'Believe Democratic women': Paying the price for a lie

Noemie Emery    “ ‘Believe the woman’ didn’t mean believe all women, all the time. But this is an era of slogans, and we’re paying the price for that.” So spoke an adviser to one of the women now being considered as Joe Biden’s running mate, quoted by Politico. In other words, "believe the woman" was a lie.
"What they meant was, "Believe the woman when she’s with our party and the man she's accusing is a conservative who might vote against us on the Supreme Court." So Anita Hill was a saint, whereas Paula Jones (who got a nice, hefty sum out of Bill Clinton) was "trailer-park trash." Juanita Broaddrick could not get a hearing, and Gloria Steinem wrote in the New York Times that President Clinton, because of his party and his stance on abortion, should get a pass, depending upon whom he had pawed.
"Now, the woman to be disbelieved is Tara Reade, a one-time Biden aide who was fired in 1993 soon after she claimed Biden raped her, with just a little more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford had against Brett Kavanaugh, which, in that case, was nothing at all. If this seems like deja vu, it’s because that it is, case one being the Lewinsky affair and the Clinton impeachment in 1998, seven years after the Hill-Thomas hearings, with the Kavanaugh buzz-saw occurring in 2018.
"Each time, Democrats believed in the woman, sight unseen, when the man involved was a conservative who seemed on his way to a Supreme Court appointment. They disbelieved when the man was a Democrat either in the White House or trying to get there. Does this sound kosher to you?
"This time, the situation emerging is still more complex. Biden, before this, had promised to pick a woman to run for vice president, and every last woman who fits that description is already on the record as a fervid opponent of Kavanaugh and as a supporter of Blasey Ford's allegations. This means that each one will have to explain, many times over, why Blasey Ford was believable with no evidence whatsoever, whereas Reade is not.

Note that Ford told no one her story until 30 years passed, whereas Reade spoke to a number of people only days later. They cannot, of course, vouch for the truth of her story, but can at least say it was told at the time.
"Reade also gave a time, date, and place to her story; Blasey Ford can’t remember the day, month, or year when her incident happened, or the house where it happened. Blasey Ford cited the names of the people she says were in the house at the gathering, but no one she mentioned remembered the house, or the party, or even one like it. No one could recall seeing Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh at any occasion at all. No one can prove that Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford did not meet on some occasion, but no one can prove that Reade’s story’s not true.
"Given this, an impartial observer has to conclude that Reade’s story is probably more likely true because she gave a time and a place to her story, seemed disturbed to contemporaneous observers, and told others about it. Any woman who believes Blasey Ford and not Reade does not believe in "believing the woman." And the woman chosen by Biden to run right beside him will be "paying the price" for the lie." . . .

Your Guide To The Obama Administration’s Hit On Michael Flynn

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist

New documents in the Michael Flynn case cemented that a small cadre of high-level FBI agents set a perjury trap for President Trump’s then-national security advisor.

"The unsealing last week of a series of documents in the Michael Flynn criminal case cemented the reality that a small cadre of high-level FBI agents set a perjury trap for President Trump’s then-national security advisor. Beyond exposing the depth of this despicable personal and political hit job on a 30-year military veteran, the newly discovered documents hold great legal significance. Here’s your legal primer.
"The Russiagate special counsel’s office charged Flynn with violating 18 U. S. C. § 1001, which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly and willfully” make a false statement of “a material fact” to a federal official. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team claimed Flynn violated Section 1001 by lying to FBI agents Joe Pientka and Peter Strzok—the latter of whom has since been fired—when the duo questioned Flynn on January 24, 2017, about Flynn’s December 2016 telephone conversations with the Russian ambassador.
" 'Flynn pleaded guilty to the Section 1001 charge in December 2017, but after the special counsel’s office disbanded, Flynn fired his prior attorneys and hired Sidney Powell. He later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing his prior Covington and Burling lawyers had provided ineffective counsel. More significantly, Flynn maintained that he is innocent of the charge and had only pleaded guilty because Mueller’s prosecutors threatened to go after his son if he refused."  "New Lawyer Discovers a Rat’s Nest" . . . Full article...

