All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
47:22
Ep. 222 - Brett Kavanaugh Cures Alzheimer’s

Did Brett Kavanaugh murder JFK and start WWI? We demand an investigation! Ann Coulter weighs in. Then, Rod Rosenstein keeps his job (for now), Michael Moore's movie bombs, and SCOTUS is founded on This Day In History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
My neighbor's fifth cousin twice removed Gardner heard from his dentist that Brett Kavanaugh convinced Ted Cruz's dad to murder JFK in the mid-1980s.
And I can confirm that my neighbor is very credible.
Another report, we're just getting this in right now, It's coming from a very credible source, Ronan Feinstein, that Count Bohuslav Czotek von Czotkow und Vognin recalls seeing Brett Kavanaugh at Sarajevo in 1914.
And of course, we are now calling for a full CIA investigation for this very credible evidence that Brett Kavanaugh may have started World War I. And in one final devastating report this morning, which I should add is very credible...
Allegations emerge that Brett Kavanaugh helped Flavius Odoacer overthrow the Emperor Romulus and topple the Western Roman Empire sometime in the mid-1980s.
Ann Coulter will help us break down all of these allegations.
Then, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may or may not be fired today, Michael Moore's movie Bombs, and because all nature is but art unknown to thee, the Supreme Court is founded on this day in history.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
So much to cover.
Who knew that the Western Roman Empire fell in the mid-1980s when Brett Kavanaugh was at Georgetown Prep School?
Wow.
That was the great crimes of history all owed to Georgetown Prep and Yale.
We'll get to the Yale of it all and why everyone seems to be getting naked at Yale.
Before we do that, speaking of getting naked...
Purple mattress, baby.
You know how much I love purple mattress.
Come into my boudoir.
Come into my boudoir before Ronan Farrow ruins my career because of something I did in 1982.
I love purple mattress.
You know this.
I actually do have trouble...
I've always gotten nice mattresses, you know, the spring mattress or the memory foam, whatever, but I still wake up with crooks and my back hurts and my neck hurts.
Purple mattress is categorically different and better than other mattresses.
This is because it uses a brand new material that was developed by an actual rocket scientist.
You know me.
I'm a man of simple tastes.
I'm easily satisfied by the best.
This is the best.
It's both firm and soft at the same time.
That sounds impossible, but it's not with Purple Mattress.
It also sleeps really cool.
As a man of Sicilian descent, I can get a little moist, a little oily in the night, and this really helps.
So it says, Zero Gravity, 100-night risk-free trial.
If you're not satisfied, return it for a full refund.
10-year warranty, free shipping and returns, free in-home setup, and old mattress removal.
They might as well give you a back massage while they're at it.
You're going to love Purple.
Right now, my listeners get a free Purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress.
That's in addition to other great free gifts on the website.
Go to Purple.com.
Use promo code COVFEFE. C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Purple.com.
Promo code COVFEFE. C-O-V-F-E-F-E. The only way to get the free pillow and to bother Ben is to go to...
I want to tell you, in this whole storm cloud of the Brett Kavanaugh allegations, it's such hackery, it's such an abuse of the public trust, it's such an abuse of an important institution.
In the midst of all of that storm cloud, there is a silver lining, which is that apparently Brett Kavanaugh has cured Alzheimer's disease.
And that's a wonderful thing.
That's a march forward for science and a great move for our government because memories that had been repressed not for just a couple weeks or a few months or years, decades, many decades in some cases, they are being dredged up now all of a sudden by that little smile on Brett Kavanaugh's face, by the thought that we're going to have a Supreme Court justice who reads the Constitution and interprets it to mean what it actually means.
You've probably read about the allegations.
They are insane.
I might look a little tired today because they broke last night and I was up until 2.30 in the morning reading through this insanity.
So let's begin with the least insane allegations, which also are totally baseless.
Ronan Farrow dredged up this woman from Yale, Deborah Ramirez.
By the way, I log into Twitter last night, and I see Yale is trending.
And I've known since 2015, when that shrieking girl humiliated that entire university.
And whenever I see Yale trending, it's not a good thing.
I opened it up, I said, oh, here we go.
The allegation is that Brett Kavanaugh was at a party in Lawrence Hall on Yale's old campus when he was a freshman, and everybody was drinking, and...
The allegation, it's not even really quite being made, because even the woman who's accusing, Brett Kavanaugh says she's not sure if it happened, but the allegation is that he unzipped his pants, whipped out, you know, Brett Jr., and they all laughed about it, but no one really remembers because everyone was drunk, including the woman who's accusing him.
And I tell you, I've been to a lot of parties in Lawrence Hall and Old Campus, and I, freshman year and even later, and of all the parties that I was ever at on Yale's old campus, never once did a federal judge expose himself to me.
So that's evidence on the other side.
That's evidence at least as weighty as the Deborah Ramirez almost allegations.
And by the way, the reason I'm using language carefully here is she doesn't know what happened.
