Thread: The Democrats have viciously overplayed their hand | This farce is now a crime

The Democrats have viciously overplayed their hand

September 25, 2018

This tragedy that became a farce is now a crime.

This tragedy that became a farce is now a crime, the crime of purposeful defamation of an innocent man. Leftists are so determined to prevent Kavanaugh from becoming a justice on the Supreme Court that they have exposed themselves as the lowlife cheaters they are, without shame or any sense of decency.
When they do not win, they will do anything to undo their loss. This is what has motivated the left since the 2016 election. From the moment Trump won, leftists set about their plans to remove him from office by any means necessary. The cabal that put this plan into motion cares nothing for the law, the Constitution, or the people its members set out to ruin as they have Brett Kavanaugh.
There are no words to adequately describe how venal these conspirators among the congressional left are, how low they are prepared to go. To this day, not one Democrat has spoken out against this monstrous plan to destroy a fine man who has led an impeccable life. Not one. Each and every one of them knows that this is an odious campaign based on lies, but not one of them will admit to this fact. The Democratic Party is officially deplorable in every sense of the word.
Blasey Ford's allegations are laughable, not at all credible. The woman has no memory of when, where, how her alleged assault took place. She was and remains known for her excessive drinking. She has no idea who groped her any more than the second woman Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer (who regularly celebrates the wrong people) have written about in the New Yorker knows who exposed himself to her, if anyone.
Like Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez also could not find one person to corroborate her story. She tried for six days! Is someone paying these women to prostitute themselves on the altar of lies in order to destroy Kavanaugh? Soros? Steyer? The Clintons? They are all infamous for funding and promoting this kind of fake news.
Can there be any Americans following this story who are not enraged and offended by the obvious orchestrated smear of a good and decent man? According to some polls, yes. Who are the people who believe these accusers? How could any American fall for such a scam? No mystery there. American educational standards have fallen so drastically that young people have no civic knowledge. They know nothing about American history or the Constitution.
This has been by design. The left has controlled how history is taught for at least three decades. Young people don't even know that one must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. These Ford-supporting senators don't seem to remember this, either. That in itself is stunning. The Democrats have assembled a mob, and "The mob is the mother of tyrants" (Diogenes).
As Blasey Ford's story disintegrates, the Dems conveniently found the second woman willing to throw herself on the pyre of indecency in order to destroy a fine man and his family. The New Yorker (of course) is on board with the rest of the left and happy to co-ordinate to take Kavanaugh down. But even the NYT refused to print Ramirez's allegation. There are no facts in her story, no witnesses, not one. There is only her admitted foggy memory of an admitted drunken evening. She had no clear memory that it was Kavanaugh until coached and cajoled for six days by leftist activists.
Taking Trump out means humiliating anyone and everyone in his administration, his judicial nominees, and his supporters – no ethics, no morals, no scruples required. Trump is dealing with the Harry Reid-Chuck Schumer brand of politics: lethal, cruel, and barbaric.
And look who are the accusers' cohorts: the 85-year-old Feinstein, who is as corrupt as Hillary Clinton when it comes to using her Senate seat to enrich herself, and Gillibrand, who rants and raves her hypocrisy like a 12-year-old. (She is pals with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton.) Then there is the fatuous Senator Blumenthal, the stolen valor senator who falsely claimed he fought in Vietnam. He insists that it is Kavanaugh who must prove his innocence. Kamala Harris, well known to be ethically challenged, is of course howling about the "victims." Judge Kavanaugh is the victim here.
Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii is too ignorant of the Constitution and basic ethics to discuss; she is a disgrace to the Senate and her state. Men, to Hirono, should not have a voice because they are all guilty. She says the law does not apply here because "we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of credibility." No evidence needed. She is a very stupid woman, and Hawaiians actually elected her. This is a huge problem. It is disturbing that any of these people was elected. Voters need to be more cognizant of the character of the people for whom they vote.
It is too soon to predict how this horrific, criminal upheaval will end. Will the left succeed in destroying Kavanaugh? If it does, it will signal the end of our democratic republic as we know it. It will mean that the media and their fake polls govern us all; that Cloward and Piven have won, Marx has won, and Saul Alinsky has won; and that Obama did indeed "fundamentally transform the nation."
And it will mean the loss of the House and Senate in November. Republicans will be so furious at their representatives that they will not vote. If Republicans in Congress are so spineless, why bother when they let the Democrats run the show even when they are the majority party?
Clearly, Kavanaugh is a fine and decent man. Those searching for troubled women to accuse him of some unverifiable crime are loathsome. What these Democrats and their operatives in the media are doing to him is unconscionable. They know very well that these allegations are lies. They helped invent them. The Republicans must not let them win. Confirm the man now.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...heir_hand.html

For leftists, lying is part of their winning strategy

September 25, 2018

Smearing someone with a barrage of lies is a highly effective tactic. It works particularly well for the left because leftists are inclined to lie and because the media give credence to their devious efforts. Ask Harry Reid.

