TO PREVENT DEMOCRAT SENATE CIRCUS, AZ PROSECUTOR RACHEL MITCHELL WILL QUESTION BOTH KAVANAUGH AND FORD …
As reported at the WAPO, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell will question both Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Ford, who accused the SCOTUS nominee of sexually assaulting her as a teenager 36 years ago. This a a great move. Ms. Mitchell is a 25-year prosecutor and 12-year specialist in sex-crime cases, in Maricopa County , Arizona, which also included investigations of cold cases. What better individual could you have to elicit the facts of the accusations that are being put forward? Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”
Republican senators have selected Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, a top senator announced Tuesday.
Mitchell is the chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which deals with sexual assault cases, among others. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for in the county attorney’s office for 26 years.
In enlisting Mitchell to join their staff, Republican senators are taking an unusual step. They are turning to her to ask what are expected to be personal and potentially painful questions about the woman’s youth on live television, sparing the all-male panel of 11 Republican senators on the committee some uncomfortable exchanges that could sway the public’s opinion about the session.
“The majority members have followed the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”
The hearing is set for Thursday. We shall see of Christine Blasey Ford’s actually shows as her attorneys have been making some ridiculous demands in order for their client to testify.
SO MUCH FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE … WELCOME TO THE BAIS & TAINTED DEMOCRAT JURY.
The actions of the LEFT and Democrats should be frightening to all. Their political bias and Trump resistance at all cost, including trashing the US. Constitution and the laws of the United States is chilling. The Democrats have deemed SCOTUS nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh as guilty of something he has not either been accused of in a court of law, nor substantiated. That is correct, guilty before being proven innocent. No one knows whether Kavanaugh or his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling the truth or credible, until they present their case in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. But not for Democrats, they know he is guilty. They have a crystal ball.
I have two cases for you where all thought they were guilty also, Duke Lacrosse and the University of Virginia rape case brought to us by Rolling Stone. We both know now has both of those sexual assault and rape cases went , don’t we? Both were lies. Crystal Mangum and Jackie lied. No such accusations ever occurred. But of course these two huge miscarriages of justice and jumps to conclusions seem to mean nothing to Democrats.
Let’s take a look at the fact we know. A supposed accusation of sexual misconduct happened 36 years ago when Christine was 15 years old, but was never mentioned to anyone, including family, friend or the authorities. Not until 2012 in a doctors office and no names were referenced. Her therapist notes state that four people were present, 3 individuals have come forward to say they have no knowledge or recollection of the incident. Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home, or where the part was. She was a 15 year old girl consuming alcohol and has no memory of major facts of the case. The accused, Brett Kavanaugh has denied it ever happened. So tell me … if this was in a court of law in front of a jury, this would be the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. But not for Democrats, Kavanaugh Is Guilty, even though nothing has been presented in front of them. Talk about a tainted and bias jury.
JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT, WHAT HAPPENS IF KAVANAUGH PROVIDES PROOF LIKE A PASSPORT OR PHOTO STAMPED PICS THAT HE WAS NO WHERE NEAR THIS SO-CALLED PARTY? WILL THERE BE DEMOCRAT APOLOGIES?
Kavanaugh, many Democrats say, is clearly guilty.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Thursday: “I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story.” [You know it by her story? What story? Dr. Ford's story is 36 years old and lacking the basic who, what where, when and why of any story. The accusers story is vague at best. If anything, Ford's story is so lacking in every form of detail that is pertinent to the case, that it is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.]
“Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI review the claims,” Gillibrand added. “Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.” [WTF you liberal fool, talk about your straw argument. Judge Kavanaugh does not have the right or standing to ask the FBI to do anything. The FBI is not his personal private detective. No Sen. Gillibrand, the mark of an innocent person is his obsolete denial of what he is being accused of and his want to show up on Monday and clear his name.]
When Sen. Duckworth (D-Ill.) was asked about Kavanaugh denying the accusation, the senator responded, “Well, I have heard, you know, many, many predators say and refute allegations against them.” [Actually Sen. Duckworth, many accusers actually know when and where the presumed assault took place.]
Former spokesman for Bernie Sanders and CNN contributor, Symone Sanders, said she didn’t even need to wait for more information: “For me there is no debate. I believe Professor Ford. Judge Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath.” [Wow, really Bernie. Kavanaugh lied under oath. When. I think Bill Clinton might be squirming with that position you took, hoping Juanita Broderick doesn't pursue her rape claims years later.]
