The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

Kavanaugh polling: FBI on the hot seat
BY MARK PENN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/30/18

Americans believe Christine Blasey Ford. And most also believe Brett Kavanaugh. Given this state of affairs, it’s the FBI investigation that has the most promise to settle the debate on whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed after what most voters see as a process that has degenerated into a national disgrace.

If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed, according to a weekend Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), feeling rather directly the corrosive split within the nation, has the support of the country in insisting upon a brief and limited FBI investigation before the final vote. Sixty-six percent of Americans support that decision, and that includes 80 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents but only 45 percent of Republicans. GOP voters were ready for a vote now, and overwhelmingly back the confirmation without further delay.

The testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh had a powerful but not decisive effect on the public. Huge numbers in the weekend poll reported seeing parts of it or reading about it, and 40 percent thought she alone was credible, 23 percent thought just Kavanaugh was, and 27 percent said both were believable. Read together, the poll findings indicate that 67 percent found her credible and 50 percent found him to be so. Even President Donald Trump said her testimony was “compelling.”

But the credibility of their testimony does not appear to be the decisive factor. Rather, the question comes down to corroboration as the standard for tipping public opinion on whether Kavanaugh should ascend to the high court. In terms of the overall needle, after the testimony was heard, 37 percent say confirm the nomination, 44 percent say reject it, and 18 percent remain undecided, with Democrats going one way and Republicans the other. But once the voters are told that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation — and that goes up to 60 percent, if the FBI agrees there is no corroboration. Remember, because there is no specific “where” or “when” in Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh cannot establish an alibi — and that’s why corroboration of other facts is so critical.

Given that only the two principals testified on national TV, the information that potential witnesses denied any knowledge was not front-and-center nor as credible without an independent determination that sustains those facts. Without question, if the FBI does find collaborating facts, Kavanaugh would be gone. Either way, FBI Director Chris Wray will now be on the hot seat. Hopefully this will work out better than the last time the country waited for the FBI.

Underlying this battle for the nomination is a political battle, and 69 percent agree with Kavanaugh’s pronouncement and Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) statement that the proceedings have been a “national disgrace.” Sen. Feinstein definitely is in the crosshairs, with 75 percent believing she should have turned over Ford’s letter months earlier so that this debacle might have been avoided. Graham has raised some serious questions about the actions of Ford’s lawyers and Feinstein’s legal referral, too.

No one, clearly, is winning the partisan battle today — if anything, both parties are losing. Men, by 62 percent, say Democrats are to blame while women, by 57 percent, say Republicans are to blame for the partisanship they are seeing. And, without doubt, this fight is likely to energize turnout in the midterms, with 45 percent saying they are more likely to vote as a result of the confirmation battle. So far, Democrats have a slight edge in building voter energy.

Also without question, attitudes towards confirmation are divided by party, with 72 percent of Republicans favoring immediate confirmation; that figure rises to 86 percent if there is a favorable FBI report. Democrats are dug in as well and, even after an FBI investigation that would fail to corroborate Ford, 60 percent still would oppose Kavanaugh. It’s the independents who can be swung over by the added element of a supplemental FBI background check.

Despite the close national numbers on which party is to blame for this morass, the strong partisanship that’s been brought to the fore means that Democratic senators in red states may have some tough sledding if they oppose this nomination; the numbers in states like West Virginia or Indiana are likely to highly favor the Republican position on Kavanaugh.

Of course, if Democrats are unhappy with the FBI’s results, they will simply call it inadequate and seek to muddy the waters. The attorneys for Ford already have taken that position, and it is likely to be echoed by Democrats. This will put Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Flake in a difficult position, because their compromise was to order a weeklong investigation — and that’s what the majority of the public backed in the poll. The issue for Coons is whether he will back the results or his bipartisanship will be short-lived.

Ultimately the public expects that the FBI will come back with little that’s new and 63 percent expect that the nomination will be approved. Of course, very little so far has gone as expected in this confirmation battle and there are no doubt more twists and turns ahead.

Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author of “Microtrends Squared.” He served as pollster and adviser to serial sexual harasser and accused rapist President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during Clinton’s impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter @Mark_Penn.

https://itk.thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409167-kavanaugh-polling-fbi-on-the-hot-seat
 
Metoo.jpg
 
Tard Senator Coons is a joke.

Democratic Senator Reveals New Kavanaugh Allegation. Grassley Destroys Him.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley blasted Democratic Senator Chris Coons (CT) on Tuesday for forwarding an incredibly weak allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that wasted the resources of investigators.

The letter, written by Tad Low, alleged that a party took place in the frat house that Kavanaugh was a member of as an undergraduate and that a prostitute performed a public sex act while at the party.

Low writes that he had no idea if Kavanaugh was even at the party as he gave investigators "investigative advice" on how to do their jobs, instructing them to obtain Kavanaugh's calendars and search to see if he attended a frat party in either 1987 or in 1988. The full letter states:

Dear Sir,

My name is Tad Low and I was an undergraduate at Yale during Brett Kavanaugh's years in New Haven. During the 1987-88 school year, I was eyewitness to a shocking ceremony taking place inside DKE fraternity house that involved a semi-circle of cheering frat brothers watching a local prostitute perform a public sex act. I have three additional eyewitnesses, and two additional non-witnesses to whom I had related the event back in the late 80s. I can't say for certain that Judge Kavanaugh was present in the frat house during the event, but he was still at Yale during the time period, attending Yale Law School, and I suspect he may have attended what would have been a bug part in the frat's newly-purchased off-campus house. Since I know the name of one of the party's attendees and since we know that Judge Kavanaugh saves meticulous personal calendars from his past, it shouldn't be too difficult to ascertain whether he was present at this event.

I contacted the New York office of the FBI Saturday, September 29th, midday. After waiting on hold for 15 minutes, I onboarded my name, my recollection, the identity of the one frat brother seen at the event, my investigative advice and my witnesses' names and phone numbers to what seemed like a low-level input agent. I also contacted the New Haven branch office of the FBI yesterday, Sunday, September 30th. I haven't heard anything yet from either office.

Please let me know if you, your office or your Committee would be interested in hearing more.

Best regards,

Tad Low


In a response, Grassley ripped the allegations to pieces and then hammered Coons for forwarding such a weak claim to his office for investigation, noting that he was wasting the investigator's resources. Grassley's full letter states:

Dear Senator Coons,

I have tried to take every allegation referred to me during this nomination process seriously and have dedicated significant resources to investigating every relevant and probative lead. Although you and I have not seen eye-to-eye on every issue, I appreciate that you've handled yourself with the seriousness befitting a U.S. Senator throughout much of this nomination process. That's why I was disappointed when you forwarded me allegations relating to Judge Kavanaugh's "years in New Haven." The accuser — who apparently created a television show in which people strip while dancing to their favorite music — tells of a party that took place at the house of Judge Kavanaugh's undergraduate fraternity "during the 1987-88 school year" and which allegedly featured some salacious activity. Of course, Judge Kavanaugh had already graduated when this party allegedly took place and was a first-year law student. That period is, as you well know, the most academically intense time in most law students' lives.

This allegation has all the makings of a tabloid headline. But there's just one problem. The accuser freely admits to having no evidence whatsoever that Judge Kavanaugh even attended the party. Rather than provide even circumstantial evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's attendance, the accuser provides some "investigative advice." He proposes that someone search Judge Kavanaugh's calendars — the very same calendars that your colleagues have dismissed and derided with regard to Dr. Ford's allegations — to determine whether he attended a fraternity party at some point in 1987 or 1988. All he alleges is that he once witnessed a salacious party at a house owned by Judge Kavanaugh's undergraduate fraternity. He then separately advises us to obtain and search Judge Kavanaugh's calendars to determine if he attended.