By Carol Brown

As Harry Reid crowed after lying on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes and calling on Romney to prove his innocence: "Romney didn't win, did he?"

Watch this. (It's less than a minute long.)



Youtube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPYdNxYgxEA

Same script. Different names.

The left is framing Judge Kavanaugh as a pervert, a sexual deviant, and most recently as a man who ran a gang rape ring.
This may sound crazy to us (because it is), but smearing someone with a barrage of lies is a highly effective tactic. It works particularly well for the left because leftists are inclined to lie and because the media give credence to their devious efforts – and, regrettably, because an increasing number of Americans are brainwashed lemmings.
The left has waged war against us and uses all means necessary to advance its goal: the transformation of America into a socialist hellhole.
Leftists tear down and destroy all that is good.
They have been laying the groundwork for the attack we're witnessing against Kavanaugh for a long time – where feelings trump facts, where lies are truth, where (white) men are evil, where women are victims, and where being forced to answer the proverbial "when did you stop beating your wife" question is proof in itself that you're a wife-beater.
Under enormous pressure, smears, and threats, Judge Kavanaugh is proving to be a man of extraordinary strength and resolve. On Monday, after the second accuser leveled her it-took-me-six-days-and-consultation-with-attorneys-to-remember-something vague accusation, he wrote the following letter to the Judiciary Committee (here).

These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination – if allowed to succeed – will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.
As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.

It's not enough to say we stand with Judge Kavanaugh. We must vote. Having a razor-thin majority in the Senate leaves us too vulnerable. It hands far too much power to a handful of the usual suspects who break ranks when it counts the most. Losing the House will be another disaster.
Don't be glib, cynical, cocky, cavalier, or overly confident. Vote on November 6. And get a bunch of other people to vote, too. Let's make the midterm election results a delicious shocker.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._strategy.html

Democrats make Joe McCarthy look like an amateur

September 25, 2018

With the Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco, the Dems are doing McCarthyism better than McCarthy ever could.

By Tom Trinko

Joe McCarthy was a U.S. senator who relentlessly pursued communists in the U.S. government. But because liberals have always been more enthused about communism than freedom, the Democrat establishment lied McCarthy into oblivion.
As a result of the liberal smear campaign, McCarthy is memorialized by the term "McCarthyism," which is defined as "the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges; broadly: defamation of character or reputation through such tactics."
That's right: the term Democrats developed to smear McCarthy because he was hunting traitors in the U.S. government is a perfect description of the Democrats' and their propaganda arm, the fake news media, treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
They couldn't find anything in his judicial record to justify denying him a seat on the Supreme Court, so Democrats have turned to unsubstantiated, and in fact repudiated, charges of ancient personal impropriety, which these same Democrats have widely publicized.
Democrats knew that Christine Blasey Ford's claims about Kavanaugh assaulting her were bogus, which is why they waited until the last minute to reveal them. In fact, the only thing they've been right about so far is that Ford isn't credible. Even though she made the most ambiguous, uncheckable claims possible within a week of her going public, every person who she said could confirm her account was on record, under threat of imprisonment, of saying there was no truth to her claim. Even her lifelong friend, a female Democrat who doesn't like Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court, has said she was never at a party with Ford and Kavanaugh, even though Ford said she was.
If the Democrats hadn't hidden Ford's claim, the whole issue would have been resolved before the hearings began.
The latest claim by Deborah Ramirez is even less credible than Ford's. Even the NYT, for whom, usually, any anti-Trump rumor is fit to print, wouldn't run the story because it lacked any credibility. Even Ms. Ramirez said that she wasn't sure that it was Kavanaugh until she spent six days with a Democrat activist lawyer. The witnesses she said would corroborate her account said she was wrong. She called former classmates up recently to ask about the event and told them she wasn't sure who exposed himself to her.
It turns out that Ramirez is a Democrat activist. As the coup de grâce, one of her best friends at the time, who shared secrets with her, says Ramirez never mentioned the incident.
Meanwhile the porn lawyer Michael Avenatti claims to have a woman who says Kavanaugh and his friend Judge used to drug and gang-rape women. We know that Avenatti is a liar and a tax cheat. He has presented not a single detail, but we're supposed to believe that by day Kavanaugh was the fantastic gentleman commended by 65 women, but by night, he organized gang-rapes of women. Right.
There's more evidence that the fake news media are trying to tip the scales. We all know how irritating it is when some reporter refers to a person caught in the act of some horrible crime as the "alleged" perpetrator. We're all for presumption of innocence, but when you have video footage of someone shooting an unarmed cop, we think leaving the "alleged" out is okay. But when you read stories about Kavanaugh in the fake news media, are you seeing a significant usage of the word "alleged"? In fact, Democrats are arguing that the mere fact that Kavanaugh has been accused means we can drop the "alleged" and presume he's guilty.
Chuck Schumer and the rest of the neo-fascist Democrats are engaging in true McCarthyism.
They can't give any reason why Kavanaugh wouldn't be a good judge or how any of his past rulings are inconsistent with the law as written, so they're saying that because random Democrat activist women are suddenly remembering after decades of silence allegedly horrible things that Kavanaugh did, we must reject him, even though in both cases the people the "victim" has said would back up their claims have in fact said the "victim" is wrong.
The American people generally don't like liars, and they especially don't like liars trying to smear innocent people.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...n_amateur.html