She says, she goes, I don't really know.
I don't really know what happened.
So the New Yorker could not find one eyewitness to corroborate this story.
There was a woman that Ramirez says was at the party, who then they reached out and the woman said, no, I wasn't at that party.
I have no memory of that.
Ramirez, even today, even after she's made this allegation, has said she's not sure if it's him.
Ramirez's best friend, freshman year and throughout her time at Yale, has said she never heard anything about it.
Ramirez is a registered Democrat.
She's a left-wing activist.
Doesn't prove anything per se, but it does add a lot of context.
Also, Ramirez admits that she was totally hammered at this party.
And by the way, as someone who has been to a lot of Yale parties, I'll say, people do drink a ton there.
It is free-flowing all over campus.
But she says she doesn't really remember what happened.
And her other friend says she never mentioned it once until now.
As for the allegation itself, again, a lot of people are saying this never happened.
There's no way this ever happened.
I will say, Yale does have a lot of nudity going on.
They do.
There's streaking.
There are naked parties.
There is a lot of nudity here.
But You've got to remember, no one brought up any allegation like this until five minutes ago.
Until five minutes ago.
It's not like Brett Kavanaugh was some unknown entity.
He became a somewhat public figure during the Ken Starr investigation.
He was working under Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton.
He then was working in the Bush administration in a pretty front-facing role.
He then became a federal judge in 2006.
He's been up on Supreme Court lists for a while.
And none of this came out anywhere until not only the 11th hour of the confirmation hearing this time, but until after the Christine Ford allegation started to fizzle.
This came out of nowhere.
It's just really hard to believe.
Now, the story comes from Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer, who wrote this piece in The New Yorker.
Look, Ronan Farrow has done good work before, but this one is really sad.
This is really tarnishing his credibility.
And here's Jane Meyer describing all her great evidence that she's got on CBS. Jane, the corroborating witness which you says has all the details including Kavanaugh's name, where did that witness come from and where did that witness get the information about this from, if that person doesn't know Ramirez?
He remembers it from—he was in the same dorm, same little building on Yale's old campus, and he remembers it clearly.
I asked him, you know, of course, we're going to be very careful.
No, as I've said, he heard it from someone who was there, and as I've said, we interviewed him, and I said to him, are you sure that it was Brett Kavanaugh?
He said, I am 100 percent sure.
But as you admit, he was not at the party, Jane?
Was he there?
Well, no, he wasn't there.
I told you he wasn't there.
But he, like, lived nearby or something.
Okay.
Did he?
No, and actually, Jane Meyer's defense here for her corroborating, she called him a corroborating witness.
Oh, was he a witness, though?
No, he wasn't a witness.
Okay, so, and he isn't corroborating anything.
She said, yeah, well, okay, he didn't see it, and he can't attest to it, but he heard about it, like, from some guy who knew a guy or this or that.
But I'll, but let me tell you, I'm such a good journalist.
I asked him, I said, are you sure?
And he said he's sure.
So look, don't knock me.
I'm a journalist.
I asked him.
I asked him, are you sure?
He said he's sure.
That's journalism today in the Me Too movement.
Really sad because Ronan Farrow has done great work before, but this is so pathetic.
This is so pathetic that other news outlets turned it down.
The New York Times turned this story down.
NBC turned this story down.
Even the Washington Post, which has zero standards left, even they turned it down.
Why?
Because this isn't a news story.
This is not responsible journalism.
This is reckless.
This is a smear.
You could do this about anybody.
You could say this about anybody.
So that's just the first allegation.
That's just the first one.
How do we know that this one is not credible?
Because of everything about it.
If the New York Times is going to turn it down, if the Washington Post is going to turn down an opportunity to attack President Trump's nominee and President Trump, it ain't worth it.
But then enters Michael Avenatti, the creepy porn lawyer, to borrow Tucker Carlson's phrase.
He's that guy, he's that blowhard who goes on television and uses the hashtag word basta.
Basta, which is an Italian word that means enough.
And I'm taking bets on whether Michael Avenatti speaks more than one word of Italian.
I suspect he does not.
But he's this big...
So Michael Avenatti is now alleging...
Not that Brett Kavanaugh whipped it out freshman year at a drunk party.
He's accusing Brett Kavanaugh of running a gang rape circle in D.C. in the 80s or something...
He's alleging that Brett Kavanaugh is this secret Don pimp gangster who was running apparently a brothel for men to go in and abuse women.
That is not an exaggeration.
He's sent emails.
He's making this allegation publicly.
So how do we know that that story is false?
Well, because Michael Avenatti is saying it.
If Michael Avenatti told me that 2 plus 2 equals 4, I would deny mathematical reality.
Because that guy has zero honesty, zero credibility, and zero integrity.
How else do we know that the gang rape thing is not true?
It's because it's facially absurd.
It's absurd on its face.
But the other reason that we know that all of these are not credible allegations is the timing.
