“He said, she said,” is the buzz of every pundit these days.
Christine Ford says Kavanaugh ’sexually assaulted me’ 36 years ago at an underage drinking party.
Kavanaugh says, ‘No, I didn’t do it.’
Now Ford refuses to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee insisting on a full FBI investigation first.
Some say it’s pure revenge.
[Clip: “Who exactly is Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford? And why did she wait until just days before Kavanaugh’s confirmation to come forward with her story when she’s had the last several decades to speak up.” ‘It is an accusation in which the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction has known about for at least six weeks, known about for six weeks, yet chose to keep secret until the eleventh hour.’ “Well after a little digging it appears Christine Ford may just have an ax to grind with Kavanaugh but it has nothing to do with anything that happened between them in high school. Ford is a professor of psychology and statistics at Palo Alto University who apparently goes out of her way to take a stand against President Trump and his administration. Back in January of 2017 she wore a version of a pink hat used by feminist activists as she marched in opposition to oppose policies of the president. But her quarrel with Kavanaugh may go much deeper than his simply being the chosen nominee of President Trump. Facts are now emerging that Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha, was a district judge in Maryland in 1996. Astonishingly, she also happened to preside over a foreclosure case of none other than Christine Ford’s parents. As it turned out, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against Ford’s parents on property in Potomac, Maryland though it never resulted in the seizure of their property. Yet this potential conflict of interest is going totally unmentioned by the media whose seem more concerned about playing up unverified charges than looking into a possible case of revenge.”]
Well, in ‘our democracy’—Schumer’s go-to line when scolding Russia—”unverified charges” means you’re innocent until proven guilty.
But when it comes to Constitutionalist Judge Kavanaugh…
[Clip: “In selecting Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump did exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail, nominate someone who would overturn women’s reproductive rights, and strike down health care protections for millions of Americans including those with pre-exisiting conditions. He’s put at risk civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights, LGBTQ rights…” “With Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination a lot of us within the queer community are fearing for their, their rights…”]
…democracy takes a dive.
[Clip: “We have two diametrically opposed stories. My view? Professor Ford’s telling the truth.”]
And by inference, Schumer tags Kavanaugh as guilty until proven innocent and by implication smears him as a liar.
Borders on treason since Schumer took an oath to defend Constitutional values…and that includes what Judiciary Hearings are all about.
From his own mouth he pushes for abuse of process.
[Clip: “If you don’t want the hearing to be just a ‘he said, she said’ affair, an independent investigation, a background check, by the FBI is essential. This is not a criminal investigation. This has nothing to do with statute of limitations. It’s simply what the FBI does for all witnesses. And when there are new and troubling allegations that emerge, there’s nothing wrong, in fact it’s fundamentally right to reopen the background investigation.”]
But Feinstein sat on Ford’s letter for seven weeks before springing it at the 11th hour.
Schumer wants an investigation?
Kavanaugh was already investigated six times by the FBI including the most recent one regarding his nomination.
The FBI has no jurisdiction here since Ford’s rape charge involves no federal person or property.
But don’t be surprised if Schumer pulls out a garment with DNA laced all over it claiming it’s Kavanaugh’s.
Let Ford file charges in Maryland where the assault allegedly happened.
It’s the proper criminal jurisdiction, there’s no statute of limitations on rape, and then it can all go to juvenile court where it belongs.
So what’s your beef, Chuckie?
[Clip: “Chairman Grassley said there would be only two witnesses. That’s simply inadequate, unfair, wrong, and a desire not to get at the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”]
Well, that’s very noble and nice, but why didn’t we ever get “the whole truth” with Obama’s birth certificate and Hillary’s emails? Anyone?
And why doesn’t Ford want to testify?
She can dodge every question anyway because she can’t remember anything.
She can’t remember what drunken summer party she went to, whose house it was, how she got there, who drove her back, how much she drank, even what day it was!
But somehow—under a probable drunken haze in ‘82—she clearly recalls it’s Kavanaugh!
Enter a ‘good Jewish lawyer,’ a Democrat political operative who happens to be the board vice-chair for POGO, “Project On Government Oversight,” a group funded by George Soros.
For when it comes to neck injuries, ambulance chasing, AND destroying Constitutionalist Supreme Court nominees, every trick in the book is used.
[Clip: “My client will do whatever is necessary to make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee has the full ahh, whatever is necessary to make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee has the full story and the full aah set of allegations to allow them to make a um, um, fully informed decision.” “But testifying in public under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the American people watching, that’s an enormous amount of pressure. Is she willing to go that far?” “She’s willing to do what she needs to do. She is willing to ah, ah, hopefully tell her story in a manner that is a fair proceeding. Unfortunately what we’re already hearing this morning is that the Demo-, that the Republicans intend to play hardball, they intend to grill her.”]
But Ford’s amnesia—she just can’t remember—gets the girl off the grill.
Ford’s team is real busy erasing every possible trace of her social media footprint, including her High School Year Book with her “Chrissie” jottings in order to protect her “virtue signaling.”
Fast forward thirty six years later and we got rear-view witnesses:
Feinstein, Schiff, Schumer, Katz–either abusing due process or using stall tactics by tossing the ball to the FBI.
Hindsight is 20-20 they say.
But in this case, “He said, She said,” is all the FBI’s gonna get.
A lucid person need only look at the accelerated decay of this sty since “The Synagogue” began it’s covert evil in positioning: Dual citizen Jews and their “shabbos goi” into SCOTUS.
I mean, seriously, CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR KOSHER PHARMA!!?
If not for Bro Nate and other courageous folk trying their HARDEST to expose The Synagogue and their world-ending evil, even MORE foolish “Goyim” would be drinking the kool-aid of belief in the (self) chosen.
The most PURELY reprehensible? In my opinion, they are the “Christian” Zionists. truly a NEO-Judas Class.
And thanks for another terrific, well-researched and valuable Video laying out some of the bare bones of the game playing that the Democrats and ‘progressives’ led by Jew-know-who in their war against Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation
Bug-eyed lawyer Katz and her Freudian slip that it was the “Demo[crats] playing hardball, who looks like she could be Rachel Maddow’s hyperthoroidal sister, is also vice-chair for Soros-backed POGO.
Who would have thought?
Now it comes out that the Blasey Ford movement is in consultation with radical feminist and powerful behind the scenes political operative Ricki L. Seidman [a very large Jewess with a certain resemblance to Miss Piggy and a soft-spoken evil witch in public], who torpedoed the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court helped prepare Anita Hill for the Democrats’ attempt to torpedo Clarence Thomas confirmation also to the Supreme Court, to help Ford navigate a potential hearing.
Ricki was assistant to Senator Ted Kennedy and chief investigator for the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee where she worked against the Robert Bork (1987) and Clarence Thomas (1990).
She was a top Democrat political operative for presidential campaigns of Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton in 1992.
She went on to become Assistant to the President for Bill Clinton, as the Director of Scheduling and Advance, and as the Deputy Communications Director and Assistant to the President.
She served as Deputy Communications Director for the Transition during the Clinton-Gore Presidential Campaign Transition and worked on the failed nominations of Lani Guinier and Webster Hubbell.
Subsequently, she was name as a Deputy Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Back in 2016, HBO actually made a “political thriller” about the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas after Anita Hill alleged that Thomas sexually harassed her when she worked for him years prior.
You wrote: Ford’s team is real busy erasing every possible trace of her social media footprint, including her High School Year Book with her “Chrissie” jottings in order to protect her “virtue signaling.””
Wow! No kidding! Must commend your research. The school yearbook thing is beginning to take off in conservative social media.
If Kavanaugh’s old high school yearbooks are open to public scrutiny to be picked over, then it’s only fair that “Chrissie” Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks be open to scrutiny and criticism, too.
I just located an anonymous 1-page special purpose blog site, Cult of the 1st Amendment, the point of origin for the report launching Blasey Ford’s yearbook issue which posted actual screenshots of excerpts and photos from the Holton-Arms Scribe.