We're monsters to them

September 25, 2018

Cognitive dissonance on the left.

By Bonnie Ramthun

I finally got it. After the election of President Trump, I've been growing ever more confused about the lack of reason from the Democrats, trending into outright craziness. Marching with vagina hats? Claiming that the "Russians did it"? Beating Trump-supporters with bike locks?
Then came the allegations of sexual abuse by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, assertions so completely ridiculous that a middle-school child could shoot them down. An assault where the victim doesn't remember the day, the place, or who was there, except for four people who have all come forward to testify, under penalty of perjury, that there was no party, they were not involved and have no idea what she's talking about. Then another assault claim where the victim wasn't sure about the events and no one witnessed it.



Yet I have friends who are Democrats who believe these women and are twisting themselves into pretzels to claim that these events must have happened exactly as the women described.
Why is this? Recently, my husband and I went out for breakfast, and I finally understood.
I imagined that in the lovely restaurant in which we were seated, a man in full Nazi regalia walked in. Let's say he was wearing the whole uniform, including an armband with a swastika and polished jackboots.
Instantly, I would know that this man is evil. His ideology is that of genocide and war. If a girl walked up to me, pointed at him, and claimed rape, I would believe her. Of course she's right and he's a rapist, because look at him! He's a monster. I wouldn't require proof. I wouldn't need it.
And now I have my answer.
The Democrats have demonized Republicans to such an extent that they believe we are not human. We're monsters, and we deserve whatever they can do to us.
This, by the way, is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Bonnie Ramthun is a Colorado mom, wife, and author. She is an occasional contributor to PJMedia. You can find her work at her Amazon author page here.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...s_to_them.html

Democrats Demonstrate Their Hatred of Women

Are the Democrats planning to use their common strategy of creating standards that only Republicans are judged by to make #MeToo a tool that attacks only conservatives?

