Send Out the Clowns

Judge Brett Kavanaugh called the Supreme Court nomination process a "circus." While he was certainly seated in a room nearly half-full of clowns, they were more the horror film variety. To call the process a circus is an insult to circus clowns; this was something far more sinister, more diabolical, more appalling. Beyond that, I have no name for it, because I have never witnessed anything like it.

I'd like to address several things related to this s***-show:

1. Sen. Jeff Flake's 11.9th hour condition he placed on his vote, and the ramifications thereof
2. Questions I would like to have seen asked of Dr. Ford
3. Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor in Thursday's testimony before the bad joke the Judicial Committee has become
4. Feinstein (normally, I would refer to her as Sen. Feinstein; however, she is so unworthy of respect that the usual decorum reserved for those of her station is undeserved, thus she will herewith be referred to as Feinstein - she deserves no more respect than that)
5. The true crux of the matter
6. The likely direction of the FBI investigation, and
7. My fearful prediction as to how this all plays out

First, to Sen. Flake. I'm wondering if this isn't a teaching moment for President Trump, similar to the one he experienced when the late Sen. John McCain left his sickbed to cast the deciding "no" vote on the repeal of Obamacare:

When your party only has a slim majority in the Senate, be careful about pissing off Republican Senators.

I never had confidence that Flake would support Kavanaugh, and was pleasantly surprised when he announced prior to Friday's proceedings that he would support the nominee. Flake is not seeking re-election, so he has little to lose by his last-minute move. And, he may oppose Trump in the 2020 primary (where he'll be shredded into little flakes - see what I did there?), thus he may have felt he had much to gain with independent voters. However, Flake is a RINO's RINO, John Kasich with better hair, and we saw how Kasich fared in 2016. Flake would be better off just fading into the Arizona sunset.

So as things stand now, the FBI will investigate the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Per the agreement Flake hashed out with Dem Sen. Chris Coons (who reportedly dropped an F-bomb when his buddy Flake announced early Friday morning that he was going to vote for Kavanaugh), the investigation will be "limited in both scope and time." The time is to be no more than a week, and the scope is to be limited to "current credible allegations" against Judge Kavanaugh (although at this juncture, there don't appear to be any). That's what Flake and his buddies on the left agreed to, that's what GOP leadership acquiesced to, and that's what President Trump had no choice but to direct the FBI to do.

We'll see. Dr. Ford's lawyer (the one hand-picked by Feinstein) immediately pushed back, and said that while they applaud the decision to call for an investigation, it should not be limited by time or scope.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: private citizens do not get to dictate what the FBI investigates, nor the scope or duration of such investigations. For now, it appears Dr. Ford's lawyer is being ignored, and the scope and time will indeed be limited. But it's still early

The reason the GOP insisted that the scope be limited is to avoid the dozens of bought-and-paid-for accusers that would undoubtedly come crawling out of the woodwork in the next week to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of being the next Jack the Ripper. However, another tactic is still in play - see my last point for more on that.

On to Dr. Ford's testimony, and questions I wish she'd been asked. The prosecutor brought in by the GOP to handle questioning on their side was ineffective. Part of that has to do with the format. The Curmudgeon has had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a number of arbitration cases with former employees of his previous firm. I've seen lawyers patiently and methodically pursue a line of questioning that appears to go nowhere. But the end game is to produce an a-ha moment that results in a discrepancy in the witness's testimony, without revealing early on where the questioning is going, lest the witness figure it out and head them off at the pass. That confusion on the part of the witness may lead to other discrepancies along the way. It's part of the disingenuous cat-and-mouse game that is jurisprudence.

However, the prosecutor had but five minutes to pursue her line of questioning, before one of the Democrat co-conspirators got their five minutes to praise Dr. Ford's courage, whine for an FBI investigation, and introduce letters of support for Dr. Ford from thousands of people who don't know her, Judge Kavanaugh, or the first damn thing about this whole mess. Then, she had to pick up where she'd left off. So it was disjointed at best.

She did score a few points. Dr. Ford is apparently afraid to fly due to the trauma associated with the incident she accuses Judge Kavanaugh of, and that was the reason for the delay in her availability to testify. Yet the prosecutor got her to admit that she flies to the East coast regularly, that she flies to Hawaii and Tahiti for vacations, etc. She doesn't remember how she got home from the alleged party - an approximate 20-minute drive (we don't know for sure, because she doesn't remember where this happened). And there were other similar discrepancies. However, the prosecutor never forcefully drove home these points.

That's probably related to the reason the GOP used her in the first place. The Dems had two objectives from Thursday's proceeding: one was to try to block Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, or at least delay it until after the mid-terms (don't take my word for their desire to delay; they freely admit it). The second was to make the 11 old white guys on the GOP side look mean for going after Dr. Ford, something they could play up for women voters in the mid-terms. So the GOP basically had to use a female prosecutor to appear more sympathetic. For that reason, the prosecutor couldn't effectively exploit the discrepancies in Dr. Ford's testimony.

Suffice it to say that when the dust had settled, the prosecutor told the Senators that, were this a criminal proceeding, there would not be sufficient evidence for her to pursue a case, or even persuade a judge to issue a search warrant. There was nothing to search, because the location of the alleged incident couldn't be identified.

There are certain questions that I'd like to have seen asked, and avenues I'd like to have seen pursued further. I say this with no intent to disparage Dr. Ford. She was a sympathetic witness, and I'd go so far to say a credible one if only her allegations were not uncorroborated and her testimony were not rife with inconsistencies. Our legal system promises due process to the accused; that is and should be sacrosanct. So tough questions of the accuser are fair game.

1. I'd like to have seen the fear of flying claims explored further: how many miles per year does Dr. Ford fly? What's the longest flight she's taken? (The flight from San Francisco to Tahiti is over eight hours. I know people with no history of trauma, but a fear of flying, who would never take an eight-hour flight, no matter how appealing the destination.)

2. I'd have pressed more on her inability to recall who drove her to and from the party. This could be an important witness. Yet not only has she been unable to produce such a witness, no one has come forward, having watched the news, to say, "Yes, I knew Christine and Brett back in the day, and I drove her home from a party they both attended, and she seemed distraught." This person could be the nail in Judge Kavanaugh's coffin, in terms of his Supreme Court aspirations.

3. I'd have explored other discrepancies, such as the differences in her account as presented in her letter to Feinstein or her interview with the liberal Washington Post vs. what she said before the Committee.

4. Dr. Ford used her expertise as a psychologist to assert that brain chemistry makes cases of mistaken identity impossible: the image of the perpetrator is seared into the victim's brain, even if other details are forgotten. I'd bring up case after case of mistaken identity (I know of one personally in which the accused was convicted and imprisoned, only to be released after 24 years of incarceration). Dr. Ford's assertion is simply untrue: there are cases of mistaken identity all the time in our judicial system.

5. Finally, Dr. Ford testified that Mark Judge participated in the alleged assault with Judge Kavanaugh, that they were laughing together during and after the incident, and that it so traumatized her as to affect her willingness to fly, and her academic performance throughout the remainder of high school and her early college years. She further testified - and suggested that this was key to establishing the timeline - that she walked into a local Safeway not long after the incident and saw Mark Judge, who worked there, and walked up to him and said "Hi," and that Mr. Judge appeared uncomfortable to see her, presumably due to his guilt over the incident. She suggested that reviewing when Mr. Judge worked at the Safeway would help to establish the timing of the alleged incident, which she was fuzzy on.