We’ve reached a new level of absurdity with this allegation. There is no evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was anywhere near the party or had anything to do with it at all. In fact, the only person we can be sure that attended the party was the accuser himself. The lone connection between Judge Kavanaugh and the events described by the accuser is that, as an undergraduate, Judge Kavanaugh was a member of the fraternity that hosted the party. The purpose of this allegation is plain: to smear Judge Kavanaugh's name by associating him with the party's hosts. This guilt-by-association tactic is the basest form of political attack and deserves unqualified condemnation.

My investigators have serious work to do. While the Minority has refused to engage with allegations against Judge Kavanaugh in any meaningful way, my investigators have tried to pursue every relevant lead. I therefore hope that, before forwarding an allegation in the future, you will first consider whether you’d want you or your staff to spend valuable time investigating it. Thanks for your consideration.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3660...w-kavanaugh-allegation-grassley-ryan-saavedra
 
Tard Senator Coons is a joke.

Democratic Senator Reveals New Kavanaugh Allegation. Grassley Destroys Him.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley blasted Democratic Senator Chris Coons (CT) on Tuesday for forwarding an incredibly weak allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that wasted the resources of investigators.

The letter, written by Tad Low, alleged that a party took place in the frat house that Kavanaugh was a member of as an undergraduate and that a prostitute performed a public sex act while at the party.

Low writes that he had no idea if Kavanaugh was even at the party as he gave investigators "investigative advice" on how to do their jobs, instructing them to obtain Kavanaugh's calendars and search to see if he attended a frat party in either 1987 or in 1988. The full letter states:

Dear Sir,

My name is Tad Low and I was an undergraduate at Yale during Brett Kavanaugh's years in New Haven. During the 1987-88 school year, I was eyewitness to a shocking ceremony taking place inside DKE fraternity house that involved a semi-circle of cheering frat brothers watching a local prostitute perform a public sex act. I have three additional eyewitnesses, and two additional non-witnesses to whom I had related the event back in the late 80s. I can't say for certain that Judge Kavanaugh was present in the frat house during the event, but he was still at Yale during the time period, attending Yale Law School, and I suspect he may have attended what would have been a bug part in the frat's newly-purchased off-campus house. Since I know the name of one of the party's attendees and since we know that Judge Kavanaugh saves meticulous personal calendars from his past, it shouldn't be too difficult to ascertain whether he was present at this event.

I contacted the New York office of the FBI Saturday, September 29th, midday. After waiting on hold for 15 minutes, I onboarded my name, my recollection, the identity of the one frat brother seen at the event, my investigative advice and my witnesses' names and phone numbers to what seemed like a low-level input agent. I also contacted the New Haven branch office of the FBI yesterday, Sunday, September 30th. I haven't heard anything yet from either office.

Please let me know if you, your office or your Committee would be interested in hearing more.

Best regards,

Tad Low


In a response, Grassley ripped the allegations to pieces and then hammered Coons for forwarding such a weak claim to his office for investigation, noting that he was wasting the investigator's resources. Grassley's full letter states:

Dear Senator Coons,

I have tried to take every allegation referred to me during this nomination process seriously and have dedicated significant resources to investigating every relevant and probative lead. Although you and I have not seen eye-to-eye on every issue, I appreciate that you've handled yourself with the seriousness befitting a U.S. Senator throughout much of this nomination process. That's why I was disappointed when you forwarded me allegations relating to Judge Kavanaugh's "years in New Haven." The accuser — who apparently created a television show in which people strip while dancing to their favorite music — tells of a party that took place at the house of Judge Kavanaugh's undergraduate fraternity "during the 1987-88 school year" and which allegedly featured some salacious activity. Of course, Judge Kavanaugh had already graduated when this party allegedly took place and was a first-year law student. That period is, as you well know, the most academically intense time in most law students' lives.