BARR: Michael Flynn’s Legal Tormentors Should Be Prosecuted

. .  . "What the FBI — then under the leadership of the since-discredited James Comey – did to Gen. Flynn constitutes a blatant violation of the most basic ethical principles which federal investigators and prosecutors are sworn to uphold. The fundamental ethical foundation according to which these men and women, including Comey and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller — whose office prosecuted Flynn — is best captured in a speech delivered by then-Attorney General Robert Jackson in early 1940." . . .

Here It Comes: The Move to Remove Gropey Joe

PJ Media  "Democratic presidential nominee-apparent Joe Biden got hit with a double-whammy today from his one-time allies in the major media. “How will the Democrats pull a Torricelli and replace Biden on the ticket with someone who can win?” used to be a question limited to the comments sections on the right side of the blogosphere. Now it’s a question debated openly on the op-ed pages of the MSMDNC’s two biggest newspapers.
"In the New York Times on Sunday, “Catholic Left” opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig argued that “Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden demand action,” and that she “can assert with firm conviction” that “Democrats ought to start considering a backup plan for 2020.”
“ 'One,” she writes, “that does not include Mr. Biden.”
"Tellingly, Bruenig notes that the Democrat-friendly (to say the least!) Planned Parenthood Action Fund has called for “a more thorough investigation than Mr. Biden’s camp has currently agreed to.” Maybe it’s possible for a Democrat to get elected president without the aid and support of Planned Parenthood’s political action wing, but I doubt they’d want to try." . . . More...

New committee seeks to draft Michelle Obama as VP nominee

The PAC says Obama would help "defeat Republicans up and down the ballot."

" 'Ms. Obama, the most admired woman in America, will be a vital asset this November, when Vice President Biden will face an uphill battle to combat the lies and deceit emanating from the White House," said the statement released Monday. "Her credibility as a trusted leader and a strong symbol of unity within the Democratic Party would certainly help Democrats defeat Republicans up and down the ballot.' " . . .

The UK Guardian on President Trump's "lack of compassion"

Serving CNN: Will Americans ever forgive Trump for his heartless lack of compassion? 

While the nation grieves, the US president has spent less than five minutes expressing compassion for those who are suffering

"To exist at this moment is to navigate (or try to fend off) the flood of grief that threatens to submerge even our rare, buoyant moments. We mourn the death of friends and relatives, the absence of human contact and the everyday pleasures we once took for granted. We can’t stop thinking about the tens of thousands of families facing hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness even as they struggle to endure the loss of someone they dearly loved.

What’s striking, if not surprising, is that this deluge of sorrow has run dry at the door to the Oval Office. " 
"One’s heart goes out to the reporters who have sifted through the Donald Trump’s press briefings on the current pandemic. . . "

Like the "compassion" Hillary showed in standing beside the caskets of our Benghazi victims? 

Or Obama's "compassion" for the dead soldier whose casket he used as a photo op?

How's this for compassion?

President Trump Thanked By Hospital Staff For Visit To Pittsburgh

Black Panther Leader Praises Trump’s Speech, RIPS Democrat Party: ‘We’re Being Pimped Like Prostitutes’

The Failed Experiment of Social Distancing

The history of science, sadly, is littered with bad experiments gone horribly wrong. The Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020, when it is over, will very likely be toward the top of that list.

American Greatness  "After a two-month trial, researchers are collecting early outcomes of the Great American Social Distancing Experiment of 2020.
"The results, to say the least, ain’t pretty—and the “experts” who initiated this experiment on 330 million well-meaning but unwitting test subjects are starting to admit failure.
" 'Wait. An experiment?” you may ask. But we have been assured by the credentialed class that keeping a distance of six feet between healthy people for weeks on end was the only tried-and-true way to prevent the deadly spread of the novel coronavirus. No way would the government shutter public schools and colleges for five months, bankrupt small businesses, send tens of millions to the unemployment line, jeopardize the nation’s food supply chain, prevent children from comforting dying parents and grandparents, and subject their fellow countrymen to soul-crushing house arrest for the first time in U.S. history if the so-called “social distancing” guidance hadn’t been carefully vetted over time, you might insist.
"Certainly every variable and every side effect of social distancing has been factored into this economy-crashing “mitigation” strategy, right?
"Unfortunately, and maddeningly, the answer is no.
"Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former head of the Food and Drug Administration and a lead booster of social distancing, admitted Sunday that the draconian measures aren’t working as the experts promised.
“ 'The concerning thing here is that we’re looking at the prospect that this may be a persistent spread,” Gottlieb said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” further noting 20,000 to 30,000 new reported cases per day despite intense lockdown orders in most states." . . .
More

When will the Democrats pull the plug on ‘Plugs’ Biden?

There are contributing factors, his flacking for China as his son reaped ten-figure backing from the Communists, and his sexual harassment issues most prominently (for now). But the wiser and wilier among the DNC’s power elite know that they will not be able to hide Biden’s mental infirmity all the way to November third.  So, they are considering how and when best to be rid of Joe.

Thomas Lifson  "If we presume that Joe Biden’s pace of mental decline doe not reverse direction, the Democrats will be stuck with an embarrassment leading them into disaster in November.  Unless there is vote fraud on a massive scale, Americans will not hand the fate of the Republic to Grandpa Simpson, also known as “Plugs” Biden after undergoing expensive hair transplant surgery in 2008 to avoid going bald." . . .
. . . "Should this path be followed, Sanders supporters are on the record that they will burn down Milwaukee if the Bolshevik is not fairly treated. But the entire reason Biden garnered the support he did was that he was supposedly “safe” compared to an open socialist. They fear a Sanders-led ticket would bring total disaster." . . . 

. . . Such a switch could be made any time between the convention nomination and Election Day. Because we technically vote for Electoral College members rather than presidential candidates, it may be, as Vox proposes, that Electors could simply transfer their vote from the old Democratic nominee to the new one regardless of what was printed on the ballot. But the legal situation is uncertain and varies from state to state. "For instance," notes FiveThirtyEight, "Michigan's law requires an Elector to vote for the ticket named on the ballot whereas Florida's rules say that an Elector is to 'vote for the candidates of the party that he or she was nominated to represent.'" That means a sooner swap, allowing more states to print the new name on the ballot, would be better. Yet court battles would be inevitable with the ever-litigious Trump involved.

"At this point, outsiders have no way of knowing the real extent of Biden’s infirmity, nor do we know the true views of the party insiders and their funders about his prospects for avoiding embarrassment and defeat. But if I were a betting man, I’d wager that someone else will be on top of the ticket November third."

Botox, hair plugs, and veneers: Biden could escape the cosmetic surgery scrutiny Hillary Clinton endured
"Cosmetic doctors are certain that former Vice President Joe Biden’s full head of hair, smooth forehead, and Cheshire Cat grin are the result of plastic surgery and other procedures."
. . . "Dr. Jeffrey Spiegel, chief of the Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Boston University Medical Center, said in 2013 that John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, had been "a little over-injected" with Botox and "looks Frankenstein-ian."

"The key to effective cosmetic surgery is subtlety, Alster said. “If they look like they’ve had cosmetic work, it works against them.' ". . . Joe's teeth had their own web site:  Joebidensteeth.com

Are these signs of mental infirmity in Biden back in 2012?

Daily Beast  "So just how many times did Joe Biden deploy his withering/excessive smile of contempt in Thursday night's debate? We've counted them up -- non-teeth-baring smirks excluded -- and present them here."