And here are other select quotes from Democratic lawmakers:
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said: “I believe Dr. Ford as I refer to her because she makes a very credible case. It is really difficult for someone to come forward in this way. Why should she destroy her life? Already there are efforts to cast aspersions on her credibility, to look into her family, all of that. This is really very much like what happened with Anita Hill where she was vilified, she was called names. This cannot happen to Dr. Ford.” [Hmm, she came forward and the letter that was supposed to remain confidential was presented right before the Kavanaugh vote. It might be more credible that this is a political scam.]
Sen. Blumenthal (D-Conn.): “Let me just say right at the outset I believe. Dr Ford, I believe the survivor here, there’s every reason to believe her. She has come forward courageously and bravely knowing that she would face a nightmare of hostile and vicious scrutiny and challenge. And there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve Judge Kavanaugh after his evasive and seemingly misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee.” [So here is a dude that strictly on the accusations of a woman, he is believable and Kavanaugh is guilty. You want want to see Duke Lacrosse rape case and UVA. Really? You better hope no woman ever accuses you of anything.]
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); “I hope that she does [testify], because I’m afraid that what the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really want is they want her to go away. They don’t want the country to hear from her, and they certainly don’t want the country to hear from her live and on television. She’s absolutely right, the FBI should do a thorough vetting of these allegations. The Senate shouldn’t simply rely on hearing two conflicting accounts and decide, ‘Well, we’re OK with not knowing. We’re OK with the fact we might be putting a — someone who committed attempted rape on the Supreme Court of the United States.’ They should get to the bottom of this. And it wouldn’t take that long to do. This is the same crowd that waited a year to fill the last vacancy during the Obama administration on the Supreme Court, so why this rush? And I think they realize they have a very imperfect candidate, in fact they may have a candidate who has committed attempted rape.”
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): “Listen, it comes down to credibility to your point. It’s going to be about listening to what each party has to say, but I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to — to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage. And frankly, you know, I have personally prosecuted sexual assault cases, and my concern is— and she knows this — she is putting herself out there knowing that they’re going to try and excoriate her. She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter, who serves on that court. And she has the courage to come forward? She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?” [LOL, what does she have to gain? Seriously? She is a Democrat operative. I think we all know what she has to gain. Good grief, do not insult people's intelligence.]
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): “Well I can tell you it really does have a ring of truth to it. The fact that she can refer to therapist notes so that she did bring it up before. I am skeptical of polygraphs, but those who believe them, she has passed a polygraph test.” [The notes that Durbin refer to in no where references names.]
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): “I believe Professor Ford. I think she’s credible and I think when the investigation is finished and when she testifies and Judge Kavanaugh testifies, I think a majority of senators will find her credible.”
BILL CLINTON SAID WHAT?
As reported at the NTK Network, in an interview with the PBS NewsHour former president Bill Clinton chimed in on the #MeToo movement and made some shocking, and strikingly tone-deaf, comments about sexual harassment and assault, including his opinion that “what you can do to someone against their will” has changed.” HUH? No Mr. President, it was never considered acceptable to sexually harass, assault, or break into the presidential humidor. The problem was that everyone gave you a pass on all of your actions from your days in Arkansas to be President. Even today the #MeToo movement has not gone after you for your actions. Is the Clinton being tone deaf or did the MSM create the silence?
President Bill Clinton’s new interview with PBS NewsHour, which aired last week, featured some shocking, and strikingly tone-deaf, comments from the former president about sexual harassment and assault, including his opinion that “what you can do to someone against their will” has changed.
Clinton’s comments seem to suggest that he believes there was a time in which doing anything against someone’s will was acceptable or normal.
Clinton also defended ousted Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who resigned from the U.S. Senate amid sexual harassment allegations. Clinton said, as part of his comments on Franken, that “maybe I’m just an old-fashioned person.”
Harvey Weinstein Turns Himself in to Authorities … Will There Be Justice?
It was anticipated that Harvey Weinstein would turn himself in, now its official. The downfall of Harvey Weinstein, once one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, just got even more real. Weinstein turned himself into authorities this morning to the New York Police Department at the First Precinct in Tribeca. More than 80 women have accused Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault or rape, including actresses Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd and Angelina Jolie. Weinstein is likely looking at first degree and third degree rape charges and a first degree criminal sexual act charge from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Weinstein has denied any wrongdoing.
Harvey Weinstein is expected to surrender to authorities Friday to face sex assault charges in connection with attacks on multiple women.
The fallen Hollywood honcho is expected to be charged with preying on Lucia Evans, who told investigators that Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him in 2004, and at least one other accuser, sources said.
His attorney Benjamin Brafman declined to comment Thursday.
Evans told The New Yorker she was an incoming college senior trying to break into the film business when she met Weinstein at a nightclub.
The movie mogul invited her to the Miramax office. Soon after she arrived for the daytime meeting, Evans said, Weinstein pulled her head down to his crotch.
“I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’ ” she told the magazine.
“I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him.”
Evans said the hulking Weinstein ultimately “overpowered” her.
“I just sort of gave up,” she said.
After being booked at the Lower Manhattan precinct, Weinstein and lawyer will next head to criminal court for an arraignment hearing later today to enter a plea. At the hearing, a predetermined bail of $1 million will be set, and Weinstein’s passport will be handed over to authorities due to flight-risk concerns.
#HIM TOO: Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of Physical Abuse & Assault … Schneiderman Denies … Schneiderman Resigns From Office
WOW, THAT WAS FAST … #HIM TOO!!!
Last night The New Yorker dropped the bombshell that New York’s attorney general Eric Schneiderman was being accused by four women of physical abuse. Two of the women remained anonymous, while two others made their name’s public. The women allege that Schneiderman repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as “assault.” Following the allegations in a statement, Schneiderman said, “In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.” But one woman stated that State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master.” Whether this be role play or not, some how I double whether this is considered acceptable behavior or word choice in this day and age.
Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, has long been a liberal Democratic champion of women’s rights, and recently he has become an outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment. As New York State’s highest-ranking law-enforcement officer, Schneiderman, who is sixty-three, has used his authority to take legal action against the disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein, and to demand greater compensation for the victims of Weinstein’s alleged sexual crimes. Last month, when the Times and this magazine were awarded a joint Pulitzer Prize for coverage of sexual harassment, Schneiderman issued a congratulatory tweet, praising “the brave women and men who spoke up about the sexual harassment they had endured at the hands of powerful men.” Without these women, he noted, “there would not be the critical national reckoning under way.”
Now Schneiderman is facing a reckoning of his own. As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so, too, has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters. They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to nonconsensual physical violence. All have been reluctant to speak out, fearing reprisal. But two of the women, Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, have talked to The New Yorker on the record, because they feel that doing so could protect other women. They allege that he repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as “assault.” They did not report their allegations to the police at the time, but both say that they eventually sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face, and also choked. Selvaratnam says that Schneiderman warned her he could have her followed and her phones tapped, and both say that he threatened to kill them if they broke up with him. (Schneiderman’s spokesperson said that he “never made any of these threats.”)
State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.
Harvard-educated activist writer Tanya Selvaratnam told the New Yorker magazine that her yearlong affair with Schneiderman “was a fairytale that became a nightmare” — and quickly escalated into violence in the bedroom, even as he begged for threesomes.
“Sometimes, he’d tell me to call him Master, and he’d slap me until I did,” Selvaratnam said.
“He started calling me his ‘brown slave’ and demanding that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has resigned following the stunning New Yorker report on four women accusing him of physical violence.
In response to the report, Schneiderman denied he engaged in any non-consensual behavior and said he had been “role-playing.” Governor Andrew Cuomo and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand had called on him to resign earlier tonight.
And then, just hours after the report was released, Schneiderman put out a statement announcing his resignation.
“It’s been my great honor and privilege to serve as attorney general for the people of the State of New York,” Schneiderman said. “In the last several hours, serious allegations, which I strongly contest, have been made against me.”
“While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time. I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”
Lost in this story of abuse, assault and sick perversion is that Eric Schneiderman was a long time Trump nemesis where Trump tweeted in 2013 … Just as Trump predicted in 2013 tweet: “Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone – next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman… Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner” Wow, does Trump want to pick the next Lottery numbers? It makes one wonder what did people know about Eric Schneiderman and namely, what did Democrat New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo know?