So, if the Democrats had the Christine Ford allegation as early as late July, and now they've had this allegation for five minutes, and it only came out after the Christine Ford thing fizzled, but even the Christine Ford allegation, why are we only getting that now?
Why didn't we get that in July?
Because in July, the Democrats, when they were trying to target Kavanaugh, they came out and said that he bought baseball tickets for his friends, On his credit card.
And then he paid his credit card bills off over time.
Those were the big scandals that they were going to get Brett Kavanaugh on.
He has friends and likes America's pastime and pays his bills.
He even bought some apple pies on that credit card and then paid it off on time.
So that was their first attack.
If they really took this seriously.
Right now, trending on Twitter is the first.
Believe survivors.
Believe women.
And by the way, we'll get to in a little bit why due process is a much more important hashtag than believe survivors.
But we'll get to that later on in the show after we talk to Ann Coulter, who has a typically colorful take on all of this.
But...
But, you know, if they really believed this, if they really thought Christine Ford was a serious, credible witness, if they really believed that Brett Kavanaugh whipped it out at a party freshman year in Lawrence Hall on Old Campus, if they really believed that he were running some kind of criminal gang-rape brothel enterprise as Michael Avenatti, the least serious person in America, is now alleging, if they really believed that, they would have brought it up at the time, but they didn't.
They thought they could take him down on baseball tickets and credit cards.
And then they thought this and then this.
It's just a methodical hack attack.
Before we explain why it is so important to defend Brett Kavanaugh, why this is a truly world historical moment, a turning point moment, at least for the Republican Party, let's bring on Ann Coulter to get her perspective.
She brought up a great article the other day.
You know, I read her column every week, and she said that Haven Monaghan was going to testify at the Kavanaugh hearings.
And for those who don't remember, Haven Monaghan was the figure in the gang rape case, allegedly, at UVA that Rolling Stone reported on.
And the only trouble is Haven Monaghan was a totally fictitious character invented by the accuser who made up the whole story.
So that was her take there.
I spoke to Anne a couple days ago.
Let's turn to that and see what she had to say.
Ann, thank you for being here.
Good to be here, Michael.
So, Ann, you've got a lot of explaining to do because you were early on a supporter of Brett Kavanaugh.
I always take your advice.
I always follow your lead.
And now we have found out...
Excellent.
So does the president.
Yeah.
Well, I try to follow his lead, too, but we'll get to that in a second.
But now we've found out, Anne, that Brett Kavanaugh is actually, secretly, a super-duper convicted rapist.
How do you answer for yourself?
No, I totally love this.
The only...
I mean, obviously, he didn't do it.
She's a deranged lunatic.
But even what she is alleging, what she's actually alleging is...
Some guy, let's say, brat, drunkenly groped her in high school.
Everything else is as usual with feminists, a product of her imagination.
I thought he might inadvertently kill me.
I thought it was going to be an attempted rape.
Well, okay, you could think he was going to turn into Bigfoot, but that's in your head.
That is quite a leap.
It's quite a leap from the groping to the attempted manslaughter.
I don't know where that happened.
That's right.
Yes, and I suspect being most charitable to her.
I mean, I've noticed this a lot.
Public figures, people's memories are not as good as they imagine them to be.
And the more they think they have a great memory, the worse it is.
I apparently dated every boy on North Campus at Cornell.
You can't believe how many people it has come back to me that I dated.
Not me, Anne.
I keep telling people that you and I dated, but nobody believes me.
It's very frustrating.
I don't think they're bragging.
I think their memories get confused because I've had, at least in one case, a guy say this Directly to me on the street.
And I never dated him, Michael.
Wow.
And other stories come back to me.
An argument I allegedly had that was, and I was being portrayed perfectly favorably.
Oh, it was so funny.
She got in an argument with Yale Camasar at Yale Law School.
I never took a class with Yale Camasar.
I'm glad you have that fond memory of me being so clever and witty.
But it wasn't me.
So this happens a lot where something, they super, people, I think in people's memories, they superimpose Some public figure whom they knew at an earlier time on some other memory.
So when Kavanaugh came back emphatically saying, I was not at that party.
This did not happen.
That's kind of a ballsy thing to do instead of saying the way you and I began this conversation.
Oh, give me a break!
A 17-year-old gets drunk and gropes a girl.
First time ever.
Unprecedented.
Please present another girl who isn't an hysterical feminist, whom A, that hasn't happened to, and B, actually cares or even remembers it.
But he didn't say that.
He didn't say, I was 17, I'm a different man.
And in general, when you're accused of something, I think it's much better to say, yes, I did it, but it was consensual, and not...
I was never in Cleveland, because if anybody saw you in Cleveland, you're screwed.
He came back emphatically saying, I was never in Cleveland.
I think that pushed her back on her heels, much like the boy who came up to me on the street and claimed he dated me, and I said, no, you didn't.