So far, two days later, no one has challenged the authenticity of what Cult of the 1st Amendment posted in their report as refuting evidence from a real hardbound Class of ‘84 Scribe yearbooks for Blasey Ford’s sophomore, junior, and senior years.
The blog page starts out:
WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: Faculty Approved Racism, Binge Drinking and Promiscuity
On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them.
Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.
And it would be an accurate headline. That’s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed.
They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area.
In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.
These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbooks are fair game, so are these.
And you will wonder while reading them, why the hell did the faculty approve of these yearbooks? Why did the parents take out paid ads in these yearbooks? Animal House had nothing on the infamous “Holton party scene”.
The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up. There’s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It’s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a “look the other way” faculty. And now it’s available for historical/evidentiary review.
It is to this wild Holton culture we must look in order to shed light on the last minute accusation by Christine Blasey. And in the official high school chronicles of this era, we find many names of people who can provide relevant evidence.”
Scribe 84 is the yearbook for her senior year. Her name was Christine Blasey in high school, often referred to as “Chrissy”. In the image below, Blasey is pictured at a Halloween party in her junior year. The caption on the right says:
“Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.”
The Halloween party pictured above would have taken place within sixteen weeks of the alleged assault, which Blasey claims happened in the Summer of ’82, after her sophomore year.
10th grade seems to have been a ritual initiation into the “Holton party scene”. Another sophomore girl threw multiple all night benders, the highlight of which featured a male erotic dancer in gold g-string…
1982 was a particularly wild year and Scribe 82 published multiple pictures of minors drinking heavily, beer cans stacked up, liquor repeatedly glorified, “boys, beer and “the ‘Zoo’ atmosphere”. The caption on the right side of the image mocks the faculty and parents, “Come on, you’re really too young to drink.”
Numerous passages in the yearbooks discuss the drunken keg parties held while parents were away from home…
Scribe 83 joyfully recalls partying with the boys from Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh’s high school. The editors captioned a collage of alcohol themed photos as follows:
“In case you weren’t into the Holton party scene, here is a brief glimpse at one of the calmer get-togethers.”
Also note that at the bottom of the caption above, the girls mention their male conquests with great pride:
“No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.” [St. John and Gonzaga are both Catholic boys’ prep schools - Kj].
FACULTY APPROVED SEXUAL PROMISCUITY
Scribe 82, pg. 260, shows racy images, including three minors dressed provocatively as Playboy bunnies. The caption states:
“Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…”
Read the whole page. It has some weird Hitler jokes as well.
Now we turn to the final sentiments from Scribe 84, Chrissy Blasey’s senior year at Holton-Arms. Page 261 gives the parting sentiment of her six-year Holton experience. There are two relevant quotes. The first characterizes the senior girls as sexual predators upon younger boys:
“Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.”
The Holton girls clearly portray themselves as the sexual predators here.”
LET’S TALK ABOUT MEMORY
In conclusion, please look again at the page above. In the final passage, the joy of passing out and forgetting everything you did the night before is praised:
“And there were always parties to celebrate any occasion. Although these parties are no doubt unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”
The 1982 Hollywood blockbuster Risky Business starring Tom Cruise wasn’t a 1980s elite prep-school fast times comedy, it was a documentary.
The subterranean tragic aspect to this 1980s culture of high school drunkenness, partying, and promiscuity is the dirty secret that there were also unknown numbers of abortions as well. Abortions skyrocketed in the 1980s after the 1973 Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision.
Post-Abortion Syndrome, acute or delayed, is accepted now as a category of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
So, Chrissy Blasey Ford, big-brained scientist and pro-abortion (pro-child murder) activist, what actually triggered the move of you and your husband into couple’s therapy in 2012?
Was it something you can barely remember doing, or was it something you remember doing all too well (maybe more than once) and couldn’t repress anymore, especially if it was triggered by the onset of menopause?
Lest I forget in all of this MeToo™ Media-driven political kabuki hysteria swirling around Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court appointment:
I find it passingly strange that apart from Chrissy Blasey Ford, no one, and I mean absolutely not one other woman, has come forward out of the woodwork to join Ford and personally accusing him of sexual harassment or impropriety either from the good old high school daze, Kavanaugh’s university years, or during his entire career as lawyer and judge.
Sure, all the drama queens “believe Ford” because something like her alleged incident may have happened to them (and some throw the long-festering gangrene of the pedophilia scandals inside the Catholic church as “proof” that Kavanaugh is guilty — carefully avoiding any mention of pedophilic Bad Rabbis) and they all bla bla bla “toxic masculinity” (especially of white males) and “evil patriarchy” as “proof” Kavanaugh did something, but no woman has come out with the specific personal accusation, “Kavanaugh did the same thing to me” or “I was sexually harassed by him.”
Both parties are full of criminals and perverts- so, a new ’scandal’ (whether true or not) is hardly ‘breaking news’ when coming from a cesspool like the District of Corruption.
Trumps just a 3rd term of GW Bush aka Neocon Ziocuck hell and not the great White All-American Christian Constitutionalist hope he conned everyone into initially believing he was so.
It doesn’t matter what that pig does because, rest assured, any decisions he makes will be for Jew billionaires and not anyone reading any political blogs and longing for real political representation that ‘We the People’ no longer get.
If we do get that (political representation) somewhere in America today then please do enlighten me on some specific examples of that-because all I see are Masonic shabbus goy Cucks lying in front of TV cameras and their Khazar moneymen masters calling all the plays for this rigged, vile game behind the scenes.
WaPo: “Michael R. Bromwich, a lawyer who has been representing former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, announced Saturday that he was resigning from his law firm, Robbins Russell, to join Ford’s legal team.”
Grassley’s Last Published Letter of Sept 21 to Ford’s Lawyers
Some of your other demands, however, are unreasonable and we are unable to accommodate them. You demanded that Judge Kavanaugh be the first person to testify. Accommodating this demand would be an affront to fundamental notions of due process. In the United States, an individual accused of a crime is entitled to a presumption of innocence. And, further, the accused has the right to respond to allegations that are made about him. Judge Kavanaugh cannot be expected to respond to allegations that have been made to the press. He is entitled to hear the full, detailed testimony of Dr. Ford before he testifies. You have indicated that Dr. Ford has allegations that she would like to make in public and under oath. She will have the opportunity to do so before we give Judge Kavanaugh the opportunity to respond.
You also demanded that only senators be permitted to ask questions of the witnesses. We are also unable to accommodate this demand. There is no rule of the Senate or the Committee that precludes staff attorneys from asking witnesses questions. We reserve the option to have female staff attorneys, who are sensitive to the particulars of Dr. Ford’s allegations and are experienced investigators, question both witnesses. We believe this will allow for informed questioning, will generate the most insightful testimony, and will help de-politicize the hearing.
You demanded that the Committee issue subpoenas for the testimony of Mark Judge and other unidentified witnesses. The Committee is unable to accommodate this demand. The Committee does not take subpoena requests from witnesses as a condition of their testimony. You went on television earlier this week and said Dr. Ford wants the chance to tell her story in public and under oath. This is the opportunity we have given her. We don’t need to subpoena additional witnesses to do that.
You demanded that the Committee call additional witnesses that Dr. Ford requests. We are unable to accommodate this demand. The Committee does not take witness requests from other witnesses. Mark Judge and one other alleged witness to the events Dr. Ford has described have already denied the allegations under penalty of felony to the Committee. We can obtain additional testimony through staff interviews, obtaining statements, or other means that are subject to penalties of felony, if necessary.
This Committee has been extremely accommodating to your client. We want to hear Dr. Ford’s testimony and are prepared to accommodate many of your demands, including further delaying a hearing that is currently scheduled for Monday. We are unwilling to accommodate your unreasonable demands. Outside counsel may not dictate the terms under which Committee business will be conducted.
Please respond by 5:00 pm to accept the invitation for Dr. Ford to testify on Wednesday according to the terms outlined above. We will have to issue various Committee notices soon after, so timeliness is extremely important.
Forgot to say that Ford’s feminist attorneys responded to Collins suggestion by saying they only wanted senators on the committee to question Ford and Kavanaugh.
This thing with Bromwich could easily backfire on the idiot Democrats and their Borking Kavanaugh Saga.
