It’s been about two years (give or take) since Crooked Hillary and Slick Willie evidence began to be exposed to the public. A lack of smoking gun dot connections, a coverup-minded Obama Administration and a colluding Mainstream Media (MSM) have protected the Clintons for quite some time.
So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for a Christmas upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms. Still looking to defray the Christmas costs.
A trove of documents on the Clinton Foundation alleging possible pay for play and tax evasion have been turned over to the FBI and IRS by several investigative whistleblowers, who will be testifying in an open hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Thursday, according to the committee and lawmakers.
Roughly 6,000 documents that are expected to reveal the nearly two-year investigation by the whistleblowers with a private firm called MDA Analytics LLC, which allegedly turned over the documents more than a year and a half ago to the IRS, according to John Solomon, who first published the report last week in The Hill.
The whistleblowers are former federal criminal investigators, who allege that the Clinton Foundation was “engaged in illegal activities and may be liable for millions of dollars in delinquent taxes and penalties,” according to Solomon.
The Department of Justice and the FBI’s Little Rock, Ark. field office, which is believed to be investigating the foundation, have allegedly obtained the documentation from the whistleblowers as well, according to lawmakers who’ve spoken with the whistleblowers.
Clinton Foundation officials could not be immediately reached for comment.
However, a former whistleblower, who has spoken with agents from the Little Rock FBI field office last year and worked for years as an undercover informant collecting information on Russia’s nuclear energy industry for the bureau, noted his enormous frustration with the DOJ and FBI. He describes as a two-tiered justice system that failed to actively investigate the information he provided years ago on the Clinton Foundation and Russia’s dangerous meddling with the U.S. nuclear industry and energy industry during the Obama administration.
William D. Campbell’s story wasfirst published by this reporter in 2017. He turned over more than 5,000 documents and detailed daily briefs to the bureau when he served as a confidential informant reporting on Russia’s nuclear giant Rosatom. Campbell worked as an energy consultant, gaining the trust of Russians and providing significant insight into Russia’s strategic plans to gain global dominance in the uranium industry. He reported on Russian’s intentions to build a closer relationship with Obama administration officials, to include then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as reported. The documents he turned over to the DOJ, which were reviewed by this news site, showed Campbell had also provided highly sensitive information both related to the uranium case, as well as other intelligence matters, since 2006.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was the director of the FBI at the time Campbell was a confidential informant and according to Campbell, the information was briefed to Mueller by his FBI handlers.
“(Mueller) received the documents, copies of which I still have, over a period of years and ignored a national security threat to the United States because of his political preference,” said Campbell, who said he is frustrated that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and the other information he provided was apparently ignored years ago.
“These men were in charge of transport of nuclear materials (inside the United States) while committing criminal activity here in the United States and signing major US utility contracts,” said Campbell, referring to the information he provided the FBI on the American company Transportation Logistics International, also known as TLI, was the primary transport company for Russian enriched uranium sold to the United States.
“One teacup of what they were transporting both domestically and abroad could close down Wall Street or Washington,” Campbell warned. “(Mueller) ignored and delayed their arrests over years while I was risking my life undercover and interacting with these (Vladimir) Putin appointees both here in the United States and overseas.”
But Rep. Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus and member of the committee, said this time it will be different. He noted that the investigation is apparently ongoing with the FBI and DOJ and believes the information being delivered for Thursday’s hearing to be ‘explosive’ in nature and may help connect the dots.
Meadow’s told Fox New’s Martha MaCallum Tuesday, “the American people, they want to bring some closure, not just a few sound bites, here or there, so we’re going to be having a hearing this week, not only covering over some of those 6,000 pages that you’re talking about, but hearing directly from three whistleblowers that have actually spent the majority of the last two years investigating this.”
Meadows, who’s also on President Donald Trump’s short-list to replace Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, noted that some “allegations (whistleblowers) make are quite explosive.”
“We just look at the contributions. Now everybody’s focused on the contributions for the Clinton Foundation and what has happened just in the last year,” he said. “But if you look at it, it had a very strong rise, the minute she was selected as secretary of state. It dipped down when she was no longer there.”
“And then rose again, when she decided to run for president. So there are all kinds of allegations of pay-to-play and that kind of thing,” Meadows added.
Sara A. Carter is a national and international award winning investigative reporter whose stories have ranged from national security, terrorism, immigration and front line coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The big news on Thursday is President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen has pled guilty – WAIT FOR IT – to lying. What prosecutorial team snagged Cohen? Special Persecutor Robert Mueller and his team of Crooked Hillary supporting Prosecutors.
I don’t watch, listen or read Mainstream Media News so I can only imagine how Cohen’s guilty plea propagandized their sheeple the plea will lead to imminent impeachment of President Trump.
You should really view the more reasoned reporting on the Cohen Guilty plea that suggests Mueller’s indictments and guilty pleas have NOTHING TO DO with an alleged Trump/Russia collusion. It’s been two-years so you may have forgotten Mueller’s Special Counsel appointment was to investigate Trump for colluding with Russia to manipulate the 2016 Election to Trump’s favor.
If you did forget Mueller’s mandate be careful to whom you speak. You might get caught in a perjury trap by making statement dissimilar to anything you said two years ago.
NOW if Robert Mueller was actually serious about a candidate who paid for information to sway the 2016 election that involve a Russian source, he should LOOK to the Crooked Hillary campaign paying for the debunked Steele Dossier which was used by the Obama Administration to spy on the Trump campaign. Oh, I forgot the key point. Christopher Steele claimed his Dossier was sourced by – GASP! – the Russians.
