and over again (until presumably it finds something to nail on him), should we not—at least—require a background check on his accuser?

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart


For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here.  The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in 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.”

TRENDING: Democratic Senator’s Mid-Hearing Email Blast Reveals Sickening Motive for Fight Against Kavanaugh

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Do you think Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

RELATED: New York Times Deletes Tweet, Apologizes After Posting Insensitive Message on Kavanaugh Hearing

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

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

Kavanaugh, kompromat, and the ruling class


With the inquisition of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s adolescence and high school yearbook a precedent, a serious question arises:


Has the #MeToo movement ushered in an era in which the childhood foibles people appointed or elected to significant public office will be investigated?



A friend who is the graduate of another famous, elite preparatory school wrote to me, and I quote it with permission:



The campus of Georgetown Prep resembles other elite private schools (source: Wikipedia)


I just received an email from the XXXX School’s current headmaster, sent to all alumni, intending to open up a conversation about times that situations have been “unsafe” between students and inviting people to report. This is a dangerous game, and I hope he knows what he’s wading in too. Extending #MeToo back in time to people’s high school interactions raises the specter of a sort of mutually-assured destruction….


I don’t believe Brett Kavanaugh did the things of which he’s accused. I do believe that similar things absolutely occurred among his cohort, up to and including the sort of things that Swetnick alleged. I know because I went to a similar high school and those were the sorts of rumors that were bandied about every Monday. There were always girls crying about the things that had occurred at weekend parties (to which I was never invited, having been a sort of self-selected outcast), and of course they went back to those same parties the next week.


It’s hard to tease out who was a perpetrator and who was a victim from such a scenario. Most of the very well-off kids I went to school with, many of whom probably subjected each other to all sorts of casual and sometimes vicious cruelties, are now successful, prominent, and hold reams of kompromat on each other, should airing such grievances out now be considered acceptable.


Now imagine the situation that faces the DC elite, many of whom went to these schools (and have kids at those schools today), and I think you can see why this is likely not to go too much further. Entirely too many people are potentially tainted — but the vast majority have also, well, moved on. It also doesn’t help that parents were usually looking the other way, or enabling the sort of alcohol-fueled behavior that caused people to do bad things. From my experience with the set at [XXXX School] who were always implicated in these sorts of rumors, their parents were usually the ones buying the booze. And some of those parents were no less than 9 sheets to the wind any time I saw them, too.


I want people to behave better. I hope that people reflect on what this window into high school behavior has shown them, and realize that participation in boozing and teenage sex, with all its attendant complications, is optional.


Sadly, I don’t think the correct lessons will be drawn, but the mututally assured destruction my friend mentions will influence behavior. 


With the inquisition of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s adolescence and high school yearbook a precedent, a serious question arises:


Has the #MeToo movement ushered in an era in which the childhood foibles people appointed or elected to significant public office will be investigated?


A friend who is the graduate of another famous, elite preparatory school wrote to me, and I quote it with permission:



The campus of Georgetown Prep resembles other elite private schools (source: Wikipedia)


I just received an email from the XXXX School’s current headmaster, sent to all alumni, intending to open up a conversation about times that situations have been “unsafe” between students and inviting people to report. This is a dangerous game, and I hope he knows what he’s wading in too. Extending #MeToo back in time to people’s high school interactions raises the specter of a sort of mutually-assured destruction….


I don’t believe Brett Kavanaugh did the things of which he’s accused. I do believe that similar things absolutely occurred among his cohort, up to and including the sort of things that Swetnick alleged. I know because I went to a similar high school and those were the sorts of rumors that were bandied about every Monday. There were always girls crying about the things that had occurred at weekend parties (to which I was never invited, having been a sort of self-selected outcast), and of course they went back to those same parties the next week.


It’s hard to tease out who was a perpetrator and who was a victim from such a scenario. Most of the very well-off kids I went to school with, many of whom probably subjected each other to all sorts of casual and sometimes vicious cruelties, are now successful, prominent, and hold reams of kompromat on each other, should airing such grievances out now be considered acceptable.


Now imagine the situation that faces the DC elite, many of whom went to these schools (and have kids at those schools today), and I think you can see why this is likely not to go too much further. Entirely too many people are potentially tainted — but the vast majority have also, well, moved on. It also doesn’t help that parents were usually looking the other way, or enabling the sort of alcohol-fueled behavior that caused people to do bad things. From my experience with the set at [XXXX School] who were always implicated in these sorts of rumors, their parents were usually the ones buying the booze. And some of those parents were no less than 9 sheets to the wind any time I saw them, too.


I want people to behave better. I hope that people reflect on what this window into high school behavior has shown them, and realize that participation in boozing and teenage sex, with all its attendant complications, is optional.


Sadly, I don’t think the correct lessons will be drawn, but the mututally assured destruction my friend mentions will influence behavior. 




via American Thinker Blog

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

Science, which is never wrong and knows everything, is stumped by particles flying out of Antarctica’s ice

stumped by particles flying out of Antarctica's ice
Science is a wonderful discipline, a fascinating process by which we seek to understand what goes on throughout God’s creation. We’ve discovered and learned many things through science. We’ve also learned of new questions we wouldn’t have otherwise known to ask.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

Rachel Mitchell finds: ‘he said she said’ cases are tough to prove. ‘This case is even weaker than that’

Rachel Mitchell finds: 'he said she said' cases are tough to prove. 'This case is even weaker'
Last week, when sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was questioning Christine Blasey Ford, she took a little flak from the right.  There wasn’t a lot of it, but she did get dinged by a few writers who thought she was a bit of a milquetoast.  Her questions, they argued, weren’t tough enough.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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