So here's the question: if a victim is so traumatized by an event that he or she is afraid of flying, and his or her academic performance suffers, when they walk into a store and see one of the people who victimized them, do they walk up to them and say, "Hi"? Maybe there's a plausible explanation, but I'd have at least explored that piece of her testimony. I was the victim of bullying in middle school, and when I saw my bullies in random places, I didn't walk up to them and say, "Hi." I walked the other way, quickly. I was the uncomfortable one, not them. She didn't testify that she walked up to him to confront him: "Hi, Mark, you miserable SOB!" Again, maybe there's an explanation. I'd just have asked for it, because when I heard her relay that, my initial reaction was, "Huh?"

Again - and I feel a disclaimer is necessary here, given our current culture - I mean this as no disrespect to Dr. Ford or victims of sexual assault in general. I personally know women who've been sexually assaulted; I consider there to be nothing more heinous. But when someone accuses someone of something, it's fair to ask them questions about the incident, corroborating witnesses, the timing, the location and their behavior afterward. You need to do that, to prove their case on their behalf. I don't doubt that something happened to Dr. Ford at some point in her young life. However, that incident may not have involved Judge Kavanaugh or his friend Mr. Judge, both of whom claim the incident never happened.

On a related note, much has been made (on the Left) about the nuance between the other people Dr. Ford testified were at the party saying the incident didn't happen, and them saying they don't recall it. A couple of points are in order: first, they don't just say they don't recall the alleged incident, they don't recall the party at which it allegedly took place. They don't recall being at a party where Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and Mark Judge were all present. And second, at least one alleged witness - Mr. Judge - not only says he doesn't recall the party, he has stated under penalty of felony perjury that he has never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in the way Dr. Ford describes. That's a lot stronger than simply "I don't remember."

Enough on that; I've probably already succeeded in painting myself as a heartless sexist pig. Next, to Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor during his opening statement and testimony on Thursday. The Dems on the Committee are outraged that anyone dare speak to them that way, implying that for some inexplicable reason they are deserving of respect. Leftists everywhere are saying he doesn't have the temperament to be a judge. Some are saying that, because his wife was openly crying during his opening statement, that she's an abused woman. They're saying that his anger proves he is an abuser of women. (There's a word for those people in the latter two categories: idiot.)

Again, I have sat through arbitration proceedings with former employees, and one "consulting engagement" that was nothing more than a witch hunt, in which people went after my livelihood and the livelihoods of the employees who worked for me. I didn't get death threats, they didn't go after my family, just my livelihood and my reputation.

I like to think of myself as a pretty even-keeled guy, but in those instances, I became a pit bull, a Mike Tyson. I was angry, and I had no qualms about letting it show, in front of the accusers, the attorneys, and the arbitrators. Kavanaugh simply displayed that on Thursday. And the Committee Democrats deserved to be scolded, in a public way. He took them to task. The Committee members were playing the role of questioning attorney, and the judge went after them. I've seen several arbitrators and one judge get angry with the attorneys in a case and administer tongue-lashings to them. So don't tell me he doesn't have the demeanor to be a judge. I've seen it from judges first-hand. When there is a travesty of justice, I want a Supreme Court Justice to act that way. We all should.

Feinstein said after Thursday's proceedings, "I have never seen anyone who wants to sit on the highest court in the land behave in that manner." Well, Feinstein, you've also never seen anyone who wants to sit on the highest court in the land treated in this manner. You reap what you sow. He treated you and your colleagues with the respect you deserve: none.

I won't say more about her. We know what she knew, and when. We know what she did. Her crime against Dr. Ford, and Judge Kavanaugh, is well-documented, corroborated, and loathsome.

Now, as for the true crux of this matter: abortion. It's sad that this country is now defined by the divide over Roe v. Wade, a states' rights issue that should never have been the purview of the courts. The pro-legal abortion crowd now control this country, and their single issue defines it, and threatens to derail any other business that may come before the courts or Congress.

I found it telling on Friday morning when one Democrat Senator on the Committee - I wish I could recall who, so that I could research and find the exact quote - said that Judge Kavanaugh's appointment would threaten the rights of all women to decide "whether they wish to become pregnant (emphasis added)."

That Senator presented the most cogent argument against legal abortion that could be made. Legal abortion is not about a woman's decision whether to become pregnant. That decision is made before the woman could "need" to have an abortion, and I would defend the right to make that decision vigorously. That's the problem with the whole abortion debate: if women (and men) would take more care in the decision whether to become pregnant, abortion would be unnecessary. Of course women (and men) should have the right to decide whether the woman becomes pregnant.

However, as the Curmudgeon has noted before, your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose. In other words, your rights are only rights to the extent they don't infringe on the rights of others. In other words, a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy ends at the point that it denies her (and the father's) unborn child of its fundamental right to life. As technology advances, the demonstrable viability of that life moves ever closer to conception.

That's what the Dems fear: the overturning of Roe v. Wade (a decision which, no matter how you feel about it, is unarguably a states' rights issue, if you know the first thing about the Constitution). There have been three hotly contested Supreme Court nominations in my lifetime: Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. All have involved the confirmation of a nominee to the Court who would replace a member of the majority in the Roe and Casey decisions. Justice Kennedy, who helped pen the majority opinion in Casey, vacated the seat that Judge Kavanaugh would fill. Enough said.

As for the FBI investigation in the coming week, I have no small concern related to the fact that this is the FBI of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, of James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Beyond that, if the scope is truly limited to the allegations made by Dr. Ford, it should be a slam-dunk. The FBI was given a copy of Dr. Ford's letter to Feinstein. They reviewed it, noted the lack of corroboration, and handed it off to the White House, saying the matter was closed. Like the prosecutor hired by the GOP to do their questioning on Thursday, the Fibbies determined that there was insufficient evidence to make a case or secure a search warrant. It shouldn't take them long to interview Dr. Ford, Mr. Judge, Judge Kavanaugh, and the others alleged to be present, and come to the same conclusion.

If the scope also includes the allegations of the classmate of Judge Kavanaugh's at Yale who claims he exposed himself to her, or the client of Stormy Daniels' attention-seeking lawyer who claims that Judge Kavanaugh presided over a series of ritualistic, drug-induced gang rapes while in high school, that shouldn't be hard to clear up either. Again, there is no corroboration whatsoever, and even the Democrats on the Judicial Committee didn't seek to go there, at least not with vigor.

So, if that's the extent of it, by next Friday we should be able to proceed to the first procedural vote on the Senate floor, Flake's vote securely in hand along with those of the other holdout Republicans, Collins and Murkowski, and perhaps even those of the three red-state Democrat Senators who are facing the fights of their political lives, Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly. (Although Donnelly has already stated he would oppose the nomination, before any evidence is presented.)

But that brings us to my final point. There are still people out there who can be bought. I fear that the Dems will succeed in securing three people, probably women in order to feed the current climate of identity politics, all liberal, all sympathetic to the cause, all anti-Trump, all pro-legal abortion, all seeking financial gain: one who attended high school with Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford, who might claim, for example, that she drove Dr. Ford home from the alleged party and witnessed her trauma. One who attended Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, who might claim that she witnessed him exposing himself. And one who knew Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and the third accuser, who claims she was witness to or victim of the alleged drug-fueled gang rapes.

Am I a cynic? Dr. Ford's GoFundMe page has raised over a half-million dollars. That's a powerful incentive for someone to testify in this hot mess, and that may be a drop in the bucket to what Feinstein and company would pay to preserve Roe v. Wade. (Feinstein's net worth is nearly $100 million.) Would you agree to testify against somebody for half a million bucks or more? GoFundMe could change "The Runaway Jury" from fiction to fact.

Here's what we know: most of the Democrat Senators on the Judicial Committee, and those not on the Committee, had decided to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court from the day he was nominated, or even before, vowing to oppose any Trump nominee. Justice Kennedy's resignation was a pucker moment for Leftists. Regardless of the outcome of an FBI investigation, they will oppose him. Even if Dr. Ford says she was lying to block his nomination, they will oppose him. This investigation is a delay tactic; nothing more.

