Christine Ford Full Opening Testimony

[www.foxnews.com]

Sep. 27, 2018 - In opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford testifies that she believed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was going to rape her and accidentally kill her in 1982.

Christine Blasey Ford's changing Kavanaugh assault story leaves her short on credibility

Put aside Christine Blasey Ford's emotional performance. Her testimony revealed her as a witness whose memories change at her convenience

[www.usatoday.com]

When Christine Blasey Ford testified last week before the Judiciary Committee, America witnessed a haunted woman recounting a devastating trauma. But putting aside Ford’s emotional performance and focusing instead on the professor’s testimony reveals numerous inconsistencies in her narrative that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

As a sex-crimes prosecutor, Republican questioner Rachel Mitchell is well-positioned to “know it when she sees it.” But rather than see Ford as a victim of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh, Mitchell saw her as a witness lacking in credibility. And this conclusion comes from an expert who knows that there are many reasons victims delay reporting sexual abuse. Mitchell also recognized that victims may legitimately not remember certain details related to an attack.

But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience.

First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Ford's story changed in key ways

Ford’s retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapist’s notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)

Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that “there were four boys I remember specifically being there,” in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.

Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: “I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.” Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.

3 big questions hanging after Christine Blasey Ford's testimony on Brett Kavanaugh

Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.

These four points are significant. First, because Ford had waited 30-plus years to report the purported attack, a therapist’s notes from Ford's sessions with her husband countered claims that Ford had invented the assault to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But the notes did not name Ford’s attacker. And the timing of the assault summarized by her therapist, whom Ford saw individually the following year, conflicted with Ford’s current claims against Kavanaugh.

The final three contradictions are even more significant because in each circumstance Ford altered her story only after Kavanaugh and Senate investigators had obtained evidence to disprove her original tale. For instance, investigators had obtained statements from Kavanaugh and the two men and one female lifelong friend of Ford’s, and they all denied any recollection of the gathering.

These contradictions mean Ford's not credible

Investigators also spoke with former classmates of Kavanaugh, including two men who showed staffers the “party houses” near the country club during the relevant time period. And the detailed description of the home interior Ford originally provided allowed investigators to compare her story to the layout of the homes of the individuals Ford identified. But then Ford changed her description of the house’s floor plan.

Since media leaks of Ford’s charges first broke, Kavanaugh and his supporters have stressed the impossibility of proving the negative: Kavanaugh could not prove he did not attack Ford. But Kavanaugh could prove that Ford’s story could not possibly have happened by showing that none of the individuals at the supposed party lived in a house near the country club, and that none of their houses matched that described by Ford. Kavanaugh and investigators were poised to do so when Ford changed her story.

Open-minded Americans of all stripes should see that — emotions aside — Ford’s testimony is completely devoid of credibility: so much so, that Mitchell told the Senate this week that Ford’s allegations do not even meet the preponderance of evidence standard. That standard, which governs in civil litigation, asks whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred.

Yes, victims must be believed. But Ford is not a victim — at least not of Kavanaugh.

***********

Margot Cleveland is a lawyer and an adjunct instructor at the University of Notre Dame.

**********

(Kavanaugh is the Victim of the Slimy Despicable Libs

Ford was trying to cry; Kavanaugh was trying to keep from crying.

Love this website - Real Clear Investigation

Of course Ford knew she'd make it big by trying to ruin Brett Kavanaugh's life -

'Nothing to Gain,' Kavanaugh Accuser Raises Nearly $1 Million

[www.realclearinvestigations.com]

During the crucible of Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearings, Democrats repeatedly asserted that Christine Blasey Ford had “nothing to gain” by coming forward with her explosive accusation of attempted rape against the Supreme Court nominee.

"You had absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Sen. Dick Durbin said during her testimony last month. This sentiment was echoed by other Democrats, who presented it as evidence that Ford was telling the truth. "I want to thank you,” added California Sen. Kamala Harris, “because you clearly have nothing to gain for what you have done."

In fact, Ford stands to gain some $1 million and counting from national crowdfunding campaigns launched by friends and other supporters, while she is said to be fielding book offers.

The potential seven-figure windfall, which she says she intends to cash in on – while still asking donors for more money – has some questioning her motivation for accusing the conservative judge after 35 years of silence, and whether it goes beyond personal or even political justice. Others worry the largesse sets a dangerous precedent: Crowdfunding, which unlike political donations is unregulated, could be routinely used in the future as a bounty for providing political dirt on opponents.

