Watch the difference between how Democrats and MSM treat Christine Ford's story and Juanita Broaddrick's, or Ellison's spouse's. They couldn't care less about accusers. The only thing that matters is who is accused. Their only mission is in whom to protect and whom to destroy.
*Keith Ellison's former lover's
If you have any doubt about what I said, just listen to the argument Christine Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, made when she was on team Bill Clinton trying to defend him against Paula Jones's accusation of sexual assault.
Now watch the Left trash her viciously, thereby demonstrating once again that all their glib talk about supporting any group or anything is simply duplicitous. The Left doesn't give a hoot about anyone. They use everyone and everything to further their own agenda.
This is how the Left treats strong women who don't comply with the Left's agenda. The Left is no friend to women. Their only fealty is to their own power to coerce.
Murkowski doesn't believe Ford but opposes BK because Democrats believe Ford, thereby subordinating her judgment to opponents who believe the opposite of what she does, at the same time wanting us to believe that she is acting out of some higher principle she hasn't articulated.
In other words, no idea what's going on in Sen. Murkowski's head. The pity of it is she, more than anyone else in the entire Senate, has the political flexibility to vote any which way she wants. If only she can figure out what her higher principle is.
This is why having clarity on higher principles is so important, if only to have something to fall back on when all other competing interests cancel each other out. Otherwise you are just a complete mess -- intellectually, ethically, morally, and politically.
1. The New Yorker Today
This excruciatingly laborious piece is a garbage pail of the same old tendentious nonsense with apparently one important new nugget. Read the article if you have time or read next couple of tweets. newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
2. The nugget: Brett Kavanaugh's classmate Appold told another classmate Wetstone about Ramirez incident; Wetstone confirmed hearing from Appold about it. Appold, however, said he had heard it from another unnamed classmate who he has not been able to contact to confirm.
3. Because Appold couldn't contact the unnamed classmate to confirm, he couldn't wait any longer and contacted FBI to tell them that he had heard of the Ramirez incident. Meanwhile, New Yorker crack team of Farrow and Mayer were able to track down the unnamed classmate. Good job!
The thing is we don't need a litany of flaws in Dr. Ford's testimony, most of which could be honest inconsistencies. There is one overarching flaw/lie that totally exonerates Judge Kavanaugh in my view. 1/
Dr. Ford has not claimed a repressed memory of the assault that she retrieved through therapy. To the contrary, she claimed the assault was seared into her memory and she never ever forgot it. She told her husband about it even in 2002, and her therapist in 2012 and 2013. 2/
She has also allegedly told a number of friends and acquaintances about the assault, but of course never ever mentioned Judge Kavanaugh's name, which is fine. So here is the greatest singular flaw in her narrative that invalidates everything else. 3/
Top Republicans say they're seeing a surprising and widespread surge in GOP voter enthusiasm, powered largely by support for Brett Kavanaugh and his Supreme Court nomination.
2. "The Kavanaugh debate has dropped a political grenade into the middle of an electorate that had been largely locked in Democrats' favor for the past six months," said Josh Holmes, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
3. Pointing to Montana, Indiana, West Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee, Holmes added: "Private polling shows the enthusiasm shift is ... unmistakable in the red states that will determine control of the Senate."
1. Trump Family Finance (key excerpts from WSJ)
Being Fred Trump’s son was good for business. Being President, not so much.
2. Last year MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow revealed tax data suggesting that Donald Trump is not nearly as good as Warren Buffett when it comes to avoiding federal income taxes.
3. But what about Mr. Trump’s late father Fred? The New York Times is out with a story claiming that the Trump family patriarch went way too far to avoid taxes as he transferred significant wealth to his children, especially Donald.