All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
46:01
Ep. 225 - I Don’t Believe Her

Jeff Flake decides to flake out, we’ll analyze that and Dr. Ford’s constantly changing story and uncredible testimony. Then, miracle of miracles, Lindsay Graham becomes the most courageous Senator in the GOP. Finally, all the Mailbag I couldn’t get to yesterday! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party that she attended 35 or 36 years ago with maybe five or maybe six or maybe seven people where Brett Kavanaugh attempted to grope her or maybe rape her or maybe murder her in a room with one other boy or maybe three other boys or I...
We'll analyze Dr.
Ford's changing story and her uncredible testimony.
Then, miracle of miracles, Lindsey Graham becomes the GOP's most courageous senator.
And finally, I will go through the mailbag that I didn't get to yesterday.
I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
What a boof of a testimony yesterday.
What a boof of a hearing.
What a boof...
Of a process for the United States Senate for confirming judges.
It was a mockery.
It was disgraceful.
Every Democrat should be taken out back and smacked around a little bit for what they did to our republic and what they did to our constitutional order yesterday.
It was disgusting.
We learned a lot from it, though.
We learned that...
Ford is not believable.
She's not believable.
I'm not saying she gave horrible testimony.
I'm not saying that she totally broke down.
Her testimony was fine.
Probably the people who want to believe what she says is true probably believe it still.
And the people who are skeptical saw all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in her testimony.
They saw all of the times their lawyer leaned in and said, don't Don't answer that.
No, don't answer about how Dianne Feinstein referred lawyers to you.
Oh, don't answer about the advice you're getting from political operatives.
Oh, don't answer about why you didn't do basic things.
She also apparently misrepresented what her polygraph was.
We saw contradictions between her testimony on that polygraph and the letter she wrote to Dianne Feinstein.
It just broke down.
It just wasn't believable.
And Kavanaugh was believable.
And it's as simple as that.
And anybody telling you, oh, you know, who knows, and this and that, no.
Her testimony was not believable.
His was.
I have this relative.
I won't say which relative of mine this is, because I don't want to ruin her career and her life by just association with me.
But she texted me yesterday, and she said, she is left of Lenin.
I mean, she is as far left as anybody that I know, certainly anybody in my family.
She texted me and said, I think Kavanaugh is being falsely accused.
And I said, well, if you're saying it, then it's certainly true.
And that's the impression you get.
His testimony was very powerful.
It was hard to watch.
It was hard to watch because it was pretty emotional.
He couldn't keep the emotion back.
He was very credible.
And I don't know if she's a crazy person or if she's misremembering something.
She's clearly a damaged individual, not only from her behavior, but the various therapies that we're talking about, where all of this came from, apparently.
So we'll talk about all of that.
Because her behavior was pretty weird.
I should note, I had a great time last night.
You might notice I'm not in the studio right now.
I'm still in Pittsburgh.
We had a great time at Franciscan University of Steubenville.
The students were incredible.
Super, super smart.
I really shouldn't recommend this university to you because then a bunch of, like, the word is going to get out.
A bunch of lefties are going to go in.
You know, they're going to ruin the whole place.
But it was incredible.
I was really, really impressed with it.
Very serious kids.
Super smart.
Well-educated, so it was great.
Great to hang out with them.
We talked about the simple joys of being right.
We're going to have more speeches coming up on my Covfefe on campus tour with YAF. We're going to be going on October 24th and 25th to Grand Canyon University, and I think we're going to Michigan after that, though I could be mistaking that.
But they're coming up, so if you want me to come to your school, get your request in through YAF because we're filling up fast.
So if you didn't watch the testimony yesterday, if you didn't watch the hearings yesterday, Lucky you.
Oh, man.
This was really...
I mean, during my show, I was watching the testimony.
While I was supposed to be writing my speech, I was watching the testimony.
It was all drama.
You want to be entertained?
You got entertained.
It was really hard to watch.
If you missed it, you can watch about 10 seconds of the testimony.
You'll understand what the whole thing was.
Here is Brett Kavanaugh, federal judge, D.C. Circuit judge, Supreme Court nominee, being grilled on the meaning of the word boof, From his 1982 high school yearbook.
Have you...
I don't know if it's buffed or boofed.
How do you pronounce that?
That refers to flatulence.
We were 16.
Okay.
That was from Sheldon Whitehouse.
Sheldon Whitehouse, a pure hack, a pure partisan.
They all have been in this.
I sort of give Kamala Harris and Cory Booker a little bit of leeway because they're running for president, and it's still cheap and shallow, but at least there's a purpose to it.
But Dick Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, they're behaving like I mean, they're behaving like hysterical little monsters.
It's awful.
It makes a mockery of our process.