Specifically what is Cohen pleading guilty to? Could it be facilitating Russian spying on Crooked Hillary? Nope. Again the Russia/Election 2016/American campaign axis is closer akin to Crooked Hillary’s agenda. Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress about a Trump project to build a skyscraper in Moscow. A project, incidentally, Trump the table as his campaign for President began to pick up steam.
… Cohen admitted he lied to Congress about key details in the negotiations for the Moscow tower, most notably that those talks stretched much deeper into the presidential campaign than previously thought, to June of 2016.
Trump, speaking to reporters Thursday, disputed Cohen’s timeline and suggested his former fixer was telling prosecutors what they wanted to hear to save his own skin. As for why the most recent deal failed, Trump said he made the decision because he was focused on on [sic] running for president.”
But according to Cohen’s new statement to prosecutors, the tower deal remained viable as late as June 2016, after Trump had vanquished his Republican presidential rivals and was mounting his general election campaign against Hillary Clinton. Cohen said he kept Trump, named as “Individual 1” in the plea, updated about the deal’s progress, and also “briefed family members of Individual 1 within the company about the project.” (Attorney’s plea caused by Trump’s dream of a Moscow tower; By STEPHEN BRAUN and BERNARD CONDON; Washington Times; 11/30/18)
The timing of securing the GOP nomination by late July led Trump to abandon the Trump Moscow Tower dream. That is a much closer correlation than a failed real estate deal in June 2016.
The irony about the Steele Dossier is the initial intelligence poop was initiated by Never-Trump Republicans. As it became evident Trump would win the nomination, the Never-Trump Republican funded terminated.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC are believed to have taken over the project in April 2016, once Trump became the nominee, and oversaw the compilation and completion of the dossier from there.
Who put it together?
The document was produced by Fusion GPS, a Washington strategic intelligence firm cofounded by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson in 2012.
In 2016, the firm hired Steele to dig into any connections between Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate, and the Russian government.
But it has attracted particular scrutiny for its work for a U.S. law firm that defended Prevezon Holdings, which until May was locked in a legal battle with the U.S. government over allegations the company’s executives fraudulently obtained a $230 million tax refund from the Russian treasury.
Also working the case defending Prevezon was Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 before which Donald Trump Jr. was offered damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskaya is known for her work lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 U.S. law aimed at punishing human rights abusers in Russia.
… READ ENTIRETY (Clinton, Trump and the Russia dossier: What you need to know; BY JONATHAN EASLEY, KATIE BO WILLIAMS AND MORGAN CHALFANT; The Hill; 10/28/17 12:31 PM EDT)
Mueller’s perjury trap faulty memory trick is hardly as relevant as the overt lies committed and given a pass by the Obama Administration led FBI and DOJ. I hope Americans wakeup to the injustice of Mueller tactics against all things President Trump and the actual crimes that Obama/Crooked Hillary Dems committed with absolutely zero consequences.
Perspectives on Cohen Guilty Plea Ignored by Lying MSM:
Don’t get so caught up debating the granular issues over ‘muh Russia’ that you fail to elevate and see the landscape from the 30,000 ft. level. The Rosenstein/Mueller move today is all about protecting the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) from President Trump (declassification threats); and it was specifically scheduled, timed, to be launched today as Trump leaves for the G20 to achieve maximum political damage. … READ MORE
So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. It’s time for an upgrade. The best laptop with buzzes & whistles for my purposes is about a$1,000.00. My grandson found a similar but not quite all the buzzes & whistles for a little over $500.00. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms.
The Sinema/McSally battle is a classic example of the ideological divide in the United States of America. McSally is a veteran and Conservative endorsed by President trump, yet she has to Sinema who represents everything contrary to traditional American values. Sinema is a gal whose candidacy would have been hysterically laughed at as a viable candidate even 20 years ago.
Here are some spliced excerpts of what represents the Sinema a majority of Arizonans voted into the U.S. Senate:
She once depicted American servicemen as scary skeletons exporting “terror” abroad on a flyer protesting the Iraq War
[Blog Editor: PJ Media fails to name the Truther, but the link is to a CNN article that does, viz., Jeff Farias. But CNN does a deficient job explaining Farias’ connection to the debunked 9/11 Truthers. Fox News does a better job:
Fox News can also disclose that, in 2005, she befriended a conspiracy theorist who believes 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. government.
Between 2005 and 2006, Sinema co-hosted a radio show together with Jeff Farias. Farias is a conspiracy theorist who signed a 2008 petition that claims the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives planted inside the buildings by the U.S. government.
Farias frequently promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories during his radio show up until 2010 and was the co-master of a conference in 2007 that rejected the government’s explanation of the 2001 terror attacks. The conference was attended by InfoWars’ Alex Jones.
He also asked his guests on his radio shows in 2006 whether they saw the film “Loose Change 9/11” – a film that was produced in part by Jones. The premise of the movie is that the U.S. government planned the 9/11 attacks.]
Let’s do a recap of who a majority of Arizona voters elected as their new Senator:
Favored Islamic terrorists over military veterans
Protected child-prostitute clients
Sinema was anti-war even though Islamic terrorists attacked U.S. soil
A Socialist activist
Sinema has the distinct ironic fact of calling voters crazy (Legal Insurrection has the videos!)
Sinema supports anarchists, you know – the folks who destroy property to bring chaos hoping to install Communism.
Sinema so flippant on Islamic terrorists she doesn’t care if Americans fight for the Taliban and promoted a speaking engagement of the Blind Sheik’s (the guy who first tried to bomb the Twin Towers in 1990s) convicted lawyer Lynne Stewart who passed messages to the Sheik’s terrorist buddies.
