Mid-Day Digest

Sep. 24, 2018

THE FOUNDATION

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams (1770)

Comment | Share

IN TODAY’S EDITION

  • Yet another sexual-assault allegation has been leveled against Kavanaugh.
  • Did Rosenstein seriously suggest taping Trump? And will he be fired?
  • America’s totalitarians have a cynical strategy.
  • The U.S. Air Force is aiming for a needed expansion.
  • Trump’s cybersecurity strategy.
  • Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists, and Short Cuts.

FEATURED ANALYSIS

Destroying Kavanaugh, One Scripted Attack at a Time

Nate Jackson

Democrats sure know how to script a thorough character assassination.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced a deal with Christine Blasey Ford to testify before the Senate this Thursday regarding allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her when he was a drunk 17-year-old and she was a drunk 15-year-old, approximately in 1982 (she’s not sure). Contemporaries have lined up to deny Blasey Ford’s allegation.

The Party of Bill Clinton waited until that hearing had been set before launching a second accusation Sunday night. Indeed, it’s obvious now that Democrats delayed Blasey Ford’s testimony at least in part in order to wait for the second story to break. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), puppet master of this whole contemptible charade, wasted no time in demanding “an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.” That is Democrats’ endgame, after all. The delays will already almost certainly keep Kavanaugh from joining the Court before the beginning of its term on Oct. 1.

Grassley has given Democrats everything they wanted.

The second allegation was reported by The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. The pair also broke Blasey Ford’s allegation without naming her, and Farrow authored the original #MeToo story blockbuster about Harvey Weinstein. Yet right off the bat, this latest scoop falls flat. For one thing, the authors don’t even get to the allegation until they tell us in the first paragraph that Democrats are taking it “very seriously.”

Did someone say “collusion”?

Then on Monday, Farrow said the accuser “came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim.” You don’t say.

Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale and a registered Democrat, “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,” The New Yorker tells us. Fair enough. Hesitance doesn’t prove or disprove anything, as lots of women are afraid to report legitimate sexual assault, especially if they were too drunk to truly consent, fully function, or remember details.

But the report continues, “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney [emphasis added], Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. ‘I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,’ she said.”

As with Blasey Ford’s allegation, the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate and has already conducted multiple, thorough background checks on Kavanaugh.

Later in the story, we learn that Ramirez admits to being “on the floor, foggy and slurring her words,” and she wasn’t even sure it was Kavanaugh, though she insists she remembers another student yelled, “Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face.” The report also cites an unidentified student who wasn’t at the party but says another student told him about an incident vaguely resembling the accusation at the time. Counter to that flimsy hearsay, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” Moreover, six witnesses reached by The New Yorker — including Ramirez’s best friend — “disputed Ramirez’s account of events.”

Yes, these unbelievably glaring weaknesses appear in a story hit piece meant to ruin Kavanaugh’s career.

For his part, Kavanaugh said in a statement, “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. 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.”

Another major point against The New Yorker — The New York Times declined to publish the story, saying (buried deep in its own Kavanaugh report after Farrow’s scoop): “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.”

So to sum up, there’s as much corroboration for this story as there was for Blasey Ford’s — precisely none.

Yet Democrats are gleefully using these coordinated and orchestrated attacks to destroy a good man, all as his wife and daughters endure death threats. Furthermore, these fake, uncorroborated, and unsubstantiated claims, politically scripted by Feinstein and company, undermine the credibility of legitimate claims of abuse, and thus do enormous damage to those who have actually been abused.

Thus Democrats leave a Category 5 wake of destruction in their crusade to destroy our republic.

Comment | Share

IN BRIEF

NYT Exposing Rosenstein’s Insubordination to Bait Trump?

Thomas Gallatin

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s days may be numbered. On Friday, The New York Times reported that in the spring of 2017, Rosenstein “suggested … that he secretly record President Trump” and even floated the idea of “recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.” The Times claims Rosenstein was motivated to do this soon after Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey, because Trump cited Rosenstein’s memo that was critical of Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation as justification. Rosenstein was, the Times says, “caught off guard” and “he began telling people that he feared” Trump had used him.

The Times article noted that no actions were ever taken to follow through on Rosenstein’s suggestions. Rosenstein, not surprisingly, has denied the story, calling it “inaccurate and factually incorrect,” adding, “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

Interestingly, The Washington Post and NBC News countered the Times story, reporting that Rosenstein’s statements were made in jest. However, infamous former FBI lawyer Lisa Page saw it otherwise, indicating in a memo on the meeting that she took Rosenstein’s secret taping comment seriously. (Can we take Page seriously, though?) And National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, who has closely followed the entire Trump/Russia collusion saga from the beginning, called Rosenstein’s denial of the Times story a “non-denial denial,” while also noting how Rosenstein has flip-flopped in his attempts to appease the Washington establishment.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) responded, “It’s not a very funny joke.” He later added, “One thing that’s clear whether you’re a Republican or Democrat president, you have a right to a deputy attorney general that doesn’t think you’re incompetent and doesn’t feel the need to audio tape conversations with you.”

