Connect with us

Democrats

Dianne Feinstein used alleged sexual assault victim as political weapon

Published

on

Dianne Feinstein used alleged sexual assault victim as political weapon

An accusation has been made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. His accuser claims he sexually assaulted her while they were in high school. The alleged victim should be treated with respect and heard. In fact, her allegations should have been heard in July when she brought them to the attention of Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Instead, the “bombshell” was saved by Feinstein to be dropped at the last possible moment before a vote to move forward with Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

She had ample opportunity and a deep responsibility as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Kavanaugh about the allegations the moment they were deemed relevant and trustworthy. Based on what we know about his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the allegations should be considered credible. That’s not to say they’re true by any means and Kavanaugh has categorically denied them, but there’s no reason to dismiss the accusations outright.

Feinstein chose to weaponize the allegations. She knew if she came forward in July or even August, that there would be enough time to examine the allegations and determine if the Senate needed to consider them. They could have questioned Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings, during personal interviews, or in writing. Instead, we are placed in a confirmation limbo because of Feinstein’s choice to wait until the eleventh hour.

There were no factors preventing her from bringing the allegations to light earlier. She and her colleagues assessed the situation and determined it would be best for them politically to wait until now.

Many on the left will say it was a good tactic because it has the best chance of derailing the confirmation. They will ignore the ethics behind the move by justifying using dirty tricks because they’re being used against President Trump. All’s fair in love, war, and taking down Trump if you’re a hardcore leftist.

The left learned that weaponizing sexual assault allegations can be a very powerful tool in promoting their agenda. Sadly, they’re getting better at it. Feinstein should be ashamed of herself, but she won’t be. She’ll be proud of her deceit if it gives her the desired outcome.

Timothy P. Carney did a nice write-up on the topic over at Washington Examiner:

The long silences of Christine Blasey Ford and Dianne Feinstein

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-long-silences-of-christine-blasey-ford-and-dianne-feinsteinThere are many reasons to think (3) is true, even if (1) or (2) is also true. For one thing, the Democrats did the exact same thing with Anita Hill’s charges against Clarence Thomas. For another, the timing tactics here are simple: if they torpedoed Kavanaugh in July, that would give Republicans too much time to find a replacement nominee.

If explanation (3) is true, that tells us something about Feinstein–she is a dishonest politician playing dirty politics with a deadly serious charge. And if the first two are true, but she’s trotting the document out now, it tells us she’s knowingly smearing a man.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Who is the current moneyline favorite for the Democratic nomination?

Published

on

Who is the current moneyline favorite for the Democratic nomination

An interesting metric to analyze politics is viewing the moneyline. In fact, online bookies are more accurate at predicting major elections than the partisan hack, Nate Silver and his FiveThirtyEight, who incorrectly guessed every tight Senate race except for the shady Arizona race. But the odd makers spend their time doing their analysis because there is money to be lost if they do poorly. So let’s take a look at one key metric and explore the reasoning as to why.

The lowest tier are the candidates so far out, that they don’t have a moneyline, even when speculated names do. This tier includes Jay Inslee, Pete Buttigieg, and Wayne Messam. Safe to assume that this metric gives these people less of a chance than candidates who have confirmed they aren’t running.

The second lowest tier are the longshots. These candidates range from John Hickenlooper through Corey Booker. These candidates are either not big faces in the Democratic spotlight or are at a serious disadvantage because they have been crowded out of their base. The same could be said about Elizabeth Warren, but she has a devoted core and the potential to make gains when the debates are in full swing.

The next tier are the vultures. Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, and Amy Klobachar need death to survive, metaphorically speaking. The vultures have their sights on a clear target: Joe Biden. If they can feast on his corpse, they’ll survive. But perhaps its Bernie’s corpse they should be gazing upon instead. In truth, I think Yang is more dark horse than vulture, but both appear dark on the outside.

Alas, we have our favorites. Beto O’Rourke, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris, our current frontrunner by this metric. These candidates have the most money, intersectionality points in the case of Harris, ability to win superdelegates as it currently stands, and name recognition. It’s obvious why, at a glance one would rank these names at the top. Under the surface, they also have the most stable base within the Democrat party. Don’t rely too much on polling which will fluctuate like the wind. Kamala Harris could win black vote in the south while the three other white male favorites vie for the northern swathes of the country. And the odds are almost a year out. They too will fluctuate, but I believe the moneyline accurately gives us a picture of our current frontrunners.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Even in New York, more people favor President Trump than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Published

on

Even in New York more people favor President Trump than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

She’s a media darling. She’s the leader of the hyper-leftist new Democratic revolution. She’s a creation of one of the most powerful and dangerous political organizations in America. And now, she’s having trouble getting people to like her.

According to a new Sienna College poll in New York, a mere 31% of respondents view Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez favorably. Her numbers are worse than other New York politicians, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Governor Andrew Cuomo. Compared to the President, her net difference numbers are better at -13 compared to -24 for the President, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that more people know and like the President with 36% viewing him favorably.

My Take

There’s no reason for her to be getting the attention she’s getting. Being a freshman Congresswoman means she has very little say in what actually happens in DC. But it’s not her status or her votes that matter. What makes her dangerous is the way she’s molding the minds of the impressionable leftists who refuse to pick up a calculator or put pen to paper about her outrageous proposals.

She’s the worst type of politician, one who works with the spotlight instead of focusing on educating people about what she’s doing on their behalf and how they can help. I remember when the biggest plea by those in Congress was for their constituents to help them convince their Senators to do the right thing. Now, it’s all about me, me, me; the narcissism of this new breed of politicians is striking.

The more the nation learns about AOC and her insane ideas, the less they’ll like her. We need this to happen. We need Americans to wake up to the truckloads of manure she’s trying to shovel our way. Socialism needs to be stopped immediately.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Glenn Greenwald: ‘Why would you leave in place somebody controlled by the Kremlin for two years if you really believed it?’

Published

on

Glenn Greenwald Why would you leave in place somebody controlled by the Kremlin for two years if you

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows there was no collusion between Russia and President Trump. The entire Democratic Party in Washington DC (with the exception of loony Maxine Waters) knows Robert Mueller’s investigation and future Congressional investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia will result in nothing substantial. Nevertheless, that’s the narrative they’ve been playing for the last two years and they’re not ready to back down just yet.

The Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald joined Laura Ingraham on the Ingraham Angle last night to discuss whether or not it was worth it for the Democratic Party to keep hammering on the Russia angle. Greenwald pointed out multiple inconsistencies in the way they’ve handled the situation, including during the midterm elections when individual candidates refused to even discuss it. Public sentiment for the Mueller investigation is falling which means the appetite for a repetitive Congressional investigation is going to be low.

What does Congress believe they’ll find that Mueller’s professional team of investigators could not?

If the best all of these investigations yield is testimony from Michael Cohen that pretty much all of America has disregarded or forgotten by now, then Democrats will have to explain why they pressed such a wasteful and counterproductive series of actions.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report