September 25, 2018
By Tom Trinko

Democrats love to claim they love groups they actually hate. Take blacks, for example. Democrats, and the fake news media, are always telling us how much they love blacks. But we know that's not true because Democrats are doing nothing while thousands of blacks are shot each year in Democratic-run cities.
If the Democratic mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, actually cared about blacks, he'd be doing something to reduce the thousands of shootings occurring each year. Instead, he simply uses the ongoing slaughter of blacks in the city he runs to push for his personal desire to repudiate the Second Amendment. We all know that if nearly 4,000 white people had been shot in Chicago last year, Rahm would be doing more to end the violence.
We're seeing the same situation with women as a result of the Democrats' desperate need to ensure that the Supreme Court remain full of left-wing activists.
The entire leftist agenda, ranging from being soft on criminals to redefining marriage, has been established by judicial fiat with judges making, not interpreting, the law. Without an activist leftist Supreme Court, none of the modern leftist agenda would have been imposed on the people. That's why Kavanaugh is an existential threat to the left: a majority of honest judges would require the left to get the majority of Americans to support their agenda, something the left knows will never happen.
Because Kavanaugh is a great human being – for example, he volunteers in a soup kitchen – and a great judge, Democrats weren't able to come up with any honest reason he shouldn't be on the Court. But instead of accepting that elections have consequences, as their god Obama has said, Democrats have decided to destroy the #MeToo movement, seriously hurting women in the process, in a hopefully vain attempt to keep Kavanaugh off the Court.
The Democrats are destroying #MeToo by putting forth clearly specious claims that Kavanaugh has assaulted women, thereby undermining the credibility of all women.
The sad reality is that in many cases, because women don't report assaults or rapes when they occur, often due to the completely wrong idea that being forcibly assaulted is something to be ashamed of, the cases often devolve into a he said, she said situation. If the public sees the entire Democratic Party pushing what are clearly fake claims by women, the public will begin to question all women who claim to have been assaulted.
We know that the Democrats don't believe these claims against Kavanaugh because they've kept them hidden and because they're doing everything they can to prevent the claims from being scrutinized.
We know that a lack of belief is merited. In the Ford case, within a week of her publicly accusing Kavanaugh of assault, all of the people she said would corroborate her story, including a lifelong female Democratic friend, have said the party Ford describes never happened. That on top of Ford being unable to remember when or where the supposed party occurred and the fact that her own therapist's notes don't support her current claims make it obvious to honest people that either Ford is lying or she's deluded. Possibly poor therapy brought out a false "repressed" memory.
Within hours of Ford's claims being unambiguously debunked, the Democrats found a new woman, Deborah Ramirez, to allege that a young Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her. But we already know that the people whom she claimed as witnesses say it never happened. Furthermore, we know that she contacted former classmates for information on the incident because she didn't really remember it and she told them that she wasn't sure that it was Kavanaugh.
But now, after spending six days with a Democratic lawyer, she's sure that the alleged event did happen. Given that she's a Democrat and that she's said she came forward because of Ford's now debunked claim, it's pretty clear that she's just turned a wish that she could derail Kavanaugh into a story that she hopes will derail him.
Can you imagine if some woman claimed that Obama had exposed himself to her? Would the media have run the story if there were no corroboration, if in fact the people the "victim" cited as corroboration outright denied her claims? Of course not. While Obama's policies are loathsome, there is absolutely no indication that he is the sort of man who sexually assaults women, just as there is no indication that Kavanaugh is such a man.
There is no proven or even claimed #MeToo case where someone assaulted women when he was young and then completely stopped and never reoffended.
The Democrats' acceptance of clearly false claims and their embracing the idea that the mere fact that a woman accuses a man of something makes the man guilty hurt women in another way. Women often have husbands and sons. Real women are quite rightly concerned that their husbands' and their sons' lives could be destroyed because some woman makes a false claim.
The reality is that we know that some women will lie about assault to protect themselves or to hurt a man they don't like. That doesn't mean we should ignore the claims of women, but it does mean we can't simply assume that women never lie.
It's unclear if the Democrats are eager to destroy #MeToo because it has caught mostly Democrats to date or if the death of #MeToo is just a price that Democrats are willing to pay to ensure that the Court doesn't return to simply interpreting the law.
Or perhaps the Democrats are planning to use their common strategy of creating standards that only Republicans are judged by to make #MeToo a tool that attacks only conservatives.
We're actually seeing that today. The same Democrats who claim that an uncorroborated and repudiated accusation is enough to keep Kavanaugh off the Court say two credible, sourced claims of assault against Keith Ellison mean nothing. While it's true that the Democrats make noises about investigating Ellison, if they were to apply the same "all that matters is the accusation" standard they'd be demanding that Ellison resign from his number-two role in the DNC and his campaign to be attorney general of Minnesota. But they're not.
It's time to end this farce. The Kavanaugh who will sit on the Court has a spotless record of respecting women for decades, and the ability of the Democrats to convince women to bring up readily debunked claims of Kavanaugh having assaulted them decades ago doesn't change that.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._of_women.html

Republicans need to shut this farce down, vote and immediately confirm this wonderful man, Brett Kavanaugh, to the US Supreme Court. You can't dance with the demons of the DemoQuack Party and come out on top, you have to ignore them and play by normal rules with intelligence, common sense and loyalty to the principles of civilized rules of law.

Shut. Them. Down.

Debra Katz Was Wrong about Paula Jones's Case

Debra Katz wasn't always so opposed to sexual harassment.