I think it sort of shocks them when you're emphatic that way, and they think to themselves, oh my gosh, did I get this wrong?
Was this somebody else?
That's what happened, but her handlers and her lawyers, so she's saying, I got it wrong, I can't testify.
They're saying, shut up, we'll handle this.
And that's why we keep getting these endless BS offers about the terms under which she will It's Monday or it's Thursday and the FBI, the CIA is going to be there.
How is this going to end?
Because I think some Republicans, some squishy people, are saying, oh, well, we can move on.
We can get another nominee if we have to.
He's compromised.
We can't do it.
I mean, it is this or nothing.
Yes, yes.
No, that would be very bad.
I mean, that means that...
I do not think the Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, were just in so much of a rush.
They forgot to include the part in the advice and consent clause where random psychology professors at Palo Alto get a veto.
You missed that?
You didn't read that part of the Federalist Papers?
No, no.
Republicans can't do that.
No, if they get this guy, if they say that, okay, because of a 36-year-old allegation, what judge could we ever get through?
What studious, unimpeachable white guy will ever be able to hold office again?
No, it will be fair game on white men in any walk of life.
Don't worry, no allegations necessary.
Or rather, no evidence, no corroboration, no even really believability to the story.
I mean, she doesn't remember what year it happened.
She doesn't remember where it happened.
I love this idea.
Yes, but she wants an investigation.
What on earth would an investigation look like here?
We'll just go around to every house in Montgomery County.
Were you ever at something resembling a party?
Did you ever have a party in this house?
Did you ever see a sort of preppy looking white boy teenager running around the greater D.C. area?
Now, I want to move on because I know we've only got a little bit of time because I read your column religiously and you have been reminding all of us that we don't have a wall yet.
Where is this wall?
Yes.
Where is my wall?
You see, this is why, this is part of the reason I wrote Resistance is Futile.
I'm trying to direct the left to a much better attack on the president.
Because, you know, every third day I want to fly to Washington, track down the president, and hold his head underwater until the bubbles stop.
And then the resistance brings me back.
They launch some utterly unprovoked, unfair attack.
They run off on their demented international Russian conspiracy theory.
Yes, this bumbling buffoon staged the most massive international conspiracy in the world.
Is Boris and Natasha rolled into one?
Pardon?
Is Boris and Natasha all rolled up into one?
Yes!
That's right.
Yes, yes, exactly.
Or the Kavanaugh stuff.
They drive me back into his arms when I'm really kind of mad at him.
And I mean, there are many weird aspects to the resistance.
A military term that if Trump had used, had he lost to Hillary, oh my gosh, it would have been a dog whistle to the KKK. That's a military term.
He's activating the militias.
And in fact, Trump voters and supporters have been subjected to massive physical violence by Antifa.
And, I mean, we are witnessing a fascist uprising.
Man, if the shoe were on the other foot, I think we might notice that.
But if the resistance, one of the unfortunate things, I think we're seeing it with Kavanaugh, with the resistance is...
I mean, they've given up all kinds of principles that they've held for decades and decades and decades, like, you know, the Russians love their children, too.
No, that was only applicable during Stalinist show trials.
Now they're just an ordinarily corrupt government.
That's right, when they were going to blow up the world, that was a different matter, yeah.
Exactly, exactly.
But one of them is, I mean, it used to be not just...
It wasn't just me talking about illegal immigrants driving down the working class's wage, screwing over America.
I mean, it used to be Jesse Jackson standing at the border demanding an end to illegal immigration.
It used to be Harry Reid on the Senate floor saying the concept of anchor babies is insane.
It used to be Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, amazingly enough, defending the Border Patrol for whacking illegals running across the border.
So, I mean, it may have happened in the Democratic Party anyway.
They were kind of going in the direction of not caring about the working class or, you know, flyover people and just, ah, screw it.
We've got the actresses, we've got Wall Street, and we've got the identity politics type and the immigrants.
But it would be really helpful if both parties could get together and care about the people who already live here.
And if the resistance would read my book, they would see the way to go after Trump is to attack him for not fulfilling his promises, to say, look, we actually do care about the working class.
But no, we can't do that because if Trump is for it, they're against it.
That's right.
That's their philosophy.
Your books, it's amazing that your opponents don't read your books, because the books, they always have colorful titles, and they include incredible insight.
You know, Resistance is Futile, obviously.
Adios America has so much on immigration.
E Pluribus Awesome in Trump We Trust gave a great argument that Trump was elected because of policy.
The left thinks he was elected because he's a mean guy and he tweets things.
On that point, do you see, going into the midterms, looking at 2020, how is it looking?
How is it looking for the left?
Are they going to understand this lesson?
Are they going to change their ways?
Are they going to make a case to the American people?
Or are we still safe because of the policy preferences of the American people?
I think Trump is...
It's weird.
I think he tends to be safe for re-election.
I'm not sure about the midterms.
The...
History suggests there will be a blue wave.
Trump hasn't built the wall, and I may be the only one getting snippy with him on Twitter, but I was just at a fair conference in Washington and ran into a lot of sheriffs and a lot of angel moms, and they were thanking me for my snippy tweets.
I mean, a lot of his base really is the moral.
I thank you, too, Anne.
Thank you.
No, I mean specifically on the wall.
They want the wall.
That was the chant.
So when your own base is demoralized, I promise you their base isn't demoralized.
Oh, they hate this guy with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns.
I admit I'm worried about the midterms.
And weirdly enough, what may save Trump is how insane the left is, i.e.
the resistance.
If they were smart, they'd read my book and they'd stop being insane.
Well, that's the book.
Everyone else should go read it, too.
Resistance is Futile.
Anne, I've taken up too much of your time already, so I'll let you go.
That is Resistance is Futile by my ex-girlfriend, Anne Coulter.
She doesn't remember, but I'm sure I can jog her memory.
Anne, thank you so much for being here.
Good to talk to you, Michael.
Bye-bye.
Love her.
Love her.
And she's so, so right about this.
And we need to defend Kavanaugh.
We have to defend Kavanaugh.
I hope that Republicans aren't getting squishy on this.
I hope they're not thinking, oh, he's compromised.
Oh, it's hard.
No, let's just do a new one.
doing.
They're going to say that Amy Coney Barrett exposed herself to some girl at Yale in 1982.
They'll do it to anybody.
They'll do it to anybody.
And I read this piece today in the Daily Beast.
I, you know, I wake up every morning and the way that I rouse myself out of bed is I read some stupid left-wing piece.
And so this one I read, it is, I'm a Republican.
But Kavanaugh must withdraw his nomination.
It's in the Daily Beast.
It's by a woman named Sophia Nelson.
I don't know if she's really a Republican.
There are some people who say that they're Republicans, but they never vote Republican and they hate conservative ideas, like Jennifer Rubin, and now at this point David Frum, we'll get to him later, and Anna Navarro, same thing.
So I don't know.
Sophia Nelson might be one of those.
She said, quote, This is a new day, but the party's leaders seem stuck in a past century.
And her entire thesis is that, yeah, sure, maybe he didn't do any of this.
And yeah, but, you know, they've already smeared him, so let's just move on.
Because, you know, some women have been sexually harassed by some people at some point, somewhere, someplace.
So we can't have Kaepernick.
That's her actual thesis.
You know, the Democrats smear these guys, but because he got smeared, let's do someone else.
It's a horrific argument.
It's so, so wrong.
Before I rouse you into your strong, necessary support for Brett Kavanaugh, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
I'm sorry.
We're going to analyze some fake hoax rape stories that have been going on as the hashtag Believe All Survivors goes around the country.
But before we do that, go to dailywire.com.
If you're already there, thank you very much.
You keep the lights on.
You keep Go Fefe in my cup.
If you're on Facebook and YouTube, you probably won't be there long.
So go to Daily Wire.
It's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me.
You get The Andrew Klavan Show.
You usually get the Ben Shapiro show, though you don't get it today because of the Jewish holidays.
I was thinking, man, Ben must be thinking right now, of all the days to be Jewish, this news cycle was the roughest.
What was I thinking?
Because there's a lot that we're going to have to cover.
But usually you get Ben.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
That's coming up on Thursday, so get your mailbag questions in.
You get to ask questions in the conversation.
I believe the Lord of the Multiverse, Andrew Klavan, is up next.
But none of that matters.
Because you get this sweet, sweet vintage.
You know, that's an older vintage.
I mean, that is an old vintage.
That vintage has been around for a long time.
That is the...
Dianne Feinstein blend.
That varietal of leftist tears.
And that's going to be even sweeter.
And it's already sweet.
It's going to be even sweeter when we push this guy through.
Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, you can't stop us.
It is going to taste, it already tastes good, but it's going to taste even better then.
So make sure you get your leftist tears by the time we do that.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back.
Hashtag believe survivors is trending.
It was the top trend on Twitter just an hour ago.
Hashtag due process has not been trending at all, but that's a very scary thing because if we just believe all accusations, regardless of evidence, regardless of time frames, people's rights are going to be trampled, people's lives are going to be ruined, people are going to be smeared, and mere anarchy will be loosed upon the world.
A lot of people ask, they say, why would a woman make a false accusation of sexual harassment like Anita Hill did to Clarence Thomas at the 1991 confirmation hearings of exposure or sexual assault or whatever like we're getting now?
Why would a woman make a false accusation?
The short answer is, I don't know, but they do.
And the longer answer is there are a couple reasons, which we've seen in recent years.
In 2014, the UVA rape case, the gang rape case covered in Rolling Stone, wall-to-wall coverage.
This girl said she was raped at a fraternity at UVA. Turned out it was totally bogus.
It was totally bogus.
We found out later she completely made it up.
And she actually made up some of the people in it.
She made up the guy, Haven Monahan, who was one of the perpetrators there.
2014.
Why did she do it?
I don't know.
Couldn't tell you.
Morgan Triplett in 2013.
She reported that she had been raped and people took it seriously.
Major investigation.
Turned out she had posted an ad on Craigslist begging.
First she begged a guy to shoot her in the shoulder.
Nobody took.
Now apparently no one wanted to do that.
That wasn't appealing.
Then she posted an advertisement asking a guy to beat her up and have sex with her.
And apparently a couple guys jumped on that one, so they met up with her, beat her up, did whatever they did, and then she looked in her cell phone screen and said, I'm not beaten up enough, punch me more.
And then she reported that she had been raped.
Why did she do that?
Because she was a looney tune, a complete wackadoodle.
I can't explain that.
I can't give you a rational explanation for that.
But she was a nut.
Desiree Nall, who was the president of her local chapter of the National Organization for Women at Rollins College.
Same thing happened a few years ago.
She reported a rape and it was a hoax.
2013, Meg Lanker Simons at the University of Wyoming.
Total hoax.
2009, Dan Mel Ndonye of Hoster University accused men of gang raping her in a bathroom stall.
It later came out, they found out that it was totally consensual, and she accused them of gang rape in that case because she didn't want her boyfriend to find out that she had voluntary sex with other men.
Her boyfriend accused her.
She said, you look like you've just had sex with a bunch of people.
She said, oh, do I? Yikes.
And she made this false accusation.
Of course, Duke Lacrosse, who can forget the Duke Lacrosse case, ruined those boys' lives over a zealous prosecutor, and it turned out that it was totally fabricated.
In 2013, Tanya Baraci at the University of Florida, she said that she was raped.
There was an investigation.
It was a total hoax.
Why did she do it?
She said, quote, she wanted to teach a lesson to women in the area that an attack could happen to them.
So in that case, the hoax was prompted by feminisms.
Or by a fear for a narrative that didn't really exist, but she wanted to prove existed.
And this, you hear this all the time with the left.
When you disprove one of their hoaxes, they say, yes, that was false.
But it proves a larger truth.
There is a larger truth.
You say, no, there's not.
Larger than what?
Larger than the lie you told?
Yeah, anything's larger.
A larger truth than the lie that you just told.
They always say, never mind the particular.
It's the narrative.
It's the abstract narrative.
Has to be true.
And, of course, Duke Lacroix.
So why would a woman make something up?
I don't know.
To advance a narrative, because of her feminist ideals, because her boyfriend caught her.
I don't know.
Those are particular examples that I can point to in very recent history.
Now, does this mean that women are always making up allegations or that they're frequently making up allegations?
No.
And it's awful and it's a hard crime to prove.
So you should take women very, very seriously when they make this.
This is part of the reason why these allegations should not be investigated by campus tribunals, boards of professors, or by hack senators who are trying to torpedo an unimpeachable Supreme Court nominee.
They should be investigated at the time that they occur by law enforcement.
And the perpetrators, if they're found to be perpetrators, should be hung up by their neck.
They should have the book thrown at them and probably be executed.
But you can't execute people, either their law, actually execute them or kill their reputations based on baseless allegations 36 years later.
You cannot do that.
Brett Kavanaugh must go through.
Let me say it again, in case you didn't hear, in case you were a little squishy.
Brett Kavanaugh must be seated on the Supreme Court.
If they fail to confirm Brett Kavanaugh...
There is no argument for electing Republicans because they won't stand up to even the flimsiest attacks.
It means they can't do nothing, even when they got the House, even when they got the Senate, even when they've got the White House, even when they've got textualists on the Supreme Court.
They can't do nothing.
So why would you ever vote for them?
This is so important.
I think, you know, some people are trying to make the case, "Oh, it doesn't...
Look, while we still have the Senate, let's just put someone else through.
Let's just do, do, do, do, do.
Kavanaugh, it's too bad what happened to him, but it's okay, whatever.
No.
If it didn't matter, they wouldn't be pushing this hard.
If it didn't matter, the Democrats wouldn't be pulling out every flimsy, filthy lie that they've got, every smear that they've been working on since 1987.
When they first did this to Bork, Ted Kennedy, that degenerate, smeared him, smeared a good man and a great jurist and a man who should have been on the court.
They did it again to Clarence Thomas in 91, four years later, because they didn't have their fill.
They do it every single chance that they can get.
We cannot let this happen.
People talk about a blue wave.
I don't think you're going to get a blue wave right now.
If you don't let this guy through, you are going to get a blue tsunami.
You're going to get a blue tidal wave because there will be no reason to elect Republicans, not a single one.
This is a blood sport.
It's been going on for decades.
You want to talk about decades-old allegations.
We saw the decades-old crime in 1987 when they torpedoed Judge Bork.
And this has been building for a very, very long time.
It's an all-out, brutal knuckle fight.
We should pummel them over the rhetorical head that vote should have happened a week ago or two weeks ago.
No hearings, no investigations, nothing.
You are not entitled to that.
36 years later, with flimsy nothing, no witness.
We know, actually, in the Ronan Farrow piece, Democrats came hunting for them, came hunting to try to dig up anything.
The woman in the Ronan Farrow piece, Ramirez, said, I don't remember.
I don't remember if it was Kavanaugh.
I don't really remember any details.
And six days later, she said, okay, I remember now.
Yeah, it was him.
Six days after Democrat vultures were picking at her corpse.
It's disgusting.
Nobody should give this any quarter.
And Kavanaugh, thank goodness we have Kavanaugh, because Kavanaugh is really manning up here.
He sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee.
He said he will not be intimidated into withdrawing.
It ain't gonna happen.
He's gonna defend his good name and the good reputation that he has built up for a long time.
This is making me feel hopeful, and I hope that Republicans circle the troops around and stand firm on this.
For reaction, we turn to King Henry V of England.
We few.
We happy few.
We band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Be he me'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England, now abed, shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap, whiles any speaks that fought with us upon St.
Crespen's day!
Huzzah!
Yes!
Gentlemen of America now asleep.
Now a bed.
Absolutely right.
Well said, King Henry.
Also now coming out, Brian Karam of CNN Sentinel Newspaper's He's saying that investigators, this was a major report, got a zillion retweets, said investigators now in Maryland are looking into another Kavanaugh allegation.
Investigators in Maryland, in this county, okay.
So then other newspapers called up the chief of police and said, is that true?
Are investigators looking into this?
Chief of police said, nope.
Nope, they're not.
So then Brian Karam says, oh, well, I hope you don't think I meant the cops.
Oh, no, I'm not talking about, oh, you thought, just because I said investigators, you thought I was talking about investigators.
No, yeah, I see how you can make that mistake.
I was talking about some random guys somewhere.
You heard investigators, and you thought that meant investigators, but that's not true.
It's an out-and-out lie.
It's an out-and-out lie by a guy who runs a bunch of newspapers and goes on CNN. And it's an out-and-out lie.
And he doesn't care that it's a lie.
Who cares?
If someone is making an allegation out of revenge, if they're making an allegation to get a little bit of attention, if they're making an allegation because they genuinely think something's true and but maybe are mistaken about it.
If they're making it, who knows why someone makes an allegation 36 years later.
What the effect of it is, is to torpedo a good man's career, torpedo a guy who should be on the Supreme Court.
Don't give it any quarter.
Brian Karam, he responded to me when I pointed out that he's a liar on Twitter.
And he said, I didn't lie, it's just investigators.
Now, a lot of people are defending him and saying, that was just wordplay.
He said investigator could mean anything, and I don't know, looking into, okay.
No, it's a lie.
It's a lie.
I get that it's wordplay too, but it's a lie.
I can say, I heard Brian Karam is a rapist.
And that statement is true.
The statement, I heard Brian Karam is a rapist, is a true statement.
Because I just said it, and I heard it.
I said it, I can hear my own voice, consequently I heard that that is true.
So I could say that.
Now if I reported that, I would be a dirty, rotten liar.
Because the clear implication of what I've said is egregiously misleading and baseless.
So I would be a liar, but oh, but it's wordplay.
No, it's a lie.
It's a dirty lie.
We should call it out for what it is.
These sorts of lies.
Speaking of bad reporting, by the way, I know we've got to go and we didn't get to any stories today, but too bad.
We had a lot to talk about.
Speaking of unclear reporting, it broke news this morning that Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, was out at the FBI. I'm sorry, at the Department of Justice.
that he was being fired or he had resigned or is being called into Kelly and that he's out.
And then, so then in that case, the solicitor general of the United States is going to come into his place and oversee the Mueller investigation.
So then he goes and meets with General Kelly at the White House.
And now it seems that he's not fired.
It seems that he's still on the job.
Why was he possibly going to be fired?
Because it came out that he had talked in a room with Lisa Page, I believe was there.
Andy McCabe had said that he would wear a wire and thought that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to kick Donald Trump out of office.
Now, another source in this room and that room said that he was just joking.
You don't get to make those jokes at this time.
You don't get to make those jokes when you're a senior official Who's overseeing a highly politicized investigation that has employed people who have said that they're going to subvert the American people's election of Donald Trump and try to kick him out of office and prevent him from being president.
You don't get to see that when there are tax calls for impeachment.
You don't get to joke about those things, if that's the case.
So anyway, he was brought in, and apparently he's still on the job.
He was at a meeting later and in his official capacity.
But...
By the time that it was reported that maybe he was going to get fired, David Frum, former conservative David Frum, who's now pearl-clutching at the Atlantic, he wrote a piece and published it titled, Rosenstein's Departure is a National Emergency.
And said, quote, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is now in mortal peril.
And therefore, you know, this is a national emergency for the United States.
