Thứ Hai, 1 tháng 10, 2018

Auto news on Youtube Oct 2 2018

In a five-page memo composed on September 30, prosecutor Rachel Mitchell

has explained why she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell, who was hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to question

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing, said she does not believe a

"reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the

Committee." Her conclusion, she writes, is based on her independent assessment

and review of Ford's allegations. Writes Mitchell,

The Phoenix-based prosecutor, was hired by Republicans to question Dr. Ford about

her claims against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford alleged that

an inebriated Kavanaugh pinned her on a bed, muffled her cries and tried removing

her clothes when both were teenagers in the 1980s. In the memo, Mitchell cites

Dr Ford's "inconsistencies" in relaying the exact time period the alleged attack took

place, noting that her accounts varied from the "mid 80's" to

the "early 80's" to the "summer of 1982." Dr Ford said she thought he was

"accidentally going to kill me" and was "100 percent certain" that her attacker was

Kavanaugh during her testimony, but Mitchell wrote in her memo that Dr Ford had

previously struggled to identify Kavanaugh by name when describing the alleged

incident during couples and individual therapy sessions. Kavanaugh vehemently

denied even being at the party, citing his calendar from 1982 as apparent proof

and calling the whole situation an "orchestrated political hit" by the Democrats.

The Supreme Court hopeful's testimony came after Dr. Ford's in the riveting and

emotional nearly nine-hour event, which saw more than 20 million viewers tune in.

The hearing was not a criminal proceeding and was part of the confirmation process for

Kavanaugh, which is now delayed pending an FBI investigation into the allegations.

To read more on this story, head to THR.com.

For The Hollywood Reporter News, I'm Lyndsey Rodrigues.

For more infomation >> Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Says She Wouldn't Bring Criminal Charges Against Kavanaugh | THR News - Duration: 1:55.

-------------------------------------------

WOW: Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Ford Tears Apart Her Case With Brutal 5-Page Memo - Duration: 5:33.

The Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week before the

Senate Judiciary Committee has released her final report, and it is not good for Democrats.

As noted by The Daily Wire, Rachel Mitchell not only wrote in a brutal 5-page memo that

she would not any bring charges against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, she also

tore apart Ford's flimsy allegations.

Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her almost 40 years ago.

Kavanaugh strongly denies the allegations.

Mitchell's memo details nine major issues with Ford's testimony and claims, and writes

that her allegations are so problematic and shaky that it would be next-to-impossible

to ever bring her case before a judge in court.

Here's what Mitchell writes:

"A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove.

But this case is even weaker than that.

Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted

her allegations or failed to corroborate them.

For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring

this case based on the evidence before the Committee.

Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence

standard."

Below are the nine problems Mitchell detailed in her memo:

1.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

Mitchell writes that Ford's timeline is very shaky, noting that she told the media,

Sen. Diane Feinstein, and the Committee three different dates for when the alleged assault

took place.

2.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

The Arizona prosecutor details how Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh by name in her 2012 marriage

therapy notes, her 2013 individual therapy notes, and how there's no proof that she

named Kavanaugh when she told her husband around 2012 about the alleged assault.

3.

When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become

less specific:

Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a "sexual assault" before they were

married.

But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim

of "physical abuse" at the beginning of their marriage.

She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4.

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help

corroborate her account.

Mitchell writes that Ford has no memory of who invited her to the party, how she heard

about it, how she got to the alleged party, what house the assault allegedly took place

at, where that house is located, or how she got from the party back to her home.

5.

Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified

as having attended—including her lifelong friend.

The Arizona prosecutor notes that the three witnesses who Ford claims attended the party

have told investigators that they never witnessed what Ford has alleged.

6.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

Mitchell explains that Ford has changed her story numerous times about what happened,

telling the media, Feinstein, and the Committee a different story each time.

She also writes that Fords account of who was at the alleged party has been inconsistent.

7.

Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations,

and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Ford cannot remember what she told The Washington Post about the attack and what information

she actually gave to the outlet.

Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.

Dr. Ford's explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

8.

Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

Ford testified that she was given a polygraph examine in August in the conference room of

a motel around the same time of her grandmother's funeral.

Mitchell writes that Ford doesn't know who paid for the examine and that she should not

have been given the examine while grieving.

Ford was also only asked two pathetic questions.

9.