Had her similar Pocahontas moment falsely being listed as Latino.
Sinema was in cahoots with 9/11 Truthers who blame the government for Twin Towers collapse rather than Islamic terrorists.
AND she encouraged a New Age witch coven (you know – anti-Christian folks) to pray against the Iraq war invasion along with the pink-tutu Code Pink gals.
Since Sinema is supportive of witch covens and political ideologies that are anti-Christian it is not surprising that she identifies as a bisexual – an anti-Christian lifestyle.
Everything Kyrsten Sinema represents is everything American would not have conceived as an elected official 20, 30, 40, 50 and so years ago.
God have mercy on the majority of Arizonan voters contributing to destroying anything that makes America great.
Thank God for the huge minority of Arizona voters that still wanted to Make America Great Again that voted for a Pro-Trump GOP candidate.
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.
While the Dems expand their voting base by making illegal aliens citizens, allowing illegals to vote, counting dead people’s votes as valid as well as having cartoon characters and pets vote; the Dems are making an art of stealing elections with the mysterious appearance of ballots that by law should have already been counted.
Obvious voter fraud scenarios are developing in the States of Florida, Arizona and Georgia. AND the Dem propaganda machine – err I mean the Mainstream Media – have been dismissing these voting fraud incidents as GOP fabrications.
Below are two similar The Federalist articles explaining the election fraud in Florida and the pro-Dem villains perpetrating it. (I’ll get to Arizona and Georgia in later posts.)
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.
Are Florida’s election officials merely incompetent, or is there a sinister plot afoot to throw the election results towards Democrats?
Three days after election night, when Gov. Rick Scott delivered a victory speech and held a comfortable margin of votes against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, loads of ballots favoring the Democratic candidate mysteriously turned up in Palm Beach and Broward counties — where one official has a history of violating election laws.
State law requires that all early and by-mail votes be tabulated within 30 minutes of the polls closing, but three days later, Broward County Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda Snipes still refuses to specify how many people voted, how many ballots have been tabulated, and how many are left to count.
Since Tuesday,80,000 new votes have mysteriously turned up in Broward County and another 15,000 in Palm Beach County. These newly discovered ballots have been “breaking almost 3-to-1 in favor of Democrats,” narrowing the margin between these two candidates to likely force a recount after Saturday’s noon deadline requiring all counties to turn over election results to the state Division of Elections.
Snipes’s History Of Incompetence and Lawbreaking
Snipes is no stranger to controversy. Her office has broken the law and repeatedly botched election counting. In 2016 a judge ruled that her office had violated federal and state laws by destroying ballots too quickly after a congressional race.
Then-Democratic congressional candidate Tim Canova asked to see the paper ballots to examine voter irregularities in his failed bid to unseat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Snipes ignored his request and destroyed the ballots months later, even signing a certificate saying there was no ongoing legal challenge involving the ballots.
Why would she sign such a certificate when she knew there was a pending legal challenge? Was it to cover something up, or was it because she simply didn’t care about telling the truth and adhering to the law? Either answer is equally troubling, as one might hope the person in charge of overseeing the integrity of elections would be honest and forthcoming, or at a minimum follow the rules.
In 2003, about 58,000 ballots were reported missing and in 2004, her office was counting votes days after the election took place. In 2006, her office was still counting ballots long after other counties had submitted their results, due to the possibility that ballots were still left in the machines.
Local reporters have asked her repeatedly what has been taking so long to count the votes, and have gotten no clear answers. Jeff Weisner, an investigative reporter for ABC affiliate Local 10 News, confronted Snipes on camera about what is taking so long to tabulate vote counts, to which she explained that other “counties didn’t have 600,000 votes out there.”
“Well, Miami-Dade did,” Weinsier said.
“Well, have you been inside my — never mind, let me go check. I’ll check,” Snipes said.
Why is she so flippant about flouting Florida’s election laws? With a U.S. Senate race on the line, one might think this deserves a somewhat believable explanation. Instead she’s offered flimsy excuses or nothing.
Republicans Are Rightly Worried Election Integrity Is Shot
On Thursday night, Scott filed a lawsuit against Broward and Palm Beach counties for their refusal to be transparent. Following Scott’s lawsuit, Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed it will launch investigations into these counties and their respective supervisors,The Hill reported.
At a court hearing on Friday morning in Palm Beach County, Judge Krista Marx ordered that “any ballot that the supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher or her staff throws out will need to go in front of the canvassing board,” NBC affiliate WPTV reported. “Marx also ordered Bucher to provide a list by 4 p.m. of everyone who voted by provisional ballot.”
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has been on a tweet storm decrying a lack of transparency from Broward County officials.
Early Voting in #BrowardCounty ended 108 hours ago. Every other county, including neighboring Miami-Dade (which had 100k more votes cast) was able to canvass, tabulate & report to state by deadline. But #Broward still hasn’t finished & won’t disclose how many ballots are left.
‘We believe at the end of the day, Sen. Nelson is going to be declared the winner and return to the U.S. Senate,’ said Marc Elias, a recount attorney hired by the Nelson campaign, in a conference call.
Elias pointed to significant numbers of ballots not yet tabulated in Broward, where even Snipes said Wednesday night, ‘I can’t give you an exact number. I’m not sure. I’m really not sure.’
Already, however, national media outlets are working to discredit election integrity fears. NPR ran a storywith the following headline: “As Florida Races Narrow, Trump And Scott Spread Claims Of Fraud Without Evidence.” This was The Washington Post’s headline: “After Trump and Scott cry ‘fraud,’ critics pounce on Broward County’s troubled election history.”
Why are Democrats so sure these missing ballots will hold the key to victory? Why are members of the news media attempting to minimize legitimate concerns about the validity of the election results?
Democrats frequently poo poo concerns of election integrity,oppose voter ID laws, push for former felons to regain the right to vote, and dismiss reports of illegal immigrants and dead people casting ballots. It’s no surprise the party whose only concern about ballot integrity comes when the Constitution gets in the way of electoral victory is nonchalant about what’s happening in Florida. The murkier the electoral process is, the more the Democratic Party wins.
Bre Payton is a staff writer at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter.
Broward County Is An Embarrassment, And The Potential For A Stolen Florida Election Is Real
Every day that we do not have a total tabulation of the ballots, the more Republican voters will with all good reason begin to believe the election results are being manipulated.
Last night CBS News’ John Dickerson tweeted “The Florida voting system is the Florida Man of voting systems.” But at least Florida Man combines stupid fun entertainment with incompetence and hubris, as opposed to depressing levels of corruption and idiocy.
Comes now Dr. Brenda C. Snipes, the key election official in Broward County, Florida has presided for the past 72 hours over a level of bureaucratic incompetence – in the best spin of the situation – or utter corruption in the worst when it comes to counting the ballots from her county.
Last night Governor and would-be Senator Rick Scott announced he was filing a lawsuit against her – not one claiming anything about the ballots being counted, but simply demanding that she live up to the regulatory obligation to tell us how many ballots there are. Again, this is not a lawsuit about counting, just about knowing how many ballots you have left to count, which is required to be disclosed by law.
This demand to know the facts is being described by some Democrats as an attempt to prevent votes being counted. That’s how ridiculous the situation is.
Here’s the situation: Florida law 102.141 4(b) details the process by which ballots shall be counted, and it requires that within 30 minutes of polls closing, you publish an estimated count of the ballots in hand, regularly updated afterward. Every other county in Florida other than Broward has done this. Broward’s Dr. Snipes has not. Local journalists have shouted questions at her, and the local officials have demured [sic] or said she was too busy or said she was“taking a break”.
In my humble opinion, “she’s taking a break” is the greatest bureaucratic incompetence excuse I have ever heard. The point is that Florida election officials will apparently tell you what they are required to tell you at a time of their choosing, not before.
What is infuriating about Florida and Broward is that the county is required to tell us how many total ballots they have, and they refuse. There is no legitimate reason justification for that. None.
The media – both local and national – should be raising all sorts of hell about the absence of this easily tabulated information. Every day that we do not have a total tabulation of the ballots in this key county, with the most basic level of transparency, the more Republican voters will with all good reason begin to believe the election results are being manipulated.
When you have a sitting Senator from the state in Marco Rubio sounding the alarm over this, in a way that obviously is an embarrassment to the state, you understand something terrible is happening.
More here from Brian Burgess on the ground in Florida.
“The newly counted ballots, which are breaking almost 3-to-1 in favor of Democrats, have triggered a likely hand recount, a machine recount, a lawsuit, a law enforcement investigation, and accusations from Republicans that Democrats are literally trying to steal the election…
“In a secluded room away from the well-wishers gathered at his victory party in Naples, Florida, Scott’s team did some basic math and determined the remaining uncounted precincts couldn’t possibly contain enough Democrat votes for Nelson to overcome the 60,000-vote deficit. At midnight, Scott claimed victory in a subdued speech, then retired to bed.
“When Republicans woke the next morning, they were stunned to learn Scott’s lead had shrunk by 22,000 votes, a seemingly impossible mathematical feat. Most of the newly counted ballots came from Broward County, but some were added from Palm Beach County (yes, that one). With Scott’s lead now down to just 38,000 votes, murmurs of a potential recount began to build. By mid-afternoon, more cartons of Democrat-leaning ballots had been added to the statewide total, trimming Scott’s margin over Nelson to around 30,000 votes.
“Even at that point, Republicans didn’t seem overly concerned. After all, 30,000 votes is a lot to overcome, especially when all that remained to be counted were a few handfuls of provisional ballots, overseas military ballots likely favoring Republicans, and some straggling vote-by-mail and early ballots. And while the governor’s race had also tightened, it remained outside the mandatory recount margin.
“That all changed on Thursday morning, when Republicans woke for the second day in a row to learn that overnight, still more Democrat votes had been dumped into the system, cutting Scott’s lead by 8,000 votes, putting it well within the mandatory hand-recount range.
“Reporters, by now curious about why Broward County was still counting ballots when hurricane-ravaged Bay County had their work wrapped up on election night, asked Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes if she knew how many uncounted ballots remained.
“Not sure. I’m really not sure. But we are working on those,” she told CBS 4 News in Miami.
“A few hours later, Snipes posted another 11,300 ballots to the state’s Division of Elections. Those new votes favored Democrats by more than 2-to-1, helping Bill Nelson close the gap even further, but also triggering mandatory recounts in the governor’s race, and flipping the race for agriculture commissioner from Republican to Democrat.”
What’s worse, according to Scott’s lawsuit and as this Florida State University professor details, Snipes has denied access to their campaign to view the actual creation of new ballots – ones that are being created in replacement of purportedly damaged ballots submitted by voters:
18/ State law *recognizes* that the literal creation of new ballots to be counted is one of the most sensitive and vulnerable steps in the process. That’s why it requires the creation of replacement ballots must occur “in the presence of witnesses.” Fla. Stat. 101.5614(4)(a)
19/ @FlGovScott lawsuit provides sworn evidence that the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections prohibited his campaign’s reps from monitoring the creation of replacement ballots. Election officials are filling out new ballots, but the candidate’s reps apparently couldn’t see
Snipes is clearly an election official with a number of dubious past decisions, including many that have put her in the courtroom. Her emphatic and continued refusal to do what she is legally required to do – tell us how many ballots there are – is astounding. No matter the party that benefits or that currently stands in the lead in Florida, her behavior is unconscionable if voters are to have any faith in this process being transparent and unimpeachable.