I fear this cesspool will exude an even greater stench before the week is out, and we will see more ugliness in the form of "witnesses" who will "come forward," at the behest of Democrats and with their palms greased by the party machine and an unwitting, partisan public, and ultimately dismantle due process, and so undermine the very foundation of our system of government.

I hope I'm wrong. On only one other occasion in my life have I had so little confidence in our way of government, and thanks to the party I originally registered with prior to voting for Jimmy Carter in my first Presidential election, that confidence is about to hit a new low.

I can only say this: the implications for the Russian meddling investigation are writ large in this debacle. We need not worry about Russia interfering with and destroying our system of government. We're doing a damn fine enough job of that on our own.

If this is a circus, it's time to send out the clowns. Our next opportunity to do that comes in early November.

The Smell Test

So, not surprisingly, two more Kavanaugh accusers have come forward. Let's apply the smell test to this, shall we? You know, that test where, if something smells like poo ...

So the second accuser - after Dr. Christine Ford, who was probably recruited by Dianne Feinstein to accuse Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to remove her clothes at a party in 1982 - or was it 1983? or 1984? She just can't remember - has said that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while they were students at Yale.

Except she can't remember much about it, either. She admits she was drunk, and she can't recall for sure whether it was Kavanaugh, or someone else. Or when it happened.

Now, there's a third accuser. This one is quite the prize. First, she was introduced to the world by none other than Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, the sworn never-Trumper who has admitted to having presidential aspirations of his own.

Cory Booker, anyone? Please.

And second, her claims are ... well, incredible.

Before we get to that, let's move on to the smell test. Recall that, prior to Kavanaugh being selected by President Trump as a Supreme Court nominee, prominent Dems from Pelosi to Schumer to Durbin to Feinstein to Blumenthal (that guy makes cadavers look good, by the way) vowed to block any nominee Trump put forth. So they're predisposed to blocking any Trump nominee to the high court (which they proved with the Gorsuch nomination).

Trump nominates Kavanaugh. Those same Dems vow to vote against him, even before the confirmation hearings. So does Booker. So does Kamala Harris. So does the sexist pig from Hawaii. (I feel comfortable calling her that, because she recently said all men should shut up. If I said that about women, I'd be labeled a sexist pig. Ergo, she is a sexist pig.)

True to their word, the Dems throw every ludicrous tactic in their playbook at Kavanaugh during the joke of a confirmation hearing process, which is obviously nothing more than a campaign event; why else should Judicial Committee members have 30-minute opening statements, after all? From Kamala Harris' nothing-burger questions about some mysterious conversation about the Mueller investigation with a Trump lawyer that never took place, to Booker's ridiculous claims of a Spartacus Moment, nothing can shake Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh shines. He's a shoo-in. The most likely candidate to the bench since ... well, forever.

Then Dianne Feinstein reveals the letter from Dr. Christine Ford that she's supposedly had for several weeks. Except, as the Curmudgeon surmised in a recent post, she hadn't - it was likely recruited at the 11th hour, from a pink hat-wearing anti-Trump Feinstein constituent.

Ford demands an FBI investigation, except private citizens don't dictate what the FBI investigates, and the FBI certainly doesn't investigate half-baked, unfounded claims from 30 years ago. The FBI, having investigated Kavanaugh six times and found nothing untoward, declines. Ford demands that Kavanaugh testify first before the Judiciary Committee. Except that flies in the face of judicial practice. Ford demands that no lawyers can question her. Except that ignores the fact that the Senators on the committee know nothing about sexual harassment claims. (And thanks to her for sparing us that s***-show, of having a bunch of Democrat Senators use the questioning process to continue to campaign - can you imagine Cory Booker's tactics in that scenario?)

Committee Chairman Grassley schedules a hearing, one in which the Committee can hear from both Ford and Kavanaugh. He brings in a seasoned female lawyer with experience in such matters to do the questioning. He lets Kavanaugh go last, as is the case in any legal proceeding, where the defense presents its case only after the prosecution has laid down its arguments.

And Ford's lawyers have a pucker moment.

So in waltzes accuser #2, who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at Yale, except she's fuzzy on the details, like who it was that actually exposed himself to her, or what year it happened.

That looks like it's going to fall flat, so literally at the 11th hour - two days before the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing - a third accuser surfaces.

Brought forth by the aforementioned Trump-hating attention whore Avenatti. If you look up "smarmy" in the dictionary, you'll see his face. That alone taints her credibility.

But, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. She claims that Kavanaugh and his buddies spiked the punch at high school parties back in the day so that young women would get so drunk that the boys at the parties could gang-rape them.

A heinous accusation, and for the record, I'd never condone such behavior, or marginalize the trauma of any legitimate victim of it.

But again, let's apply the smell test. This accuser claims that she attended ten such parties where these gang-rapes occurred. Then, she went off to college. Then, she returned home and went to another such party, where she herself fell victim to this heinous act.

Let's be realistic. If you're a young woman in high school, and you attend a party where the boys spike the punch and gang-rape the girls, do you go back? Ten times? Isn't that a little like playing Russian roulette? And how many college kids go back to high school parties? Especially ones where they know this kind of activity is going on? Sorry, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Avenatti should have done a better job of client prep. Sure, spin your story, but don't make it so incredible as to be unbelievable.

Don't misconstrue me; I'd never say that a woman who put herself in that situation deserved what she got. But I will argue that no reasonable woman would put herself in that situation, ten times, and then again after she went off to college. I don't know any women who would do that. So I'm not condemning her for it having happened, I'm simply saying that it's highly, highly unlikely that it would have happened.

None of these claims are corroborated. True, Dr. Ford has people ready to testify on her behalf. But their testimony will be that she told them it happened. In the legal system, that's called hearsay, and it doesn't carry much weight. She's likely to be shredded in questioning by a competent attorney, one who has built a career on successfully prosecuting claims of sexual misconduct. Get that? She's got the best attorney she could have asking her questions, one that has a track record of getting convictions in these matters. But she's going to fall flat, because she has nothing to back her up but the claims of people who can testify to nothing other than that she told her story to them. It still does nothing to corroborate the story.

And what of the fact that she passed a polygraph? Sadly, most of America doesn't understand what a polygraph indicates, any more than they understand due process or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty - proven guilty, meaning that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. I personally know a man who was wrongfully convicted of a capital offense who was later exonerated. It happens.

A polygraph does not prove that an event took place. It can only validate that the subject believes that what they're saying is true. It's inadmissible in many jurisdictions. And it's only as good as the person administering the test. We don't know who that was, or what was asked. Could she pass a polygraph administered by an expert of Kavanaugh's lawyers' choosing? We don't know.

In the end, I don't know what will happen. This is what we've come to, and it's pathetic. I don't know why I even vote anymore. I vote for a candidate who will appoint qualified, originalist justices to the Supreme Court (and as I've noted before, I didn't vote for Trump), and he does what the voters wanted him to do, and then this crap happens. It's insanity, and it has nothing to do with democracy.

So if this is the world we now live in, I offer my services to the RNC. I will testify, under oath, that I have been sexually molested by any female Democrat candidate, nominee or appointee. As for the males, I will testify that I was present and observed them committing all manner of depravity. All you have to do is obtain their calendars, find open dates they can't account for, compare those with my calendar, and I'll testify that I was present, and was either a witness to or a victim of these events.

Apparently, this is the new battleground on which political wars will be waged, so I'm happy to do my part for the conservative cause. Perjury and ethics matter not to the Democrats, so they will no longer matter to me.

One caveat: I will not agree to admit to having been sexually assaulted by Nancy Pelosi. No matter how drunk I may have been at any point in my life, I do have standards.

"That's Not the Way This Works - That's Not the Way Any of This Works"

You know that TV ad for Fisher Investments, the one where Ken Fisher says, "I would die and go to hell before I'd sell an annuity?" Well, we'll get back to that.