What Katz and Ford are banking on is Bromwich going into aggressive prosecutorial mode with Kavanaugh in public hearing and getting nowhere fast. How many ways can Kavanaugh say, “I wasn’t there.” “It wasn’t me.”
I expect Bromwich will attempt to verbally beat Kavanaugh into a confession.
The burden of proof is still on Ford to make her allegations substantial. Probably making a good showing in courtroom, Mr. High Powered Jew Attorney and Former Prosecutor still has nothing evidentiary work with, not even a speck to be found in Ford’s own testimony which amounts to:
The alleged sexual assault by subject Kavanaugh, for which there is absolutely no forensic or other first hand witness evidence, occurred sometime during the night on an unknown day sometime during the summer of 1982, at a party in an unknown house somewhere in Montgomery County Maryland, possibly somewhere in the area of Columbia Country Club where her parents are members where Ford last remembers being.
Well, right now there’s exactly one person refusing to testify under oath, and it isn’t Kavanaugh.
The Senate Judiciary Committee still hasn’t received the entire original and unredacted letter detailing the assault that Ford sent to Feinstein on July 30. Feinstein then sat on for seven weeks.
By anyone’s standards, that original Ford letter of allegations is a key piece of information necessary for ‘the investigation’.
Feinstein continues to refuse to hand it over. I’m certain the reason she is balking on handing over the unredacted original is that it would have be submitted into the proceedings under oath.
By being informed of her allegations in the form of a letter back in July, and waiting until a week before Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation vote to release the details, Feinstein has truly poisoned any credibility of Ford’s claims.
She did send a redacted copy to the FBI in a supplementary package on the 12th, I believe, the same redacted version the Senate Judiciary Committee received at some point.
As of a day or so ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee still has not received an unredacted copy of Ford’s letter now in Feinstein’s possession.
Feinstein herself further undermines Ford’s claims by stating in this Fox News video clip on September 18 that Ford “is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.”
Later in the day, Feinstein further “clarified” what she meant, muddling it further.
Feinstein just now clarifies: “Look I believe she is credible. What we have wanted is an investigation carried out to look at the facts before there was a hearing. The republican majority is apparently not going to do that. But based on what I know at this stage she is credible.”
There’s a difference between “credible” and “truth(ful)”.
Credible means believability. Actors in a movie can be credible without actually being the true persons they portray. Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.
Psychopathics are charming masters at cultivating “credibility” to deceive people and to cover their falsehoods and cons.
So Feinstein is still saying without saying, Ford is believable, but she still can’t say that everything is truthful because there are no facts to go with it. Then she whines about the Republicans being the bad guys now
standing in the way of an 11th hour investigation when the very opposite is true, at the same time Blasey’s lawyers accused Republicans of acting in bad faith.
In reading your notes while I certainly agree Grassley needs to get tougher, at the same time no one has been more accomodating and solicitous than he in trying to set up a Committee hearing venue for Ford, up to and including offering to fly out investigative staffers to California to privately interview Ford.
At every step, Grassley’s been hit not only with stonewalling, but with 10 more conditions from Ford’s side than there were before.
Apart from this, was Feinstein sleepwalking through life from July 30 through Kavanaugh’s 3 day hearing September 4-7?
She was involved almost from the very start after Ford requested a meeting with Anna Eshoo, US representative for 18th District CA covering Silicon Valley, including the cities of Redwood City, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto, as well as part of San Jose.
She is one of the ten most powerful women in Silicon Valley because she sits on committees that oversee the Internet and biotch — areas vital to the Valley’s interests.
After Congresswoman Eshoo had her meeting with Ford, she said her constituent “wished me to move this to another place,” so she informed Feinstein because she was the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary committee.
It was after that discussion between the two California lawmakers that Feinstein requested a letter from Ms. Blasey Ford, which Eshoo said her office made sure got to the senator on July 30.
That’s the bare minimal story. There’s been far more than just the girls chatting at the coffee table and doing the #MeToo girls’ sympathy dance with Ford.
If I were a fly on the wall, would I have heard these harpies shriek and cackling, “Eureka! We have our cause! To the bork, girls, to the bork!”
Feinstein had Ford’s original unredacted letter secretly well in hand weeks before the committee hearing with Kavanaugh the first week of September, after Ford was referred to her office by California Rep. Anna Eshoo after an hour and a half meeting earlier in July.
Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, could have called for an investigation of some sort weeks prior to Kavanaugh’s committee hearing.
Seriously Feinstein, there is certainly no case without the alleged victim as witness, yet you wanted an investigation while at the same time trying to keep Ford an anonymous victim.
Nor could any investigation even have the hope of commencing without your disclosure of Ford’s letter unredacted to the Judiciary Committee, the key piece of evidence that started the entire thing in the first place!
On second thought, Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein is 85 years old. Maybe she’s spending more time nodding gently off as she dozes through her autumn years.
If Feinstein’s elected for another term as senator from my home state California, she’ll be 91 years old at the end of this term. She’s been my senator for northern California since 1992 and she really has to go.
It’s getting a little ghoulish here in the Golden State, something like Norman Bates keeping his dead mother around at the Bates Motel (which fittingly was filmed here in Bakersfield, CA back in the 60s).
Maybe she’ll actually get voted out this time by her own party because of all of this. When the 333 members of the California Democratic Party’s executive board voted for whom they’d endorse back in July, she received 7% of the vote compared to her Democrat challenger, state lawmaker Kevin de León, who received 65% of the vote, thus winning the endorsement.
Feinstein had pleaded with the party leaders not to endorse any candidate.
I’ve lived with her nonsense all of my life.
The Wall Street Journal took a blowtorch to her in an editorial on the 17th for her “highly irregular and transparently political” role in the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh:
“The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political.
The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet.
If she had taken the situation at all seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.
Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.
She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have.
Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.”
If Feinstein truly believed the accusation was credible, she would have presented it immediately, even in a closed door committee meeting, and not saved it for a last ditch effort to delay the vote.
As for Schumer and his babbling about “If you don’t want the hearing to be just a ‘he said, she said’ affair, an independent investigation, a background check, by the FBI is essential.”
Actually, it’s not a ‘he said - she said’ anymore, but two he’s (Kavanaugh & Mark Judge) who stated under penalty of felony perjury that it didn’t happen, while she has yet to actually show up to something.
The Democrats seem to have burned indelibly in their minds after attempting to “bork” Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, that it is now written in concrete that the FBI is obligated to investigate this Chrissy Ford thing because they investigated the Anita Hill allegations against Thomas back in 1991.
Hill had become an attorney-adviser to Clarence Thomas at the United States Department of Education (ED), a federal agency.
When Thomas became Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1982, Hill went with Thomas to serve as his special assistant until she quit in mid-1983.
Hill alleged in her 1991 testimony that it was during her employment at ED and EEOC that Thomas made sexually provocative statements.
The FBI investigated Hill’s allegations then because it involved federal employees in a federal workplace, not because of the nature of the allegations.
Katz and Democratic senators as part of their full press borking campaign designed to create confirmation chaos with their mudslinging have howled for the FBI to reopen its background-check investigation of Kavanaugh.
The FBI has said it has no plans to do so unless the White House expressly asks for such an investigation. DOJ said earlier this week that Ford’s allegation “does not involve any potential federal crime.”
+BN, “Kavanaugh Borking Drama”. That’s hilarious.
What is “borking”? It’s not as bad as it sounds, dear RJN family.
To “bork” in political slang informally means to obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) by systematically defaming or vilifying them in the noisiest, most obnoxious, highest decibel, and most public way possible.
The verb originates in the 1980s. It comes from the last name of the late Robert Bork (1927–2012), an American judge whose Reagan nomination to the Supreme Court (1987) was rejected by the Senate following vicious, slanderous and unfavorable publicity for his allegedly extreme views — extreme in that they weren’t liberal/progressive/socialist views, and he did have some odd opinions which added fire to the fuel.
