Mediaboss Marketing

Christine Blasey Ford had just revealed her identity and was prepared to testify in public, detailing her allegations that Kavanaugh had tried to sexual assault her more than three decades ago. On top of that, a New Yorker article had just revealed that a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, was accusing Kavanaugh of exposing his genitals to her while they were college students.

Then came Michael Avenatti.

She also alleged that at some parties, boys lined up by a bedroom to "gang-rape" incapacitated girls and claimed those in the lineup included Kavanaugh and Judge. But she did not say Kavanaugh or Judge assaulted the girls in the bedroom, nor did she provide the names of corroborating witnesses.

Kavanaugh furiously denied the allegations.

But the eye-popping nature of those claims suddenly gave Republicans an opportunity to shift the narrative away from Ford's allegations and make a broader case that the growing accusations of sexual misconduct amounted to an orchestrated Democratic smear campaign, something Sen. Susan Collins, the swing GOP vote, cited herself when announcing she'd be the decisive vote to support Kavanaugh's confirmation.

A host of Democratic senators and senior aides told CNN that the allegations from Avenatti's client gave the GOP an opening to conflate -- and dismiss -- all the allegations in one broad brush.

"Well you know at some point there were a lot of folks coming forward making all sorts of accusations," said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, when asked about the allegations raised by Avenatti and his client. "It turns it into a circus atmosphere and certainly that's not where we should be."

Asked if Avenatti was helpful, Peters said: "I think we should have focused on the serious allegations that certainly appeared very credible to me that would be our best course of action."

Privately, the assessment was far more scathing.

"Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

A Democratic senator, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, said: "Not helpful at all. I think Susan was always yes, but Avenatti was a useful foil."

Reached for comment Saturday, Avenatti pushed back, criticizing anonymous Democrats as "cowards" and saying the assessment shows the "failed leadership" in the Democratic Party.

"It is outrageous that these so-called Democrats would attack a sexual assault victim from coming forward," Avenatti told CNN. "I guess their position is that she should have shut her mouth and remained silent? It is disgusting that these cowards blame my client and the other accusers from coming forward.""

Avenatti, who represented Daniels, the porn actress who was paid by Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen in the 2016 campaign to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump, has furiously criticized the FBI for not investigating the allegations, saying Swetnick would be willing to testify under oath about her claims.

In a statement released on Sunday, Swetnick said Collins "does not deserve to represent women" and that her allegations deserved an investigation.

"My allegations should have been investigated. I know of multiple corroborating witnesses and we were all prepared to speak with the FBI as we made known for weeks," the statement read.

Swetnick went on to say that key Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee "purposely prevented any inquiry into my claims and those of other sexual assault victims in the interest of politics."

While Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the allegation once they were made public to call for the confirmation to ground to a halt, other Democrats quickly distanced themselves from the allegation, choosing instead to keep the focus on Ford's claims -- and a lesser extent, Ramirez's.

And on Friday when she announced her critical decision to give Kavanaugh the votes to confirm his nomination, Collins called the allegation "outlandish" without "any credible supporting evidence."

"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important," Collins said on the floor. "I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape."

Avenatti sharply criticized Collins -- and Democrats, as well.

"How do they know her claims, supported by six witnesses were not credible?" Avenatti said. "They did basically nothing to find out."

Many Democrats did not know what to make of the claims made by Avenatti's client. In particular, Democrats pointed to more than 1,000 pages of FBI tips on Kavanaugh that poured in and were never investigated -- some of which, they said, could have been credible. They said Swetnick's could well be credible -- or perhaps not.

"I just step back and I just look at the totality -- this was not attempted to be a serious process," said Sen. Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts, when asked if Avenatti was helpful to the case against Kavanaugh. He called the FBI probe a "coverup" directed by the White House

"I just consider this to be a larger story," Markey said, when asked again about Avenatti's clients came.

Peters said some Republicans pointed to the Swetnick allegations "to distract from the task at hand, which is really about pursuing what are serious allegations, and one that seemed to be credible.

"So there are always efforts whenever you dealing with a serious issue like this, that people want to change the discussion and have everybody chanse another different shiny object," Peters said. "Our job in the Senate, and it should have been the job of the FBI too, is to focus on those that are credible."

One Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee privately was more direct.

"It wasn't helpful because the story became about Avenatti," the Democratic senator said.

Avenatti, who headlined an Ohio fundraiser Friday and is considering running for president in 2020, said he wears that Democratic criticism with a "badge of honor."

"Many establishment Democrats are concerned because they see me as a threat," Avenatti said.

CNN's Devan Cole contributed to this report.

See more here:
Democrats say Michael Avenatti undercut their case against ...