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected

Dr. Ford's account.

Mitchell concludes by writing that Democrats and the media likely influenced Ford to change

her story to better fit the narrative because there is hardly any evidence to support her

allegations.

Mitchell's report is brutal, factually sound, and tears apart all of Ford's flimsy claims.

For more infomation >> WOW: Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Ford Tears Apart Her Case With Brutal 5-Page Memo - Duration: 5:33.

-------------------------------------------

Despite Ford Allegations, Montgomery Co. Reveals No Criminal Report Has Ever Been Filed - Duration: 3:29.

For more infomation >> Despite Ford Allegations, Montgomery Co. Reveals No Criminal Report Has Ever Been Filed - Duration: 3:29.

-------------------------------------------

Sen. Hirono is Asked if Dems Leaked Ford's Letter – Her Answer Speaks VOLUMES - Duration: 2:12.

During an interview with ABC, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono refused to deny that the Democrats

leaked Dr. Ford's letter.

Today, Senator Tom Cotton announced that Senator Dianne Feinstein would be investigated for

the leak, as rumors swirl that one of her high-level staffers is responsible.

The Democrats want to play a game here, pretending that 1) Ford's sketchy allegations are credible

and 2) this entire sham is not political.

They truly think the American people are stupid.

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono would not deny that Democrats leaked Ford's letter

For more infomation >> Sen. Hirono is Asked if Dems Leaked Ford's Letter – Her Answer Speaks VOLUMES - Duration: 2:12.

-------------------------------------------

Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Ford 'gratuitous': I've never witnessed a victim more compelling' - Duration: 2:10.

For more infomation >> Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Ford 'gratuitous': I've never witnessed a victim more compelling' - Duration: 2:10.

-------------------------------------------

Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report - Duration: 3:28.

Ford attorneys to be investigated for betraying client to help Dems report

few things are sweeter than watching a democratic plot blow up spectacularly in

their faces unless you have been living under a rock you have undoubtedly heard

about the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett

Kavanaugh the accuser Christine Blasi Ford has been thrust into the public

spotlight as a result look the entire thing as murky there is a startling lack

of evidence especially considering the assault allegedly took place over 30

years ago so it's unfair to paint Cavanaugh in a negative light

not that that stopped far-left Democrats from trying to do so but by that same

token Ford and all sexual assault victims should still be given an

opportunity to be heard sexual assault is never okay and any allegation is

worth looking at so let's pump the brakes on presuming

innocence or guilt and refrain from attacking either forward or Cavanaugh

until due process plays out you know who does deserve to be attacked the

Democrats who have weaponized an alleged sexual assault victims apparent trauma

to attack a Supreme Court nominee whose only sin seems to be that he was

nominated by President Donald Trump it's disgusting reprehensible and

deserves to be looked into that's exactly what's going to happen according

to Arkansas Republican Senator Tom cotton appearing on CBS Face the Nation

on Sunday cotton reamed Democrats for failing to

uphold the confidentiality that Ford had requested when she first made her

allegations against Cavanaugh they have betrayed her cotton said she has been

victimized by Democrats on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett

Kavanaugh regardless of the veracity of Ford's accusations it's in arguable that

Democrats have opted to use her plight in an attempt to take down Cavanaugh one

of the tactics that Democrats have been accused of as supplying Ford with

lawyers who were looking to serve the Democratic Party before their own client

Mitchell were you even told that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to

fly out to your home to meet you Ford's attorney who also represents Andrew

McCabe she doesn't have to answer that remember how the Cavanaugh hearing was

initially delayed because Ford did not want to fly from California to

Washington Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley apparently made it crystal

clear that the GOP was willing to bring the

hearing to her in California did Ford's lawyers supplied by Democrats

intentionally not tell her that important bit of information to drag the

process into the midterms I am NOT saying they did but if it smells like a

duck and looks like a duck it's not an iguana cotton was not about to let that

type of behavior fly however Democratic leadership pointed her to lawyers who

lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff was willing to go to

California to interview her cotton said on Face the Nation cotton then dropped

some bad news on those lawyers those lawyers are going to face a DC bar

investigation into their misconduct cotton said ouch they should absolutely

be investigated if they mislead their client in any way shape or form to help

out the Democrats attempts to derail the Cavanaugh investigation that is

antithetical to everything the American justice system stands for everything the

Democrats have done to stop Cavanaugh from being nominated has had zero

repercussions that may be about to change in massive fashion and it could

not have happened to a nicer bunch of people

For more infomation >> Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report - Duration: 3:28.