Today, Prof. Christine Ford's lawyers let the 10am deadline for their client to decide whether to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday come and go, yet the spineless Committee Chairman didn't announce a hearing. Instead, they're letting her continue to ponder and delay, afraid of the Me Too backlash that might follow a decision to proceed to a vote without her.

True, it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, akin to a male horse straddling a barbed-wire fence. If they proceed, it will appear they didn't give her a chance to be heard - at least that's how the revisionist Dems will spin it, since she's had every chance to be heard.

But if they wait, they risk a full Senate vote on Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court being delayed until after the mid-terms, by which time the Democrats could control the House, the Senate, or, God forbid, both. Can you imagine Dianne Feinstein as Chair of the Judiciary Committee? I'm sure Lady Justice just wet herself at the thought.

Here are Dr. Ford's lawyers' demands related to the hearing - and what's wrong with each of them. I'll address their timing demand last.

1. No lawyers will question Dr. Ford, just Judiciary Committee members. Okay, fine, except that more than half the Committee members have law degrees. Beyond that, her lawyers have been prepping her non-stop, yet Kavanaugh has no idea what she's going to say (other than that she doesn't remember when or where the alleged incident happened, or how she got there or got home, or other key details). Thus he's had no opportunity for prep. So it might be nice if his lawyers had a chance to ask her questions. As it is, half the Committee members will be lobbing her softballs and trying to make her case for her, instead of having the accused's attorneys grill her, as happens in court. (I should know, I've been there. It's a disingenuous process, but it's equally disingenuous on both sides.)
2. Kavanaugh cannot be in the room. I don't understand why so many conservative pundits are okay with this one. It is a fundamental right for the accused to have the opportunity to face the accuser. In fact, it's why a lot of cases get dropped: the accuser doesn't want to be in the same courtroom with the accused, so they get cold feet. Granted, if Ford's claims are legit, she should be heard, but she should also understand that the rules are what they are, that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and therefore still has rights. Plus, she's had nearly four decades to grow a backbone. From a legal perspective, this one is a non-starter.
3. Kavanaugh has to testify first. No, no and no. This is also a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused. The defense always, always presents its case last. Why? Because the defense is responding to the claims of the accuser. Any idiot who knows nothing about the law, but has watched Law & Order, knows this.
4. As for the timing, she doesn't want to testify Monday, but to wait until Thursday. Why? Because a hearing held late in the week means that a vote won't take place until the following week. Why is that important? Because the longer they can delay this thing, the longer it will take before the full Senate can vote. And the longer that is delayed, the closer we get to the mid-terms.

As I'm writing this, Committee Chairman Grassley has offered to let Ford testify Wednesday at the latest, and has said that the offer is open until 10pm - 40 minutes from now - or a vote of the Committee will be held on Monday.

Feinstein says Ford "shouldn't be rushed." Well, supposedly she's known about this incident for 36 years (or 35 or 37, she's not sure), and supposedly Feinstein has known about it for a couple of months. Kavanaugh has known about the allegations for a week or so, yet he's ready to testify Monday.

The fact that Ford is not is all but proof that her allegations are unbased, that this is nothing more than a Democrat ploy to derail Kavanaugh's appointment to the high court. If she had anything on Kavanaugh, she'd be raring to go.

If a vote is held on Monday, it will go straight party-line: 11 to 10 in favor of the majority GOP. Then it would go to the Senate, where it likely would again narrowly pass.

There is considerable political calculus on both sides around what any possible scenario might mean for the mid-terms. If they proceed to a vote and Kavanaugh is appointed, the pink-hat brigade might come out in force and vote Democrat, giving that party control of Congress and derailing Trump's agenda for the next two years. (I wouldn't bet on it: the pink-hatters would vote anyway, and would vote Democrat across the board.)

If they don't proceed to a vote, the GOP might be viewed as weak and acquiescent, and those voters might vote Democrat. (That ain't happening, folks - you think after this debacle, the Democrats are going to gain voters? No, if this doesn't motivate the GOP and conservative independents such as myself come November, nothing will.)

It stinks, no matter which side of the aisle you're on. (Check that - if you're a Dem, you're too thick to get that this is nothing more than a ploy, and you're Kool-Aid drunk on Ford's accusation.)

I have to say I'm gravely disappointed in the GOP for not having the cojones to do the right thing and proceed to a vote. That decision should have been made at 10am, when Ford missed the first deadline to agree to testify Monday.

However - and this is where Ken Fisher's assertion comes into play - while the Curmudgeon has never been a party line voter, and in fact started out as a Democrat:

I would die and go to hell before I would ever again vote for a Democrat.

A Breaking News Bombshell

You heard it here first, folks. The Curmudgeon is in possession of independently verified, incontrovertible video evidence of the alleged incident that took place with Prof. Christine Ford back when she attended high school with Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Yes, that's right: this ultra-high-def cell phone video clearly shows what happened - and Kavanaugh was not in the room.

No, the young man in question was one Herbie Steinfeld, a classmate of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Further, the Curmudgeon has received a notarized statement from Mr. Steinfeld, who is now a deli owner and polka musician in Hoboken, confessing to the despicable act, along with the sworn statements of 11 witnesses to the event. Mr. Steinfeld has even taken a polygraph, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt his guilt, and Kavanaugh's innocence.

I will release this bombshell at high noon on Friday, September 21, to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the major networks, local TV, political bloggers, and YouTube. I will also post it here, on my blog, and share it on Facebook. I'd even share it on Instagram and Twitter if I had accounts.

Wait, you say - high-def video didn't exist when Ford and Kavanaugh were in high school, nor did cell phones. And there was no classmate of theirs named Herbie Steinfeld.

So what? I reply.

In this social media-fueled age where reporters, bloggers, politicians and private citizens make up shit, pass it off as fact for political gain with the most convenient timing, then refuse to provide support for their claims, why can't the Curmudgeon take the field of play?

Let's examine what we know of Dr. Ford. She's a far-left college professor who joined one of the Women's Marches protesting the election of Donald Trump. She's rumored to have received reviews from students claiming that she would come after them if they crossed her, though left-wing media outlets claim those rumors confuse her with another college professor of the same name.

Judge Kavanaugh's mother, also a judge, ruled in a bankruptcy case involving Dr. Ford's parents. Again, left-wing media outlets claim that the elder Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the case, allowing the Fords to settle with their bank and keep their home. (However, one might surmise that the family would still be pissed off at the bank, the prosecuting attorney - and yes, even the judge, for not hearing the case and ruling in the Fords' favor so that they might have been able to keep the house without having to pay the bank a settlement at all.)

We do know two things for certain: one, she didn't come out with her accusations at the time of the alleged incident, nor after, when she was reportedly a regular on the Dewey Beach, MD party scene. (She now says she doesn't like to be in public places as a result of the incident; that apparently didn't keep her from partying at a number of Dewey Beach bars back in the day.) Nor did she level her accusations when Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed to the Federal bench, nor when President Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court, nor when his confirmation hearings commenced.

(Now, her purported letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein was supposedly sent weeks ago, so one could argue that she did in fact come forward with her allegations prior to the hearings. More on that later. Suffice it to say that if it's true, Dr. Ford did not contact or pressure Sen. Feinstein to release the information prior to the hearings. Why?)

And two, Dr. Ford scrubbed her social media account prior to this story coming out. Again, why? What anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-Republican posts were on there? What photos of her being out in the very public she now claims to be afraid of as the result of her trauma were deleted? What pictures of her wearing her pink hat at an anti-Trump rally were erased?