Donald J. Trump, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Oct. 10, 2018 | Updated 3:45 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2018

President Donald Trump(Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Throughout the year, we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around a new legislative proposal that would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.

Dishonestly called Medicare for All, the Democratic proposal would establish a government-run, single-payer health care system that eliminates all private and employer-based health care plans and would costan astonishing $32.6trillionduring its first 10 years.

As a candidate, I promised that we would protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions and create new health care insurance options that would lower premiums.I have kept that promise, and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down.

STANDARDS EDITOR: Medicare op-ed and all the reaction show democracy in action

Related: Factcheck.org has looked into statements made in this column.

I also made a solemn promise to our great seniors to protect Medicare. That is why I am fighting so hard against theDemocrats' plan that would eviscerate Medicare.Democrats have already harmed seniors by slashing Medicare by more than $800 billionover 10 years to pay for Obamacare.Likewise, Democrats wouldgut Medicare with their planned government takeover of American health care.

The Democrats' plan means that after a life of hard work and sacrifice, seniors would no longer be able to depend on the benefits they were promised. By eliminating Medicare as a program for seniors, and outlawing the ability of Americans to enroll in private and employer-based plans, the Democraticplan would inevitably lead to the massive rationing of health care. Doctors and hospitals would be put out of business. Seniors would lose access to their favorite doctors. There would be long wait lines for appointments and procedures. Previously covered care would effectively be denied.

In practice, the Democratic Partys so-called Medicare for Allwould really be Medicare for None. Under the Democrats' plan, todays Medicare would be forced to die.

The Democrats' plan also would meanthe end of choice for seniors over their own health care decisions. Instead, Democrats would give total power and control over seniors health care decisions to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

More: Donald Trump knows nothing about Medicare, health care or Democrats: Talker

My family escaped socialism, now my fellow Democrats think we should move the party in its direction

Bernie Sanders: Trump lies about 'Medicare for All' and he's made health care worse

The first thing the Democratic plan will do to end choice for seniors is eliminate Medicare Advantage plans for about 20 million seniors as well as eliminate other private health plans that seniors currently use to supplement their Medicare coverage.

Next, the Democrats would eliminate every Americans private and employer-based health plan. It is right there in their proposed legislation: Democrats outlaw private health plansthat offer the same benefits as the government plan.

Americans might think that such an extreme, anti-senior, anti-choiceand anti-consumerproposal for government-run health care would find little support among Democrats in Congress.

Unfortunately, they would be wrong:123 Democrats in the House of Representatives 64percent of House Democratsas well as 15Democrats in the Senatehave already formally co-sponsored this legislation. Democratic nominees for governor in Florida, Californiaand Maryland are all campaigning in support of it, as are many Democratic congressional candidates.

The truth is that the centrist Democratic Party is dead. The new Democrats are radical socialists who want to model Americas economy after Venezuela.

If Democrats win control of Congress this November, we will come dangerously closer to socialism in America. Government-run health care is just the beginning. Democrats are also pushing massive government control of education, private-sector businessesand other major sectors of the U.S.economy.

Every single citizen will be harmed by such a radical shift in American culture and life. Virtually everywhere it has been tried, socialism has brought suffering, miseryand decay.

Indeed, the Democrats' commitment to government-run health care is all the more menacing to our seniors and our economy when paired with someDemocrats' absolute commitment to endenforcement of our immigration laws by abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That means millions more would cross our borders illegally and take advantage of health care paid for by American taxpayers.

Todays Democratic Party is for open-borders socialism. This radical agendawould destroy American prosperity. Under itsvision, costs will spiral out of control. Taxes will skyrocket. And Democrats will seek to slash budgets for seniors Medicare, Social Securityand defense.

Republicans believe that a Medicare program that was created for seniors and paid for by seniors their entire lives should always be protected and preserved. I am committed to resolutely defending Medicare and Social Security from the radical socialist plans of the Democrats. For the sake of our country, our prosperity, our seniorsand all Americans this is a fight we must win.

Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States. Follow him on Twitter:@realDonaldTrump

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/

Read more here:
Donald Trump column: Democrats are for 'open-borders ...

Ask any casual observer what the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation fight is about, and the answer will be the allegation that at a high school party 36 years ago, when Kavanaugh was 17, he drunkenly forced then-15-year-old Christine Ford onto a bed, tried to undress her and, when she tried to scream, covered her mouth with his hand.

That is now old news. In recent days, immediately after Senate Republicans and President Trump agreed to Democratic demands that the FBI investigate the 1982 incident, the Kavanaugh goal posts have moved dramatically. Now, a key issue is Kavanaugh's teenage drinking, and whether he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was asked about his drinking practices both in high school and at Yale University.

"Lying to Congress is a federal crime," Sen. Bernie Sanders noted in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. "Kavanaugh's truthfulness with the Senate goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court."

The new developments raised two questions. One, did Kavanaugh actually lie to the Senate about his drinking? And two, why are Democrats, now that they have finally won the FBI investigation they wanted into the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, suddenly making a bigger deal of his drinking?

On the first, Kavanaugh clearly told the Senate he drank in high school and college. He told the Senate he sometimes drank to excess. But he said he did not black out, nor did he drink so much that he could not remember events that took place while he was drinking.

"I drank beer with my friends," Kavanaugh testified. "Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."

That was pretty clear. Kavanaugh repeated it when the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, pressed him on whether he sometimes drank so much that he forgot what he did when he was drinking.

"Have you ever passed out from drinking?"

"I -- passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but -- but I've never blacked out," Kavanaugh said. "That's the -- that's the -- the allegation, and that -- that -- that's wrong."

Some Democrats and their allies in the press suggested Kavanaugh lied in his exchanges with Mitchell and the Democratic senators. But how? Kavanaugh was quite open about the fact that he drank in high school and in college, and also about the fact that he sometimes drank too much. He denied having alcohol-related blackouts, but said he had "gone to sleep" after drinking. On another occasion, responding to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, he said "I don't know" when asked if he had ever drunk so much that he didn't remember what happened the night before. It's hard to see where the "federal crime," as Sen. Sanders put it, is in that testimony.

But The Washington Post reported that "many Democrats have called for the FBI to take a broader look at whether Kavanaugh may have misled senators by minimizing his carousing behavior in high school and college." In particular, Democrats want to press the question of whether Kavanaugh ever blacked out from having too much to drink.

Why? The answer is the theory behind the Democratic attacks on Kavanaugh.

The most serious allegation against Kavanaugh is, of course, Christine Ford's. Kavanaugh has strongly and unequivocally denied it. The problem for Democrats is that there is no contemporaneous evidence to support Ford's claim. By her own account, Ford told no one of what happened at the time. She told no one in the next few years. No one in the next few decades. No one for 30 years, until, in 2012, when Ford says she told her therapist what had happened to her long ago.

The people Ford claims were at the home where she says Kavanaugh attacked her, including one close friend of Ford's, have said they have no memories that support her account.

So the Ford case is quite hard to make. And that is where, for Democrats, Kavanaugh's supposed blackouts come in. With no contemporaneous evidence that the Ford attack happened, Democrats are trying to make the case that it could have happened. What if Kavanaugh got drunk, attacked Ford and later didn't remember that he did it?

That is the theory behind some Democratic senators' questioning of Kavanaugh last week. The idea was to get Kavanaugh to admit alcohol-induced memory loss and thus undermine his firm contention that he did not do what Ford alleged. How could he really know? He himself admitted that he sometimes drank so much he couldn't remember what happened the night before. He could have attacked Christine Ford in an alcoholic blackout and never remember that he did it.

The problem, of course, is that is all anti-Kavanaugh theorizing. There's no evidence to support it, just as there is no evidence beyond Christine Ford's word to support the original attack allegation. But it's what Democrats have to work with right now, and it's why they are trying to change the subject from sexual misconduct to Kavanaugh's teenage drinking.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Read more here:
In Kavanaugh Fight, Democrats Move Goal Posts Far, Far Away

Which topics dominated this year's legislative session? Here are some of the top issues that defined a tumultuous season at the Iowa Capitol. Michael Zamora, mzamora@dmreg.com

Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives Linda Upmeyer opens the legislative session Monday, Jan. 8, 2018.(Photo: Zach Boyden-Holmes/The Register)Buy Photo

Iowa Democrats are convinced they canflip the Republican-controlled state House on Nov. 6, with a path to victory running through the suburbs around the states largest cities.

Republicans wave off that idea. In the final weeks before theelection, they're highlightingwhat they see as the strength of their candidates and a winningstrategyfor picking up seats.

"I absolutely never take elections for granted, but I feel really good about this year's crop of candidates," said House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, a Clear Lake Republican. "I feel good about theelection."

In the Des Moines suburb of Ankeny, Democrat Heather Matson is also feeling good. She's spending her days organizing an Iowa House campaign race against Rep. Kevin Koester, an Ankeny Republican whos held his district seat for nearly a decade.

In some ways, Matsons bid for thedistrict is a long shot. She unsuccessfully challenged Koester in 2016, when he won re-election with more than 52 percent of the vote against threecandidates.