Trump has repeatedly expressed his frustration with Rosenstein (and even more so with Rosenstein’s boss, AG Jeff Sessions), specifically regarding his appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. This latest story now seemingly gives Trump justification to win greater Republican support should he decide to fire Rosenstein. However, the firing of Rosenstein seems to be exactly what Democrats are begging for, which may be the motive for the Times to publish this story. Democrats and their Leftmedia allies are baiting Trump to act before the midterm elections, which Democrats will use as evidence to support their long-running charge of Trump’s supposed obstruction. It would behoove Trump to wait until after the midterms before pulling the cord on Rosenstein. But reports this morning indicate that Rosenstein anticipates Trump will fire him today. Stay tuned.

Comment | Share

Top Headlines

  • Kavanaugh: second sexual misconduct allegation “a smear, plain and simple” (Washington Examiner)
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein attacks GOP over Kavanaugh allegations; Juanita Broaddrick nukes her (The Daily Wire)
  • Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly dodged FBI probes, thinks Kavanaugh should be investigated (Fox News)
  • Michelle Obama, of all people, calls out “nastiness of our politics” during campaign-style voting rally (ABC News)
  • Republicans call for special counsel to investigate “bureaucratic coup” at Justice Department (The Washington Times)
  • U.S., China hike tariffs as trade row intensifies (Associated Press)
  • Colin Kaepernick is Nike’s $6 billion man (CBS News)
  • Yale study: Twice as many illegal aliens as previously thought in U.S. (National Review)
  • Army misses recruiting goal for first time in over a decade (The Washington Times)
  • Humor: CNN retracts completely factual story, admits it did not reflect the network’s editorial standards (The Babylon Bee)
  • Policy: Time to refocus on North Korea’s proliferation (The National Interest)
  • Policy: The transgender war has no place in the classroom (Washington Examiner)

For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report.

Comment | Share

TODAY’S MEME

Share

For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.

TODAY’S CARTOON

Share

For more of today’s top cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

OPINION IN BRIEF

Hoover Institution’s Shelby Steele: “How did the American left — conceived to bring more compassion and justice to the world — become so given to hate? It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. … It is undeniable that America has achieved since the ‘60s one of the greatest moral evolutions ever. That is a profound problem for the left, whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression. The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power. The great crisis for the left today — the source of its angst and hatefulness — is its own encroaching obsolescence. … Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left. Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “A passionate commitment to social justice is no substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.” —Thomas Sowell

For the record I: “Why would a victim of an attempted rape demand an FBI investigation as a prerequisite to tell a Senate committee what happened to her? Will it change the specifics of her story? Now, no one should expect Ford to remember every detail, but her testimony to the judicial committee is evidence in an investigation. Not only would it be an opportunity for Ford to offer more specifics, but also it would be a way for others to gauge the veracity of her claims through direct questioning.” —David Harsanyi

For the record II: “The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh six times for various positions in the federal government, including his current position as a life-tenured federal appellate court judge. In none of those six investigations has an allegation about assault turned up. Should they investigate again, what would they learn? They would learn that a Bernie Sanders donor who’s sympathetic to leftwing politics is now accusing a potential Supreme Court pick of sexual assault but has no witnesses and cannot remember the year or location of the assault. Of those she names as witnesses, they all deny it. This is not her word versus Kavanaugh’s. It is her word versus that of everyone she has named as potential witnesses.” —Erick Erickson

Due process doesn’t stop at the SCOTUS gates: “In these circumstances, it is the nominee that carries the burden to prove to the Senate and to the American people that he is fit for a lifetime appointment at the highest court of the United States.” —Brookings Institute’s Susan Hennessey

Braying Jenny: “Who is not asking the FBI to investigate these claims? The White House. … Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI to review these claims. Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.” —Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Non Compos Mentis: “One of the problems that I’ve got with Washington … is everything is so transactional about, you know, what do the voters think today and so on, and there’s not enough people thinking out about the long-term impacts of some of these kind of decisions.” —Tennessee Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate Phil Bredesen

And last… “Maybe if @realDonaldTrump nominates @HillaryClinton for Supreme Court we might actually get an investigation into her.” —Joe Biggs

Comment | Share


Join our editors and staff in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. We also humbly ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
Mark Alexander, Publisher