Next question: why did Feinstein keep this letter under wraps until after the hearings were over - after all the theatrics manufactured by the left to forestall the hearings, from the obviously staged and utterly ridiculous protests, to Sen. Kamala Harris' mysterious nothing-burger questions regarding nonexistent conversations about the Mueller investigation with employees of a former Trump law firm, to Sen. Cory Booker's laughable Spartacus Moment?

The answer is obvious to anyone with half a brain, and if it isn't obvious to you ... well, that's telling you something. Own it.

Now, nearly everyone on the right - and more than a few on the left - are none too happy with Sen. Feinstein about sitting on the letter until the 11th hour, when she trumped it out (pun intended) in an effort to throw a hail Mary in the anti-Kavanaugh Super Bowl.

The Curmudgeon is not among those upset, however. Why, you may ask?

Simple. I don't believe the letter to Feinstein existed prior to the hearings.

Think about it: would the Dems have tried such pathetic means to derail the hearings as the protests, the Harris ploy, or the Spartacus Moment if they'd had a real, legitimate smoking gun in hand? We're talking logic here, people; work with me.

So why doesn't Feinstein release the letter now, as her GOP colleagues are demanding?

Again, simple: either it doesn't exist, or it's dated as of the day she first spoke of its existence.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least - in fact, I'd bet a substantial sum on it - that this is how it went down:

1. Trump nominates Kavanaugh.
2. The Dems start digging for dirt, and can't find any. The guy has been vetted by the Fibbies six times, and he's a choir boy.
3. The GOP schedules hearings.
4. The Dems seek any means possible, no matter how far-fetched, to delay the hearings until after the mid-terms, when they hope to have control of the Judiciary Committee or at least be able to block confirmation of a Trump nominee to the high Court. (Be careful what you wish for; how did that work out with the Merrick Garland gamble?)
5. The hearings commence.
6. The Dems trump out (again, pun intended) the protesters, Harris, Booker, and any other absurd attempt they can to derail the hearings.
7. Kavanaugh performs splendidly under fire. He'd make the Navy SEALs proud.
8. The confirmation vote looms. And then:
9. Feinstein, under pressure from Democrat voters and legislators who desperately seek to block Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court, orders her underlings to scour her constituent base for anyone who ever knew Brett Kavanaugh, at any point in his life. Someone who leans far right. Someone who opposes Kavanaugh's appointment to the bench. Someone who can be bought.
10. Feinstein's staffers believe they've struck gold when they find a high school classmate who's a liberal Palo Alto professor - lo and behold, a Californian, from whence Feinstein hails - who is anti-Trump to the point of owning a pink pussy hat, who has probably made numerous inflammatory uber-left social media posts (and is then instructed to wipe her social media presence - assisted in the task, in fact, by those staffers, who learned how to delete records during the Hillary Clinton era).
11. Said staffers draft a letter for the professor, who signs off on it after being assured that the Democrat establishment will run cover for her, and she'll never have to testify under oath.
12. Feinstein uses the letter in an attempt to postpone the confirmation vote until after the mid-terms, weighing careful political calculus that the GOP will have to take the allegations seriously or risk alienating female voters, gambling that Trump will tweet that Dr. Ford is a "dog," as he did about Omarosa, and seal the deal for the Dems in the mid-terms - all of this hinging on Feinstein's claim that the allegations were not made at the 11th hour, but were in fact made in a letter dated prior to the commencement of confirmation hearings.

(Conspiracy theory, you say? No more incredible than Dr. Ford's 11th hour claims of an incident that happened decades ago - in the current climate, far less incredible, in fact.)

Alas, two things happened: first, Trump's handlers have done a masterful job of keeping the Tweeter-In-Chief away from his phone. Maybe they've hid it, or deleted his Twitter account. And second?

The GOP called Feinstein's bluff, and demanded she produce the letter.

Which resulted in an oh-shit moment in the Senator's office on Capitol Hill - do I produce the letter, and have it come out that the letter was dated much later than I claimed? Or do I stonewall the GOP and refuse to produce it, thereby calling into question its veracity and further confirming that this is nothing more than a Democrat ploy as lame as those deployed during the confirmation hearings, if not more so?

Sen. Feinstein wisely chose the alternative with the best risk-reward profile, and stonewalled. And the stench began to waft.

Adding to that malodorous drift, we have Dr. Ford and her attorneys. (Sidebar: who's paying for those attorneys, anyway? A female professor at Palo Alto University earned an average $146,502 in 2016, so accounting for wage gains since then - thanks, President Trump, for those - Dr. Ford might be making about $155,000 now. Her husband is an engineer in Silicon Valley. But Palo Alto is a damned expensive place to live - I know, I have clients in the area. Could the Democrat Party be paying those lawyers? Hmmm.)

Dr. Ford initially agreed to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee. She subjected herself (reportedly) to a polygraph, and passed. (For the uninformed, polygraphs are not lie detector tests, are not infallible, are only as good as the person administering them - which we don't know in this case, if she did in fact submit to one and pass - and are not admissible as evidence in all jurisdictions.)

Then, the Committee said, "Okay, come testify, and Judge Kavanaugh can testify too." After all, in the American court system, the accused has the right to face the accuser.

Again, bluff called. Again, an oh-shit moment. Dr. Ford and her lawyers wanted none of that. Why? So what did they do? Demand the FBI investigate first.

Folks, we as private citizens do not get to demand what the FBI investigates and when they investigate it. If we did, the Curmudgeon would be a busy fellow, because he'd be demanding FBI investigations - real investigations, not politically scrubbed ones -  of Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, et al.

The FBI demurred. Why? Once again, simple: the FBI, or any other law enforcement agency, right down to your local gendarmerie, only investigates matters based on credible evidence. They don't have the resources to go chasing after every rabbit that some lunatic sends down a hole.

Another oh-shit moment came when, after the FBI's reluctance to pursue a foolhardy and unbased investigation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley stated that the Committee would proceed to a vote. Then, Ford's lawyers said, "Okay, we'll testify, but we want to delay the testimony, and we want the testimony done on our terms, and in a manner ensuring the safety of our client."

See, poor Dr. Ford has apparently been subject to death threats since this debacle unfolded. News flash: Judge Kavanaugh and his wife have also received death threats. As has Dianne Feinstein. As has Donald Trump, including from such credible threats as, say, Madonna. Rep. Scalise was shot by a far-left nutbag. Trump administration officials have been accosted at restaurants by angry mobsters.

Much as is the case with an FBI investigation, if the Senate calls you to testify, you don't get to dictate the terms or the timing. You go, you testify, or they subpoena you. (Question: why hasn't the Senate simply issued a subpoena to Dr. Ford, Sen. Feinstein, and anyone else involved? Answer: the swamp isn't drained yet.)

My bold prediction is that the hearing won't happen. The Dems will gamble that having a hearing with testimony from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh will only make Kavanaugh look better, and Ford worse. (And shame on Dianne Feinstein for dragging this woman through the mud, even if she herself is complicit.) The Committee will proceed to a vote. It will be close - closer than it should be for a jurist of Kavanaugh's impeccable credentials and character. And Dr. Christine Ford will be relegated to the Wikipedia footnote she is.

In the end, Brett Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court Justice, just as Clarence Thomas is, despite the eerily similar Anita Hill debacle. (If that had happened in the age of social media and 24/7 cable news, Justice Thomas might have never been confirmed.)

This is what we've come to. And to those on the left who think this is all legit, I say one of two things: shame on you; or damn, are you really that flipping stupid? We should all vote against every incumbent, because this thing stinks to highest heaven, on both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh's name has been unnecessarily and tragically dragged through the mud. His family has been affected. His wife has been threatened. His daughters have to listen to allegations that Daddy is a rapist.

Once the dust settles, I can only hope that Dr. Ford receives the prison sentence she deserves for lying to the Senate (which she won't, if she continues to refuse to testify; maybe her lawyers' demands for ensuring her safety have more to do with safety from prosecution, and less to do with the death threats she's received). Sen. Feinstein deserves a prison term too, for doing the same thing. No one is above the law, right?