So, first of all, this is kind of awkward for him.
He pulled the trigger a little fast here because it seems that Rosenstein is not fired, at least as of yet.
But also, it's not a national emergency.
It's fine.
It's fine.
I think what you meant to say is that it's fine.
We have this...
Look, if he gets fired, then the Solicitor General comes up.
He oversees the Mueller investigation.
Who cares?
Who cares?
By the way, the Mueller investigation into collusion between Trump and interference and Russia, they found no evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, to borrow a mostly empty phrase.
They've got nothing.
I should write another book called The Findings of the Mueller Investigation.
That'll be my second bestseller.
I'll sell as many copies as the first.
But also, I do want to point out this obsession with the executive agencies, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the sanctity of these organizations, is totally bizarre.
The idea that the FBI is the greatest, most pristine institution in the history of the country is absurd.
For decades, you had a cross-dressing bully, J. Edgar Hoover, spying on Americans, blackmailing them, using the dirty dugup to keep himself entrenched in power, having power even over presidents.
That isn't a totally clean organization, and now we know that officials there acted inappropriately, politicized the organization, used it to attack who is now a duly elected president of the United States.
Why the pearl clutching?
We're supposed to be on guard against these agencies.
All of them.
Look, there's good work that they do, but we have to be on guard against all of them.
Executive agencies can be encroachments of power that should be reserved to the people, to the legislature.
Alright, we'll get to Michael Moore tomorrow because it's kind of funny.
His movie flopped.
Spoiler alert, his movie flopped.
But because all nature is but art unknown to thee, I will point out that on this day in history, in 1789, the Supreme Court was established.
It actually was founded today by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
And we're in the midst of this disgusting, despicable fight that Democrats started.
They started it decades ago, but they keep doing it.
It is 100% their fault that this happens, that we have to tune in to watch a confirmation hearing for a federal judge and hear about disgusting tabloid rumor trash.
It's their fault.
And it's really pathetic when you look back at what the judiciary used to be.
Because in 1789, the Judiciary Act was passed.
Two days later, all of the appointments that President Washington had were confirmed by the Senate.
Initially, there were six judges on the court.
This number moved up and down over time.
Eventually, by 1869, the number was settled at nine.
As you know, President Roosevelt tried to pack the court, didn't work out.
But in those days, it was a bit more serious.
Certainly, the Supreme Court was more serious.
Now we're listening to Anita Hill 2.0.
Anita Hill 2, Electric Boogaloo.
It's even grosser than the first time, and it's even less substantiated than the first time, and the first time was baseless as well.
Why is that, though?
Why is it such a knock-down drag-out?
It's because we've given away so much power to the court.
We've given the court power to legislate on huge matters.
Two that come to mind most egregiously, obviously Roe versus Wade.
The idea that the framers of the Constitution somehow enshrined a right to kill babies in it.
I don't know where that is.
I haven't read that in any particular article.
Obviously, nobody even on the left really seriously thinks there's a right to abortion in the Constitution.
They just decided they were going to Undercut the process of self-governance and say that we are nine robed dictators are going to tell us how we're going to govern ourselves.
And then Obergefell just a few years ago, which invented a right to gay marriage, which invented the redefinition of marriage to include monogamous same-sex couples, but for some reason not polygamous same-sex couples, because as the great romantic poet Justice Kennedy found, there's a right to intimacy in the Constitution somewhere.
And which Justice Scalia ironically pointed out, that right to intimacy obviously would be restricted by marriage, ask the nearest hippie.
We're allowing these nine-robed dictators to be our romantic poets and to govern us, and that's why it's going to get filthy and messy and gross.
That's why.
I actually understand why they take it so seriously.
Because they've used, the left has used the Supreme Court as this dominating force for imposing their unpopular will on the American people for decades and decades.
So, fair enough, they're going to fight dirty for it.
This doesn't mean that we should calm down.
I think some squishes want to say, oh, the right should calm down, they should play really nice and make sure that they have their ascots all done up very well.
No.
No way, man.
Those stakes are very, very high here.
And we've got a guy who says he's going to interpret the Constitution by its meaning when it was ratified and believe that words have meaning and that the piece of paper has meaning.
And you've got other people who say, I'm going to ignore it.
I'm going to torch the Constitution.
I'm going to do whatever I want and impose my will on the people.
No way.
We cannot let them get away with this.
It's ugly.
It's mucky.
It's gross.
But that's what we have to do.
We few.
We happy few.
We band of brothers.
We've got to do it because the stakes are very, very high.
If you don't think they're high, look at what the Democrats are pulling out to try to subvert it.
Okay, that's our show.
We've got a lot more to talk about, but too bad.
Ran too long.
Tune in tomorrow and we'll try to cover everything else.
I'm sure that there will be fallout.
And get your mailbag questions in for Thursday.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
I'll see you tomorrow.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Semia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Bory.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Jim Nickel.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection