Let’s stop pretending the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh is credible

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The memo by Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, last Thursday on behalf of Senate Republicans is absolutely devastating for Senate Democrats.

In her analysis, Mitchell — who was once named as the Sexual Assault Prosecutor of the Year by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, President Barack Obama's secretary of homeland security — not only argues that it's hard to tell whether Dr. Ford's allegations are true, she highlights major inconsistencies in her story that raise serious concerns.

RELATED: Does anyone think the Left will be satisfied with this FBI investigation?

Mitchell wrote, "Here is my bottom-line: A 'he-said, she-said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that." She added, "I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-evidence standard."

This means that in Mitchell's professional opinion as a 25-year veteran of sex crimes prosecutions, Dr. Ford's allegation that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her while they were teenagers is so unbelievable that it fails to meet even the lowest thresholds to demonstrate culpability within our legal system because they just don't make sense. Indeed, the gaps and inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony are shady, irreconcilable, and defy logic.

For instance, the most glaring issue is that Dr. Ford provided four different dates for when she was attacked within the span of a couple of weeks:

● According to the Washington Post, notes from Dr. Ford's 2013 therapy session, which she refused to turn over to Senate investigators, list the attacks as having occurred when she was in her "late teens."

● Dr. Ford was born in November 1966. Her "late teens" would be consistent with a July 6, 2018, text message to a Post reporter where she describes the alleged attack as happening in the mid-1980s.

● For reasons that remain unclear, three weeks later, in a July 30th letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, Dr. Ford then changed the date of the attack to the "early 1980s."

● One week later, Ford takes a polygraph test with her lawyers where she was asked before-hand to describe the events. In that statement, she first wrote that the alleged attack occurred in the early 1980s. But then something strange happens. As you can see, she scratched out "early 1980s" and left it as "1980s."

● Finally, by mid-September, in her first on-the-record interview, Ford narrowed the date of the attack to the "summer of 1982."

To recap: Presumably for decades, and certainly as of 2013 and early July, Ford claimed that her alleged attack happened in the mid-1980s when she was in her late teens. Then, after consulting with friends and lawyers, the date of the attack changed to 1982 until she homed in on the summer of that year.

Why is this important? If the attack happened when Ford was in her late teens (1984-1986), as her therapist's notes and correspondence with the Washington Post state, Brett Kavanaugh would have been 300 miles away from her as a full-time student at Yale University. Furthermore, as Ford herself noted in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she began college at age 17 in Chapel Hill, meaning she spent much of her "late teens" in North Carolina—far away from the Maryland suburbs where she claims Kavanaugh attacked her.

Unless the FBI finds groundbreaking evidence this week that supports her allegation, Dr. Ford's testimony should be considered as simply not credible.

There are additional contradictions in Ford's account that undermine her case, including several changes to the number of boys who attacked her and odd memory gaps. But her timeline discrepancies may be the most damaging since the first dates she provided could exonerate Brett Kavanaugh as her assailant by severely narrowing, or even eliminating, his window of opportunity to have committed the crime.

Brett Kavanaugh appears to have been the rare breed of student who could party and play sports without missing a beat in the classroom, but he certainly did not defy the laws of physics. Unless the FBI finds groundbreaking evidence this week that supports her allegation, Dr. Ford's testimony should be considered as simply not credible — and the Senate should proceed to ascend Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Transgender opera in Columbia? 10 SHOCKING ways USAID spent your tax dollars.

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has been doing what with our tax money!?

Under the determined eye of Elon Musk, DOGE has rooted out the corruption that permeates USAID, and it turns out that it's worse than we thought. Glenn recently read a list of atrocious causes that were funded by USAID, and the list was as long as it was shocking.

Since the January consumer index report was published today, one thing is clear: eggs are bearing the brunt of inflation. That's why we illustrated the extent of USAID's wasteful spending of YOUR taxpayer dollars by comparing it to the price of eggs. How many eggs could the American people have bought with their tax dollars that were given to a "transgender opera" in Colombia or indoctrinating Sri Lankans with woke gender ideology? The truth will shock you:

1. A “transgender opera” in Colombia

USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia. That's over 135,000 eggs.

2. Sex changes and "LGBT activism" in Guatemala

$2 million was spent funding sex changes along with whatever "LGBT activism" means. That equates to over 5.7 million eggs!

3. Teaching Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid binary-gendered language

USAID forked over $7.9 million to combat the "gender binary" in Sri Lankan journalism. That could have bought nearly 23 million eggs.

4. Tourism in Egypt

$6 million (or just over 17 million eggs) was spent to fund tourism in Egypt. If only someone had thought to build some impressive landmarks...

5. A new "Sesame Street" show in Iraq

USAID spent $20 million to create a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. That's just short of 58 million eggs...

6. Helping the BBC value the diversity of Libyan society

$2.1 million was sent to the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) to help them value the diversity of Libyan society (whatever that means). That could have bought over 6 million eggs.

7. Meals for a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda

$10 million worth of USAID-funded meals went to an Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group. That comes up to be just shy of 29 million eggs.

8. Promoting inclusion in Vietnam 

A combined $19.3 million was sent to two separate inclusion groups in Vietnam inclusion groups in Vietnam (why where they separated? Not very inclusive of them). That's over 55 million eggs.

9. Promoting DEI in Serbia's workplaces

USAID sent $1.5 million (4.3 million eggs) to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”

10. Funding EcoHealth Alliance, tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "bat research"

EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs that funded the Wuhan lab's bat virus research, received $5 million from USAID, which is equivalent to 14.5 million eggs.

The bottom line...

So, how much damage was done?

In total, approximately $73.8 million was wasted on the items on this list. That comes out to be 213 million eggs. Keep in mind that these are just the items on this list, there are many, many more that DOGE has uncovered and will uncover in the coming days. Case in point: that's a lot of eggs.

POLL: Should Trump stop producing pennies?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

On Sunday, February 9th, President Trump ordered the U.S. Mint to halt the production of pennies. It costs the mint three cents to produce every penny, which Trump deemed wasteful. However, critics argue that axing the pennies will be compensated by ramping up nickel production, which costs 13 cents per coin.

In other news, President Trump promised on Truth Social that he would be reversing a Biden-era policy that mandated the use of paper straws throughout the federal government. From potentially slashing entire agencies to saying farewell to pennies and paper straws, Trump is hounding after wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

But what do you think? Was Trump right to put an end to pennies? And should plastic straws make a comeback? Let us know in the poll below:

Should Trump stop the production of pennies? 

Do you agree with Trump's reversal of the plastic straw ban?

Was this the most PATRIOTIC Super Bowl yet?

CHANDAN KHANNA / Contributor | Getty Images

The 2025 Super Bowl demonstrated Trump’s vision of a new America.

On Sunday, February 9th, the Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Kansas City Chiefs in the biggest sporting event of the year. But this wasn't just a victory for Eagles fans. For those watching, it became apparent that American culture has changed, the zeitgeist has shifted, and America has become cool again. While remnants of woke culture lingered, they felt out of step next to the parade of American Flags and patriotic messaging that dominated the national event. The message was clear: America is back.

Everybody knows that the commercials are the best part of any Super Bowl, and last night's game was no exception. As Glenn has pointed out, while some of the ads still carried woke messages (like Nike's), many more captured the newly kindled patriotism felt nationwide. Here are four of the best commercials from last Sunday that make this the most patriotic Super Bowl yet:

1. Rocket: "Own the Dream"

This touching commercial by the financial services company, Rocket, states "Everyone deserves a shot at the American dream," while showing images of people returning home and building families. The ad included a cover of John Denver's iconic song "Take Me Home, Country Roads" and featured an in-stadium sing-along, live from the Super Bowl.

2. Secret Service: "A History of Protection"

Donald Trump made history by being the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl, which required the efforts of hundreds of Secret Service agents to ensure his safety. The Secret Service boasted of this feat during their minute-long commercial, which lauded American values and achievements and featured iconic American imagery.

3. Brad Pitt: "Huddle Up"

The Super Bowl introduction celebrated snapshots of American achievement accompanied with a powerful commentary about unity narrated by Brad Pitt. The message is clear: Americans can achieve great things when we work together. The ad conjures up American ideals such as hard work, ingenuity, self-sacrifice, and teamwork.

4. Jeep: "Big Game"

Movie star Harrison Ford appeared in Jeep's Super Bowl commercial to promote freedom and to remind us that "freedom isn't free." Ford treks through the mountains while ruminating on what freedom means in America and the opportunities and responsibilities that come with it.

How Trump is WINNING at the Panama Canal

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite the doubts of the nay-sayers, Trump's Panamanian plans have already borne fruit.

Shortly before his inauguration, President Trump drew national attention to the Panama Canal. He reminded Americans of just how important the canal is for the U.S. and highlighted the Chinese influence that has been slowly taking control of the vital passage ever since America handed it over to Panama.

President Trump was immediately mocked and ridiculed by the Left, who called him delusional and an imperialist. However, earlier this week, Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made a trip to Panama and spoke with the Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, and Rubio made some serious headway. As Glenn has explained, Trump's boisterous talk is part of his strategy. Invading Panama was never the goal, just one of several options to get what America needed, and after Rubio's visit, it seems like America's needs will be met.

Here are the TOP THREE takeaways from Marco Rubio's visit to Panama:

1. Marco Rubio makes headway

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

On February 2nd, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha and President José Raúl Mulino where they discussed critical regional and global challenges, including the canal. Rubio drew attention to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal in which the U.S. promised Panama ownership of the canal on the condition of its guaranteed neutrality. Rubio argued that China's growing influence qualified as a breach of the treaty and that it gives the U.S. the power to take necessary measures to rectify the faults, given Panama doesn't act. As of this week, reports say Panama agreed and promised to take immediate action to purge Chinese influence from canal operations.

2. Panama is ditching China's Belt Road

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

After his meeting with Rubio, Panamanian President Mulino agreed that Panama would step away from China's "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI). The BRI is a Chinese effort to establish China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. In 2017, Panama signed on to this initiative, and China's influence in the small nation has exponentially grown. However, after Rubio's visit, President Mulino has not only stated that Panama will not renew its agreement with China, but moreover, the country will also look for ways to back out of the agreement early. This is a massive win for the Trump Administration and the American people.

3. The Chinese may lose their ports on the canal

MARTIN BERNETTI / Contributor | Getty Images

Shortly after Rubio left Panama City, two lawyers spearheaded the effort to kick out a Chinese company that controls two major ports on the Panama Canal. The Chinese company—CK Hutchison Holdings—has operated one port on both ends of the canal since 1997, which could potentially give China a massive degree of control over traffic. After analyzing the contract, the Panamanian lawyers argue that the contract is potentially in violation of the Panamanian constitution and should be revoked. It is unclear if the constitutional issues relate to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, but even on its own merit, this is a huge victory for America.