And I hope that Judge Kavanaugh's family will sue the Fords to high heaven and back for slander and libel and defamation of character, and take them for every penny the Democrats have given them.

But he likely won't. The Brett Kavanaugh we've seen throughout his career, the Brett Kavanaugh the FBI has investigated six times, the Brett Kavanaugh who shined through a week of Washington theatrics, is above that.

Pre-Existing Conditions, and President Obama

Last week was week one of NFL football, and the left's favorite quarterback was watching from home, just like you and me.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, a lot of noise was made about "pre-existing conditions." Because Democrats govern by emotion, or more accurately, they campaign by preying on people's emotions, it may be useful to unpack this emotional issue.

Here's the scenario, at least as it's painted by the left: say an individual is chugging along through life, pursuing happiness as is her right. Then, life throws her a curve ball - she is diagnosed with cancer. Faced with staggering medical bills that she cannot hope to pay on her middle-class salary (even if it is up nearly 3% over the last year, and her tax burden is lower), she goes to get insurance coverage.

The heartless insurance company states that her cancer is a pre-existing condition (because ... well, it is, because she had the condition prior to her obtaining insurance), and excludes it from coverage. In other words, the insurer will cover any other medical expense she incurs, but it won't cover anything cancer-related, which is why she sought insurance in the first place.

That's unfair, the left cries, and the greedy insurance company is heartless and cruel. It should be forced to cover her cancer-related expenses, even if it is a pre-existing condition.

First, let's examine how the insurance game works. It's a lot like Vegas: insurers play the odds of different outcomes, and weigh the associated costs, then charge a premium that covers the insurance company in the event the odds go against them. Some of their insured customers will never get cancer or need surgery or incur any other major medical expense, so the insurance company collects premiums from those customers and never has to pay out any material benefits. Major win for the insurance company.

In the case of other insured customers, the customer in question will face major medical expenses, and the premiums they pay may not fully cover the benefits the insurer has to pay. So for those customers, the insurance company may lose money. However, if they average out the income and expense across all insureds, they earn a profit.

(I won't go into the topic of whether corporate profits are evil or excessive, other than to say two things. First, those insurance companies' stocks are likely owned by anyone with an IRA or a 401k that holds a diversified portfolio of mutual funds, so we should want them to earn a profit. If they don't, we can't retire. And second, if they don't at least break even, they'll go out of business, in which case no one will have insurance. One of the first things a prudent consumer of insurance does when choosing a firm - whether that consumer is an individual, a corporation providing insurance benefits to its employees, or a government exchange - is to scrutinize the financial health and well-being of the potential insurers. And that starts with their profitability.)

So this is why insurance companies ask questions about family history of cancer or heart disease, height and weight, tobacco use, etc. They're trying to bolster their odds, to optimize the trade-off between the likelihood of having to pay out benefits for major health issues against the premiums they'll charge. That's why they charge a higher premium for someone with a history of certain costly health issues than for someone without such a history.

(As an aside, part of why they do that is so that they don't wind up screwing those who manage their weight, have no family history of cancer or heart disease, etc., by charging them high premiums relative to their lower risk of having to receive benefits. Insurance companies have no obligation to make sure that high-risk customers pay low premiums at the expense of low-risk customers, nor should they. Otherwise, we'd all pig out on Oreos and Doritos.)

Having established how the insurance industry operates, and why and how they risk-weight different insureds, let's return to our scenario of the woman who's been diagnosed with cancer. There's one crucial element to her story that the left conveniently ignores:

She didn't have insurance to begin with, and only sought to obtain it after her cancer diagnosis.

That's the crux of the pre-existing conditions issue. By definition, a condition is only pre-existing if it existed before the afflicted sought to purchase insurance.

Now, the insurance companies could counter the higher risk posed by those who already have, say, cancer, and then apply for insurance, by charging them exorbitant premiums.

"Not fair!" cries the left. Well, what's the alternative? The alternative is to charge all consumers of insurance high premiums, to make up for the increased expense of having to pay out benefits to those who buy insurance only after being diagnosed with, in this case, cancer.

Well, as a reasonably healthy guy who doesn't have cancer, who keeps his high blood pressure under control with meds (that cost me money), who at least tries to manage the risk factors that could lead to greater risk of needing health insurance benefits, and has paid for health insurance since he finished graduate school and started working, that's not fair either.

See, those who seek insurance only after being diagnosed with a condition that would cost them a lot of money in medical bills are also playing the Vegas game. They're trying to keep as much of their money as they can by not having to pay insurance premiums, then, when life deals them a lousy hand in the form of a diagnosis that is going to cost them serious money, only then do they decide to shell out money for insurance premiums.

Meanwhile, those of us who are responsible and prudent, who know that some diseases and conditions, including cancer, don't discriminate, pay insurance premiums for what insurance is: insurance, against unforeseen risks. (Trust me, I'm in the risk management business; I know this stuff.) Should we have to pay higher premiums because someone else got to enjoy the savings of not having to pay for insurance as a hedge against unforeseen risk, then suddenly wants to buy it because life dealt them the cancer card?

Look, these situations are sad; I get that. And I don't have a good answer. Should the medical profession be expected to provide these people with care at a loss? Should we just let them die because they chose to play the odds by not paying for insurance until they needed it, and the odds rolled against them? I know good, smart people who have argued both sides of that debate, and again, I don't have a good answer.

What I do know is this: everyone should avail themselves of health insurance, even if at present they don't believe they'll ever need the benefits: they're young, they're healthy, etc. And if they choose not to, they can't hide behind the pre-existing conditions lament if they're denied insurance, or charged premiums that are actually in line with the risk they now present, now that they have a condition that will likely require significant outlays by the insurance company.

Consider an analogy from another aspect of the insurance industry. What if I were able to not have to buy auto or homeowners' insurance? (If you own a car, you're required by law to carry insurance, though some don't. And if you have a mortgage, as most homeowners do, you absolutely have to carry homeowners' insurance, or your mortgage lender will deny your loan application.)

So what if we let drivers and homeowners elect to not carry insurance? Then, when they get in a wreck, or a fire burns down their house, they buy insurance after the fact, and expect the premiums to be the same as for those who bought that coverage prior to an event that resulted in a claim?

That would drive up premiums for all of us auto and home owners, simply to subsidize those who elected to save the money from having to pay for insurance until they had a claim. Talk about not fair. If that were allowed, the left would collectively wet themselves.

Denying coverage for pre-existing conditions isn't heartless. Not being insured against potential future conditions that would require it is heartless, when we consider the impact on our fellow man. And more to the point, it's stupid.

*************************

President Obama recently hit the campaign trail on behalf of Dems seeking election or re-election in the mid-terms. In doing so, he departed from time-honored practices of former Presidents in avoiding a return to the political fray.

However, Obama is different from those other former Presidents in that, while he was an ineffective leader, he is a professional campaigner, and cannot resist the teleprompter, or the TV camera.

But the strategy may backfire. President Obama wrapped up Donald Trump and tied a bow around him, and delivered him to the Oval Office. Trump's victory in 2016 was a clear repudiation of eight years of driving America further and further left, of politics as usual, of "we won" and "I have a phone and a pen," of political correctness gone mad, of identity politics dividing America.

The more Obama speaks, the more he motivates the right and independents to vote to ensure that America does not return to those days. Even if some of us find ourselves smacking our heads, or at least shaking them, every time Trump opens his mouth, we know that a return to those days is unacceptable.

Meanwhile, those with whom Obama's message resonates were already going to vote Democrat anyway, and were already plenty motivated to get out that vote. So what does the left gain?