This allegation has all the makings of a tabloid headline. But there's just one problem. The accuser freely admits to having no evidence whatsoever that Judge Kavanaugh even attended the party. Rather than provide even circumstantial evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's attendance, the accuser provides some "investigative advice." He proposes that someone search Judge Kavanaugh's calendars — the very same calendars that your colleagues have dismissed and derided with regard to Dr. Ford's allegations — to determine whether he attended a fraternity party at some point in 1987 or 1988. All he alleges is that he once witnessed a salacious party at a house owned by Judge Kavanaugh's undergraduate fraternity. He then separately advises us to obtain and search Judge Kavanaugh's calendars to determine if he attended.

We’ve reached a new level of absurdity with this allegation. There is no evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was anywhere near the party or had anything to do with it at all. In fact, the only person we can be sure that attended the party was the accuser himself. The lone connection between Judge Kavanaugh and the events described by the accuser is that, as an undergraduate, Judge Kavanaugh was a member of the fraternity that hosted the party. The purpose of this allegation is plain: to smear Judge Kavanaugh's name by associating him with the party's hosts. This guilt-by-association tactic is the basest form of political attack and deserves unqualified condemnation.

My investigators have serious work to do. While the Minority has refused to engage with allegations against Judge Kavanaugh in any meaningful way, my investigators have tried to pursue every relevant lead. I therefore hope that, before forwarding an allegation in the future, you will first consider whether you’d want you or your staff to spend valuable time investigating it. Thanks for your consideration.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3660...w-kavanaugh-allegation-grassley-ryan-saavedra

This is the problem that pops up when you agree to hear every lunatic's claim as credible, and require no proof. Suddenly, more lunatics come forward with claims that have no proof.
 
This is the problem that pops up when you agree to hear every lunatic's claim as credible, and require no proof. Suddenly, more lunatics come forward with claims that have no proof.

Coons is the guy who used his homo-erotic charm on Flake so that they could get kissy faced and suddenly Flake demands another week investigation so that Coons could come up with some new shit.

Then right on schedule Coons dumps some new fake shit.

Next time if Flake wants to show his love for Coons, maybe they could just get a room together and not put the country through this. That aint right the way the Coons huddled with Flake and then suddenly Flake was so starry-eyed he begins talking to the committee in a trance state while saying he changed his mind and could not vote until coons got what he wanted. Lawd only knows what Coons promised for that deal.
 
It's the same old playbook from the radical left. Make some attention grabbing outlandish claim, watch it fall apart, but still speak of the nothingness as if it's really something big.
First it was Trump colluding with Russians falling to boning pornstars. Now it's Kavenaugh going from the ringleader of some rape club to we don't like his temperament.
Once again, they have nothing, zero evidence of anything and still yammer on as if it's the end of the world. Vote, confirm, and on to the next outrage.
 
Coons is the guy who used his homo-erotic charm on Flake so that they could get kissy faced and suddenly Flake demands another week investigation so that Coons could come up with some new shit.

Then right on schedule Coons dumps some new fake shit.

Next time if Flake wants to show his love for Coons, maybe they could just get a room together and not put the country through this.
Flake is looking for anything to vote no. Now he doesn't like the "appearance" of partisanship.
Flake is a no vote, will always be a no vote. #fuckFlake
 
Ford story falling apart, bit by bit. No wonder Feinstein hid it until 13th hour. This should be an object lesson in how people vastly overestimate their ability to judge credibility.


BostonBobblehead‏@DBloom451 18h18 hours ago


Ford: "I totally needed a 2nd front door as an escape in 2012."
Me: "But, it was installed in 2008 for renters."
Ford: "Didn't you hear my voice crack? I'm credible-n-stuff."
Me: "Do you have a 2nd door in your current house?"
Ford: "Why do you hate sexual assault survivors?"pic.twitter.com/aECq3qByWJ

Doh3t4pU8AAl6na.jpg

45 replies 600 retweets 1,206 likes
 
Back
Top