September 25, 2018
By Allan J. Favish

If you are a woman with a sexual harassment claim against a man who is politically favored by Christine Blasey Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, don't hire Katz as your attorney. In 1998, Katz stated that Paula Jones did not have a viable case against President Bill Clinton. Soon thereafter, Jones's lawsuit was dismissed before a trial could occur by federal Judge Susan Webber Wright, now known as Susan Webber Carter. Katz's statements were not vindicated by Carter's ruling, because Carter's ruling was wrong.
Jones's lawsuit against Clinton included claims under federal civil rights laws and a claim under Arkansas tort law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The legal viability of Carter's ruling that Jones's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be heard by a jury rests on her statement that "the conduct as alleged by plaintiff describes a mere sexual proposition or encounter, albeit an odious one, that was relatively brief in duration, did not involve any coercion or threats of reprisal, and was abandoned as soon as plaintiff made clear that the advance was not welcome."
The conduct alleged by Jones, accepted as true for the purposes of Carter's ruling, includes the following: Governor Clinton had a state trooper escort Jones to a hotel suite; the trooper told Jones he had a gun when asked; after a few minutes of small talk in the hotel room alone with Clinton, he asked her about her job and mentioned that Dave Harrington, Jones's ultimate superior within the state agency at which she worked, and a Clinton appointee, was his good friend.
Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to Jones, took her hand, and pulled her toward him, so that their bodies were close to each other; she removed her hand from his and retreated, but Clinton approached her again and, while saying, "I love the way your hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves," put his hand on her leg, started sliding it toward her pelvic area, and bent down to attempt to kiss her on the neck, all without her consent.
Jones then exclaimed, "What are you doing?," told Clinton that she was "not that kind of girl," and walked away from him. Jones was extremely upset and confused and, not knowing what to do, attempted to distract Clinton by chatting about his wife. Jones then sat at the end of the sofa nearest the door, but Clinton approached the sofa and, as he sat down, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect), and told Jones to "kiss it." Jones was horrified by this, and she jumped up from the couch and told Clinton she had to go. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said, "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do" and then pulled up his pants and said, "If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately, and I'll take care of it."
As Jones left the room (the door of which was not locked), Clinton detained her momentarily; looked sternly at her; and said, "You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves."
Clinton's advances to her were unwelcome; she never said or did anything to suggest to him that she was willing to have sex with him; and during the time they were together in the hotel suite, she resisted his advances, although she was stunned by them and intimidated by who he was.
When Clinton referred to Dave Harrington, Jones understood that Clinton was telling her that he had control over Mr. Harrington and over her job and that he was willing to use that power. From that point on, she was fearful that her refusal to submit to Clinton's advances could damage her career and even jeopardize her employment.
When she left the hotel suite, she was in shock and upset but tried to maintain her composure. Jones went back to her job downstairs at the hotel with her coworker, who reported that Jones was shaking and embarrassed. Later that day, Jones went to the workplace of a friend and told her of the incident as well. The friend testified that Jones was upset and crying. Within the next two days, Jones told one of her sisters, who testified that Jones was "bawling" and "squalling" and that she appeared scared, embarrassed, and ashamed.
Jones's friend testified that she encouraged Jones to report the incident to her boss or to the police but that Jones declined, pointing out that her boss was friends with Clinton and that the police were the ones who took her to the hotel suite. Her friend further testified that Jones stated she did not want her fiancé to know of the incident and that she "just wanted this thing to go away." What Clinton and the trooper had said and done made Jones afraid to file charges.
A few weeks later, the trooper told Jones that Hillary Clinton was out of town often and that Clinton wanted her phone number and wanted to see her. Jones refused to provide her phone number to the trooper. The trooper also asked her how her fiancé, Steve, was doing, even though she had never told the trooper or Clinton his name, and this frightened her.
Jones continued to work at the state agency even though she was in constant fear that Clinton would retaliate against her because she had refused to have sex with him. She was treated very rudely by certain superiors in her agency, including her direct supervisor, and this rude treatment had not happened prior to her encounter with Clinton.
Again, all of these assertions were not established as facts in a court of law; however, they were assumed to be true for purposes of ruling on Clinton's summary judgment motion against Jones.
Carter was incorrect to say no jury could ever properly conclude that Clinton's saying he knew Jones's boss and that she should not talk about what happened "did not involve any coercion or threats of reprisal." A jury could easily find that Clinton's alleged conduct could reasonably have been interpreted by Jones as coercive and threatening.
Carter was incorrect to say this was "a mere sexual proposition or encounter, albeit an odious one." "Mere" is defined as "being nothing more than what is specified" and "small" or "slight." Carter's use of the word "mere" might be an accurate description if all Clinton allegedly did was the verbal invitation. But the verbal invitation plus the placing of his hand on her leg and the exposure of his erect penis coupled with the statement about her boss being his friend and his request for her to remain silent about something she would have a natural need to discuss with friends and loved ones is something a jury could easily find to be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society. Carter failed to cite any case that compelled her to characterize Clinton's alleged conduct the way she did.
Carter was incorrect to say Clinton's conduct "was abandoned as soon as plaintiff made clear that the advance was not welcome." After Jones walked away from Clinton, rejecting his advance, including his touching her leg as he slid his hand toward her pelvic area, he allegedly exposed his erect penis. Carter found that Clinton's alleged exposure of his erect penis constituted abandonment of his sexual conduct. Carter failed to cite any case that supported her opinion on this point.
Carter also neglected to cite a single case that made her opinion about the severity of Jones's alleged emotional distress controlling over anything to the contrary a jury might have found. Carter failed to cite a single case that compelled her to rule that it would be improper for a jury to find that Jones's emotional distress was so severe in nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
In section IV of the Argument section of Jones's July 30, 1998 appellate brief, Jones's attorneys attacked Carter's ruling on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In November 1998, before the appeal was heard, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000.00.
Carter got it wrong, and so did Katz.


Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles. His website is allanfavish.com. James Fernald and Mr. Favish have co-authored a book about what might happen if the government ran Disneyland entitled Fireworks! If the Government Ran the Fairest Kingdom of Them All (A Very Unauthorized Fantasy).

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ones_case.html

Judge Kavanaugh and Sexual McCarthyism

Daniel John Sobieski

Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately. Smear first, prove later.

September 25, 2018
By Daniel John Sobieski

One fully expects in each news cycle to hear some Democratic presidential wannabe, pundit, or drive-by journalist step forward and proclaim in the manner of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy: "I have in my hand a list of women whom nominee X molested, assaulted, fondled, and exposed himself to that disqualifies him for the position he seeks." Never mind that the charges will be vague, uncorroborated, even contradicted by alleged witnesses, and deal with events at an unknown date, time, and place. The charges have been made and must be investigated.

McCarthy was looking for communists in the State Department and other places in government, and while some did exist, just as predators preying on young women do exist, so does character assassination in the name of pursuing a political agenda.
Now we have Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker reporting on another vague, uncorroborated, and contradictory charge against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, this time by a Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez, alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself at another one of those drunken parties we are told he was so fond of attending. Yet again, we have a questionable account:

The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident[.] ...
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. 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. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The New York Times, no friend to Trump or Kavanaugh, could not corroborate Ramirez's story:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

Have you no shame, senators? Particularly shameful, and someone who deserves censure for sitting on the letter of the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the full text of which is still being withheld, since July, is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had Judge Kavanaugh sitting in front of her in a public hearing, in a private session, and talked with Kavanaugh on the phone and said nothing, not even to ask Kavanaugh when he stopped beating his wife.
This is not about the truth of these allegations. This is about power, and the threat that President Trump will restore our courts to their originalist interpreting of the Constitution by appointing judges who believe that that sacred document should be interpreted by what those who wrote it meant in the context of their times.
Somewhere, Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling. His goal was to destroy America's institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions. Judge Kavanaugh must be destroyed, lest he and others like him prevent the progressives from using the courts to legislate what they can't get through Congress. Judge Kavanaugh must be demonized in the Alinsky model. If Donald Trump's election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp, pulled back the curtain, and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists running the show behind it.
One remembers back when President Trump picked Kavanaugh from his list of 25 qualified nominees. Kavanaugh's name apparently was not high on the radar of progressives, who had their prefabricated press releases and protest signs ready, with only a name to be filled in:

It was a wild night outside the Supreme Court Monday, as a [sic] leftist demonstrators, organized by NARAL, scrambled to find the most appropriate sign to protest President Donald Trump's nominee to replace outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy[.] ...
Under the clear assumption that any nominee would be, by definition, an affront to their "human rights," demonstrators carried fill-in-the-blank signs and fistfuls of markers, so that they could make appropriate placards on the spot.
As soon as Brett Kavanaugh's name was officially announced, they set to work[.] ...
Some organizations flush with cash, like NARAL, came prepared with several different signs, one for each possible nominee.