Matson thinks 2018 will be different, and not just because Democrats could soon have more registered voters in the district.

Its more of a feeling that voters are overall frustrated with whats going on at the Capitol," she said.

Democrats must secure10new seats to overtake the GOP's 59-membermajority. Even reducing the GOP lead could alsogive the minority party more voting leverageon future legislation.

Democrats say their confidence comes from voter registration shifts inareas some nestled around Des Moines and Cedar Rapids that have been trending blue in recent elections. They're also hopeful an exodus of Republican incumbents will create more competitive races. They note inroads with voter turnout in recent special election races.

The minority party also insists theyre just more riled up.

They gave Donald Trump some of the credit or blame for their energy.

But Democrats also say the Iowa Senate, which Republicans flipped in 2016, has inspired them.

The 2016 election brought a GOP trifecta to the Iowa Legislature the first in nearly two decades.

The Republicans used their power to pass:

JenniferKonfrst, a second-time Democratic candidate seeking an open district seat in the Windsor Heights area outside of Des Moines, said there's a theme emerging from herdoor-knocking.

Some voters I've talked with feel that having one party in control of everything has not been beneficial for the state," she said.

Iowa Democrats have 95 candidates a mix ofincumbents and challengersrunning for seatsin the 100-member chamber, the most in at least 30 years. Republicans will have 78.

Speaker of the House Linda L. Upmeyer gavels in the 2017 session of the 87th General Assembly of the Iowa House of Representatives Monday, Jan. 9, 2017, at the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa. Upmeyer's family health insurance plan costs the state $19,788 a year. She pays $240 a year in premiums.(Photo: Rodney White/The Register)

Iowa Republicans, who have controlled the House since 2011, aren't buying the hype. They noteIowa Democrats failed to flip any special election races after the 2016 election.

Upmeyer said GOP-led policies in Iowa on education, health care andtax cutsgive the party a winning message on the campaign trail. She added that Koester, the Ankeny Republican,and other suburban GOP lawmakers have long succeeded among voters with shiftingparty affiliations. Those same legislators have received more votes than national Republicans like Trump and U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst.

They've worked hard, historically, for their constituents, and I don't think their constituents believe there's any reason to make changes there," Upmeyer said.

Republicans also see the possibility to pad their majority in the House.

That hope runs through districts like the one in Fort Dodge,where longtime Democratic Rep. Helen Miller announced her retirement earlier this year.

Ann Meyer, the Republicancandidate and a longtime nurse, believes she's positioned to win against Democrat and physician Megan Srinivas.Meyer has focused her campaign on health care. Srinivas has also made the issue a central topic of her campaign. Meyer estimates she's knocked on thousands of doors, too.

"I feel like I'm in a good position," she said."I don't feel like I have it wrapped it up, by any means, and I plan to continue to work hard."

Thefuture control ofIowa's statehousehas received some nationalattention, a trend around the country thatprobably won't go away after the 2018 election. Former President Barack Obama has publiclyendorsed a handful of Democratic candidates for state House and Senate in Iowa.

Separately, national Democratic-leaning organizations have announced support for some House and Senate candidates in Iowa. Presidential hopefuls visiting the first-in-the-nationcaucus statehave also scheduled events withstate-level candidates.

It's a pattern that shows the growing political weight of statehouses, saidGreg Shufeldt, an assistant professor of political science at Butler University in Indianapolis. He saidIowa is one of34 states around the country, as of September, where one party has complete a government control. Republicans hold 26of those capitols.

"With increasing gridlock and growing dissatisfaction with the job that Congress is doing, and the level of polarization that we're seeing in Washington, more and more action is happening to the states," Shufeldtsaid."It's increasing the attention that is getting placed onstate government and the battle for control of state legislatures."

In the end, statehouse races could come down to how people feel about Trump. The presidentwon Iowa by roughly 9 percentage points in 2016, after the state had voted for Obama twice. Iowa Republicans have oftenstood behind Trump, even amid a growing trade war that the president has led against China.

LeAnn Hughes, a Republican businesswomantrying to unseat Democratic Rep.Charlie McConkey in a district covering Council Bluffs, says she gets a lot of feedbackabout the presidentwhen she's outdoor-knocking. It's all positive, she said, with a focus on the growing economy and the federal tax cuts.

"The exciting things that the president is getting done right now is one of the things that I hear all the time," she said. "I think it's absolutely going to come down to what the president has accomplished."

Read or Share this story: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/03/iowa-democrats-midterms-politics-momentum-chamber-flip-republicans-house-trump-upmeyer-candidates/1351519002/

Excerpt from:
Democrats, tired of GOP control, think they can flip the Iowa ...