And so yesterday, after all of these hearings, Sheldon Whitehouse leans in and goes, I want to ask you more about your high school yearbook from 1982.
And Kavanaugh basically says, yeah, go right ahead.
Okay, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee.
Okay, let's talk about my yearbook.
You know, and so then you go, well, what's the meaning of the word boof?
And Kavanaugh just knocks it out of the park.
And this highlights it.
They're asking about these little, oh, did you ever have beer in high school?
Yes, Senator, I was a high school student.
Yeah.
Back when the drinking age was 18, actually.
So it's even more defensible.
Did you ever drink when you were a young man?
Yeah, on account of I was a young man.
So yes, I did.
Idiots.
The way you know that this was a really serious hearing, other than Democrats asking about how many times Brett Kavanaugh flatulated when he was 16, the other way you know it was a really serious hearing is that they had Alyssa Milano there.
They had Alyssa Milano.
She was brought in as a guest of Feinstein or somebody, and she's sitting there behind Kavanaugh.
That's a serious person.
A really serious senator invites Alyssa Milano to the testimony.
Absolutely outrageous.
And the way that they all...
I mean, it was so awful.
Chuck Grassley deserves a lot of blame here.
This never should have happened.
It never should have been brought to this.
They were so nice.
Everybody on the committee was so nice to Christine Ford.
and they were so hostile and so unfair and so outrageous to Brett Kavanaugh.
I had Ann Coulter on my show a couple days ago, a few days ago, and I asked her about Dr. Ford, and Ann, in her typical, you know, subdued, stayed way, said that she was obviously a lefty lunatic nutcase out of her mind.
And I thought that was a little unfair at the time.
Not quite so sure now after that testimony.
Here is how all of the senators, here are the hard questions that they gave to Dr. Ford.
Ford making these allegations, trying to ruin a man's life, keep him off the Supreme Court, take a fair judicial pick away from a sitting president, duly elected president.
Here's the tough way that they grilled her.
You know you are not on trial.
You are not on trial.
You are sitting here before members of the United States Senate's Judiciary Committee Because you had the courage to come forward, because as you have said, you believe it was your civic duty.
She most certainly is on trial.
This was the line, they all repeated this, because they all wanted to get their little clip for their campaign ads.
So they said, I just want you to know you're not on trial.
You're not on trial.
You are on trial.
Dr. Ford is on trial.
She is making a really serious, outrageous allegation from something that allegedly happened 36 years ago.
An outrageous, I mean, she's calling him a rapist and a murderer.
Now obviously the thing she describes was he groped her, but she's saying he tried to rape me, he tried to murder me, I thought he was going to kill me accidentally, whatever.
You're on trial.
Your credibility is on trial here, and it needs to be seriously scrutinized.
But the Democrats have done away with due process.
They've done away with the rights of the accused.
They're tweeting out, believe all women.
Why would you believe all women?
Is there something about those double X chromosomes that makes you incapable of lying?
What are you talking about?
They say, why would a woman lie?
I don't know.
I couldn't tell you, but we went through several cases just a few days ago, more than several cases, of major rape allegations that turned out to be hoaxes.
The biggest rape cases in recent history, the two biggest rape cases, were major hoaxes.
Maybe the three.
Tawana Brawley in the 80s, which Al Sharpton made his career on.
The Duke Lacrosse case, obviously, ruined those kids' lives.
And the UVA case.
The UVA is another example.
This was a major news story published in Rolling Stone.
It was a lie.
I don't know.
Why would people make up false Psychosis, revenge, politics, convenience.
I don't know.
It happens a lot, though.
And some you just couldn't explain why, so I don't know.
But they say, I believe you.
Why?
What evidence has she presented?
She's contradicted herself, and we'll get to those examples in a second.
But the Democrats had to try to pick a lane here, because they tried to do two things at once, and it did not work.
The first tactic was to say, Dr.
Ford.
She's Dr.
Ford.
Now, Mrs.
Ford, she's a doctor.
She has a PhD.
She's a psychologist.
Okay, she's a clinical psychologist.
Doctor, Dr.
Ford, serious academic, published a lot of things.
Here's Feinstein going down that path at the start of the hearings.
I have to say, when I saw your CV, I was extremely impressed.
You have a bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, two master's degrees, one from Stanford and one from Pepperdine, and a PhD from the University of of Southern California, better known to Senator Harris and I as USC. You are a professor affiliated with both Stanford University and Palo Alto University.
You have published over 65 peer reviewed articles and have received numerous awards for your work and research.
And therefore, you're telling the truth and relating the truth correctly about an allegation that happened 36 years ago that no one has ever heard of until five seconds ago.
Because, you know, you go to Palo Alto University or whatever.
By the way, I don't remember them introducing Brett Kavanaugh this way.
I'm pretty impressed with Brett Kavanaugh's CV, Yale undergrad, Yale Law School, clerked for the Supreme Court, staff secretary to the president, worked on the Ken Starr investigation, which is what a lot of this is about because the Clinton world is getting revenge.
And Democrats are getting revenge for that whole episode, and they're trying to flip it on a sex issue.
Then, what, federal judge?
Then, you know, he's on one of the most powerful courts in the country, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and now a Supreme Court nominee.
That's a pretty good CV. I don't remember them talking.
Oh, but she attends Palo Alto University, or she's affiliated with Palo Alto.
Okay, wow, incredible.
So the reason they did that is because they want to say that she's this serious person.
Look, she's a professor.
Okay?
And no crazy people ever become professors, right?
No, like, we don't have an entire character trope in popular culture of the wacky, crazy professor, pie in the sky, politicized, whatever.
No, she's a professor at Palo Alto University.
She couldn't be lying.
So they go down that path.
They want to say, she's a super serious person.
But then they realize they have to make her really likable and sweet and innocent and cute.
So they're trying to do two things at once and it doesn't quite work.
When I heard at the top of these hearings, one of the first things Christine Ford said made me really question what was going on here.
Here's right at the top of her hearings when they introduce her.
I want to say that to everybody that she has asked...
Anytime you ask for a break, you get a break.
Anytime there's something that you need you don't have, just ask us.
And you can have as much time for your opening statement as you want.
And just generally let us know if there's any issues.
Proceed, please.
Thank you, Senator Grassley.
I think after I read my opening statement, I anticipate needing some caffeine, if that is available.
Okay.
Oh, I just anticipated.
Well, if you anticipated it, then bring a cup of coffee to the hearing.
You just said you anticipated.
Or have a shot of espresso before you sit down.
Oh, I just might need some caffeine.
I might need a break after this if you guys start grilling me.
I don't want to answer those questions.
I'm so cute.
They're trying to play it both ways.
And by the way, so we should be very blunt about this.
Because there's the question of this political, disgusting, disgraceful circus where they rip down a good man who's never had any of these allegations laid against him until he was in the position to swing the court to be more right-wing, to be more originalist.
They ask, why didn't this happen with Neil Gorsuch?
Neil Gorsuch was replacing Antonin Scalia.
It's hard to get more hardcore and originalist than Scalia, so it doesn't change the makeup of the court.
Brett Kavanaugh is replacing Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy is the swing vote.
Kennedy was the squish.
Brett Kavanaugh appears to be more rock-ribbed than him.
This will fundamentally change the composition of the court, and they're out for blood.
This is largely about Democrats' abortion lust.
This is largely about how insistent they are that we preserve the fictitious constitutional right to kill a baby in the womb.
But that's why they're reacting this way to Kavanaugh instead of Gorsuch.
And every lefty who's bringing up that comparison knows it.
Every major lefty, every lefty analyst or elected official, and they're just being obtuse.
But as to the matter, did Brett Kavanaugh grope this girl super drunk in 1982 or whenever?
We have no reason to believe that that's true.
Everyone who has been called on as a witness to the event or around the time has said, this isn't true, or I don't remember, or I've never met Brett Kavanaugh, including the girl that she says was there.
But also, I don't care.
I actually don't care what happened in 1982.
I feel bad for her if something happened in 1982.
I wish she'd told someone sooner so whatever guy was being aggressive with her could have been punished for it.
But I don't care.
Nobody cares, by the way.
Not a single person on that Judiciary Committee cares.
Not a single Democrat who's demagoguing cares.
They are just making an issue out of this to keep an originalist off of the court.
But She says it's her civic duty.
She says it's her civic duty to come here and stop this guy from being on the Supreme Court because he'll have too much power.
Where was she when he made it to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most powerful courts in the country?
Where was she then?
It's one of the most powerful courts in the country.
If she thought that this was so important to keep him off the Supreme Court, why wouldn't she keep him off the D.C. Circuit?
That court in many ways sees more cases, right?
We see the big headline or banner cases make it up to the Supreme Court, but most cases don't make it up to the Supreme Court.
If it was your civic duty, why not stop him then?
Doesn't add up, but it's certainly been demagogued by Democrats.
So they try to play the cutesy thing.
She's either the super serious, sober academic, or she's really, really cutesy.
And they should have picked Elaine, because I don't think it played very well.
But then she...
She makes one of the most stunning statements of the day.
I'll let her speak for herself.
We're here to accommodate you, not you accommodate us.
I'm used to being collegial. - Okay, go ahead. - Oh, you're used to being, I'm used to being collegial.
That's why I'm going to burn down a man's life over 36-year-old allegations that are refuted by everyone that I occasionally say were there, even though I changed the number of people who were there left and right.
But I'm collegial.
I'm collegial.
I'm going to take away from a duly elected president his right, his constitutional right, to put a judge on the court.
I'm going to take that away.
Because I'm collegial.
And Chuck Grassley, for his part, the whole time.
Oh, and we can get you in.
Would you like a back rub?
Would you like...
How about...
Is the lighting in the room okay?
Give me a break.
So pathetic.
Thank goodness we have Lindsey Graham to be the spine of the GOP. We'll get to him in a second.
But...
Outrageous, a brazen statement.
I'm used to being collegial.
Not collegial at all.
This is horrific what's happening.
And look, if something happened, if you've got evidence that something happened, bring the evidence, okay?
Bring it.
But you don't have any evidence.
And actually the corroborating people say it didn't happen.
So then she gets into the meat of her accusation.
Here it is.
I believed he was going to rape me.
I tried to yell for help.
When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling.
This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life.
It was hard for me to breathe and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.
So what is the allegation now?
The allegation first was that he groped her.
He was super drunk and he tried to get her shirt off and he, you know, was kind of grabbing her on a bed.
Then the allegation was he tried to rape me.
Nothing she's described suggests he tried to rape her or raped her.
Then she says he was going to kill me.
What?
What are you talking about?
This is why the senators brought up yesterday, well, tell your truth.
Cory Booker said, tell your truth, your truth.
We hear the left say this all the time.
Not the truth, your truth.
The reason they say this is because they know that the objective facts, they can't stand on them at all.
It totally knocks them down.
So it has to be all about subjective feeling.
Did he grope you or did he try to murder you?
Which was it?
Well, I felt he was going to murder me.
I thought he was going to go slaughter my whole family.
Maybe go commit genocide somewhere.
I thought, I'm pretty sure, I just felt, because I felt and I believe, that 36 years ago this guy was going to commit genocide.
Prove me wrong.
That's what I felt.
That's my truth.
That's my truth.
So, it went on like that.
There is no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh did anything to Christine Ford in 1982 or at any other time.
The only suggestion that he did that comes from Christine Ford, whose testimony has a lot of holes in it and is uncredible just by virtue of the fact that it's only coming up now, five seconds before this guy's going to make it to the Supreme Court.
With a political agenda during a particularly heated moment when the Supreme Court has a lot of power and the left is totally ginned up against President Trump.
There are a lot of contradictions in this testimony.
Let's just go through them very quickly.
John Nolte put up a good piece on this this morning.
In the letter to Feinstein, she says that there were five people at the party, me and four others.
Then, in the statement that she passed her polygraph test on, we'll get to that polygraph in just one second, she said it was four boys and a couple of girls, which means that at the minimum, there were six people there and possibly seven people there.
Because in the first one, she said, me and four others.
Then she says four boys, a couple of girls.
Is she including herself in the couple of girls?
Even if she is, it still contradicts her letter to Dianne Feinstein.
Possibly, certainly by one person, maybe by two people.
Then there's the matter of the therapist's notes.
In the therapist's notes from this session that she apparently had in 2012, 30 years after the alleged event happened, and six years ago, she said that there were four people in the room during the attempted rape.
Then when she spoke to the Washington Post, she said that there were two people in the room during the attempted rape or the murder or the groping or whatever it was at any given point in her testimony.
Then she said she had a fear of flying.
So this was the reason that she couldn't come testify in D.C. and the Judiciary Committee offered to fly to California.
So she said she had a fear of flying.
And her lawyer said that she could not fly because she has a fear of confined spaces that came from this alleged traumatic event 36 years ago.
But in her first letter to Feinstein, she said that she was vacationing in the Mid-Atlantic until August 7th and then would be in California I don't think she took a horse and buggy there.
She's apparently flying.
She flew up to New Hampshire.
We've seen her flying all over the place.
The lawyer's statement was that she couldn't testify because she has a fear of flying.
So that just is not true, right?
Or if she has a fear of flying, it's not a debilitating fear.
It's a fear that she overcomes constantly.
So it wouldn't be an excuse for her not to come to D.C. So that's just a bald-faced lie somewhere in there.
She also won't release the therapy notes.
So the therapy notes don't mention Kavanaugh.
When she talked about this in 2012, according to those therapy notes, she won't mention Kavanaugh.
But she won't answer whether she gave these notes to the Washington Post.
So she was asked this yesterday during the testimony.
And she said, oh, I just don't remember.
You don't remember?
This was less than eight weeks ago.
Surely your short-term memory must be really pretty bad.
Your long-term memory might be a little bad, too, because the story keeps changing.
did you give them the therapy notes or not?
She won't hand over the therapy notes now.
Why not?
I don't know.
What's in those therapy notes?
But let's have a seventh FBI investigation of Brett Kavanaugh.