Two GoFundMe accounts have raised more than $842,000 for Ford, and the money is still coming in weeks after she testified and left the spotlight. The total does not include a third account collecting $120,000 for an academic endowment in her name.

"The costs for security, housing, transportation and other related expenses are much higher than we anticipated and they do not show signs of letting up,” Ford said in a recent statement posted on the GoFundMe page of the “Help Christine Blasey Ford” campaign, which is still bringing in donations. "Funds received via this account will be used to help us pay for these mounting expenses.”

GoFundMe spokeswoman Katherine Cichy told RealClearInvestigations that Ford and her husband can withdraw as much as they want whenever they want for any purpose. Payments would be electronically deposited into the Fords' bank account within two to five business days of initiating withdrawals.

All told, more than 21,000 people have donated to her cause. Several donors have written big checks, including Grateful Dead bassist Phil Lesh, who gave $10,000.

Some question the necessity of the financial assistance given that much of the costs associated with Ford's testimony – including all of her legal fees plus a polygraph examination – were covered by Democratic attorneys assigned to her by the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, committee sources say; panel Democrats were allotted half of a $1 million committee fund for transportation, security, investigations and other expenses associated with the tumultuous confirmation process. The Senate Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police also provided "heightened security" for Ford.

"Her lawyers said they were representing her on a pro-bono basis. Why does she need all of this money?” said an attorney familiar with the committee's investigation into her allegations, adding that the funds were originally set up to help pay her legal bills.

Attempts to reach Ford at her home and office were unsuccessful.

In a dramatic September hearing, the Palo Alto University professor accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when the two were in high school. Following her tearful testimony – and an angry denial from Kavanaugh – the GOP-led committee agreed to ask the FBI to investigate her charges. After agents could not corroborate her story, the full Senate voted to seat the judge on the high bench earlier this month.

RealClearInvestigations reached out to Ford’s legal team – including Washington attorneys Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks and Michael R. Bromwich – to determine the scope of their financial assistance. Asked specifically if any of them helped cover her travel or security costs, in addition to her legal bills, the lawyers declined comment.

Ford maintained that she was forced to hire round-the-clock security to protect her and her family after she decided to testify against Kavanaugh. “My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats,” Ford testified. “My family and I were forced to move out of our home.”

Taylor Foy, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, said the panel was “not provided with specifics of any threats against Dr. Ford.”

Journalists may have also factored into Ford's relocation. After she first told her story in the Washington Post, the national media staked out her Palo Alto home for several days, peering into her windows and trampling her front yard. Ford testified that members of the media also stalked her at her workplace.

Local media reported that demonstrators also gathered around her home, almost all of whom were sympathetic neighbors, friends and other supporters, not protesters. Dozens of supporters last month lined her street and interlinked arms to form a human wall in front of her house to “protect Christine.” A few days later another 2,000 people turned out for a candlelight vigil to support Ford in her largely liberal neighborhood.

Earlier this month, Ford appealed to GoFundMe donors to continue contributing to her coffers, portraying a family on the run and under increasing threat: "We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing.” She said she needed the donations to defray the “costs for housing,” in addition to transportation and security.

But congressional sources say that, while Ford and her husband and two sons left their home, their temporary housing costs have been nominal. They point out that they have stayed with relatives or at their beach house in Santa Cruz, Calif.

The Fords bought the beach home along with their Palo Alto home in 2007, after selling a historic bed and breakfast for more than $1.5 million. The Victorian-style B&B located near La Selva Beach, Calif., featured seven bedrooms, 6.5 bathrooms and tennis courts on 1.3 acres, and also served as their private residence.

Their main Palo Alto home has a current market value of $3.3 million, more than quadruple their purchase price. Their Santa Cruz beach house is worth another $1.03 million at today’s prices.

Real estate records show the Fords have mortgages on both their current homes. They also spent tens of thousands of dollars refurbishing the B&B and renovating their Palo Alto house, including adding a room with a second front door to rent out to tenants (Ford testified she added the door due to “claustrophobia” and other residual anxiety from the alleged Kavanaugh assault).

Local records show that Christine Blasey Ford recently applied for a building permit to remodel their Santa Cruz beach house. The application was made on July 16 – just two weeks before she sent her letter accusing Kavanaugh of assaulting her to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

The proposed remodeling job is significant and expensive. The application obtained by RCI includes an almost 500-square-foot addition, along with a new front porch and new decks.

Heidi Li Feldman, a Washington law professor who started one of the GoFundMe campaigns for Ford, speculated that the Ford family could be spending as much as $10,000 a week on security, which would put her total costs at roughly $55,000 so far (assuming she continued to hire bodyguards after she testified Sept. 27 and after Kavanaugh was sworn in as associate Supreme Court justice Oct. 6).

“I sponsored a capped fundraiser to assist Dr. Blasey with her security expenses,” said Feldman, who has raised a total of more than $241,000 for Ford.

"She has access to the funds,” she added, "and I understand she will draw upon them when she has the opportunity.”

But the Fords' multimillion-dollar real estate assets raise questions about their burden and need for crowdfunding. Both Ford and her husband hold well-compensated jobs in academia and biotech.

A research psychologist and biostatistician, Ford teaches at Palo Alto University in consortium with Stanford University. Data show the typical PAU professor earns a salary of $150,000 per year. She has written or helped write more than 50 books, journals and articles. Outside of academia, she does consulting work for pharmaceutical firms, including helping design clinical trials. According to a recent Who’s Who profile, she is also director of biostatistics for Corcept Therapeutics, a Menlo Park, Calif., drug development firm with $160 million in sales, for which she’s worked since 2003.

Her husband, Russell B. Ford, is a Silicon Valley biomechanical engineer and inventor who holds several patents on medical devices.

Aside from possible financial incentives, critics say Ford clearly had a political motive to come forward with her unsubstantiated charges against Kavanaugh. They note that she is a registered Democrat who has made contributions earmarked for Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She also marched against Trump’s stance on climate change and signed a letter speaking out against the Republican president's immigration policies. Trump nominated the conservative Kavanaugh last summer.

Her university also engages in liberal activism. PAU lists its core mission as “Social Justice” and offers a degree in “social action." Some legal analysts worry her crowdfunding windfall sets a dangerous precedent by creating a new incentive for accusers. They fear partisan activists will now offer crowdfunding as a form of bounty on political foes, or to buy witness testimony against political adversaries.

"This whole aspect of GoFundMe is relatively new, this idea that millions of people can effectively pay you to take a particular [political] position,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor and Fox News legal analyst. “It raises new questions that are pretty darn troubling.”

In fact, “you could have people effectively in a market for witnesses,” he warned. "You could buy a witness, effectively, by funding them as long as they’re saying the things you want them to say.”

Turley said that asking if the prospect of making money influenced Ford “to take a certain approach in [her] testimony,” and inquiring how the money raised for her will be spent, are both legitimate questions. He recommended that crowdfunding sites not only audit how such politically tied money is spent, but that they set up ethics “standards" to guard against fraud and abuse in such cases.

GoFundMe’s Cichy declined to respond to questions about these concerns.

Feldman, the lawyer who raised funds for Ford, also supported Hillary Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, donating thousands of dollars to her campaign. After Donald Trump won the election, she organized the national boycott of retailers selling Trump brands.

Supporters who started the larger fund for Ford – which has separately raised more than $633,000 so far – have chosen to remain anonymous. They are identified only as “Team Christine Blasey Ford” on the GoFundMe website, which states that the “team has decided to make their giving private.”

The GoFundMe campaigns are only part of the financial assistance she is receiving. Asked during her testimony if anyone else besides her lawyers and crowd-funders are helping finance her efforts, Ford answered that “there are members of the community in Palo Alto that have means to contribute to help me with the security detail, etc.” She did not elaborate.

On Oct. 29, Palo Alto Mayor Liz Kniss plans to hold a ceremony to publicly honor Ford for her “act of bravery” in testifying against Kavanaugh.

Christine wants the world to forgive her for being 15 years old drinking beer at a party with no adults but she does not want the world to forgive Brett for doing the same thing.
That said, Brett sounded ridiculous the way he talked about loving beer. Face palm.

I don't think forgiveness entered into her motivation for trying to ruin Brett Kavanaugh's life. I think it was pure desire for money and notoriety, and activism for the Liberals, to go so far as to lie to stop the Republicans getting a judge on the Supreme Court (even though it was a Republican justice that Kavanaugh was replacing).

Quote
Tai
Christine wants the world to forgive her for being 15 years old drinking beer at a party with no adults but she does not want the world to forgive Brett for doing the same thing.

I would say Christine wanted the world to disregard her yearbook and her social media persona because they were all scrubbed from the public while Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook was scrutinized with a fine tooth comb and at least one word was twisted and used against him.

Forget Ford, This is why Trumps pick is illegal, Conflict off interest.
Kavanaugh pick is a pay back and its corruption besides conflict of interest.


Payback? Kavanaugh Helped Trump Crush Casino Union
July 31, 2018 4:30 am / 0 Comments / Headlines, Labor, Supreme Court


Supreme Court


Trump is well-known for screwing over working people — both the people who work for him directly, and the people who voted for him because they believed his lies about bringing back jobs.


So it’s not surprising that Trump would pick a Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who virulently opposes workers’ rights.
What is surprising? It turns out that Kavanaugh directly helped Trump to screw over his own casino workers, Bloomberg reports.
Kavanaugh, Bloomberg explains, was one of three Republican-appointed judges who ruled in 2012 to crush a perfectly legitimate unionization effort by employees of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
In 2007, Trump Plaza employees voted 324 to 149 to join the United Auto Workers (UAW) — an arrangement that would have helped the employees collectively bargain for fairer wages and benefits.
These workers really needed the support of a good union to help protect them against Trump’s notorious abuses.
After all, Trump has been accused of failing to pay hundreds of contractors and employees what they were owed, and now faces a new lawsuit for denying overtime pay and health benefits to his personal driver of 25 years.
Trump Plaza tried to get the National Labor Relations Board (NLR, the federal agency in charge of enforcing labor law, to throw out the union election as invalid. The casino tried to argue that the vote had been “tainted” by a UAW media event that featured politicians who supported the union drive.
The NLRB found that this was nonsense; it’s not illegal for lawmakers to support a union campaign. Trump Plaza, the NLRB ruled, was violating federal law by refusing to let UAW negotiate on behalf of Trump Plaza workers.
But then Trump Plaza appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court — where Kavanaugh served as an appeals judge.
Kavanaugh ruled against Trump’s workers, and in favor of the casino.
He threw out the NLRB’s ruling and ordered the agency to reconsider the case. But the casino closed in 2014, and the case never got revisited.
The union drive was crushed. Trump won, and his workers lost.
Workers’ rights is just one of many issues on which Kavanaugh is likely to do Trump’s bidding.
Kavanaugh has indicated, for instance, that he doesn’t believe a president can be criminally indicted while in office — which could have big implications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Kavanaugh is also likely to fulfill Trump’s promise of gutting Roe v. Wade.
Bloomberg’s latest report on Kavanaugh is yet more evidence that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will rule in favor of Trump, and against the interests of most Americans.
Published with permission of The American Independent.

Rhb:
Kavanaugh pick is a pay back and its corruption besides conflict of interest. 

Tai
Thanks for digging this up. It's pathetic not to pay the workers. My friend knew a contractor who got stiffed by Trump. I didn't know there were hundreds. And Melania has such an expensive bag collection. Really shameful and low brow.

Quote
riverhousebill
Forget Ford, This is why Trumps pick is illegal, Conflict off interest.
Kavanaugh pick is a pay back and its corruption besides conflict of interest.


Payback? Kavanaugh Helped Trump Crush Casino Union
July 31, 2018 4:30 am / 0 Comments / Headlines, Labor, Supreme Court


Supreme Court


Trump is well-known for screwing over working people — both the people who work for him directly, and the people who voted for him because they believed his lies about bringing back jobs.


So it’s not surprising that Trump would pick a Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who virulently opposes workers’ rights.
What is surprising? It turns out that Kavanaugh directly helped Trump to screw over his own casino workers, Bloomberg reports.
Kavanaugh, Bloomberg explains, was one of three Republican-appointed judges who ruled in 2012 to crush a perfectly legitimate unionization effort by employees of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
In 2007, Trump Plaza employees voted 324 to 149 to join the United Auto Workers (UAW) — an arrangement that would have helped the employees collectively bargain for fairer wages and benefits.
These workers really needed the support of a good union to help protect them against Trump’s notorious abuses.
After all, Trump has been accused of failing to pay hundreds of contractors and employees what they were owed, and now faces a new lawsuit for denying overtime pay and health benefits to his personal driver of 25 years.
Trump Plaza tried to get the National Labor Relations Board (NLR, the federal agency in charge of enforcing labor law, to throw out the union election as invalid. The casino tried to argue that the vote had been “tainted” by a UAW media event that featured politicians who supported the union drive.
The NLRB found that this was nonsense; it’s not illegal for lawmakers to support a union campaign. Trump Plaza, the NLRB ruled, was violating federal law by refusing to let UAW negotiate on behalf of Trump Plaza workers.
But then Trump Plaza appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court — where Kavanaugh served as an appeals judge.
Kavanaugh ruled against Trump’s workers, and in favor of the casino.
He threw out the NLRB’s ruling and ordered the agency to reconsider the case. But the casino closed in 2014, and the case never got revisited.
The union drive was crushed. Trump won, and his workers lost.
Workers’ rights is just one of many issues on which Kavanaugh is likely to do Trump’s bidding.
Kavanaugh has indicated, for instance, that he doesn’t believe a president can be criminally indicted while in office — which could have big implications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Kavanaugh is also likely to fulfill Trump’s promise of gutting Roe v. Wade.
Bloomberg’s latest report on Kavanaugh is yet more evidence that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will rule in favor of Trump, and against the interests of most Americans.
Published with permission of The American Independent.

Thanks for posting this, rhb. I look forward to finding out THE FACTS/THE TRUTH on that ruling, that court case wherein Kavanaugh was involved.

Problem is I'm kinda busy right now - getting ready for a KKK meeting in Charlottesville - but don't worry, I'll research it and be back posting The Facts - or in this case, it's probably THE LAW on that ruling against the Union.

But just for starters - you've been asked this many times - please post a link to your copy-and-paste jobs.

So here's the link - a rinky-dink website of 'progressive' bias - certainly not a credible source -

[www.americanindependent.com]

Okay. Didn't take long actually to find "The Real Story" (versus the Lib Narrative, Lib Rhetoric, Lib Spin), from a credible source, on the NLRB versus Trump Casino -

Badly Muddled Account of Routine Trump Casino Ruling

[www.nationalreview.com]

If a ruling in which Judge Kavanaugh took part some years ago involved a Trump-owned entity, there’s got to be something newsworthy there, right? Wrong.

This Bloomberg article titled “Kavanaugh Sided With Trump Casino in 2012 to Thwart Union Drive” undertakes to report on Judge Kavanaugh’s joining a unanimous 2012 D.C. Circuit panel ruling in Trump Plaza Associates v. NLRB. But it manages to get some elementary things WRONG. (Nor—pet peeve alert!—does it bother to include a link to the opinion.)

After the NLRB concluded that Trump Plaza had unlawfully refused to bargain with a union representing card dealers, Trump Plaza argued to the D.C. Circuit that the NLRB had wrongly certified the union. It advanced two separate claims.

Trump Plaza’s first claim was that the union election (in the article’s summary) “had been tainted by the pre-election press conference and other shows of support from politicians that the company said could make workers think the labor board wanted them to unionize.” (Emphasis added.) The panel ruled against Trump Plaza on this claim. (See section on “Government Endorsement,” pp. 827-829.)

Trump Plaza claimed, second, that a mock card-check ceremony at the pre-election press conference misled employees into thinking that the union had already been certified as their representative. On this issue, the panel held that the ground on which the NLRB had ruled against Trump Plaza—namely, that there was an “absence of evidence” that the mock card-check had been widely disseminated—was “plainly wrong.” Further, the panel ruled, the NLRB had departed from its own precedent, and had given no “reasoned explanation” for doing so, when it declined to set aside the union election in the face of the evidence of dissemination. The panel therefore remanded the matter to the NLRB “to, first, assess the severity of the challenged conduct … and second, to reassess the extent of the mock card-check dissemination under its precedent.” (See pp. 830-832.)

The Bloomberg article hopelessly muddles these two distinct claims. That muddle conceals that the panel ruled against Trump Plaza on the first claim. It also obscures that the panel’s ruling for Trump Plaza on the second claim, far from being evidence of anti-union animus (as “labor advocates” quoted in the article contend), was a run-of-the-mill application of the black-letter administrative-law principle that an agency cannot depart from its own precedents without explanation. Thus, far from delivering a final victory to Trump Plaza, the ruling simply returned the matter to the NLRB to give it the opportunity to do things right.

And here is the actual case -

TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES v. AFL CIO

United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.
TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, Doing Business as Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL–CIO, Intervenor.

Nos. 10–1412, 11–1028.
Decided: May 11, 2012

[caselaw.findlaw.com]


***********

(I'm surprised that rhb, considering his law/court experience and knowledge, didn't check out the validity of his claim against Trump Casino before posting that MISCONSTRUED MISCONCEPTION above)

Quote
riverhousebill
But then Trump Plaza appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court — where Kavanaugh served as an appeals judge.
Kavanaugh ruled against Trump’s workers, and in favor of the casino.
He threw out the NLRB’s ruling and ordered the agency to reconsider the case. But the casino closed in 2014, and the case never got revisited.
The union drive was crushed. Trump won, and his workers lost.

In other words, the above is LIB NARRATIVE/LIB TWISTING/LIB SPIN. Libs not presenting THE FACTS, Libs LEAVING OUT PERTINENT INFORMATION/LYING BY OMISSION.

Here is what really took place as per the above NR article and the actual case that I posted above -

Trump Plaza claimed, second, that a mock card-check ceremony at the pre-election press conference misled employees into thinking that the union had already been certified as their representative. On this issue, the panel held that the ground on which the NLRB had ruled against Trump Plaza—namely, that there was an “absence of evidence” that the mock card-check had been widely disseminated—was “plainly wrong.” Further, the panel ruled, the NLRB had departed from its own precedent, and had given no “reasoned explanation” for doing so, when it declined to set aside the union election in the face of the evidence of dissemination. The panel therefore remanded the matter to the NLRB “to, first, assess the severity of the challenged conduct … and second, to reassess the extent of the mock card-check dissemination under its precedent.” (See pp. 830-832.)

The Bloomberg article hopelessly muddles these two distinct claims. That muddle conceals that the panel ruled against Trump Plaza on the first claim. It also obscures that the panel’s ruling for Trump Plaza on the second claim, far from being evidence of anti-union animus (as “labor advocates” quoted in the article contend), was a run-of-the-mill application of the black-letter administrative-law principle that an agency cannot depart from its own precedents without explanation. Thus, far from delivering a final victory to Trump Plaza, the ruling simply returned the matter to the NLRB to give it the opportunity to do things right.

Quote
Tai
Rhb:
Kavanaugh pick is a pay back and its corruption besides conflict of interest. 

Tai
Thanks for digging this up. It's pathetic not to pay the workers. My friend knew a contractor who got stiffed by Trump. I didn't know there were hundreds. And Melania has such an expensive bag collection. Really shameful and low brow.

Tai, Legal experts have weighed in on this, I dont think you even have to be educated is Law to see the conflict of interest many have pointed out.

Great Song-- Utah Phillips The Golden Voice of the North west Cant Scare me Im sticking with the Unions. Utah came to northern Ca shortly before he died and did a concert for us Earth Firsters to show support. Utah Part of the early Union movement in USA..

Tai the chit show is almost over Im hoping midterms will put the klan Nazi jew Muslim haters back in closet, Looking Good over one hundred Muslims running for state and Fed level Record number of African Americans running, Twice as many Native Americans running in midterms than 2016.

Jennifer defence of Kavanaugh Union busting I could not make any sense out of it.???

Quote
riverhousebill

Jennifer defence of Kavanaugh Union busting I could not make any sense out of it.???

This article that I posted at this link explains how your article is totally misleading, stating that Kavanaugh ruled against "The Workers" (the NLRB ). When in reality, in the first instance, the ruling was in favor of the NLRB. In the second instance, the ruling was in favor of Trump Plaza because THE LAW!

Go to the link itself to the National Review article and read it there and you should understand how the Lib article spun it to look like "Kavanaugh ruled against 'the workers'"! Sounds so bad. But really, Kavanaugh just followed THE LEGAL CODE! Duh! That's what judges do.

And if you go to the link with the ruling itself here -

[caselaw.findlaw.com]

which I also posted here -

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

You will see that the law was followed so what the hell has Kavanaugh got to do with it, and because Kavanaugh follows the rule of law in making a ruling, he's a bad guy? How stupid are the Libs anyway!

But the Lib Narrative - "Kavanaugh ruled against THE WORKERS!" - to make Kavanaugh and The Republicans/Conservatives look like demons.

So just keep making believe you don't understand THE TRUTH/THE FACTS of the case so you and the Libs can keep on perpetuating the FALSE LIB NARRATIVE.

********

And yeah - "We" don't like the bully thug Labor Unions who are in bed with The Libs.

In fact - side note - you know all those video montages of The Libs (Obama, Feinstein, Harry Reed, Chuck Schumer) stating their opposition to Illegal Immigration like fifteen years ago. Well, yes, The Libs were totally against Illegal Immigration because THE LABOR UNIONS were against Illegal Immigration, to protect their members, and The Libs and The Unions are in lock step. Well, what happened was - The Labor Unions decided they needed Illegal Immigration to keep their numbers of members up, so The Labor Unions changed their tune and suddenly loved Illegal Immigrants, so of course The Libs suddenly loved Illegal Immigrants, too, because they're in bed with the Unions.

Hypocritical Libs.

Trump Plaza employees voted 324 to 149 to join the United Auto Workers (UAW)

Kavanaugh Rules over the Vote Yeh

324 to 149 Yeh We the People!

I say again what you posted makes no sense!

Then, no offense, but you're just not that smart. At least you're not as smart as I am, because I understood the National Review Article perfectly.

This reminds me of the time I had to walk you through some other thing about twenty times; I forget what it was now. I think it was related to Walter Williams.

Anyway, your article stated - like you just said to me above:

Kavanaugh ruled against Trump’s workers, and in favor of the casino.

Well, first of all - Kavanaugh's ruling followed the Rule of Law, whatever that law was, he ruled with the law, whether that was in favor of The Workers (meaning THE UNION) or in favor of Trump Plaza. So that's what judges are supposed to do - duh!

Secondly, there were two claims to the ruling. The first claim - KAVANAUGH (THE PANEL) RULED IN FAVOR OF THE UAW UNION. So therefore - the Libs and the Lib Article you posted was LYING/WRONG/FALSE/SPINNING/TWISTING when it said, "Kavanaugh ruled against Trump’s workers, and in favor of the casino."

In the second claim of this case, Kavanaugh (THE PANEL) ruled in favor of TRUMP PLAZA. The LAWFUL reason was explained above in both my links - the actual case and ruling itself and the National Review article.

The second claim THE PANEL ruled in favor of Trump Plaza. Here is the explanation for ruling in Trump Plaza favor, as per the NR article -

Trump Plaza claimed, second, that a mock card-check ceremony at the pre-election press conference misled employees into thinking that the union had already been certified as their representative. On this issue, the panel held that the ground on which the NLRB had ruled against Trump Plaza—namely, that there was an “absence of evidence” that the mock card-check had been widely disseminated—was “plainly wrong.” Further, the panel ruled, the NLRB had departed from its own precedent, and had given no “reasoned explanation” for doing so, when it declined to set aside the union election in the face of the evidence of dissemination. The panel therefore remanded the matter to the NLRB “to, first, assess the severity of the challenged conduct … and second, to reassess the extent of the mock card-check dissemination under its precedent.” (See pp. 830-832.)

Your above article stated:

He threw out the NLRB’s ruling and ordered the agency to reconsider the case. But the casino closed in 2014, and the case never got revisited.

WRONG! This is what THE PANEL really did -

The panel therefore remanded the matter to the NLRB “to, first, assess the severity of the challenged conduct … and second, to reassess the extent of the mock card-check dissemination under its precedent.” (See pp. 830-832.)

This is what actually happened as my NR article states -

The Bloomberg article hopelessly muddles these two distinct claims. That muddle conceals that the panel ruled against Trump Plaza on the first claim. It also obscures that the panel’s ruling for Trump Plaza on the second claim, far from being evidence of anti-union animus (as “labor advocates” quoted in the article contend), was a run-of-the-mill application of the black-letter administrative-law principle that an agency cannot depart from its own precedents without explanation. Thus, far from delivering a final victory to Trump Plaza, the ruling simply returned the matter to the NLRB to give it the opportunity to do things right.

**********

So if you still tell me you don't understand after comparing the article you posted and the National Review article and my explanation above, too bad. Just accept that as per usual, In their article, The Libs MISREPRESENTED (LIED ABOUT) the case of Trump Plaza against the UAW to demonize Trump and The Republicans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2018 02:36AM by Jennifer.

"very stable genius" Yes my dear I understand I take no offense.
.


Quote Jennifer . Then, no offense, but you're just not that smart. At least you're not as smart as I am,l