Nothing. The only winner is Obama, in that he once again has an audience, his ego once again gets stroked, he once again hears the roar of applause that so motivates him.

As for Obama's claim that the economy today is to his credit ... please. Let's look at his words: he told us that 2.5% GDP growth was going to be unattainable in the future, that we should get used to 1% output growth because that was the "new normal." So for him to claim that 4.2% GDP growth and 2.9% unemployment is all thanks to him is laughable.

(As the Curmudgeon has said too many times to count, we haven't had a new economy since we were all wearing animal skins and trading rocks.)

Look at his policies: this was the most business-unfriendly President in our lifetimes. He over-regulated big business and thwarted small business with claims that "you didn't build that." Does he seriously believe that he deserves credit for the trajectory of economic growth and prosperity today?

I'm usually the last one to attribute the performance of an economy or a stock market to a President, but consider this: the stock market began to rally in overnight trading after Trump was elected, and it hasn't stopped rallying since, even as Trump has rolled out tariffs that have produced market volatility. And again, looking at policies, things like tax cuts, rolling back regulations, promoting growth in various industries that had been stymied by Obama's policies, all those things lead directly to better economic and stock market performance.

So keep stumping, President Obama. You're the best hope the GOP has in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh and Kaepernick

That the left has contempt for the former and admiration for the latter tells us everything we need to know about the left.

First, regarding the Kavanaugh hearings. I watched most of it, including the questioning that went well into Wednesday evening. Here are my thoughts.

First, the itemized Cliff's Notes version:

1. Kavanaugh's nomination was a no-brainer. He is eminently qualified, perhaps more so than any nominee to the high court in recent memory.
2. The opening statements by the Committee members, and to a large degree, their questioning, amounted to nothing more than posturing for their constituents back home (and, in some notable instances, for a broader base of voters come 2020). They'd have been just as well-served to devote their allotted time to playing their re-election campaign ads over and over, and with the same intent.
3. At the end of the process, Kavanaugh will be the next Supreme Court justice. Bank on it.

So if items 1 and 3 are the buns, what's in the middle renders the whole process just one big s***burger.

(To this point, why do the Committee members need a 30-minute opening statement if their role is truly advise and consent? Proof positive that these hearings are all about campaigning, and nothing more.)

Now, a more in-depth look. First, Kavanaugh was clearly the sharpest legal mind in the room. (Of course, that may be damning with faint praise.) In fact, he may well have been the smartest person in the room.

He was certainly the most ethical.

Second, the seemingly endless stream of hysterical, screaming protesters are all idiots. Do you doubt my assertion that Democrats are the party of sore losers, that they can't accept the outcome of a free and fair election if their guy (or gal) doesn't win, or that they can't accept the outcome of a ballot referendum or state legislative vote if it doesn't go their way, and so expect the Supreme Court to legislate their wishes into law - even though that's not the way the system was designed to work?

Well, these clowns were living proof. They should have seen this handwriting on the wall when Hillary lost. And what did they think would be the effect of their nonsensical behavior? That anyone would be swayed in their confirmation vote? That Kavanaugh might not, at the end of the process and thanks to their incomprehensible screaming, be a Supreme Court justice?

Third, watching the proceedings unfold was like watching a football game, where the Dems are on offense and the GOP was on defense. The Dems tried to run between the tackles on pretty much every play. Well, pretty soon, that strategy becomes easy to read, and so the GOP committee members followed each of their Democrat counterparts' line of questioning with a very effective parry. In other words, they stuffed the run.

Then the Dems - rather than mix things up with an occasional play-action pass, jet sweep or bubble screen, tried a couple of over-the-top trick plays, something so obvious and that takes so long to develop, you know it's not going to work before the ball ever leaves the quarterback's hand. To wit:

• Kamala Harris' "mysterious" questions about whether Kavanaugh had ever talked about the Mueller investigation with someone from President Trump's former law firm. (Yes, she was knowingly lying when she referred to it as Trump's law firm, rather than the firm that used to represent him.) The implication would be that, if Kavanaugh had said to one of Trump's lawyers something like, "The Mueller investigation is a bunch of hooey, and if the President is smart, he'll fire Mueller and shut it down," that lawyer would then pass that comment along to Trump. Then Trump would nominate Kavanaugh to the bench, fire Mueller, and if that action were challenged, the Supreme Court would take it up and the votes would go Trump's way, with Kavanaugh the swing vote.

There are several problems with this scenario. First, such a case might never make it to the Supreme Court (though it likely would). Second, at least four other justices would have to feel the same way as Kavanaugh for a decision to go Trump's way - if that was, indeed, how Kavanaugh felt. Third, Brett Kavanaugh is clearly not the kind of guy to toss around careless opinions in casual conversation. And fourth -

There was no such conversation. And Harris knew it when she asked the question. Her intent was to make the ever-cautious Kavanaugh think she knew of some conversation, and appear guilty in his caution. Unfortunately, that play was whistled dead. If Harris had knowledge of such a conversation, she would have named the person and provided the evidence. She'd have had that person speak on Friday, when a number of people spoke in favor of or in opposition to Kavanaugh. Nice try, Kamala, but much ado about nothing.

• Cory Booker's hysterically pathetic "Spartacus" moment, when he declared that he'd risk being kicked out of the Senate for violating the rules by releasing "Committee confidential" emails that purportedly showed that Kavanaugh favors racial profiling. One problem: the "confidential" emails had already been cleared for release earlier that morning, thus they were no longer confidential, and Booker risked nothing by releasing them (kinda like Colin Kaepernick, but more on him later).

To make things even more comical, Booker then had to appear "mavericky" by releasing some emails that were still confidential. No matter, because - 

Not only did the released emails not show that Kavanaugh favors racial profiling, they showed that he does not. Are Booker's constituents really that stupid? For America's sake, let's hope the rest of us aren't, come 2020.

Finally, about those folks who were called to testify for and against Kavanaugh. Nearly everyone who spoke on his behalf was a respected legal mind, and a number of those were Democrats who voted for Hillary, but still recognize that, from a legal perspective, he's the best candidate for the job. And nearly everyone who spoke against him was someone who has a pre-existing medical condition, or had an abortion, who opined that Kavanaugh would take away their legal rights. Unfortunately, none of those people know a damn thing about the law, the role of the Supreme Court, or what constitutes a right under the Constitution. But the Democrats govern by emotion.

Congratulations, Justice Kavanaugh. You will serve America well.

*************************

On to Colin Kaepernick (I'm going to call him CK, because his name is a pain to type). His new Nike ad proclaims, "Believe in something - even if it means sacrificing everything."

Purely from a business perspective, this campaign is a major fail. Why? The target demographic of such an ad campaign still lives in their parents' basement, and can't afford shoelaces, much less shoes.

Okay, forget the fake ads that popped up after Nike announced its ad - you know, the ones featuring everybody from Pat Tillman to Tim Tebow to Donald Trump to Jesus. There's a more fundamental point to be made here:

What, pray tell, did CK actually sacrifice by taking a knee? At the time, his career was already in the toilet. He'd only won three games in his last two seasons, a death knell for any NFL QB. He was on the verge of being released.

In other words, like Cory Booker, CK sacrificed nothing. However, he gained something of considerable value: besides his payout from this Nike deal, he has become a household name, something few washed-up failures in the world of sport ever achieve.

For example, consider Jake Locker. Remember him? Me either. Locker played QB for the Washington Huskies, a perennial bowl contender. (CK played for Nevada. Yeah, Nevada, that college football powerhouse.) Locker was drafted by the Titans with the 8th overall pick in the 2011 NFL draft. (CK was picked 36th by the Niners.) Locker started for the Titans in 2012, but was hurt during that season. He finished the year with more INTs than TDs. Locker also started in 2013 but was again injured and didn't finish the season. In 2014, he was eventually benched, and in March 2015, he retired from football.

This is similar to the ignominy that CK "sacrificed." After a promising couple of seasons, including a Super Bowl appearance, CK's inconsistent play and behavioral issues resulted in his being relegated to a backup role behind fellow 2011 draftee Blaine Gabbert in 2016. He moved into the starting role in October, but the Niners kept losing. In a week 13 loss that year, CK threw for an impressive four yards - yes, four - before being benched again in favor of Gabbert.

Seeing the end of his career looming, CK chose to take a knee during the National Anthem, thereby sealing his place in history, rather than being relegated to the trash heap of failed NFL quarterbacks. He should thank Donald Trump every day for keeping his "legacy" alive.

So Nike's campaign is not only a fail in terms of target marketing, it's a fail in terms of the basis of fact. CK sacrificed nothing, yet he is a hero in the eyes of the left. In that, he is not dissimilar to Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.

Who knows, maybe one of them will select him as their running mate in 2020.

*************************

And finally, on to the anonymous op-ed writer in the New York Times. My theory is that the Times doesn't want to reveal the identity of the writer because they don't want us to know that the "high-level Trump administration official" is the guy (or gal) in charge of making sure there are enough paper clips at the White House meetings.

Several bookmakers are laying odds on who the culprit might be. I'll tell you definitively who it is not: Kelly, Mattis or Pompeo. Why? This is a chain of command breach that no former military person would commit.

Others have said it, so I won't belabor the point other than to say this: if you don't like your boss, quit. To undermine what your boss is doing, in a business context, is to jeopardize your career.

To do the same, when your boss is the Commander in Chief, is treason. Plain and simple.

This person is a hero only to the left - which, again, tells us everything we need to know about the left.

Why Hillary Lost - The Final Answer

After the Kansas primaries last month, a friend asked the Curmudgeon for a primary recap. I declined, as I'm not really qualified to analyze the primaries, especially across multiple states. I leave such work in the capable hands of people like Chris Stirewalt, who does an excellent job of it.

However, I've recently been musing (as I'm wont to do) over The Reason Hillary Lost. That topic, after all, has taken on such a life of its own that it warrants the capitalization of the phrase. Herewith, my thoughts, and the implications for the mid-terms.

The Captain Obvious answer is that Trump garnered more votes in the 2016 Presidential election.

I'm talking about electoral votes - you know, the ones that actually count. The Dems embrace the Electoral College when it suits them, but decry it when their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, because hey, they're the Party of Sore Losers. There is nothing Democratic about the Democrat Party. Democrats would prefer a dictatorship to a democratic republic, if the latter means that in some years, a Republican might get elected - see Bush, George W., and Trump, Donald J.

Yes, that's the Captain Obvious answer, kind of like when you hear sports analysts breaking down why team X beat team Y, and some bright pundit offers up that team X scored more points. Duh.

Hillary, of course, has her own myriad reasons: Russia, James Comey, Russia, sexism, Russia, the Deplorables, James Comey, etc., ad nauseum.

She'd never acknowledge that she was a flawed candidate, that she's one of the most polarizing political figures in American history (note: some would argue that Trump is polarizing; I'd say it's not Trump that's polarizing, it's we the people that are polarized, again because half of us can't accept the fact that you win some elections and you lose some), that her voice makes nails on a chalkboard sound like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, that she has a history of corruption that makes John Gotti look like Mother Teresa, that she's a self-enriching carpetbagger who wanted to be President not for America's sake but for hers, or that she's an elitist who looks down on most of America with disdain.

However, none of those things are the real reason she lost.

Most political pundits - at least those who don't carry the bias of the left, which cites the reasons Hillary herself drones endlessly on about - agree that it's because she ran a flawed campaign. She didn't visit states like Wisconsin, which are generally blue, but which Trump campaigned in, and won.

That's true - but it's not the real reason she lost.

Hillary lost for another Captain Obvious reason, but it's the only important one:

Hillary lost because Trump beat her.

It wasn't so much about what Hillary didn't do as what Trump did, and I'm not talking about the states they each campaigned in. To make it about "why Hillary lost" is to imply that the election was hers for the taking, her right, if you will. No, it was a contest of two opponents, and one beat the other. It's not so much about why she lost as it is about why he won.

Let's go back to our sports analogy. If you're a football fan, nothing raises your ire more than to see your team beat another team, then have that team's fans lament, "We beat ourselves." (Democrats would blame the refs.)

In my experience, the only sport in which you can beat yourself is eight-ball (if that qualifies as a sport), by accidentally sinking the eight-ball before you've cleared your solids or stripes off the table. In other sports, it's about which team makes the fewest errors, or forces the most. Errors are part of the game, whether we're talking about football, politics or life, so one can't really "beat oneself" in those contests.

I came to this conclusion while watching a Trump rally (I don't recall where it was, and it doesn't really matter, because they're all the same for purposes of this analysis). I find his rallies cringe-worthy, laughable and awe-inspiring, all at the same time.

Cringe-worthy, because you never know what's going to come out of the man's mouth, and sometimes it just makes you cringe, or at least shake your head.

Laughable, because some of what he says is just plain ridiculous. Other things he says are outright funny, unless you're a Democrat, in which case you're perpetually angry, and in the words of Greg Gutfeld, being mad only leads to madness.

And awe-inspiring, certainly not because I'm in awe of the man, but because I've never seen a political figure work his base so masterfully. And I've seen some good ones. Reagan was an inspired speaker, and Obama also cut a pretty phrase. JFK likewise was an excellent orator.

But Trump speaks to his base more effectively than any of them. He speaks to their anger, their fears, their frustrations, their experience from the recent economic crisis, their disgust with our politically correct, identity politics-driven, partisan, obstructionist system of government.

That's why Hillary lost - because Trump won, because he's far more effective at tuning in to where so many Americans' heads are at. Not racism; that's just an excuse on the part of the left. I know many who voted for Trump, and there's not a racist among them (but I know a number of racists who voted for Hillary). Not sexism, another leftist excuse, because I know many women who voted for Trump.

We're talking about the broad swath of everyday Americans who live between the coasts who are sick and tired of politics as usual, who are kind, loving, tolerant, but want America to be America, who don't want a President who apologizes for America, who want fair trade and security and open markets and secure borders and equal opportunity for all, but not equal stuff for all.

(As an aside, while it saddens me that Meghan McCain made her father's funeral about Trump, I'm glad she made her comment about America having always been great. That's an important lesson for President Obama, who was in the audience, and who did apologize to the world for America being great. It is precisely to that matter that Trump speaks when he speaks of making America great again: he's talking about reminding Americans that America is great, so that we believe she is great again, like we used to.)

So what does that mean for the mid-terms? The Dems talk of rallying huge turnout at the polls in November, of a Blue Wave. However, there is no one on the left who is as effective at reaching the Democrat base as Donald Trump is at reaching the GOP base.

Certainly not the young Socialist candidate from New York, who can't articulate what Socialism is or why she campaigns as one, or even answer a simple foreign policy question. And not Andrew Cuomo, who also said America has never been great (then completely fumbled his retraction), and who can't even hold his own in a debate with a sitcom actress. To be fair, most of the voters who support those candidates don't understand the differences between Socialism and Capitalism either. They just like the "D" after their names, and the promises of free this-and-that.

However, the more the left trumps out (see what I did there?) candidates who lean so far left they make Bernie Sanders look like Richard Nixon, or bat-poo crazy candidates like Cuomo, the better the GOP's chances. But Trump is the real key to the mid-terms.

Just look at the primaries, or look at the Congressional and gubernatorial contests in 2016. For all his flaws, Trump has a pretty strong coat-tails effect. Combine that with his ability to rally the base, and we could be looking at a Red Wave in November instead of a Blue one.

But hey, the polls can't be wrong - can they? 😉