By Barbara Ellestad

For years weve heard all about the republican war on women. It pales in comparison to what democrats are now doing to women.

Barbara Ellestad

The democrats are now taking the pain, the shame, and the horrid memories I have of a lifetime of abuse and weaponized it for their own political gain.

How dare they.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) withheld, on purpose, an allegation of sexual abuse against a person she and all the other democrats vowed they would fight to the end. She and all other democratic women and all the male democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee vowed from day one, actually before day one, that they would do everything they could to stop any Supreme Court nominee no matter who it was.

It didnt matter if it was female or male. The democrats vowed to bring the nominee down and destroy him/her/it/she/he/who cares.

The democrats have weaponized my personal pain and reduced it to nothing more than a blip on their way to whatever their political goal is.

The party, who for years has touted their being as the party for women and against the party that destroys women, has now taken upon themselves to destroy whichever women they can bring out of the hinterlands, in the name of blocking a persons nomination to the Supreme Court.

Ah, you say. The Supreme Court nominee isnt a woman. Youre right. I wasnt speaking to the high court nominee. The person the democrats are destroying is in fact the female accuser(s). Think about that.

Interestingly, they arent so ready to do that with their own men who have actual evidence of alleged or proved abuse against him. If you are a democrat can you dare say the name Keith Ellison? If youre a democrat can you dare say Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick in the same sentence? If youre a democrat can you dare say the names Harvey Weinstein and Kristin Gillibrand together?

Feinstein held on to information for two months that she knew she was going to use to throw the entire political system into a maelstrom. And, she did it on purpose. At the very last minute. Not to help the abused but to score political gain.

How does that help women?

Feinstein, and other democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, held the most personal, most damaging, charge a person can make against another person until after a fair hearing could be conducted, all the while knowing the individual (the abused not the abuser) would be further damaged emotionally, psychologically, perhaps even physically, when the story came out.

Talk about weaponizing sexual allegations and women!

But the democrats dont care if the allegations are true. If they did care about truth, if they really wanted a fair investigation, Feinstein would have brought it up two months ago. No, her answer now is, lets delay this and delay this and delay All the while holding a woman hostage to the democrats shenanigans.

Feinstein and the female democratic senators from Hawaii and New York and wherever else, dont give a damn about the woman (women) who is (are) accusing a Supreme Court Justice nominee of sexual abuse. The democratic women only care about their political ambitions. Feinstein, in particular, is in a close race for her seat not by a republican, but by a democrat.

If Feinstein and the other female and male democrats really cared about me as a woman, she and the others never would have made the current situation such a political circus.

But she and the other democrats dont really care about me. They care about getting re-elected.

Period. End of story.

I, and all other women, am just a pawn in their game.

I intentionally didnt use the name of the current Supreme Court Justice nominee because it doesnt matter who the individual is. Throw the name Betsy Jones, Sally Smith, Judy Walker in there. It wouldnt make a difference. All that matters to the democrats is delaying, preventing, winning.

I have survived a lifetime of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse from men. I didnt win my war because some politician said she was on my side. I won the war because I believed in myself.

I find it extremely offensive that the democrats, especially democratic women, now want to use my pain, my horrid experiences, my lifetime of recovery to politicize their run for the power.

All the democrats want to do now is make women a part of the same beaten down, you-cant do this-on-your own-class that they have done to so many others. You need me to win your battles, the democrats say.

No. I dont.

I need me and I need my higher up. Whomever I want that to be.

The female senator from Hawaii went on national television and said to the effect these men (republicans) are not protecting us.

Thats when my head twirled a good 360 degrees.

Wait, wait, wait a minute. Here you democratic women are trying to tell me that I dont need a man to tell me how to vote, and if I listen to my father, husband, brother, boss, telling me how to vote (that would be Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama) well, see, theres the problem with you damn women who think you can think for yourself.

I rarely ever listened to my father, I dont listen to my brother about anything, I havent had a boss is 25 years, and my husband died four years ago. Now what is my excuse for thinking on my own?

And then, the same democratic women turn around and tell me that as a woman I need a man to protect me.

Didnt you democratic women just tell me that men are the problem?

And then you turn around and tell me that I need a man to protect me?

Jeezo, peezo.

I guess thats the way the democratic war on women works.

Im smarter than that.

If the democrats really cared about me as a woman, they would never, ever think about weaponizing sexual abuse as a way to get their way.

Barbara Ellestad is a reporter for the Mesquite Local News. She is the former owner and publisher of the Mesquite Citizen Journal. She is a retired active duty U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sergeant (E-9).

Follow this link:
Column: Democrats war on women