-------------------------------------------

The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 2:19.

For more infomation >> The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 2:19.

-------------------------------------------

BREAKING: Christine Ford Wrote 2008 Article Teaching Hypnosis To Create "ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS" - Duration: 4:00.

The story of the college professor who serves as the foundation for the slime and destroy

attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to present more questions

than answers despite what the media would lead the public to believe.

While Christine Blasey Ford disproved many skeptics when she showed up in Washington

last week for her hotly anticipated testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her

demeanor has been described by some as strange and possibly coached or rehearsed.

Or maybe it was something else, something that could be far more sinister.

According to a bombshell report from Sean Davis of The Federalist, Dr. Ford was the

co-author of a 2008 study that – get this – examined the use of " hypnosis to "assist

in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create artificial situations"

for treatment.

Which begs the question as to the role of such hypnosis in the memories of Ford's

evidence-free accusations of Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge.

Via The Federalist, "Kavanaugh Accuser Co-Authored Study Citing Use Of Hypnosis To Retrieve Memories":

Christine Blasey Ford, a California woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett

Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the 1980's, co-authored an academic study that cited the

use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients.

The academic paper, entitled "Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and

Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial," described the

results of a study the tested the efficacy of certain treatments on 46 depressed individuals.

The study was published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology in May 2008.

While the paper by Ford and several other co-authors focused on whether various therapeutic

techniques, including hypnosis, alleviate depression, it also discussed the therapeutic

use of hypnosis to "assist in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create

artificial situations" to assist in treatment.

Ford's paper cited a controversial 1964 paper on the use of hypnosis to treat alcoholics

and claimed that "hypnosis could be used to improve rapport in the therapeutic relationship,

assist in the retrieval of important memories, and create artificial situations that would

permit the client to express ego-dystonic emotions in a safe manner."

The study by Ford and her co-authors also used "self-hypnosis" to help treat their

randomized sample of patients.

Read the entire article HERE.

According to the abstract from the study, "Meditation with yoga, group therapy with

hypnosis, and psychoeducation for long‐term depressed mood: a randomized pilot trial"

the authors are listed as:

Lisa D. Butler Lynn C. Waelde T. Andrew Hastings Xin‐Hua Chen Barbara Symons Jonathan Marshall

Adam Kaufman Thomas F. Nagy Christine M. Blasey Elizabeth O. Seibert David Spiegel.

It's a helluva find considering how so much of Ford's history seems to not be readily

available online.

As of Monday evening and even with the FBI now conducting yet another investigation into

Kavanaugh, Ford and her backers STILL have not provided the all-important therapy notes

that have been taken as gospel by the media, the political left, the media and likely the

triad of Flake-Collins-Murkowski.

To quote "Alice In Wonderland" author Lewis Carroll, things are becoming "curiouser

and curiouser!"

And this study is most curious indeed…

For more infomation >> BREAKING: Christine Ford Wrote 2008 Article Teaching Hypnosis To Create "ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS" - Duration: 4:00.

-------------------------------------------

JUST IN: Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 0:51.

Senator Tom Cotton has just announced that he's turning over Dr. Ford's lawyers to

the D.C.

Bar Association to be investigated.

The reasoning is because Dr. Ford said she was not aware that Senate investigators had

advised they would be happy to travel to California to meet with her.

If true, her lawyers withheld this information from the client.

Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, also said lawyers recommended to Christine Blasley Ford

by Democrats will face a Washington, D.C., Bar investigation for telling her that committee

staffers would not travel to California to interview her about her alleged assault.

"They have betrayed her," Cotton said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"She has been victimized by Democrats … on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh."

For more infomation >> JUST IN: Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 0:51.

-------------------------------------------

These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 4:56.

So it seems like Judge Kavanaugh's accuser has committed perjury when she testified under

oath at a Senate hearing on Thursday.

When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath last week she identified herself as a

"psychologist."

And when she said this she may have perjured herself under California state law.

After she thanked members of the committee on Thursday after she was placed under oath,

Ford opened her testimony saying, "My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor

of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University

School of Medicine."

The problem here is the word "psychologist."

Ford may have misrepresented herself and her credentials.

And if this is indeed the case, those are infractions which are taken very seriously

in the psychological field and under California Law.

Here is more on this via Dangerous:

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify

publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process

that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous

exams.

To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent

of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California.

A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides

a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any

variation of spelling on Ford's name.

If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed

to call herself a "psychologist" but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until

it was renewed.

However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they

were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California.

Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern

California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside

the state.

She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master's degree in California

in 2009.

She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii's Board of

Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford's claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University

appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word "psychologist"

and rushed to cover for Ford.

DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford's page on the school's

faculty directory.

On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford's faculty page was saved

to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a "research psychologist" along with

her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an "Affiliate" in

the department, with the words "research psychologist" removed along with Ford's

email address and phone number.

This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford's contact information

and title after she entered the national spotlight."

Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California

law.

California's Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state's laws

for practicing psychology.

Section 2903 reads, "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent

himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except

as otherwise provided in this chapter."

Section 2902(c) states: (c) "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when

the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of

services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' 'psychology

consultation,' 'psychology consultant,' 'psychometry,

For more infomation >> These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 4:56.

-------------------------------------------

Feinstein Fights FBI From Discovering Ford's Sick Secret, Trump Makes Her Regret It - Duration: 6:47.

For more infomation >> Feinstein Fights FBI From Discovering Ford's Sick Secret, Trump Makes Her Regret It - Duration: 6:47.

-------------------------------------------

Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As - Duration: 6:12.

So it seems like Judge Kavanaugh's accuser has committed perjury when she testified under

oath at a Senate hearing on Thursday.

When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath last week

she identified herself as a "psychologist."

And when she said this she may have perjured herself under California state law.

After she thanked members of the committee on Thursday after she was placed under oath,

Ford opened her testimony saying, "My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor

of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University

School of Medicine."

The problem here is the word "psychologist."

Ford may have misrepresented herself and her credentials.

And if this is indeed the case, those are infractions which are taken very seriously

in the psychological field and under California Law.

Here is more on this via Dangerous:

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify

publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process

that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous

exams.

To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent

of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California.

A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides

a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any

variation of spelling on Ford's name.

If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed

to call herself a "psychologist" but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until

it was renewed.

However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they

were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California.

Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern

California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside

the state.

She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master's degree in California

in 2009.

She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii's Board of

Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford's claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University

appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word "psychologist"

and rushed to cover for Ford.

DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford's page on the school's

faculty directory.

On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford's faculty page was saved

to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a "research psychologist" along with

her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an "Affiliate" in

the department, with the words "research psychologist" removed along with Ford's

email address and phone number.

This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford's contact information

and title after she entered the national spotlight."

Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California

law.

California's Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state's laws

for practicing psychology.

Section 2903 reads, "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent

himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except

as otherwise provided in this chapter."

Section 2902(c) states: (c) "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when

the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of

services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' 'psychology

consultation,' 'psychology consultant,' 'psychometry,

For more infomation >> Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As - Duration: 6:12.

-------------------------------------------

Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission - Duration: 5:22.

For more infomation >> Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission - Duration: 5:22.

-------------------------------------------

Stunning Results from Kavanaugh Accuser's Odd Polygraph Just Released – Could Ruin Everything - Duration: 4:57.

For more infomation >> Stunning Results from Kavanaugh Accuser's Odd Polygraph Just Released – Could Ruin Everything - Duration: 4:57.

-------------------------------------------

Hannity: Feinstein playing politics with Ford's claims - Duration: 15:44.

For more infomation >> Hannity: Feinstein playing politics with Ford's claims - Duration: 15:44.

-------------------------------------------

Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As She - Duration: 6:45.

For more infomation >> Possible New Reason For Ford's Weird 2nd Door On Home Revealed – Not For Protection From Kav As She - Duration: 6:45.

-------------------------------------------

After Ford's Lawyer Tells Major Lie, DC Bar Association Delivers Devatating News - Duration: 4:50.

For more infomation >> After Ford's Lawyer Tells Major Lie, DC Bar Association Delivers Devatating News - Duration: 4:50.

-------------------------------------------

Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission Dems SILENT(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 11:30.

Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission Dems SILENT

developments in the confirmation battle over Brett Kavanaugh the white house

giving the FBI the go-ahead to expand its investigation of the Supreme Court

nominee by interviewing anybody at deems necessary this is a source tells Fox

News the bureau's probe could wrap up as early as tomorrow president Trump's

standing by his nominee in light of the latest FBI review this is now their

seventh investigation so it's not like they you know just starting I want them

to do a very comprehensive investigation whatever that means according to the

senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority I want them to do

that I want it to be comprehensive I actually think it's a good thing for

Judge Kevin Orr now with that being said I'd like it to go quickly and the reason

I'd like it to go quickly very simple it's so simple because it's unfair to

him at this point meanwhile after demanding this FBI probe

Democrats are predictably complaining that it's not good enough there's time

you know the thing is that every Senate vote matters and there's there's time to

get to the bottom of it even if is seven days that's bad enough but then to limit

the FBI as to the scope and who they're going to question

plus the Arizona prosecutor we saw at the hearing last week is dealing a blow

to Democrats Rachel Mitchell details in a memo why

she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh saying it's even

weaker than quote he said she said all right Dana you missed this on vacation

this Cavanagh situation still happening I kept tabs on it a little bit was able

to you know they have some wife that thing called Wi-Fi over there in Spain

it is an absolutely remarkable week and it's one thing Greg I think you'll mind

I reveal our text I said I can't believe that I'm missed that week and he said

that's okay next week will be worse

so extremely compelling and some interesting polling came out today from

Quinnipiac who's saying that 48% of people polled voters polled said they do

not think it should be confirmed 42% did but 56% think he is being this is part

of a political smear campaign and I can't remember the other number and so

you're gonna see some more polling on this there are basically four senators

now that this comes down to Murkowski Blake Collins and then Manchin and

president Trump was in West Virginia over the weekend there's incredible

pressure on senator Manchin because his constituents at a number that is like

astronomical want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed who take a risk for Brett

Kavanaugh this week but for his nomination not for him personally is

that now the hearings done now we've got this FBI investigation as you said the

Democrats saying well that's not good enough the Senator McConnell saying

today we will vote this week and in the meantime you basically have dead air for

Brett Kavanaugh President Trump speaking so passionately about his nominee today

from the Rose Garden helps fill that gap a little bit but the news cycle moves so

fast President Trump has a rally tonight he's got one again tomorrow how long can

he keep this going it's really important I think for the nominee and for

President Trump to keep it in the news on their terms

well he's high-energy enough so I think he can fill the void this Mitchell

report Emily that came out and she was you know nonpartisan sex crimes

prosecutor who the Republicans brought in she released this letter that said

some really interesting things that she would never ever bring charges in a case

like this and it is incredibly wreak week for a number of reasons right and I

thought multiple things about that report so first of all we're already

hearing backlash that she even submitted a report which I found preposterous

because what is she gonna do text from the plane like thanks guys that's a wrap

this was out sourced by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans for her

to do a job so of course she's going to issue a report and I'm also hearing a

lot of backlash from other prosecutors saying well this wasn't a proper

investigation and that's not the appropriate standard but the bottom line

is the absolute best with what she was

given and the investigation in that closed world

she used the preponderance of an evidence standard which is the lowest

and note this that to bring charges as a prosecutor you the the standard for that

is that you have a reasonable belief that the charges are supported by

probable cause and then also that admissible evidence is supported by

beyond a reasonable doubt and that it's in the interest of justice so she used

basically the lowest possible standard giving it the lowest barter cross and

still found it insufficient so I found the report absolutely telling and that

she should be given a lot more credence than she is so what are the Democrats

out of bullets here we've had hearing after hearing we he's produced more

documents and answered more questions than any SCOTUS nominee and in history

and now we have a seventh FBI background check is that gonna be enough well check

your history I mean we've had much longer confirmation battles in our

history but I mean to me what you're seeing here one I am amazed at what you

just said about this prosecutor from Arizona not being partisan she was

brought in because there were all male Republicans and she was brought in by

the Republican side by definition there's a take her partisan yes it does

and and and in fact as I recall Lindsey Graham cut her up because he thought she

wasn't being effective and now she decides she's going to try to redeem

herself with her Republican buddies by issuing this report which has no

standing because it wasn't based on any kind of investigation or anything beyond

what she was able to gather at this hearing from Democrats that they liked

this woman and she did it was gentle if you perma Democrats were so there the by

peers but here's the thing I think the key point is the look at the poll

numbers that Dana referred to you look at the Fox polling Quinnipiac you look

at Harris Harvard it's all the same people don't believe Cavanaugh they do

believe her I think that's what that's I mean unless you start different Paul I

mean it's the question of much more clearly what I got is in the Fox poll

has fifty percent do not confirm thirty six percent believe Ford not Cavanaugh

I think it's become tribal Dana I think it's absolutely become traveling in the

latest polling what you see is an uptick in terms of the number of Republicans

who are back encounter previously by though is amazing to me they didn't back

Kavanagh to the extent they back Neil Gorsuch this is not a popular nominee

but now in the midst of the tribal warfare you see it tick up and it takes

up among Democrats as well the key question for me though yeah in terms of

what we go forward is what is the standard because what we've seen is now

I think it's for people who knew Kavanagh either at high school or

college or saying he wasn't forthcoming and truthful about his drinking so if

you hold you this standard now you're going to get Democrats who are going to

say this is a matter of character for someone we're putting on the court for a

lifetime appointment and this guy's lying about his drink know a lot about

any drinking 100 here's the beer standard the drinking standard Ted

Kennedy comes to mind Greg what do you think where to start I hate the fact

that we are using polling to gauge someone's innocence that is this is not

a job interview this is now the Coliseum in which we turn to the crowd on whether

or not I'm gonna give the thumb up or the thumb down they didn't just move the

goalposts here they just turned over the gameboard because they knew they were in

trouble to the point about the if he's lying about booze what else is he lying

about argument well it's clear that dr. Ford lied about a number of things as

well you can call them inconsistencies that's the nice polite way of saying

lies whether it was about about plane travel she only has a fear of flying

when it's not on vacation the polygraph she wasn't sure when it

was she said it was a devastating experience but there were two questions

the plane that she never got a lawyer an offer from the Republicans like Grassley

to take to have the meeting over they're giving notes to reporters changing

bystander to not bystander there's a lot of in I'll be diplomatic and say

inconsistencies to her otherwise credible testimony that's how you talk

apparently so if his lies about booze which I do

believe he fibbed about his drinking because he's talking about his drinking

in front of his wife and kids and I'm sorry I do the same thing when I when my

wife asks me how much I drank over the weekend while she's away I say not much

honey and Yeah right so the fact is those lies

have nothing to do with the actual accusation but we're talking since we're

talking about alcohol abuse let's talk about the media and the Democrats who

are obviously alcoholics because they completely blacked out the last five

days they do not remember that the third accuser has a history of lying and

sexual misconduct claims lying about unemployment lying about her education

but they don't seem to remember the avenatti bombshell from last week which

is now a bombshell that she lied about her background but that's somehow they

forget they blacked out about that they blacked out about the Rachael Mitchell's

a memo worthy we're covering it all the early reason we're covering it because

no one else is because they blacked out these are huge things that the media

cannot remember because they don't want to remember it

it's it's disgusting you know what though I mean you listen to the

president today the president's now engaging in just the kind of angry

bullying babe Oh Cory buck way down Richard Blumenthal is a liar so all

these Democrats they aren't angels over there i I know I've seen them in

compromise that great though it's next wait they said great this is let me tell

you we are talking about a Supreme Court nominee and a man and a family totally

denigrating the whole process it's now done corroborated we're destroying a

person's life an uncorroborated accusation that's right

your your talk you're focusing is if this is just that that's all about no

that's all it's about you will destroy somebody over a seat I could have the

seat I would say I'll tell you I've got bullets in me from trying to defend

someone when I thought they were unfairly be I'm alive but I'm going to

tell you this when you look at Cavanaugh you have to you just said you think he's

fibbing about the drinking yes you've got to speak to a man's or woman's care

doesn't stuck with them in the street the director of a guy like trying to

slow down the exaggerations over over beer a to the point on that though Greg

where's the yearbook you guys stuff in there about remember on the yearbook

remember about the devil astronomy when he turned baffi yes no you were here

excellent you were selling books while we basically went through that entire

drinking it's not a sexual position popping is not sexual being and it's

flatulent know what we're gonna ask me how I know I see your yearbook my poll

was here but please you don't have to go that far

thank you god bless you and God bless america

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét