William L. Gensertprovides his take on the "senior official in the Trump administration" and his or her NYT editorial.
. . . This is not written by a "senior administration official." The person who wrote this is not in on the decision-making process and doesn't serve in the White House. He may be a Cabinet official or an appointee at the most.
"I wouldn't be surprised to find he is something like the third assistant to the secretary of the Regional Administration Committee for Religious Community Outreach."
So what exactly are the standards that the Times applies when calling an anonymous person a "senior" official – when the story being spun fits the narrative the Times is pushing? Phelim McAleer, writing in Townhall, takes a trip down memory lane and reminds us of an incident in which the Times was caught exaggerating to a startling degree, in service to its agenda of demonizing fracking.
#TheResistance still bringing the crazy, claiming Bash was standing behind Trump at his Montana rally last night while she was in DC at the Kavanaugh hearings.
"The internet mob attack on Zina Bash was the lowest point in days filled with low points of disruptions and protests against Brett Kavanaugh.
"Bash, a former law clerk to Brett Kavanaugh whose husband is a U.S. Attorney appointed by Trump, was singled out because she supposedly flashed a white supremacist hand signal while seated behind Kavanaugh during the hearings. We covered the insanity, Malicious attack on Zina Bash shows how deranged #StopKavanaugh has become
It’s getting hard to describe how insane #TheResistance to Brett Kavanaugh has become.
The first day of hearings, which involved no testimony by Kavanaugh, devolved into a circus.
Bash was sitting behind Kavanaugh as #TheResistance disrupted the hearings. She was in camera view.
Anti-Trump social media users with large followings singled her out for supposedly snide facial expressions and flashing a white power sign.
"See her hand resting with her thumb and forefinger together in a manner similar to an “okay” sign? That’s the supposed hand signal." . . . Twitter goes berserk over strange clip. . . "But Bash may become a rock star after she appeared to troll the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd in what amounts to a follow up performance." . . . Check the logic of this ACLU post, right:
The attacks today on my wife are repulsive. Everyone tweeting this vicious conspiracy theory should be ashamed of themselves. We weren’t even familiar with the hateful symbol being attributed to her for the random way she rested her hand during a long hearing.
San Francisco Chronicle. . . "And so it went for nearly eight minutes, with Harris pressing Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh not offering much in return. He finally said he couldn’t say for sure without a roster of the rm’s lawyers.
"The exchange had potential for drama because Mueller may subpoena Trump to testify in his probe, something that could end up before the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has resisted efforts to get him to say whether a president should have to comply with a criminal subpoena, arguing he can’t commit to a position on any issue that could come before the court. "Harris didn’t actually produce evidence that Kavanaugh had, in fact, spoken with anyone at Kasowitz’s rm about the Mueller probe. But videos capturing the confirmation hearing exchange were soon a mini-viral sensation, as the judge’s opponents hoped that Harris was armed with something that could derail his nomination. " . . . 'On Thursday, Kavanaugh and GOP backers on the Judiciary Committee undertook damage control. Given a chance to revisit the issue by Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, the nominee said, “I haven’t had any inappropriate conversations about that investigation with anyone. I’ve never given anyone any hints, forecasts, previews, winks — nothing about my view as a judge or how I would rule as a judge, on that or anything related to that.” "When her turn came Thursday, it turned out Harris didn’t have the goods after all. After another couple of courtroom-style go-rounds between veteran lawyers, Kavanaugh issued a flat-out “no” to Harris’ yes-or-no question "And that was it. Harris said she was just asking a question based on what she termed “reliable” information that Kavanaugh had talked with someone at the Trump-linked law rm. She did not identify her source or give any details of the tip. “ 'It wasn’t a trick question,” Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams said. “His answer (Wednesday) night was entirely unclear, and it raised concerns by many people about whether this had happened.” "Adams said Harris does not plan on doing anything more with the information she said she received from her source." The innuendo will be sufficient for talking points on CNN and NBC panels. Kinda like Harry Reid claiming Mitt Romney hadn't paid his taxes in ten years. After being asked [by Harris] about Bob Mueller Kavanaugh replied, “You ask if I ever had a discussion about Bob Mueller, I used to work in the administration with Bob Mueller.”
Guy Benson"The pre-hearings attacks, distortions and Hail Marys all collapsed. The table-pounding and hilarious self-owning during the hearings didn't move the needle. And now it appears as though Brett Kavanaugh is more or less a lock to become America's next Supreme Court justice. With Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats failing to land even one substantive body blow against Kavanaugh during multiple marathon sessions -- each of which was interrupted by deranged caterwauling from left-wing activists -- the writing is on the wall. Barring a seismic event, confirmation is all but assured. Let's start with two key red state Democrats whose constituents strongly favor confirmation:" . . .
With that math in mind, consider (a) that Lisa Murkowski has never once voted against a Republican president's SCOTUS nominee during her tenure in office, and has shown no signs of doing so this time, and (b) that Susan Collins has never cast a floor vote against the confirmation of any president's SCOTUS nominee. What if Democrats can convince her that Roe v. Wade is in grave peril if she approves Kavanaugh? Might yesterday's yawner of a "bombshell" cause her to change her (so far, quite positive) tune on Trump's pick? Nope:
Blumenthal, Harris, Booker and Whitehouse are the poster people for the American left today. They are a sad commentary on what was once a pro-American party. They all seem to loathe America now. They are proving correct the apocryphal quote of Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev from long ago: "You Americans are so gullible." . . .
Patricia McCarthy "The Senate Kavanaugh hearings have been instructive, to say the least. The four names above were the most tellingly obnoxious Democrats at the event, the worst offenders, but to name the others would be redundant. The Democratic Party's left - what amounts to a far left these days, cares about nothing beyond ending the Trump presidency, by any means necessary. They have sold their souls to accomplish this feat. That was on display for all to see these past few days. They set out to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh with all sorts of accusations, innuendo and insults, but they didn't lay a hand on him; not one of them, no matter how malicious their interrogation. Not one of these Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee showed the judge an iota of respect. They did expose for all to see their contempt for the president and all things conservative. They apply very different rules to those nominated to the SCOTUS by Republicans than they do to those nominated by Democrats. Non-answers by Democrat-nominated candidates are heralded for their evasion of how-would-you-rule questions. This is not allowed for those nominated by Republican presidents. Supreme Court Justice nominees such as Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, etc. were celebrated for their refusal to answer certain questions. Kavanaugh, more judicious and more experienced than Ginsberg or Kagan ever were, has been eviscerated by these same Democrats and the press for his handling of the questions asked. The left is behaving as if their very lives depend on defeating this nomination to the court. Republicans have never resisted a Democrat-nominated justice so vehemently. Most of them have been confirmed almost unanimously. Yet Democrats do not grant a sitting Republican his choice. Why?" . . . Keep reading...
. . . "What I lost in that moment is indescribable. I had to watch his mother be dealt the most agonizing blow a parent can face, and I couldn’t comfort her because I was in my own hell. I had to find a way to gut my own children in the gentlest way possible and tell them that this man they had come to love, who they looked up to, who cared for them as his own, would never walk through our door again.
I don’t know if you’ve ever attended a police funeral, but watching grown men who’ve seen the absolute worst things a civilian can imagine, break down and sob over the casket of their brother is an image that never leaves you. The bagpipes haunt my dreams to this day, but it was the faces of my children, the innocence that abandoned them at such a tender age that brought me to my knees.
"On Tuesday, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of speaking with President Trump's lawyer's law firm about the Robert Mueller investigation. She did so without evidence, and while refusing to provide a list of lawyers at the firm. After this, the senator jumped down Kavanaugh's throat with a question about the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville last year.
" 'Judge, have you ever discussed Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation with anyone?" Harris asked. After the nominee responded that he had, the senator asked, "Have you discussed it with anyone at Kasowitz, Benson, and Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, President Trump's personal lawyer? Be sure about your answer, sir."
"Kavanaugh, perplexed, could not remember if he knew anyone at that law firm. "Is there a person you're talking about?" The senator responded, "I'm asking you a very direct question, yes or no." . . .
"I think you can answer the question without me giving you a list of all employees of that law firm," Harris insisted.
"Well, actually I can't," the nominee responded.
"Why not?" the seemingly deaf Harris asked.
"Because I don't know who works there," Kavanaugh explained.
"So you're not denying?" Harris finally concluded. "I'll move on. Clearly, you're not going to answer the question."
. . . More Harrisims here:
"The California senator — who is rumored to be mulling a 2020 presidential run — jumped down Kavanaugh's throat again and again, without evidence and without substance. She accused him of collaborating with Trump's lawyer against Mueller. She accused him of defending the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville. She accused him of using a white supremacist term.
"These insinuations are disgusting and should be widely condemned."
UPDATE: Kamala Harris Suggested Kavanaugh Spoke To Trump's Law Firm About Mueller. She Was Lying, Of Course.. . . "So no, she has no evidence. But that didn’t stop her from leveling the accusation, to the celebration of the press. This makes Harris one of two major liars in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing – the other being Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) who claimed he had released classified documents at peril of life and limb (he didn’t) and that those documents contained bombshells (they didn’t).
"But when you’re angling for the 2020 nomination, clownish behavior is the baseline expectation, apparently."
Vice President Mike Pence – and “the field” – lead offshore bookmaking picks as the White House mole behind the anonymous bombshell New York Times op-ed blasting President Trump.
. . . "Why Pence? Desperate gamblers have latched on to the thinnest of reeds;. the use of a single word in the op-ed that has also been used on occasion by the vice president." . . . Not "rosebud", but "Lodestar"TD In that same vein:A guess at identifying the NYT's infamous anonymous Trump insider Cortney O'Brien:Former Trump Aide Says He Knows Who Wrote Op-ed, Drops Hints About 'Her' Identity. . . “ 'I know it’s a woman,” he said during an interview on Buffalo’s WBEN 930 am. “I’m being cautious. My attorney is keeping me from saying her name but yes I believe it’s a woman. I believe I know who it is.” "What he can reveal, is that she is a “coward” who “should have stood up and resigned.” . . . John Dietrich:Anti-Trump resistance at the senior level. . . "The Times published this essay because “We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers.” However, this “important perspective” is the same old anti-Trump perspective that has been peddled by the Deep State Media since before Trump was elected. The only thing new about it is that it was supposedly written by a senior official in the Trump administration." . . .
The op-ed was almost finished and the author had not yet accused the president of racism. He saved this for the last three paragraphs.
Tom Trinko:A Disloyal Coward Condemns Trump. . . "A key complaint by the possibly fictional author is that Trump lacks a moral compass based on how Trump makes decisions. But if we're going to talk about moral compasses, let's look at our past presidents:" . . .
Israel National News:I don’t believe NY Times about anonymous White House snitch. . . "Strangely, no byline. I cannot say that this is a first. But I cannot remember any story, anywhere, a story intended to be so damaging, running as Anonymous.
"I do not know what we call it today. They used to call it Yellow Journalism.
"That’s how smut tabloids still operate, but I doubt that even the National Enquirer would run such a hoax.
"I’m calling it a hoax because the tag-team effect is plain obvious, from last week’s anti-Trump “bombshells” being dropped through Bob Woodward’s book on Trump, which delighted CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, until it got old. You can stretch a story only so far. Even for Liberals there’s a limit to Trump bashing. Got to be." . . .
Byron York: 7 points on the anonymous New York Times 'resistance' op-ed"The New York Times' publication of an anonymously-authored article, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration," set the world of political commentary on fire Wednesday afternoon. The author, whom the Times identified only as "a senior official in the Trump administration," claimed that he used his government position to thwart President Trump's "more misguided impulses." Others, also unnamed, joined him in the effort, he said. The article, quickly denounced by the president, promised to dominate cable news for days. Here are seven thoughts on what it means:" . . . . . . 7) We'll know more soon enough. The Times wrote that it granted the author anonymity because his "job would be jeopardized" by disclosure of his name. It seems hard to believe the author truly thinks he can remain anonymous — and keep his job — in the white-hot public attention his article will attract. One way or the other, his identity will likely come out, probably sooner rather than later. And then the story could become even more interesting.
Kavanaugh hearings reveal why their symbol is the jackass.
American Thinker toon.
The American Spectator"During the first two days of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrated why their party lost control of Congress, and that they still can’t be trusted with a majority in either house. In addition to interrupting the proceedings countless times on hopelessly frivolous grounds and engaging in outrageous demagoguery, they openly encouraged demonstrators to disrupt the hearings with such disgusting behavior that Judge Kavanaugh’s wife was forced to lead his children out of the room on the first day. These are the very Democrats, remember, who routinely lecture President Trump on matters of decorum. "Indeed, as if to highlight the hypocrisy of their antics, Democrat Richard Blumenthal called for an adjournment of the hearing after denouncing it as a “charade.” This is the same Senator whose attacks on the last Trump nominee to the Supreme Court — now Associate Justice Gorsuch — about his biography were so egregious that a group of Medal of Honor winners wrote an open letter reminding the public of his false claims to have served in Vietnam: “The fact you repeatedly and consistently claimed to have served in Vietnam is a gross case of stolen valor in our opinion.” But Blumenthal’s hypocrisy was just part of the opening salvo in the Democratic attempt to disrupt the hearings. "Their antics were so transparently scripted that even Slate pointed out that the first interruption of the first day’s proceedings came before the Chairman could finish his opening sentence. The story’s author suggested that the Democrats “need to move on from their Kavanaugh document obsession and focus on what really matters.” On Wednesday, they made it clear that they weren’t open to such sensible advice. Chuck Schumer attempted to have the hearing halted early, but was outmaneuvered by GOP Majority Leader McConnell, and Senator Dick Durbin actually had the crust to ask Kavanaugh to “hit the pause button” on the hearings. The judge declined this ridiculous request:" . . .
Yes, we know what goes on. And we’re duly embarrassed, or ought to be: genuine moral and intellectual concern for public service kicked out of the hearing room; displaced by screaming protesters and the insincere platitudes of men and women old enough to know what nonsense they’re spouting. Unless life in Washington, after a time, disables your nonsense detector.
Daily Signal"On Day Two of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Daily Signal went “On the Street” outside the Hart Senate Office Building to talk with those standing in line for seats inside the hearing room. "But when asked why they were there, most protesters seemed more interested in signing each other up for various petitions than sharing their views with a larger audience." . . .
"Sen. Cory Booker probed Brett Kavanaugh Wednesday over his thoughts on race in America — and demanded he explain emails from 2002 where he said the Supreme Court nominee discussed racial profiling.
"But the emails are among tens of thousands that have been turned over to the Judiciary Committee, though they are not yet public. That left the nominee struggling to answer, and Republicans complaining of unfair treatment.
"Mr. Booker quoted from the emails during his questioning of the judge. He said they were labeled “racial profiling,” and said they related to the practice after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.
"After Judge Kavanaugh said he wanted to see the emails before responding, it was revealed that the email couldn’t be shared because it was deemed “committee confidential.”
"Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican, objected to the questions, saying either the document needed to be made public or else the questions should have been asked in closed session.
Mr. Booker responded by saying he wanted all of the tens of thousands of committee confidential documents to be released — and blaming the GOP for a process that led to them being kept secret.
“ 'The fact that we aren’t allowing these emails out … that’s why I say the system is rigged,” Mr. Booker said.
"Mr. Booker’s questioning of Judge Kavanaugh focused on racial diversity and voter ID laws, calling them the “crown jewel” of the civil rights movement." . . .
If Democrats take control of the House, Trump warned, "they will overturn everything that we've done and they'll do it quickly and violently, and violently. There's violence. When you look at Antifa and you look at some of these groups — these are violent people."
"CNN’s Don Lemon appeared to defend the violent group Antifa on Tuesday for “fighting” racists and fascists, arguing that “no organization is perfect.” “ 'It says it right in the name: Antifa. Anti-fascism, which is what they were there [in Charlottesville] fighting," Lemon said on the Tuesday broadcast of his show. " 'Listen, no organization's perfect. There was some violence. No one condones violence, but there were different reasons for Antifa and for these neo-Nazis to be there. One, racists, fascists, the other group, fighting racist fascists. There is a distinction there," he added. "Antifa’s violence has been widespread. To name just a few examples, the black-clad anarchists assaulted at least five people taking part in a peaceful Berkeley protest last year; they started bloody fights in the streets of Oregon during a Patriot Prayer rally in June; 16 were arrested after clashing with police during a Blue Lives Matter march earlier this month; and violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia at a second Unite the Right rally this month. " . . .