Let's do that.
We only have six so far.
Probably something's got through there.
But she won't turn over her therapy notes.
And then finally, Ford named, in the latest version of her story, she named the three men and the one girl at that party.
All of the three men deny it, no recollection or categorically deny it.
And the girl that she names there, her friend, says that she has never, ever met Brett Kavanaugh.
So anybody who could corroborate says it didn't happen, including the girlfriend, including the girl who was there, says, not only was Brett Kavanaugh not there, I have never met him.
So, no evidence whatsoever falls apart.
Is Christine Ford lying?
Maybe.
Is she mistaken?
Maybe.
Is she a total lunatic?
Maybe.
I just don't know.
I don't know.
Her testimony was a little weird.
She wasn't dancing on the table or anything.
But we can deduce from all of that testimony that she's not credible.
Kavanaugh, however, performed very well.
I'll just give you, in case you missed it, I'll give you a little taste of his opening statement.
I have been a good judge.
And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American Bar Association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more than all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.
Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this earth until last week, No one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct.
No one, ever.
A lifetime.
A lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service at the highest levels of American government.
And never a hint of anything of this kind.
And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened.
Pretty powerful stuff.
Now, so he obviously denies it.
He gives some evidence.
He says, I've never been accused of this ever in my life until five seconds when I was threatening Democrats.
But listen to what he tells you.
He says, I have gone through more than all of the previous Supreme Court nominees combined.
Testimony, investigations, this and that.
This tells you something about the government breaking down, about the process breaking down.
And it's not Republicans who are doing it.
It's not Republicans who use the nuclear option on judicial nominees.
It was Democrats.
It was Harry Reid.
He started this.
The Republicans are not to blame for this.
The Democrats are to blame.
And it's despicable and it's disgusting.
And it's bad for the government because just wait.
Oh, just wait until the Democrats get a judicial nominee up.
I want Republicans to destroy that person.
I want them to destroy them, ruin them, wreck them, humiliate them, and torture them.
Not because I think that's a good thing to do to the judicial nominee.
I don't know anything about the judicial nominee.
But because the Republicans cannot unilaterally disarm.
It is awful to the process.
It's unfair.
It's immoral to the people who go up for this.
For people who have judicial nominations or any other appointments or nominations.
It's unfair to so debase our process this way.
And Democrats are going to keep on doing it.
Because they have no moral feeling whatsoever.
Certainly those people on the Judiciary Committee.
And so we should not unilaterally disarm.
We should give them a taste of their own medicine.
Republicans take the high road.
They try to take the high road.
I get it.
I like that.
But the process of politics is pretty ugly, and you have to get your hands a little bit dirty if you're going to do it.
They should wreck the next person, give the Democrats a taste of their own medicine, because it's despicable what they did to him.
Kavanaugh then won the audience over when he mentioned one part where he got choked up.
It was visibly...
It was difficult for him to speak.
Here he is.
I'm not questioning...
That Dr.
Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time.
But I have never done this to her or to anyone.
That's not who I am.
It is not who I was.
I am innocent of this charge.
I intend no ill will to Dr.
Ford and her family.
The other night, Ashley and my daughter, Liza, said their prayers.
And little Liza, all 10 years old, said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman.
Powerful stuff.
And by the way, some people, you know, they watch these things and they see when people are putting on a shaky voice or they're pretending or they're acting or whatever.
That wasn't acting.
If that was acting, then that guy is Brando.
You know, that guy is really something else.
That seemed very, very genuine.
Other parts of Dr.
Ford's testimony, I'm not so sure.
I'm not accusing her of performing exactly, but it was less credible, let's put it that way.
So it became a farce.
They kept asking him about his high school yearbook.
You saw the boof thing at the beginning.
And so the boof thing is absurd, but it also highlights not just the absurdity of that questioning, but broadly about asking people what they did in high school.
Who cares?
This man has been a federal judge for over a decade.
This man has worked for the president in a pretty high-level role.
This is a serious...
Why?
Who cares?
Are they going to ask him about his high school basketball scores?
What relevance is that to anybody?
So it became a farce.
And then they go on to Mark Judge.
You've heard of Mark Judge.
He's this conservative guy.
He was also accused of being at the party, and apparently he had a pretty big alcoholism problem.
He wrote a book where he put his friends' names in it from high school, you know, but he, like, changed their names, so it was, you know, he changed them slightly, but, you know, give them a little shout-out.
So here is Leahy, Senator Leahy, absolute, decrepit, corrupt crone, asking about his friendship with Mark Judge, and it gets pretty ridiculous.
Let me ask you this.
The author of the book titled Wasted Tales of a Gen X Drunk.
He references a Bart O'Kavanaugh vomiting in someone's car during beach week and then passing out.