Unless the FBI rank and file begin contacting Congress (Probably the Senate since blind voters gave the House to the Dems) and blowing the whistle on what is apparent FBI leadership corruption and coverups to protect Dems & Obamanites, I will begin to consider the rank and file to be just as corrupt.
AND YES, fired/resigned former AG Jeff Sessions is part of this problem for failing in DOJ transparency of which the FBI is supposed to answer. So when hear Dems, many Republicans and definitely the Mainstream Media (including Fox News) tell you Sessions you a raw deal; those people are liars or idiots for being deceived.
Judicial Watch smells yet another FBI coverup to protect Dems. In this case Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz in relation to (Pakistani) Awan family members acting as IT specialists working for the Dems: Abid, Imran, Jamal and Hina R. Alvi.
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records of communications relating to the investigation into former Democratic information technology (IT) staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan and Hina R. Alvi (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:18-cv-02563)).
Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran is “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.
Imran Awan was Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.
Imran Awan was allowed a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”
The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed after the FBI failed to respond adequately to two FOIA requests.
The FBI claimed it could neither confirm nor deny records related to the first request, filed on May 26, 2017, seeking:
All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, and Hina R. Alvi. As part of this request, searches should of records [sic] should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.
All records of communication sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the subjects in bullet item 1.
The timeframe for the requested records is May 2015 to the present.
Further, the FBI claimed that records related to a July 3, 2018, FOIA request were located in an investigative file and exempt from disclosure. That request sought:
All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina R. Alvi and Rao Abbas. As part of this request, searches of records should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.
All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages, instant chats or messages on the Lync system, sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the Awan brothers, Ms. Alvi and Mr. Abbas. Records of communications searched should include but not be limited to those between FBI officials, employees and contractors and officials with the Capitol Police, the Office of the Inspector General of the House, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.
“It’s time for the full truth to come out about the House Democrat IT scandal, especially with impending change of power in the House,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There is hope that the new leadership at the DOJ will bring transparency to this case, as well as many pending FOIA investigations.”
On October 11, 2017, Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton participated in a discussion between House members and experts regarding the Wasserman Schultz/Awan Brothers/IT scandal. During this discussion, Fitton stated:
“Frankly when it comes to crimes with a political component, I fear the Justice Department is going to fear to tread. And because of the political nature of what went on (with the Awan family) they’re not going to push the House … and I fear that the Justice Department will be fearful of raising these issues with the House for fear of embarrassing the leadership of both parties … and that’s something we need to push the Justice Department on. That they don’t under-charge or under-investigate this for fear of the consequences that will happen if they push further and find something that no one wants to find, which is a national security threat at our breast here in the House.”
On June 7, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Our Justice Department must not let Awan & Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook. The Democrat I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today. They want to make a “plea deal” to hide what is on their Server. Where is Server? Really bad!”
After Christine Blasey Ford’s Senate passionate/heartfelt testimony, I was convinced she was sexually assaulted. I even had a wait-n-see moment to wait for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony to decide if he was the culprit. That is how undeniably believable Ford came across.
Then Kavanaugh testified and I went back to believing someone assaulted Ford but NO WAY INH-E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS was it Judge Kavanaugh.
AND THEN the examination of details of her testimony including Blasey Ford’s own past has convinced me she is either a FREAKING LIAR or a manipulated tool of Dem Deep State OR perhaps even a bit of both.
Now below are a series of articles that show what I mean including a few embedded article titles that I simply don’t have time or patience to cross post.
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
As the Senate Judiciary members grapple with testimony provided by Christine Blasey Ford last Thursday regarding accusations that she was attacked by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, a letter from a former long-time boyfriend is beginning to raise serious doubt about her credibility and truthfulness to the lawmakers about her past.
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) told reporters that the FBI, which was tasked by the committee to conduct an expanded investigation into the incident, is almost done with their investigation. The FBI has already done six full background checks into Kavanaugh (who is also facing allegations from two other women), none of which ever discovered the allegations Ford. The expanded investigation also includes allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself during the time they attended Yale University. The New York Times, however, could find no one to corroborate her claims and discovered that Ramirez had been calling former classmates saying she couldn’t remember if it was Kavanaugh or someone else.
“I think it’s very close,” Grassley said. “I have not talked to the FBI, and I don’t think I should talk to the FBI. People that seem to know said it’s getting close, but when, I haven’t heard.”
The ex-boyfriend, whose name was removed from the letter at his request for privacy, sent the letter to Grassley’s committee saying “I do not want to become involved in this process or current investigation, but wanted to be truthful about what I know.”
The former boyfriend established that he had a long-time relationship with Ford from 1992-1998. He had been friends with Ford since the early 90s and then dated Ford off and on from “approximately 1992 to 1988,” according to his letter.
The boyfriend detailed Ford’s friendship with a woman named Monica L. McLean, “who I understood to be her life-long best friend. During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology,” the letter stated.
During last Thursday’s testimony to lawmakers and under questioning by Republican-appointed Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, Ford said that she never spoke to her attorneys or anyone ever about “how to take a polygraph” test. In fact, she was emphatic in telling Mitchell she “never” participated in such a discussion.
Mitchell, a 25-year prosecutor from Arizona who served as the Deputy County Attorney in Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Arizona, has already released a memo to the Senate questioning the contradictory answers and failed memory lapses given by Ford. Mitchell, who went through a litany of what often appeared at times boring questions, established a laundry list of 9 reasons why Ford’s testimony failed to meet any standards to prosecute Kavanaugh if such a case were ever to be brought to court.
Mitchell is an expert in the field of sex crimes. She is also is the division chief of the Special Victims Division, which handles cases of domestic violence, sex crimes, and auto theft and she took a leave of absence to come to Washington last week for the questioning.
Mitchell stated in her memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, 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-the-evidence standard.”
The ex-boyfriend also called into question some of the same issues that Mitchell pointed out were inconsistent in Ford’s testimony. Mitchell questioned Ford’s excuse “fear of flying” based on testimony she provided to the committee.
In Mitchell’s memo, she noted that Ford “maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies ‘fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.’ She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.”
The boyfriend noted that he and Ford kept a long distance relationship after she moved to Hawaii ‘sometime around 1998.” He stated that she had no apparent fear of flying and no fear of small spaces.
He said “while visiting Ford in Hawaii, we traveled around the Hawaiian islands including one time on a propeller plane. Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying. To the best of recollection, Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying. To the best of my recollection, Dr. Ford never expressed a fear of close quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit. I assisted Dr. Ford with finding a place to live in (redacted) CA. She ended up living in a very small, 500 sq. ft. house with one door.”
To this day, no-one has come forward to corroborate Ford’s recollection of the night she alleges Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her at a high school party, while his high school friend Mark Judge stood by. The witnesses provided by Ford have all denied attending this party and have no recollection of Ford’s account.
Ford’s close high school friend Leyland Keyser stated in a letter through her representative, Howard Walsh that “simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” Keyser also said she never met and doesn’t recall ever meeting Kavanaugh.
SORRY FOR BLURTING IT OUT, BUT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS A LIAR
One thing I learned watching the witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh on MSNBC, is that a prestigious university in New York has a Vice President for Social Justice. (She is an MSNBC commentator). Her Orwellian title is but one of many signs that our country is already on the threshold of 1984; the Judiciary Committee circus is another.
In her comments on the hearings, the Vice President for Social Justice, Maya Wiley, was clearly out for blood, and had no interest in evidence, due process, or the facts. She is also of course both a woman, a woman “of color” and a lesbian. In other words, she occupies three of the top rungs in the hierarchy of the oppressed – all bombs waiting to blow up in the face of any straight white male who stumbles into their cross-hairs.
Any fair-minded observer of the Kavanaugh proceedings would have noted that no one – Republican or Democrat – so much as laid a glove on his female accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, even though she had come forward to destroy the life of an exemplary individual and his family. No one, dared to do so. Call this feminine or victim privilege. Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks with tales of drinking were fair game, but Ford’s – which openly talk of the girls’ sexual promiscuity and boast of girls passing out at drinking parties – were not. Nor were her extensive political connections to the anti-Trump left, the pro-abortion movement, the Democratic Party and even the law firm involved in the Steele dossier.
Yes, the sexual crime prosecutor established that Ford lied to the committee when she said she couldn’t come to Washington for the hearings because she was afraid of flying. In fact, as she admitted under questioning, she has frequently flown all over the world for pleasure. But no one actually confronted her about this. For example, no one asked her directly, “If you were brazen enough to lie to a congressional committee about this, why should we believe you in regard to anything else?”
Yes the same prosecutor gently asked Ford why she thought her best friend Leland Keyser, whom she claimed was present at the party and would corroborate her story, in fact refuted it, saying that she was never at such a party, and the one in question never happened. Ford gave a transparently evasive answer saying her friend had (unspecified) health issues, while never explaining what they were or why that should cause her to contradict what Ford had claimed.
Actually, all the alleged witnesses to the party where the incident was supposed to have taken place have denied that they were there. The one witness who was allegedly in the room where she claimed the incident took place says he wasn’t there. But none of the senators had the temerity to confront her directly with the obvious question: why should we believe your inflammatory claims about Judge Kavanaugh given that no one you have named supports any piece of your story? Moreover, no one asked her “How do you feel about besmirching the reputation of a stellar individual, and bringing incalculable pain to his family by advancing claims that no one corroborates? How can you say that you are 100% sure an incident happened, when you can’t remember anything else accurately about the evening? Did your lawyers instruct you to say 100%? What actually did your lawyers prompt you to say in your prepared statement?
No one said to her: you signed a letter attacking President Trump’s border policies and were able to get the anti-Trump ACLU to publish it; you contacted an anti-Trump paper, the Washington Post, to make your charges; you turned first to Democrats who are sworn to “resist” – actually sabotage –the Trump presidency and his judicial nominees; and you accepted attorneys recommended by Democrats, who are activist Democrat, anti-Trump lawyers. Can we conclude, therefore, that there might be a political motive behind your decision to bring up these character-ruining accusations about a rough-housing you allegedly received 37 years ago when you and Kavanaugh were too young to even vote?
No one dared to ask these questions or to vigorously pursue problematic areas of her testimony and behavior. Instead everyone expressed sympathy for her and her pain in testifying, and said how credible she sounded – even though, unlike Kavanaugh’s presentation, hers was vetted and coached by lawyers, and even though it amounted to character assassination if her memory was false.
At the bottom of these asymmetries lies the fact that despite half a century of women’s “liberation” and “hear me roar” proclamations the feminist attitude towards women is still Victorian. Women are fragile violets who wilt before the raised voices and impassioned claims of male innocence. But this image is a one way mirror. Let a moment go by and then, when they or their defenders are on the counter-attack, hear them roar. Senator Mazie Hirono put it mind-numbingly well: “Men should just shut up and stand up (for their female accusers of course).”
This is the ideologically constructed atmosphere, which makes a latter-day witch trial like the Judiciary hearings possible. Christine Blasey Ford’s story is unbelievable on its face. She claims that after the alleged incident at the alleged party, where three of her friends (who have denied it) were allegedly present, she fled. Here are some questions that were not asked:
How did she get past those friends without them seeing her and her distress?
How could she not have warned her best friend, Leland Keyser, that there were two potential rapists in the house, if that’s what she thought?
How did she get home?
How did her best friend not ask her the next day why she left without her, or what happened?
Why was this such a trauma she could not tell her best friend? One can understand why she would want to conceal from her parents that she had gone to a drinking party with boys, but her friend who was allegedly there? She doesn’t even claim that she was raped, only that she was frightened in an incident that could have happened at any of the drunken parties she might have attended as described in her high school yearbook.
On the face of it, Christine Blasey Ford’s story is not only unsubstantiated. It isn’t credible. The destruction of Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation is the equivalent of a modern-day lynching – the third that Democrats have orchestrated in the last twenty-seven years. It’s despicable. At least Republicans like Lindsey Graham have laid that charge at the door of the Democratic culprits who worked so hard to accomplish it. But, as a nation, we have obviously not reached the point where we can grant women true equality by confronting their lies and their reckless accusations with the same candor and frankness we would if they were coming out of the mouths of men.
Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend submits sworn detailed letter refuting her testimony: She lied. Repeatedly.
Christine Blasey Ford — the liberal professor who leveled decades-old, 11th hour groping accusations against Brett Kavanaugh — better hope she doesn’t end up in jail for perjury after Kavanaugh inevitably gets confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a sworn declaration to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford’s ex-boyfriend said she once coached her “lifelong best friend” on how to pass a polygraph test when the friend was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and DOJ.
This directly contradicts Ford’s sworn testimony at her Senate hearing, when she claimed she never helped anyone prepare for a lie detector test.
Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell: "Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?"
“During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be be her life-long best friend,” Ford’s ex-boyfriend wrote. “During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
The declaration continued: “I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”
This is relevant because Democrats have repeatedly bragged that Christine Blasey Ford is credible because she passed a polygraph test. Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are unreliable, since even the biggest liars can be coached to pass them.
In his sworn statement, Ford’s ex-boyfriend (whose name was redacted) also said she never once mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or said she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the six years they dated, from 1992 to 1998.
“During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct. Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh,” the letter states.
Ford’s former boyfriend also shot down her bogus claims that she had a pathological fear of flying and was claustrophobic.
Ford had insisted at her Senate Judiciary hearing that she developed claustrophobia because Brett Kavanaugh had groped her in 1982, when they were in high school.
Ford also delayed her Senate Judiciary hearing for a week, claiming she was petrified of flying. But her ex-boyfriend said Ford had no problem living in a “very small,” 500-square-foot apartment with one door. He said she even gleefully boarded a tiny propeller plane when they went island-hopping in Hawaii.
The ex-boyfriend said he dumped Ford after she cheated on him, and said she admitted that she fraudulently used his credit card to make purchases a year after they broke up.
Meanwhile, Democrats have laughably pinned their hopes of derailing Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS nomination on an apparent lying, thieving grifter.
In a scathing letter that referenced the ex-boyfriend’s sworn declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that Ford’s attorneys turn over her therapist notes (which she shared with the Washington Post but not with the Senate).
Grassley noted: “These notes have been repeatedly cited as corroboration even while written 30 years after the alleged event and in apparent contradiction with testimony and other public statements regarding several key details of the allegations…Please provide the requested materials to the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately.”
Meanwhile, Fox News host Brit Hume said the Democrats have shifted their line of attack from “Kavanaugh is a rapist” to “Kavanaugh drank beer in college” to questioning his “judicial temperament” because the sham allegations of Christine Ford and Julie Swetnick have imploded.
It appears that the Blasey Ford allegations are receding. The Swetnick allegations appear to have almost totally collapsed. The nomination was made, the Democrats came out almost unanimously against it, immediately before any hearings.
Then, during the course of the hearings, his record as a judge — what you would think would be the most important thing — went almost unremarked upon. No questions about it, no criticisms, none of it.”
“Then, after the hearings were over, these unverified allegations leak out…You almost want to laugh at [how desperate and ridiculous the Democrats are].”
BREAKING: This is HUGE (waiting for permission to h/t): One of Christine Ford Blasey's research articles in 2008 included a study in which participants were TAUGHT SELF-HYPNOSIS & noted hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories "AND CREATE ARTIFICAL SITUATIONS." pic.twitter.com/11n1JVnArM
My primary email account I use seems to be hindering the delivery of valid blog submissions to my inbox. I recently discovered that Justin Smith submitted his thoughts on the Dem Party savage and farcical interrogation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I discovered this when Justin sent me a Facebook Messenger text of this submission. I advised him to email it to me. He said that he had. I still didn’t receive it.
I then found Justin’s submission on my Facebook Group: Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists. I created this group because of the numerous times I’ve been sentenced to Facebook Jail. I’d like to think it was a platform for Conservatives and Counterjihadists to voice their thoughts freely without profanity. (Feel free to request to join.)
Below is a bit different version than the one on my Facebook group submitted through an alternative email that I provided to Justin.
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, despite Kavanaugh’s wishy-washy fence-sitting on the ACA’s [Blog Editor: aka Obamacare]constitutionality and his 65 page dissent (Seven-Sky v Holder) that paved the way for Chief Justice Roberts to declare Obamacare a “tax” and “constitutional”, as Trump passed over Amy Coney Barrett, who most conservatives recognized as the best choice. Although Kavanaugh is a highly qualified candidate, who was passed through to the federal court with flying colors, by Democrats and Republicans alike, today the Democrats are fighting his placement to the Supreme Court, tooth and nail, due to the fact that the Court is now viewed as though it were a second legislative body, by politicians on both sides of the political aisle. The nomination process has been politicized and weaponized, which was noted during the hearing, on September 27th, by an outraged and apoplectic Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
In what can only be described as a Democratic Party hit job and leftwing character assassination, Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of an attempted rape committed against her by Kavanaugh, from July until mid-September, and revealed it only as a Hail Mary and an 11th hour act of desperation to motivate President Trump to remove Kavanaugh or make Kavanaugh withdraw himself from the nomination. Not long afterwards, two more women joined the attack. Not one of Kavanaugh’s accusers has a single shred of evidence to any assault, and, the “witnesses” they have named refute and deny their accusations.
Even the New York Times went out on a limb on September 23rd, with Sheryl Stolberg’s story, and cast suspicion on Debbie Ramirez’s accusation. They reported that “Ramirez … could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself“.
Something clearly happened to Ford and she certainly believes her story, which ebbed and flowed like a surreal nightmare, of which she had virtually no solid memory to support the events she supposedly experienced. A neutral interviewer, attorney Rachel Mitchell, exposed this fact during questioning, and Ford herself repeatedly contradicted herself, while claiming her memory was firm that Kavanaugh was her “attacker”. Mitchell’s masterfully exposed that Ford’s legal team, who paid for her polygraph test, was suggested by Senator Feinstein, and they misrepresented Ford’s fear of flying and the need for a delay.
If one doesn’t believe this is a hit job, how would anyone explain that Debra Katz, Ford’s lawyer, represented another Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick, a decade ago, in a sexual harassment suit against New York Life? Coincidence? Hardly. The full story is detailed in the WSJ story by Rebecca Ballhaus and Aruna Viswanatha.
It is also quite interesting to find that Swetnick has a history of making these sort of allegations.
Whether one sees Kavanaugh as a strong constitutionalist or not, America should not forget that he worked in Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton and the 2000 election recount; he was also a staff secretary for President George W. Bush and he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2003. Curiously, none of his accusers chose to step forward at any of those times.
The Democrats don’t really want to find the truth. If they did, they would have raised this accusation from the start and investigated it quietly, without having Kavanaugh’s and Ford’s name dragged through the media mud. However, as noted by Andrew McCarthy, a regular National Review contributor, the Senate isn’t charged with solving crimes and psychoanalyzing witnesses. The Senate’s job is to advise and consent on the president’s nomination, and even if it were a trial, the case is so weak, it would be thrown out of court.
In the second half of the hearing, Brett Kavanaugh’s righteous anger was apparent, as he exclaimed: “This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced ‘advise and consent’ with ‘search and destroy’. … You may defeat me in the final vote, but you will never get me to quit.Never.” [Bold text Editor’s]
Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
In the ongoing testimony, Kavanaugh stated: “I’m here today to tell the truth. I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific.” [Bold text Editor’s]
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) essentially toldCNN’s Jake Tapper that Kavanaugh doesn’t have the same presumption of innocence because of his conservative ideology. Senator Hirono inferred that he’s more likely to be guilty due to his conservatism. The Democrats don’t oppose him because they find the accusations credible. They find the accusations credible because they oppose him.
How surreal is it to see the admitted sexual molester, Senator Cory Booker, feigning outrage in his attempt to castigate the honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a Yale Graduate, who has had no less than 87 women rush to his defense?
Senator Lindsey Graham took all of this farce he could, until he finally unleashed a fury that not any single American ever knew him capable of reaching. Rising up in his seat several times, Senator Graham angrily castigated his Democrat counterparts: “Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham that you knew about and you held it. … What you want is you want to destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that. Not me. … This is one of the most unethical shams I’ve seen in politics and if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to [Kavanaugh] this guy.” Graham later added, “If this is the new norm, you better watch out for your [Democrats’] nominees.”*** [Bold text Editor’s]
This is an all-out political war for the Supreme Court and the future of America, and the Left wants to win by any means necessary, since their agenda in America is at stake. The Leftist illiberal Democratic Party needs the Court, a politicized Court, in order to continue redefining marriage and advancing sexual deviancy, abortions on demand, single-payer “healthcare” and other communistic systems and the assault on our borders and U.S. sovereignty. Much more is at stake than Brett Kavanaugh’s career. Both parties understand the shift that will take place, if a committed constitutionalist replaces Justice Kennedy. [Bold text Editor’s]
The rest of the Republican Party needs to take note and follow Senator Graham’s lead on this. Graham finally let his backbone show in outstanding fashion, as he delivered some harsh criticism of the Democrats and some damned straight talk, that Americans haven’t heard coming from the Republicans, in decades. He grew into the Lion of Congress with his passionate exposé of the Democrats’ intent and his righteous indignation, and many Americans had tears in their eyes, as they finally saw a U.S. Senator making a hard stand for a fellow honorable American, for all Americans and for this country we love so well.
by Justin O Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor. Most source links by Justin Smith and a few by the Editor.