–From Timeline: “Borking is the conservative word you need to know during confirmation hearings
The ultimate red vs. blue term
The use of bork as a verb dates to 1987 and began before the contentious hearings for the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork had even concluded. Bork was a respected jurist, a law professor at Yale, and had a history of government service, including as Solicitor General and acting Attorney General.
Approval by the Senate usually followed a cursory discussion of qualifications. But once Ronald Reagan nominated Bork, Democrats came out swinging. Senator Teddy Kennedy kicked the process off with a speech that still stings conservatives.
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government,” Kennedy inveighed from the Senate floor, “and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
Soon after the Bork nomination hearings started, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an opinion piece that read, “Let’s just hope something enduring results from the hearings for the justice-to-be, like a new verb: ‘Borked.’ Dictionaries will say that it’s synonymous with “maligned.”
Part of that statement was precient: borked did enter the lexicon. William Safire has a concise definition of what the word means to conservatives. To bork is to “viciously attack a presidential nominee, blackening his name in an all-out effort to defeat his confirmation by the senate,” he wrote in an update to his Political Dictionary, adding that Bork was defeated after “an extensive media campaign by his opponents.” https://timeline.com/borking-is-the-ultimate-red-vs-blue-term-bd63ca749c20
Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the lesbian red-feminist National Organization for Women in New York City.
Radical Black Lesbian Lavender & Red-feminist Florynce Ray Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, saying, “We’re going to bork him. We’re going to kill him politically … This little creep, where did he come from?”
I remember some of Florynce Kennedy’s crap. She used her ridiculously flamboyant attire, cowboy hats, and big mouth to draw attention to injustices of all kinds from the 1960s and make war on conservatives justified or not until her death in 2000.
A Communist and Black lesbian feminist activist and attorney (one of the leaders of the underground Lavender & Red loose association of intersectional politics groups), she helped found both the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Black Feminist Organization.
In 1974, People magazine called Florynce (Flo) Kennedy “the biggest, loudest and, indisputably, the rudest mouth on the battleground where feminist activists and radical politics join in mostly common cause.”
She had her own local talk show on Manhattan Cable from the 1970s through the 1990s.
So, the liberals, jealous of their ability to treat the Constitution and Bill of Rights like silly putty in order to manipulate things to their liking, originally painted Bork as being very far outside the mainstream for his conservative “originalist” interpretation of Constitutional law and screaming at the top of their lungs, succeeded in taking down the Reagan appointee with a massive amount of public storm and fury.
Hence the term “borking” a nominee became synonymous with Supreme Court nominations.
And we, trapped in Jewmerica, are subjected to forcibly witnessing yet once again the now venerable tradition carried on by the sleazball loony left among the Democrats, magnified by the MSM. This political circus is nothing new under the sun, it just doesn’t happen that often because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. And now social media amplifies the entire borking phenomena even more.
As a last thought, Ford said she escaped from a locked bedroom to a bathroom across the hallway. Most bedroom doors I know of lock from the inside. Hardly an escape.
And why to the bathroom to “hide for two hours” and not completely out of the house when she had the chance to flee?
Drunken high school party at someone’s house while the parents were away? Ford has not said that she was sober at the time, a question the Democrats and MSM have studiously avoided bringing up.
My guess is that instead of “escaping from a locked bedroom” to hide in the bathroom for a couple of hours, it was really a case of the porcelain throne beckoning, and she spent that period of time hugging it passed out.
No one in the MSM has raised the question, “How drunk were you at the time, Professor Blasey Ford?
The saddest part of all of this, is that after reading some articles about her life, that it does look like to me that she is something of a fragile personality, and that Ford is being cynically exploited not only by Feinstein and Schumer, but by her two lawyers who are Soros-backed Democrat political operatives as well, along with Bromwich, who has Tel Aviv mapped all over his face.
WASHINGTON— Republicans and lawyers for the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were teenagers tentatively agreed to a Thursday hearing, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.
The deal all but ensures a high-stakes showdown that could shape the makeup of the high court.
Republicans had earlier insisted that the hearing take place on Wednesday, and not Thursday as sought by bioscientist Christine Blasey Ford.
Both sides plan to talk on Sunday to discuss additional details, the people said. The preliminary agreement came during a 15- to 20-minute phone call that included Democrats and Republicans.
Earlier Saturday, lawyers for Dr. Ford had said that she “accepts the Committee’s request to provide her first-hand knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct next week.”
As of late Saturday, they hadn’t agreed on details such as whether outside lawyers would do the questioning instead of solely members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Republicans and lawyers for Dr. Ford have been working for the past several days to shape the terms of a hearing into her allegations.
Dr. Ford has said that while she and Judge Kavanaugh were high-school students in the early 1980s, he groped her and tried to remove her clothes after he and a friend pulled her into a room during a party. Judge Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.
Also on Saturday, Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, joined the team of lawyers representing Dr. Ford. The addition added firepower to her legal team; Mr. Bromwich tends to be brought on board for high-stakes legal battles or in the aftermath of crises.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also said that an adviser temporarily hired to help advance Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination resigned from his post following allegations of sexual harassment in a previous job. The adviser, Garrett Ventry, denied the allegations.
The White House earlier Saturday defended Judge Kavanaugh. Spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said he was “eager to testify publicly to defend his integrity and clear his good name.”
The tentative agreement was the latest step to bring the two sides closer together. They have already agreed to Dr. Ford’s request that Judge Kavanaugh not be in the hearing room when she testifies. They also agreed to permit only one camera and to make sure that Dr. Ford is provided adequate breaks.
The sticking points include who will handle the questioning, whether outside witnesses will be brought in to testify, and who testifies first.
Republican senators have said it makes sense to have legal professionals ask questions. But Democrats believe Republicans want outside questioners to avoid the appearance of the 11 Republican men on the committee questioning a woman about an alleged sexual assault.
A White House official said the goal was to avoid the inevitable backlash that would result if male senators handle the questioning. The White House believes that it’s preferable to have a trained female lawyer lead the questioning, this person said.
The preliminary agreement reached Saturday undercut a plan favored by many Republicans to hold a judiciary panel vote Monday on recommending Judge Kavanaugh to the high court. A Monday vote would have made it possible for him to join the Supreme Court before the new session begins on Oct. 1.
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) had been under pressure from some elements within his own party to move ahead with the Monday vote and lock in a confirmation that could reshape the court for generations.
Other Republicans, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, preferred to hear from Dr. Ford before senators were pressed to vote.
Hanging over the entire battle is the Nov. 6 midterm elections. Political observers see a small chance that Democrats could regain control of the Senate, which the GOP now narrowly controls, 51-49. Even undercutting support among Republicans could be damaging.
If all Democrats vote against Judge Kavanaugh, Republicans can lose no more than one vote and still confirm the judge, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking a tie.
That has put a spotlight on Ms. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two swing votes who haven’t said whether they will vote for or against the nominee.
@Karl B and All and especially to Brother Nathanael for his well-done latest on video and who provides a platform where I can have my say (post seldom) even though I am not anywhere totally in conformance with “groupthink”.
Google “women are going to destroy this country”.
Yes big bad google still works for me more often than not.
The results tended to broaden it to Western Civilization. Here’s a sample of some things worth pursuing in the first page of results.
You may not get the same I got but skip over the first two about Soros & Snopes.
Then it starts getting interesting; a sampling:
#MeToo Movement Shouldn’t be Allowed to Destroy Men’s Careers
Next is about desperate refugee women and children (I guess that’s part of the big picture but deserve compassion)…
Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations youtube link. Very controversial but a lot of it makes sense to me.
The End of Men - The Atlantic
The Feminists: How to Destroy a Country From Within — Amazon Kindle, don’t like kindle but will check it out. Feminism has been led and driven from the top by at least one Jewish woman which has brought us abortion and morphed into what we are seeing today.
So that’s enough for now. Note I don’t want to direct hatred toward Jewish women or the plight of women who have been abused and carry deep wounds. Some of them are confused by what they recall from many years ago as well as women who deliberately (or may have deluded themselves) lie to achieve their own ends.
Jewish women have shared suffering that goes with being human, but it seems to me that they have been liberated far longer than most other cultures; I haven’t figured out exactly why this is so, #MeToo, etc. Within their limited spheres, they had power and influence and have even more now.
All these women seem unhappy and unfulfilled. Privileged women with husbands and children who grew up in affluence (many) and had it all.
And I think the most important which isn’t mentioned: They have for the most part left God and faith behind.
My thoughts aren’t very organized here for which I apologize.
Will close, with it hasn’t been lost on me when I see what surrounds these women in the spotlight materially.
Far and away, it wouldn’t have been possible with predominately western WHITE MEN and their inventions and contributions toward all our lives, Just think about it.
And I could be very, very wrong about a lot of things; time will tell.
The Democrat effort to hijack the judicial nomination process. Here comes the newest hero of the anti-life, abortion-worshipping, Lavender-Red Feminist #MeToo Media Propaganda Deluge, that creepy attorney of Porn Star Stormy Daniels fame, suddenly become Democrat civil rights activist and political network builder — Michael Avanatti!
Bingo! He has uncovered a new “victim” for the reenactment of the Anita Hill political theater going into the midterm elections, this time brewing around Kavanaugh. Efforts to unseat Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas failed in 1991, despite the Democrats and complicit MSM’s best deceptions, lies, manipulations in building up Anita Hill and her “testimony”.
Burrowing deep beneath all of this, it boils down to the hysterical need to protect their fetish idol — Roe vs. Wade.
This is how the anti-humans of the radical and Democrat left are empowered with their dark energy — drunk on their cowardly and bloody power over life and death, free to child-murder helpless, defenseless, and perfectly innocent pre-born babies who can’t fight back.
MSNBC: Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims ‘evidence’ of ‘targeting’ women for gang rape
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced a storm of new sexual misconduct allegations Sunday after attorney Michael Avenatti said he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to “allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”
Avenatti, who represents adult film star Stormy Daniels in a lawsuit against President Trump and has hinted at a possible presidential run, made the claims in an email to Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He did not state the source of his “evidence” and did not name any alleged victims.
In Avenatti’s email, a screenshot of which he posted to Twitter, the lawyer told Davis that he had “significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington D.C. area during the early 1980s” where Kavanaugh, Judge and others “would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs.”
Avenatti included a list of questions for Senate investigators to ask Kavanaugh, including: “Did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?”
Neither Kavanaugh nor Judge immediately responded to Avenatti’s accusations.
Meanwhile, the New Yorker magazine reported late Sunday that a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh claimed he exposed himself to her at a college party. Kavanaugh strongly denied that claim as a “smear.”
[I read the original article New Yorker contacted the woman first somehow, and spent a week coaxing, or rather coaching, Ramirez to go public - Kj]
The woman, Deborah Ramirez, has called on the FBI to investigate the alleged incident.
The magazine’s report, which is co-written by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow, states that four Democratic senators have received information about Ramirez’s allegation and at least two have begun investigating it.
The report was published days before Kavanaugh is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about an allegation of sexual assault against him dating to his days as a high school student in the early 1980s.
The accuser in that case, Christine Blasey Ford, has agreed to go before the committee and tell her story.
“This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so,” Kavanaugh responded.
“This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name–and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building–against these last-minute allegations.”
White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said: “This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh.”
Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while she was intoxicated during a drinking game in the 1983-84 academic year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman. She also claimed she inadvertently touched Kavanaugh’s penis when she pushed him away and says the incident left her “embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.”
She also claimed another male student yelled “Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face” and insisted that person used Kavanaugh’s full name.
The report stated that the magazine had not corroborated that Kavanaugh was at the party in question. An anonymous male classmate said he was told that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ramirez within the following days.
Still another male classmate who Ramirez claims egged on Kavanaugh to expose himself to her denied any memory of the party in question. In addition, the magazine published a statement by six of Kavanaugh’s classmates saying: “We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett.”
The statement continued, “In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending.”
A female classmate who signed the statement told the New Yorker that Ramirez “is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.”
Ramirez admitted to the New Yorker that she does not fully remember the alleged incident because she had been drinking at the time. The magazine also reported that Ramirez spent six days “carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” before telling the full version of her story.
In response to the New Yorker report, Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called on the committee’s Republicans to postpone all proceedings related to Kavanaugh’s nomination and refer Ramirez’s allegation to the FBI.
“It is time to set politics aside,” Feinstein wrote. “We must ensure that a thorough and fair investigation is conducted before moving forward.”
At approximately the same time the New Yorker report was published, the committee released a partially redacted version of Ford’s letter to ranking member to Feinstein that detailed Ford’s sexual assault claim against Kavanaugh.
“Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during High School in the early 1980s,” Ford wrote to Feinstein. “He conducted these acts with the assistance of his close friend Mark G. Judge.”
Both Kavanaugh and Judge have denied attending the party where Ford says she was assaulted.
It’s pretty bad when even a staff writer for the very liberal New Republic magazine holds his nose and says, “Watch where you step. Avenatti’s here!”
DAILY CALLER: JOURNALISTS TRASH PORN STAR ATTORNEY FOR HIS DUBIOUS KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS
Michael Avenatti, the TV-friendly attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, has never exactly enjoyed popularity among political journalists. But his favor has dipped even further amid new allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that he dumped into the news cycle Sunday night.
Even liberal journalists aren’t buying what he’s selling.
“On the heels of the New Yorker story, Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, jumped into the fray with some utterly uncorroborated allegations,” wrote Ryan Grim in an newsletter emailed to readers.
He’s the Washington Bureau Chief for The Intercept and formerly an editor at the left-leaning Huffington Post. “I would suggest ignoring him until he comes forward with real evidence, which he promises is coming in the next few days.”
But as Glenn Close‘s psychotic character tells her one-time lover Michael Douglass in Fatal Attraction, “I’m not going to be ignored.”
Who knows? Maybe…just maybe this time Avenatti has a coherent claim?
Avenatti, a Democrat who insists he may put his hat in the ring for the White House in 2020, released a provocative tweet early Sunday evening.
“I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge,” he wrote. “We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.”
Several publications took him seriously enough to cover a story about his claims, including The New York Post and The Hill. But the pieces are carefully worded to say “He says…” and “He claims.”
The publication reported that Avenatti’s so-called bombshell came “minutes” before a bigger story popped in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow.
The article introduced a new woman to the judge’s scandalous picture — a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s who says he put his penis in her face during a drinking game 35 years ago.
Avenatti exchanged emails with the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says he has evidence of debauchery back in the 80s in which Kavanaugh participated in parties where women were gang raped.
He also tweeted this:
“Brett Kavanaugh must also be asked about this entry in his yearbook: ‘FFFFFFFourth of July.’ We believe that this stands for: Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them,” he wrote. “As well as the term ‘Devil’s Triangle.’ Perhaps Sen. Grassley can ask him. #Basta.”
But even Jeet Heer, a staff writer for The New Republic, a liberal mag, has serious doubts about Avenatti’s allegations.
“I’d be really, really cautious about the Avenatti claims,” Heer tweeted just before 10 p.m. Sunday night.
Daily Caller: SOROS-LINKED GROUP WILL SPEND MILLIONS TO STOP KAVANAUGH (July 2018)
– Progressives have formed a new political outfit to mobilize left-wing energy on judicial confirmations, including Judge Kavanaugh
– The group, Demand Justice, is financed and administratively supported by the Sixteen Thirty Fund
– George Soros’ advocacy network has given millions to the Sixteen Thirty Fund in recent years
A new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court has significant ties to the liberal financier George Soros.
A Daily Caller News Foundation review has found that the group’s primary financial supporter is a nonprofit to whom Soros has given millions.
The group, Demand Justice (DJ), is organized and financed by a 501(c)(4) called the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which collected some $2.2 million in contributions from the Open Society Policy Center (OSPC), one of Soros’ primary donation vehicles, between 2012 and 2016.
The Soros Connection
The Fund is largely financed by a handful of donors. Financial statements filed with state oversight officials in 2014 show just three contributors accounted for 70 percent — or some $11.5 million — of the Fund’s total donations and grant revenue.
Disclosure forms filed with the same agency in 2016 present similar facts. Fewer than five donors gave $13.3 million to the Fund, representing 63 percent of their donations.
One of those donors is the OSPC. The Center’s tax forms show the Soros group gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Fund each year between 2012 and 2016, the last year in which records are publicly accessible. The Center gave the Fund $350,000 in 2012; $772,000 in 2013; $125,000 in 2014; $550,000 in 2015; and $481,483 in 2016.
OSPC is practically indistinct from the Open Society Foundations (OSF), Soros’ philanthropic and grant-giving network. OSPC has no employees of its own, according to the Center’s 2016 tax forms. Rather, Foundations employees are compensated for any work done for the Center.
Said compensation is determined by the OSF, and documented in OSF’s internal records. (RELATED: Supreme Court Poised For Rightward Shift Under Kavanaugh)
“OSPC has no employees,” the form reads. “Employees of Open Society [Foundations], a related section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, perform services for OSPC.
OSPC advances funds to Open Society [Foundations] for their services based on the time they spend on OSPC matters. Their compensation is determined by Open Society [Foundations], and is based on market comparability data and is documented in Open Society [Foundations’] records.”
A New Shadow Group
Demand Justice was formed in the spring of 2018 as the progressive counterpart to a constellation of conservative advocacy groups which advertise and organize around judicial confirmations.
Republicans have significantly outpaced Democrats in this space in recent years, given conservative voters’ sustained interest in the federal courts.
Executive director Brian Fallon told The New York Times that DJ hopes to “sensitize rank-and-file progressives to think of the courts as a venue for their activism and a way to advance the progressive agenda.”
Its ranks are staffed by alums of the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign:
Fallon, the former Clinton campaign press secretary, serves as executive director and longtime Obama aide Christopher Kang is chief counsel. Other Clinton veterans involved with the group include Gabrielle McCaffrey and Diana Bowen, according to LinkedIn.
The Fund serves as Demand Justice’s fiscal sponsor. As such, DJ does not have to submit its own tax returns or disclose its supporters. The Fund registered the trade name “Demand Justice” with the Washington D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory affairs on May 2.
The National Council of Nonprofits says that fiscal sponsors provide “fiduciary oversight, financial management and other administrative services” for its dependents, like Demand Justice. As such, many grants or donations DJ receives are awarded by way of the Fund. Both organizations are based out of the same Washington, D.C., address.
Supporters can also give to DJ through ActBlue Civics, a major fundraising platform for leftwing causes.
Given this structure, it is difficult to know how much money individual donors like Soros have channeled to Demand Justice.
The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court presents the first significant political conflict since DJ was founded in the spring of 2018.
The outfit vowed to put $5 million dollars behind a multi-platform effort to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
The campaign will feature television spots promoting embattled Democratic Senate incumbents in West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota, who face competitive Republican challengers this November.
They will also run ads in Maine and Alaska, urging GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to oppose the nomination.
Collins and Murkowski are pro choice moderates who have broken with their party on Obamacare repeal and federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Front Page Mag: KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S LAWYER IS VICE CHAIR OF SOROS FUNDED ORG OPPOSING KAVANAUGH
Kavanaugh’s accuser is being represented by Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. lawyer and the vice chair of the board of the Project On Government Oversight.
POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear.
Where does PGO gets its funding?
From, among other sources, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation tentacles.
Republicans should have seen this coming. We remember Clarence Thomas and the confirmation circus that was. It’s a Jewish M.O. playing out yet again.
1991: Sexual harassment was a major hot button issue in the United States in the 80’s and early ’90s, and major legislation had been passed a few years prior to the Thomas hearing. The Leftist/Jew-funded groups that attacked Thomas cleverly exploited the issue to portray Hill as a heroine coming forward in the age of sexual harassment. They nearly succeeded in stopping his nomination and convinced many Americans Anita Hill was a victim.
2018: The #Metoo movement, inspired by women (and some men) who were sexually assaulted by the likes of rich men in the entertainment industry (Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, etc.), is still fresh in the American consciousness. The Jews are exploiting this movement in a similar manner as in the early ’90s to con American women into voting for leftwing politicians. But the charges are not believable and unprovable.
I don’t know why President Trump and other conservatives don’t simply come out and tell Americans the plain Truth about these insane spectacles, namely that it’s all coming from George Soros. Why can’t they finally expose him to Americans, most of whom are still in the dark in his role in all of these agitations??
Fox News: Kavanaugh Denies Assault Allegations in Exclusive Interview
Full Interview | Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley speak out in their first television interview since Dr. Christine Blasey Ford levied accusations that derailed Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.
Judge Kavanaugh faces questions on Ford’s allegations and how this has impacted him, his family, and his future as a Supreme Court nominee.
Tucker Carlson Tonight: Dem ‘Folk Hero’ Hirono Invented ‘Court of Credibility’ Putting Burden of Proof on Men & The Accused
Tucker Carlson said Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono has become a left-wing “folk hero” for inventing a new system of justice in the United States, where men are presumed guilty and the accused must prove their innocence.
Carlson also ripped Senate Republicans, saying their actions show they “don’t care about you,” the citizen.
Hirono threw her support behind Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, allegedly during a Maryland party in 1982.
Speaking at a press availability last week, she told American men to “shut up and step up.”
“Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard — but they need to be believed,” Hirono said.
Carlson “translated” Hirono’s rhetoric as “all men are guilty, not because they’ve been proven guilty, but because they are men… they are inherently guilty.”
He said that under Hirono and the Democrats’ new justice system, a person is preordained to be innocent or guilty based on birth.
“All women are to be believed… Evidence is irrelevant,” Carlson said.
Hirono, who faces Republican engineer Ron Curtis in November’s election, said Kavanaugh has been judged negatively in what she called a “court of credibility.”
“Look, we’re not in a court of law. We’re actually in a court of credibility at this point. And, without having the FBI report or some semblance of trying to get corroboration we are left with the credibility of the two witnesses,” Hirono told MSNBC.
Tucker pointed out how Senator Blumenthal✡ of Connecticut explained how the new system works in a clip from Monday morning MSNBC:
“We have a constitutional duty to get to the bottom of these allegations. They are serious, and credible, and now the person with the most knowledge about them, namely Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them. They have control over whether to have an investigation…”
Hirono has a BA in Psychology and a post-graduate JD. I’m wondering, Mazie, if the law school you attended covered the constitutional doctrines of “presumption of innocence” and “burden of proof”?
It’s not just loud mouth and pushy Hirono, the feminist hijacked and weaponized #MeToo thought-crime “court of credibility” is infecting the entire Lavender & Red feminist progressive queer Democrat looney left, not the least of which is Senator Blumenthal✡, threatening to swamp us all.
Hirono’s Borking theory of her newly invented “court of credibility” amounts to nothing more than a howling mob lynching of the accused, and then without trial flaying unfortunate “suspect” alive in the public square.
From her website, Setzer✡ “is the President of New Heights Communications, a progressive communications firm based in Washington, DC.
“Christy founded New Heights Communications in 2010 to help drive strategy and tactics for progressive organizations working to promote democracy, establish equality, and broadly secure social justice.”
Her husband, Tyler Prell, was deputy director of communications for the SEIU for 10 years.
He now works freelance to “Provide full range of strategic communications services to clients dedicated to raising the voices of working people, fighting climate change and better using data and technology to create social change.
“Services include creating earned and digital media strategies, message development, project management and writing/editing.”
In other words, freelancing for his wife’s feminist company.
In any case, Christie Setzer✡ as one of the main progressive feminist political PR (propaganda) Media drivers pushing #MeToo to absurd and and irrational proportions.
In her world, “The woman must be believed, the man is guilty”, and that constitutional presumption of innocence and burden of proof must be reversed between accuser and accused.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Per the Legal Information Institute on Burden of Proof: Overview — “Generally, burden of proof describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established.
There are different standards in different circumstances. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof.
The burden of proof is often said to consist of two distinct but related concepts: the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.”
Setzer✡ then continues to toss up her #MeToo word salad attempting to turn the Constitution on its head to suit her own notions of things.
For Senator Blumenthal✡, decorated Px Ranger and feminist #MeToo icon, truth is very elastic, credibility can be blown up like bubblegum, especially if it comes to getting ahead and collecting votes.
Lest we forget, a blast from the past dated in 2010, before Trump ever brought it up.
Stolen Valor & Richard Blumenthal
Richard Keyt, (Keyt & Keyt, LLC)
Normally I would not write this post, but I am doing it in memory of a good friend of mine, Ed Schwebel, 63, an actual Vietnam veteran who died on May 11, 2010, after falling from a ladder while working on his home.
Ed and I were F-4 Phantom instructors in the 35th Tactical Training Squadron at George Air Force Base, California, from 1973 – 1976. Before becoming an F-4 instructor, Ed flew F-4s in combat over North Vietnam, South Vietnam and Laos in 1972. Part of that time Ed was an Owl forward air controller.
The Owl’s were fast FACs that hung it all out directing other fighters to drop bombs on the bad guys. Ed was a true patriot and hero and I will miss him.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Chris Dodd. In March of 2008, Mr. Blumenthal said in a speech in Norwalk, Connecticut, “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.”
Richard Blumenthal is a despicable liar who should not hold any public office. He did not serve in Vietnam. He did serve six years in the Marine Reserve, but never left the safety of the United States.
At an emergency press conference he called on May 18, 2010, at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in West Hartford to try to put out the growing fire that threatens to kill his chances for being elected, Richard Blumenthal said:
“On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility, but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country.”
Earth to Blumenthal: You are the person who impugned your record of service by lying about it. You did not serve in Vietnam. You said you served in Vietnam on many occasions to the numerous groups to whom you boasted (spoke).
Why did Mr. Blumenthal hold his “I’m being persecuted” press conference at the Veterans of Foreign Wars post?
Didn’t he realize that he is not a veteran of a foreign war? Perhaps he wanted to send a subtle message that he may not have served in Vietnam, but he was a veteran of a foreign war.
Blumenthal got five deferments to avoid the draft and Vietnam before he joined the Marine Reserves. I turned 18 in 1966 and spent the next four years in college.
I remember those years and the efforts taken by many of my friends to avoid being drafted.
I had a student deferment during my undergraduate college days. Student deferments were very common and easy to get. As long as you were enrolled in college and attending class full time and pursuing a degree, you got an automatic deferment.
When the U.S. adopted the draft lottery system on December 1, 1969, the rules changed substantially. Those with high draft numbers knew they would never be called and no longer needed a deferment. Those of us with lower numbers (mine was 186) continued to be eligible to be drafted.
The highest number drafted of those in the 1969 lottery (850,000 men) was 195. See lottery facts. I knew I would be drafted after graduating from Penn State in May of 1970 so I joined the USAF to avoid being drafted into the Army.
Around graduation time I did get a draft notice to appear for a physical, but that caused me to complete my joining of the USAF.
Richard Blumenthal joined the Marine Reserves to avoid going to Vietnam. That’s what thousands of other draft eligible men did. I don’t have a problem with anybody who joined the military reserves or the National Guard during the Vietnam years, including people who joined specifically to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Military service is military service period.
Although everybody knew that chances of a reserve or guard unit being sent to Vietnam was slim, it was also possible that the President could change his mind or that events in the war might require that reserve or guard units be sent to fight.
Service in Vietnam was still a risk for everybody in the guard or reserves during 1964 – 1972.
One of my fraternity brothers flew the EC-121 radar surveillance airplane out of a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Air National Guard Unit. He and his crew were sent to fly missions in Vietnam.
Richard Blumenthal says he did not get into the Marine Reserves because of somebody pulling strings. I doubt it.
My recollection is that it was virtually impossible to get into the guard or the reserves during the Vietnam war years because every unit had a waiting list a mile long of people who wanted to avoid being sent to Vietnam.
Lots of my college fraternity brothers tried to get into the guard or reserves to avoid going to the war. Only one got in, my friend that flew the EC-121. I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect his family pulled some strings to get him into the Air National Guard.
I had several Penn State football players in my fraternity who went on to play pro football.
I remember them telling me that it was routine in the late 1960s for professional football teams to get their new players into a guard or reserve unit in the team’s city.
After all, the pro teams did not want to lose their substantial monetary investment in young talent who might suddenly be drafted and unavailable for two years.
For the record, I got a student deferment that allowed me to avoid being drafted while I attended Penn State.
I joined the USAF because I did not want to be drafted into the Army and sent to Vietnam.
In the spring of 1971 I picked the F-4 Phantom supersonic fighter bomber as the airplane I would fly because I had a long love affair with the airplane, the Vietnam air war was winding down because few U.S. ground troops remained in South Vietnam and I thought it was unlikely that I would be sent to the war.
In April of 1972, the North Vietnam regular army invaded South Vietnam. This massive invasion was repelled by the U.S. sending all available F-4 units to Vietnam to provide air support.
All but three people in my F-4 training class at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, were sent to F-4 units in South Vietnam or Thailand in May of 1972.
Me and another guy were ordered to the 35th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Kunsan Air Base, Korea.
The third guy was sent to Clark Air Base in the Philippines, but his unit was actually on temporary duty in Thailand.
My squadron was also TDY to the southeast Asia war games, first at Danang Air Base, South Vietnam, then at Korat Air Base, Thailand so all of my attempts to avoid being sent to the Vietnam war only delayed the inevitable.
Below are more stories about Richard Blumenthal’s lie that he was a Marine who served in Vietnam:
1. New York Times: “Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History”
“what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.”
2. New York Times: “Ex-Congressman Saw Blumenthal’s Claims Evolve”
“Former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a Republican who says he is a good friend of Richard Blumenthal’s, said in an interview Tuesday that he had watched with worry as Mr. Blumenthal gradually embellished his military record over the years.”
3. New York Times: “Mr. Blumenthal’s Misdirection”
“There are few sins less forgivable in American politics than claiming unearned military valor. Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, may consider his false claim to have served in Vietnam to be “a few misplaced words,” as he put it on Tuesday, but, in fact, this deception seems to have been part of a larger pattern of misleading voters.”
4. New York Times: “Campaign in Damage Control Over ‘a Few Misplaced Words’” This story quotes Blumenthal saying in a recent debate with Republican Merrick Alpert:
“”Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action.”
This statement contains another Blumenthal lie about his service. He did not see the effects of military action. He did not serve in a war zone or see the consequences or affects of military action.
How is it possible for Richard Blumenthal to see “firsthand the effects of military action” from thousands of miles away from the action?
In the meantime, why are the loony left Democrats ignoring the very contemporaneous criminal domestic abuse and violence accusations against Keith Ellison?
Instead, the victim/accuser, Ellison’s former girlfriend, who has provided medical and therapeutic records supporting her claims, said a week ago, according to Fox News, that Democrats and the DNC don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.
It’s just so DISTURBING - that gross feeling/sense that happens when I try to process this insanity. Like REALLY - are you that completely INSANE to spin your Jewish lies and believe that it’s factual and others would even consider believing you WORMS!?
Jews be damned! They are truly a INSANE/EVIL & TWISTED bunch, and more and more people are seeing them clearly for what they are. The arrogant/spoiled self glorifying children of the Devil/Liars from the beginning!
I am thinking that this whole Kavanaugh issue is just a big distraction to the REAL news, that is not getting mainstream coverage, on the recent events in Syria regarding Israeli actions affecting Russia!
American Conservative: Six Months in, #MeToo Has Become Infantilizing and Authoritarian
Bad dates are “abuse.” Putting other women out of work is “empowerment.” How did it go so wrong?
By JOANNA WILLIAMS • April 19, 2018
It’s six months since #MeToo began trending on social media. Since then, those two little words have sparked a conversation about the sexual harassment of women that has spread across the globe and into every walk of life. Half a year on it’s time to take stock and ask what women have gained from this movement.
The accusations made against Harvey Weinstein by numerous actors and employees and reaching back over decades are by now skin-crawlingly familiar.
Yet the New York Times story in which actress Ashley Judd and others first publicly detailed Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct, leading to his resignation just three days later, could have made headlines for a week and then been consigned to history.
Instead, the story continued apace and the list of victims—and those accused—grew.
One week later, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”
Milano hadn’t realized she was employing a phrase first coined by activist Tarana Burke as a means of offering solidarity to women victims of sexual violence.
More than a decade later, and with celebrity backing, #MeToo spread rapidly to become a global movement that extended far beyond social media.
Joining in with #MeToo is an attractive proposition. Women sharing their stories become part of a community (albeit one that exists more in their imagination than in reality); they gain validation for their suffering and the moral beatification afforded to innocent victims.
Significantly, #MeToo doesn’t appear to be about women wallowing in victimhood; on the contrary, it seems empowering. The more high-profile men that were accused, found guilty following trial by social media, and left with livelihoods and reputations ruined, the more the #MeToo movement grew emboldened.
No doubt some men have abused the power they held over women: they should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, punished accordingly. But those of us seriously concerned about women’s rights need to move beyond the euphoria of belonging to a powerful movement and honestly appraise the impact of #MeToo.
When we do, we find a number of reasons to be concerned.
#MeToo has become an orthodoxy intolerant of criticism or even question. Women who have suggested that it may have gone too far, that conflating rape with crude flirtation risks trivializing serious incidents and falsely demonizing innocent men, have been hounded for thought crimes.
Katie Roiphe prompted outrage when it was rumored she might go public with a list of “shitty media men” that had been widely circulated among writers and journalists.
Roiphe recalls that “Before the piece was even finished, let alone published, people were calling me ‘pro-rape,’ ‘human scum,’ a ‘harridan,’ a ‘monster out of Stephen King’s “IT”‘ a ‘ghoul,’ a ‘bitch,’ and a ‘garbage person.’”
Catherine Deneuve and over 100 other prominent French women were met with a similar tsunami of name-calling and criticism following their public letter comparing #MeToo to a witch hunt.
The result has been a censorious closing down of debate through a crude division between “good women” who stick to the #MeToo script and “bad women” who digress.
Criticism of the wrong kind of women respects no limits. Film producer Jill Messick, best known for her work on Mean Girls and Frida, committed suicide in February.
Messick worked for Weinstein’s Miramax between 1997 and 2003 and was manager for Rose McGowan in the late 1990s. As #MeToo gained ground, McGowan alleged she was raped by Weinstein and that Messick knew but did not take appropriate action.
Messick was reportedly already suffering from depression; it seems unlikely that finding herself caught between McGowan and Weinstein, between claim and counterclaim, can have done much good for her mental health.
The speed with which Messick was written out of history makes clear that to the #MeToo activists, some people’s lives are worth more than others.
#MeToo is a moral crusade where facts are readily sacrificed for the greater good of the cause. When it comes to declaring rape, sexual assault, or harassment, what matters to activists is not objective evidence that can be proved or disproved but the subjective feelings of the accuser.
#MeToo has redefined sexual misconduct as unwanted behavior. As the case against actor Aziz Ansari showed, defining abuse as unwanted behavior takes us into the realm of the bad date.
Leaving a restaurant too early, pouring wine without asking, even attempting a kiss might all be considered rude, but they are only violations in the mind of the most zealous #MeToo crusaders.
Women in such scenarios are robbed of all agency; apparently unable to say no, they are forced to rely on men’s presumed mind-reading skills to protect them from the unwanted. Not only does this pave the way for miscarriages of justice, it makes all interactions between men and women inherently risky.
It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that since #MeToo took off, surveys have suggested that men feel uncomfortable mentoring women or working alone with them at the office. As a result, women’s opportunities for promotion may have been set back.
And those women are lucky to have employment at all: thanks to concerns raised under the banner of #MeToo, women who worked as Formula 1 “grid girls” have lost their jobs entirely.
Putting women out of work they enjoy is now a feminist act. New York waitresses were, fortunately, having none of it when a group of Hollywood actresses began petitioning for an end to the restaurant tipping culture. “Shut up!” came back their clear response.
The #MeToo movement treats women like children, incapable of ever standing up for themselves or being able to make their own choices in life. In the UK there have been calls for the street harassment of women—whistling and catcalling—to be made a criminal offense.
Last week, the Screen Actors Guild proposed a ban on “hotel auditions.” Its advice to women was that if a “safe venue” cannot be found for auditions then they should be accompanied by a “support peer.”
We need to ditch the therapeutic language and call this what it is: a chaperone.
Previous generations of feminists fought against such infantilizing protections. Today’s #MeToo activists are all too happy to see men demonized and women protected.
Six months on we can see that some women have certainly gained a louder voice thanks to the #MeToo movement. Sadly, all they can do with it is proclaim their own victimhood and demand greater protection.
#MeToo, with its constant reiteration of outdated tropes of predatory men and vulnerable women, represents a major incursion into our personal freedoms. We need to challenge this crusade before it does any more damage.
The Hill: Schumer: McConnell owes Kavanaugh accuser an apology
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday demanded that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) apologize to a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, saying the GOP leader had labeled the allegations a “smear job.”
“Leader McConnell owes an apology to [Christine Blasey Ford] for labeling her allegations a ’smear job.’ Let me repeat that … Leader McConnell owes an apology to Dr. Ford for labeling her allegations a ’smear job.’ And he should apologize to her immediately,” Schumer said from the Senate floor.
Schumer added that comments McConnell made during a Monday speech were “galling” and that the Senate GOP leader has “done more than maybe anyone to politicize the Supreme Court nomination process.”
Daily Caller: BIDEN GAVE A LENGTHY ENDORSEMENT OF KAVANAUGH ACCUSER UNTIL ONE QUESTION CAUSED HIM TO WALK AWAY
12:07 PM 09/18/2018
Grace Carr | Reporter
Former Vice President Joe Biden emphatically supported Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Monday night, faltering only when a reporter asked him about the credibility of a claim made over 35 years ago.
“What I’m going to do is I’m not going to answer any more questions,” Biden said, deflecting a reporter’s question asking whether it was significant that the assault claim refers to an incident that allegedly occurred when Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was 17 years old.
“Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally, uncategorically that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.
“Second, and I think a more important point, I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our entire Nation.
“How would any member on this committee or any person in this room or any person in this country would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?
“The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life and my integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country, when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this. This is not a closed room. There was an FBI investigation. This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment.
“This is a circus. It is a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity-blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kow-tow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.” — Clarence Thomas
Interesting 2006 study brief from Center on Military Readiness on “Believe Her! The Woman Never Lies Myth” and false allegations of rape.
“Every allegation is different, and appearances often deceive. Certain indicators should be investigated in order to separate truthful allegations from fabricated ones. Primary motives for false reports, which are not uncommon, include a) Jealousy or Revenge; b) Need for an Alibi; and c) Emotional Problems/Desire for Attention. None of these should be a surprise.”
“Seeking more information on the phenomenon [revenge/jealousy fake rape reports], Dr. Kanin studied rape reports at two Midwestern universities over the course of three years. Counting only those allegations that were officially recanted by accusers, the study found a false allegation rate of 50%. The police agency involved, headed by a female investigator, found that in this group revenge was the motive for 44% of the recanted rape allegations.”
“Author Warren Farrell, a former board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in the 1970s, made an interesting personal transition from male feminist to an advocate of equality that does not discriminate against men.
“In his 1993 book The Myth of Male Power, Farrell examined the McDowell study and other available reports. “False accusations are not a rarity,” he wrote, ‘they are themselves a form of rape, and a political hot potato. It will doubtless take a female politician of enormous integrity to confront the issue.’”
All that the liars (female or male) who fake rape reports do besides destroy the accused party’s integrity, reputation, and careers, is to defame and rob authentic suffering victims of desperately needed criminal justice and social resources to obtain justice and healing. For their own sick games, the liars and fakes along with their Marxist-Leninist radical feminist backers and handlers parasitically drain off genuinely needed support and help.
If and when genuine victims are reluctant to come forward to report, it’s not so much because of the “patriarchy,” it’s because the liars and fakers when caught out or recant have just made society more cynical.