Is that you that he's talking about?
Sir, Mark Judge was...
Your knowledge, is that you that he's talking about?
I'll explain if you let me.
Proceed, please.
Mark Judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem, an addiction problem that lasted decades and was very difficult for him to escape from.
And he nearly died.
And then he had leukemia as well on top of it.
I'm trying to get a straight answer from you, Andrew.
Are you...
Bart Kavanaugh that he's referring to.
Yes or no?
You'd have to ask him.
Well, I agree with you there.
Are you Bart O. Kavanaugh?
It was one of the names in this guy's fictionalized account of his youth where he threw in his friends' names.
Are you Bart O. Kavanaugh?
No, dummy.
I'm Brett Kavanaugh.
My name is right.
It's written on the nameplate.
What are you insinuating?
There's a fictional account, a fictionalized account, written by a guy who was apparently drunk throughout a lot of high school as part of his rehabilitation.
And you're going to say, well, in that fictionalized account he wrote where he talked about a Bart O'Kavanaugh, is that you?
I don't know, man.
Who cares?
Who cares?
I don't know if the fictional character in this book is referring to me.
Obviously, it's got a similar name, Bardo Cavanaugh, so he's clearly playing on the name of the character.
But are we to deduce from that that this is some journalistic account of their high school days?
Of course not.
Here's a sign of the apocalypse, then we're probably going to have to go and get to mailbag.
Lindsey Graham comes out and wins the day.
This was...
True moral clarity, and it took moral courage to do it.
And I've got to tell you, if you had asked me two years ago if the strongest people in the United States Senate, the toughest, rock-ribbed, most effective conservatives, were going to be Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, I would have laughed at you.
But, I don't know, cocaine's a hell of a drug, you know?
Cocaine Mitch is coming out strong.
Covfefe's a hell of a drug, too.
And Lindsey Graham has really gave it to them.
Here is Lindsey Graham, for all intents and purposes, ending the hearing.
I wanted an FBI investigation.
You could have come to us.
What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020.
You've said that, not me.
You've got nothing to apologize for.
When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said, oh, because I voted for them.
I would never do to them what you've done to this guy.
This is the most unethical thing Sham, since I've been in politics, and if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy.
Are you a gang rapist?
No.
I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.
Boy, y'all want power.
God, I hope you never get it.
I hope the American people can see through this sham.
That you knew about it and you held it.
You had no intention of protecting Dr.
Ford.
None.
She's as much of a victim as you are.
God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends.
But let me tell you when it comes to this.
You're looking for a fair process.
You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.
Beautifully said, absolutely right.
And Kavanaugh then, at the very end of the hearings, they say, do you believe in God, Kavanaugh?
He says, yes.
Excuse me.
He says, look me in the eye.
Tell me you didn't do this.
I did not do this.
That's how it ends.
So, what's the takeaway?
Is she lying?
I don't know.
I'm more convinced that she's lying after the hearing than I was before.
But I don't know.
Who's to say?
You can't possibly say.
Is she credible?
Certainly not.
100% not.
And I'm much more convinced of that after the hearing than I was before.
Democrats think this looks good for them.
They think that this is going to play really well with women.
They're sucking up to women.
They think that they can split off women from the GOP coalition.
I don't know if they realize that women have husbands and fathers and sons.
I'm not sure if they realize that.
That maybe women in America don't want men to be able to have their lives and reputations and careers destroyed over utterly unsubstantiated, in fact, in many cases discredited, 35-year-old accusations.
I wonder if they know that.
It's such an obvious miscarriage of justice.
I don't think this plays very well.
They think that they can get away with this, too.
I mean, if you just followed the Twitter conversation yesterday, because it plays into their intersectionality narrative.
I think Lindsey Graham might have even joked about this yesterday.
They tried to do it to Clarence Thomas, and he played the speech of high-tech lynching.
He said, this is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.
Brett Kavanaugh can't do this.
And by the ideology of intersectionality, the worst people on earth are straight white men who think that they're men.
And they are the oppressors, and everyone else should gang up and band together intersectionally and overthrow them.
It's a particular Marxist ideology that views all of history as this sort of struggle.
It's unfair, obviously.
It's just as bad to attack a straight white guy as it is to attack a gay, transsexual, black woman.
I don't know.
But that's how they view the world.
They think they're going to be able to hit it that way.
I think people are sick of it.
There was an ad in the New York Times.
1,600 men purchased an ad in the New York Times to say that we believe women, we believe accusers.
Alright, that's not how our process works, guys.
You don't just get to accuse somebody.
We went through it all last week.
There are a lot of false rape accusations, major ones, national ones.
It's very bad because those false accusations really damage people who have legitimately actually suffered from sexual assault or any other kind of crime.
And it damages them, it damages the credibility of those crimes, but that's the world we live in.
There are fake accusations.
People are innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the Democrats want to do.
Right now, the latest update I have is Flake is voting yes, Corker's voting yes, and so it'll get out of committee.
Some people are unsure as to how it'll perform in the Senate, but it looks like this will proceed to a Senate vote.
I hope he gets through, and I can't wait for Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Kavanaugh, to be the guy who overturns Roe v.
Wade.
To be the swing vote.
That's going to be beautiful.
I cannot wait.
And I can't wait for that next Democrat judicial nominee because we're going to have a good time with that.
We've got a lot of mailbag to get to.
First question from Jamie.
Hey, Michael.
Do you think spectral evidence should be admissible in court?
Given their support for Christine Ford, the Democrats seem to think so.
I was curious what you think about its validity.
Thanks.
Love the show, Jamie.
Spectral evidence is the evidence from dreams and hallucinations that was used during the Salem witch trials.
And apparently it is.
Apparently it is.
I don't think it should be admissible, obviously.
But the Democrats do, and the Democrats are half the country.
This also gets to an issue that we've talked about before, which is the neo-paganism, the neo-cultishness of the modern left, because everybody's got to serve somebody.
Everybody has a religious view.
So if you don't worship God, the God of the Bible, then you're going to worship the environment, the nature God, the The ecosystem, whatever, this or that, or the yoga ritual, like Matt Walsh talks about yoga as paganism.
There's this om and these kind of rituals to it, which are religious in nature.
And you're going to go and you're going to descend into man's natural state, which is paganism and unreason.
And you're going to have Democrats demanding spectral evidence be admitted in court.
They have all but done that during these hearings.
So...
I might not support it, but that's the way we're headed.
From Augustine.
I don't know.
Hello, dearest Michael.
I hope it's Augustine.
It's dearest Michael.
I have found myself relying solely on conservative news sources such as the Daily Wire and Fox News.
Are there any good left-wing news sources that I should look at to balance my news?
Yes.
The Wall Street Journal leans left in its news reporting, and it's good.
The Financial Times leans left, probably more left in its reporting.
It's good.
Those are obviously, they have more of a focus on business.
For political left-wing outlets, I can't think of good ones.
The New Republic used to be okay.
That fell apart a few years ago.
No, I can't really think of good ones.
But what that leaves you to do is that means you have to read all the crazy ones.
That means you should read Vox.com, even though it's awful and they're total hacks.
You should read...
Who else?
I don't know.
Mother Jones, whatever.
Read the left-wing crazy people.
Because what it will at least do is when you read outlets that have a particular opinion on the right, a preference for the right, then when you read the lefties, you'll be able to get...
Probably new talking points, new language, new ways of talking about things, and you can dismiss that which is absurd, but it will give you a better perspective because it's not so much different facts that they're presenting.
You probably get all the facts if you read the right-wing ones, but you're getting different language in the left-wing ones.
And those different languages, those different vocabularies, give you a different perspective so at least you can understand what the left is saying and you can answer their arguments.
You should always be able to answer their arguments.
The benefit of being in a left-wing culture is that you're constantly having to defend your views and answer other people's arguments.
You know how they think, but they don't know how you think.
And one way to ensure that remains true is you've got to read those crazy lefties and then you can answer them.
From Joseph.
Mr.
Knowles.
Love the show.
Honest question.
Why are you for individual nation states against a supranational global government, but for a supranational global religious bureaucracy, a la the Catholic Church?
Doesn't huge bureaucracy breed corruption?
Isn't the church the last place we would want corruption, especially at a global scale?
Isn't global religious corruption what we're seeing now in the Catholic Church with this disgrace of a pope embracing leftist values and defending child molesters?
I'm not sure that that last part is fair.
He's protected...
People apparently knowing of abuse of priests and seminarians, but I don't think there's evidence that he protected people that he knew were abused children.
Wouldn't churches, based on one's conscientious interpretation of the Bible, be a better model?
Christ calls for unity, but does that mean bureaucratic unity?
Doesn't the spirit transcend nation language while still keeping them intact?
Anyways, I want your two cents.
P.S. I love what you've done with Shapiro's broom closet.
You've really made it your own.
Joseph, well, to answer your question, no, I won't become a Protestant.
I appreciate your care.
No, I've actually, it's a good question you raise.
Why do I support individual nation-states against imperial government, but I support what is an imperial church, a global church, a universal church, which is the meaning of the word Catholic?
The reason for that...
The nation states came about after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
It came about because Protestants and Catholics fought a series of wars and the Protestants won.
They at least didn't lose, which means they won.
If there were an empire that were a Catholic empire, a Christian empire, what Christendom used to be before the modern age, before the Treaty of Westphalia, before the Protestant Revolution, if there were a united Christendom, I could support that political order.
It certainly worked well enough for Europe when Europe was united.
But today, we don't have a united Christendom.
These supernational governments, these giant imperial bureaucracies, are not Christian.
They're post-Christian.
They're secular.
They're the European Union.
They're the United Nations.
They're the International Criminal Court.
They're not...
They're not Christendom.
The United Nations doesn't make sense anyway because you can't unite everybody.
That's the same as not having everybody be united.
Part of national groups and tribal groups and clan groups is that you are different from people and you have different interests and different backgrounds and traditions.
So that's absurd.
But even the European Union.
If the European Union were going to be run by, I don't know, Charles Borromeo or somebody, or is going to be run by some strong Christian, then perhaps.
But that isn't the case.
And that's not coming back.
I don't suspect that's going to come back.
As for why I... It's because I think the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ.
People will ask, why don't you go to a church that just believes the Bible?
I say, I attend the church and I'm a member of the church that wrote the Bible.
Now, Part of the Bible, Bible, Bible insistence is a product of the Protestant Revolution and later stages of it.
But I don't worship the Bible.
I love Scripture, but I don't worship the Bible.
The Bible is not the Word of God.
Christ is the Word of God.
He says so in the book, which is the Bible.
So I don't worship the Bible.
The Bible is...
It's wonderful.
It's scripture.
It's revelation.
It's divine, sure.
But it's not the whole thing.
And I think, as Chesterton says, heresy is not when you promote vice over virtue, but when you promote one virtue to the exclusion of all the others.
So we wouldn't want to exclude—we wouldn't want to have only works to the exclusion of faith.
Only grace to the exclusion of free will.
We wouldn't want to exclude these things.
Only justice to the exclusion of mercy.
All of these things can be held together in God.
Despite all of the many problems in my church, I remain a member of it.
We've got time for, I think, one more.
To the local papist of the Daily Wire, how do we Catholics work around the whole thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image thing?
It seems like we pretend there's an asterisk on that commandment that leads to the fine print where it says, unless I come to earth in human form at some point, then all bets are off.
I don't see any reason this should be a law that only applies to Jews, like eating kosher bread on the context it's presented in.
But we seem to violate it pretty heavily, especially since we don't just make graven images of Christ, which I can almost make an exception for, but also regular mortals like Mary and the saints and even beings like angels.
How do we square this practice with the Bible?
Well, you've got to read the Bible more carefully.
You talk about the asterisk being added to the Scripture.
The asterisk is in the Scripture.
It's in Exodus itself.
I think it's Exodus 20, where we see don't make any graven image.
And then in Exodus 25, God tells...
Moses to create statues of the angels, cherubim and seraphim.
He says, make these statues, construct these statues.
He tells Moses to make a serpent and put him on a stick, crucify the serpent.
And this will be a sign to the Israelites.
All shallows are clear.
And one cannot read one verse of the Bible out of context.
You have to read it in context.
In this case, the context is in the same book and it's only a handful of chapters away.
The reason that we don't make a graven image is so that you don't worship the image.
But we don't worship images.
They are tools of veneration.
I don't worship other images that I see.
And I don't worship statues of...
Jesus or Mary or St.
Joseph.
I don't worship Mary as it is.
I pray to Mary, but I don't worship Mary and no faithful Catholic does and it's never been a part of Catholic doctrine and it remains not that way.
All shallows are clear.
Before we go, I'm just getting this in now.
It seems that Flakey Jeff Flake has allowed the vote out of the Judiciary Committee, but he is now saying he will not vote for Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation happens.
Jeff Flake continuing to prove himself the single worst person who's ever called himself a Republican.
What a...
Jerk, to be polite.
What a jerk.
So I guess we're going to get the seventh FBI investigation now.
The first six, that didn't work.
By the way, as Judge Kavanaugh said during his testimony, FBI investigations are not conclusive.
This is the investigation.
I'll do it for you now, Senator Flake.
Hey, Mr.
Kavanaugh, what do you think happened?
I didn't do any of this.
Hey, Christine Ford, what do you think happened?
I think he tried to murder me and take me up to planet Zebulon 6.
Okay, alright, Dr.
Ford, that's fine.
Mr.
Judge, what do you think happened?
Didn't happen.
Hey, that girl that Ford said was there, whose name I forget, what do you think happened?
I've never met Brett Kavanaugh, so that didn't happen.
Okay, hey PJ, what do you think happened?
Didn't happen.
Okay, that's the investigation.
I just, hey, I saved everybody a lot of time.
I did the FBI investigation.
Please somebody forward this to Senator Jeff Flake along with my restraint at what I would like to say to him.
Two words, not happy birthday.
That is, that's really frustrating.
We'll talk about it more on Monday.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
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