Press releases were ready to denounce "fill in the blank's" participation in the "war on women" and assault on so-called abortion rights:

But no protest was more embarrassing than an email blast sent by the liberal group known as "Women's March."
Minutes after Trump announced his nominee, the group released a statement blasting Kavanaugh. However, there was a major problem with the email copy: the opening line didn't cite Kavanaugh's name. Instead, the first sentence had "XX" where Kavanaugh's name should have been, an obvious sign the email was pre-written and that the group planned to oppose the nominee regardless of who it was.
Unfortunately, missing Kavanaugh's name was not the only glaring mistake in the email. In a subsequent paragraph, the organization misspelled Kavanaugh's name with a "C."
"Trump's announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States. Judge Brett Cavanaugh's nomination threatens to move our nation's highest court dangerously to the right and further erode protections for almost every marginalized group in America," the email read.

One wonders if other names on Trump's list of possible appointees have been used to look for other potential Democrat-linked character assassins with an ideological ax to grind that might be used to slander other nominees. Even creepy porn lawyer and legal counsel to porn star Stormy Daniels Michael Avenatti has risen from his part of the swamp to slime Kavanaugh:

Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti claims he is now representing a woman with "credible information regarding Judge [Brett] Kavanaugh and Mark Judge." ...
"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," he tweeted Sunday night. "The nomination must be withdrawn."

Of course it must. That is the goal and purpose of this serial defamation. And if Kavanaugh's nomination is withdrawn, the sexual McCarthyism of the left will continue, with the next target being "fill in the blank." As I have previously noted, these charges are reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful black American conservative businessman Herman Cain. Cain's candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven sexual harassment allegations by former employees. Like Harry Reid's tax lies about Mitt Romney, the strategy worked.
Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately. Smear first, prove later. Guilty until proven innocent. To various extents, it worked with Romney and Cain; why not Judge Brett Kavanaugh?


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...carthyism.html

There's Poisoning the Well, and Then There's Borking the Well

In the long term, defeating Brett Kavanaugh is almost immaterial to the left. The real fish to fry is much bigger.

September 25, 2018
By Christopher Knight

Anita Hill is coming to Elon University.
The ol' alma mater already lost my contributions earlier this year – a consequence of Wired revealing that one of Elon's computer professors is an Antifa activist who has been compiling a massive database of anyone she deems Lebensunwertes Leben. That means "Republicans," "conservatives," "Alt-Right," "white supremacists," and pretty much everyone listing starboard of Friedrich Engels.
Megan Squire is not only still employed at Elon, but applauded. Last week Squire delivered a "Distinguished Scholar Lecture" about her work supplying the Southern Poverty Law Center with information about their common enemies. This is the same Southern Poverty Law Center whose "hate list" has been used to target innocent people for assassination. Curiously, Squire's work is totally absent any analogues from the left of the political spectrum. A "scholarly oversight," no doubt.
Once upon a time, Elon University was a place that encouraged freedom of ideas and vigorous debate. But as ideological homogeneity has prevailed upon "the most beautiful campus in America," that time is now past. The school that welcomed Margaret Thatcher to dedicate its student center in 1995 would probably have the Iron Lady arrested for trespassing were she still with us.
In good conscience, I can no longer contribute to a school that has embraced intellectual intolerance and has abandoned reason for capricious "feelings." Neither can I endorse my college when it continues to have among its staff a gleeful provider of resources for domestic terrorism. But still, I held out hope that sanity there might yet prevail.
And then it was announced that Anita Hill is coming to speak at Elon University.
She's due in January to deliver the annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Address. The title of her lecture is "From Social Movement to Social Impact: Putting an End to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace."
Talk about chutzpah!
Elon's faculty could have invited Justice Clarence Thomas. I believe he would have been honored to visit. He would certainly be a more admirable choice of speaker about Dr. King's dream than could possibly be the most discredited, disreputable, and debunked witness in the history of Supreme Court confirmation hearings (until now, anyway). When one has an up-and-coming law school, celebrating Anita Hill is not how one's institution acquires street cred.
That Anita Hill is even remembered at all, when she should have been forever relegated to juristic mothballs in late Uncle Teddy's basement, is woeful evidence that the long-term strategy since those hazy, crazy days of Coke cans and "Long Dong Silver" actually worked. September 1991 did and still does cast a pall over Clarence Thomas, by all serious accounts a kind, courteous, and brilliant man.
Thomas is also, notoriously, the quietest of the justices. Those who know him in professional circles have assured me that outside hearings, Thomas is exceptionally jovial and quick with a joke. That human side is dropped completely when the nine justices file into court. The last time Thomas has been publicly loquacious is, again, from 1991:

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.

How much wisdom and ponderance has the American people been deprived of these past twenty-seven sessions because Thomas was on some primal level intimidated by the "high-tech lynching" perpetuated by a zealous media eagerly complicit with partisan kindred?
It was inevitable that Anita Hill would come to mind now, amid the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings and the subsequent freak show that apparently few are taking seriously. Perhaps the American people are wiser today – or fatigued from the Thomas hearings, still much in living memory. Christine Ford's legitimacy has fast fallen apart and would not hold up under scrutiny in any serious courtroom. Deborah Ramirez's credibility is even worse.
But this has been the last full measure since 1987 and the Robert Bork nomination. The assault on Bork was of such viciousness that Douglas Ginsburg got out of Dodge before any shootin' commenced, his use of marijuana years earlier given as the motive for withdrawing from Supreme Court consideration before the confirmation hearings began. But it was glaringly obvious: Ginsburg knew that the anti-Bork tactics would take their toll. In the end, a squeaky-clean Anthony Kennedy went on to claim Lewis Powell's former seat.
"To Bork" among the American far left became a term for total war against any perceived threat to the left's sense of power. "We're going to Bork him. We're going to kill him politically," said National Organization for Women attorney Florence Kennedy immediately after the Thomas nomination was announced. Portending the character assassinations of decades to come, Kennedy added, "This little creep, where did he come from?" Thomas's steadfast resolve won the day against the siege. "Borking" was nonetheless made a standard weapon against any deemed too far right to have a seat at the table.
Kavanaugh's opposition and those they represent desire nothing less than total victory. If they cannot have it, they will do their damnedest to scorch the earth and salt the land. It was a cruel measure of the Roman armies: on the rare times they were successfully repelled, they would "poison the well" of the defending city. The carcasses of dead horses, cattle, even people would be tossed into the water supply as they made their retreat. It was a spiteful and cowardly tactic, absent any forward merit. Deprived of potable water, most of the victorious towns withered and died all the same.
Brett Kavanaugh's opponents are Borking the well again. Yet Kavanaugh is only the objective of this particular hour. In the long term, defeating Kavanaugh is almost immaterial to the ultimate goal of the obscene strategy: the fantasy of enforced liberty without self-restraint. Too many seem oblivious that such is not liberty at all, but a deprivation of freedom in its most hallowed sense. This isn't about Kavanaugh the man as much as it is about ideologically tainting the American landscape in attempting to seize the impossible. Leftists are willing to warp reality itself beyond repair in order to achieve it.
The machinations currently deployed against Brett Kavanaugh stem from a heart of darkest cowardice. If his detractors cannot prevail on purely rational and intellectual grounds, then they will do so playing to the basest hysteria and hate. There will be no satisfying their bloodlust until Kavanaugh's haggard, weary face is up on the telescreens, accusing himself of crimes against Big Sister that he never committed. So it is that the yet to be substantiated claims of Ford and Ramirez are now enough, we are told, to override fair and due process. Strangely, this principle never seemed applicable to Juanita Broaddrick, but I digress.
"Law is the ultimate science," wrote Frank Herbert in his classic novel Dune. There is not one justice, even the great Jay Marshall, who has been an absolutely perfect inquirer of that realm. There is, however, a profound observation that the justices of the United States Supreme Court often deviate from their initial stances over the long course of their respective tenures. They grow, we should prefer to believe. When the objective is that deeper understanding of the Constitution for its own sake and that of the people, no sincere jurist can avoid evolution into a greater scholar.
The honoring and furtherance of law isn't what those such as Brett Kavanaugh's enemies desire. The virtue of disregarding the rule of law in these proceedings is itself testimony that Kavanaugh's opponents do not want rule of law at all. They desire ideological purity and unwavering commitment to temporal politics. When they succeed in this, they drive our pursuit of the understanding of law into stagnancy, decay, and ruin. They might be attempting to diminish and destroy a philosophy or a party. They are, however, succeeding in poisoning the well from which all of us as Americans draw our civility and nobility.
They must be called out on it and opposed from every angle as reverence of law dictates.
One last thing...
Dear Elon University students manning the phone bank for the fall pledge drive: do not call me asking for more money. Because it's not coming. Not ever.


Christopher Knight would never be Supreme Court material after that "Pelvis-Shakin' Elvis" stunt in high school. He would still appreciate your visiting his blog at TheKnightShift.com and on Twitter at @theknightshift.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._the_well.html