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.

A 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.

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

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

Sheila Jackson Lee what was that? pic.twitter.com/yWPyrelIs8

— wade (@wade222) September 27, 2018

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.

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.

Here’s your payment…

— Brad Acorn (@BradAcorn) September 27, 2018

Sure looks like it is a payoff.

— CgOrganic (@CgOrganic) September 27, 2018

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.

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.

The circus surrounding allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh took a bizarre turn Thursday after accuser Christine Blasey Ford essentially admitted to the Senate that she has been less than honest over the past few weeks.

Ford, a left-leaning university professor in California, had previously claimed that she couldn’t get to Washington, D.C. to testify in front of Congress in a timely manner because she was deathly afraid of flying.

It was obvious from the start that this was likely a delaying tactic by Democrats who wanted to “run out the clock” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, but Ford stuck by her claim that getting on an airplane to Washington was a major obstacle.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” Politico reported last week.

“Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane,” the news magazine continued.

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

But is it true? As it turns out, no.

After finally showing up to testify in front of the Senate after several delays, Ford was forced to admit that she lied or at least hugely exaggerated her crippling fear of flying. It was a delaying tactic all along.

Dr. Ford’s testimony was delayed because of her fear of flying.

Rachel Mitchell: How did you get to Washington?
Dr. Ford: Airplane

M: When were here in August, how did you get here?
F: Airplane

M: You’ve been to Hawaii & Tahiti?
F: Yes

M: How’d you get there?
Ford: Airplane pic.twitter.com/AtkuQ9arL2

— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) September 27, 2018

While facing prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, Ford was asked directly to explain this “fear of flying” and how it prevented her from giving her testimony earlier.

“May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

“In an airplane,” Ford answered sheepishly.

“OK, I ask that because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying,” Mitchell followed up. “Is that true?”

Ford seemed to squirm as she struggled to answer.

“Well, I was hoping that they would come to me,” the accuser responded.

“When you were here back in August, end of July, August, how did you get here?” Mitchell asked.

RELATED: New Accuser Got Settlement for Past Sex Claim, Used Ford Attorney’s Firm To Get It

“Also by airplane,” Ford answered.

“I also saw on your — you talked about Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific Islands, and French Polynesia,” Mitchell continued. “Have you been to all of those places? By airplane?”

“Yes,” Ford confirmed.

So let’s get this straight. Ford believed that her vague and unproven claim from nearly 40 years ago was so important that she had to tell her story to stop Kavanaugh.

But, she couldn’t be bothered to actually get on an airplane and talk to senators because she said she was terrified of flying.

Yet the exact same woman just admitted on camera that she had absolutely no problem flying to some of the most exotic locations in the world, some of which require far longer trips in cramped airplanes than a routine flight to Washington.

She lied. She made up a convenient excuse in order to help Democrats by delaying the process.

Here’s the big question: If she had no problem lying about this, what else is she being dishonest about?

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

As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been fighting allegations of improper sexual conduct during his days in high school and college, it’s been clear from the beginning — the Democrats have pulled out all the stops to oppose his nomination.

In a series of tweets, the Heritage Foundation lays out exactly why the Democrats have been so focused on defeating this nominee.

The organization starts off by citing Senator Schumer’s response to President Trump’s initial announcement.

On July 9, within minutes of President Trump’s announcement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee, @SenSchumer vowed to “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.”

When he said everything, he meant it.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

Of course, it didn’t take long for other Democrats to hop on board.

TRENDING: Look: Cartoon Perfectly Skewers Both Anti-Kavanaugh Crowd and Abortion Activists

Other Senate liberals, such as Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) actually announced their opposition nearly two weeks earlier—without even knowing who the nominee would be.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

They then point out the true reason behind this opposition in one word: Trump.

Nothing that the confirmation process had to offer was relevant to these senators because they already had the one piece of information, the one word, that really mattered: Trump.

They would oppose the nominee because he or she would be Trump’s nominee. Period.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

It was more than strange that senators who long before had made up their minds against Kavanaugh would complain that they needed more time to review more information about him.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

The Heritage Foundation wasn’t finished though.

Senator Richard Blumenthal said he had thoroughly reviewed Kavanaugh’s record when he announced his opposition in early July yet tried to postpone the hearing so he could . . . review Kavanaugh’s record.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

In 2009, Schumer said that a judicial record is the “best way to evaluate a nominee” and even more important than the confirmation hearing.

Senator Patrick Leahy agreed.

Neither one of them is interested in Kavanaugh’s judicial record today.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

In fact, Democrats did not even try to debate the most important thing about a judicial nominee, namely, the kind of judge he or she will be.

They made no attempt to explain why they oppose the kind of judge that Kavanaugh has been or the kind of justice he will be.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

Schumer & Leahy have said that the ABA’s rating is the “gold standard” for evaluating nominees. The ABA rated Kavanaugh well qualified which means he meets “the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.”

That no longer matters either

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

RELATED: Respected Conservative: Left Used Every Trick With Kavanaugh, Next Time Violence Is All They’ll Have

This isn’t the first time the Democrats have tried this tactic, however. The Heritage Foundation points out that the Democrats tried this back in 2001.

Within days of President George W. Bush taking office in 2001, Democratic Leader Tom Daschle vowed to use “whatever means necessary” to defeat his judicial nominees.

That’s what Democrats are doing today, by any means necessary.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

So what about the accusations of sexual misconduct? Well, the organization hit those too.

They automatically credit an accusation even though every person the accuser names denies any knowledge of it.

Democrats demand a new hearing for an accuser who cannot identify the time or the place of an alleged incident.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

They refuse to share with the rest of the judiciary committee what they claim is evidence.

And, when @NewYorker traffics in what it admits is an unsubstantiated rumor, the author says the accuser came forward because “Democrats came looking” for someone to say such things.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

The Heritage Foundation then summed it all up beautifully.

Partisan double standards, ignoring what really matters, smears, turning basic notions of fairness on their head — that is what it means to use “whatever means necessary.”

Schumer is keeping his promise of opposing Kavanaugh with everything he has.

It won’t be enough.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 24, 2018

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