Kavanaugh hearing confirms the existence of the Deep State


Bob Livingston writes an editorial type piece drawing various associations displaying the existence of a Deep State in American government all related to the public view of the Blasey-Ford/Kavanaugh hearings.

 

Livingston pulls no punches. Livingston goes further in some credible speculation showing a GOP Establishment involvement in this clandestine Deep State that even implicates now Associate Justice Kavanaugh due to some past questionable extra-legal actions. Actions that by the way raised eyebrows in a minority of Conservative pundits questioning Kavanaugh’s Originalist credentials. Privately I pray those pundits are wrong pertaining to the level of Kavanaugh’s Originalism. Only time will reveal the accuracy of Conservative suspicions.

 

Read the Livingston piece and draw your own conclusions.

 

JRH 10/9/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Kavanaugh hearing confirms the existence of the Deep State

 

By Bob Livingston – Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™ 

October 8, 2018 

Personal Liberty

 

KAVANAUGH-HEARINGS-Swearing In

 

The Kabuki act that was the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh revealed something far more important than that underaged children of privilege growing up in the shadows of the District of Criminals were undisciplined and regularly engaged in parent-endorsed, if not parent-encouraged, debauchery. Unfortunately, not one in a million have grasped it, focusing instead on the licentious details Democrat senators directed them toward and whether one story was more credible than the other.

 

I have told you before that there are two governments in America; the one you see and the one you don’t. The one you see is the politicians and the courts. They are actors who give the illusion that you have a constitutional republic based on the rule of law and that you have some input in governmental processes.

 

The other government is unseen. It has many names and many elements that work against the best interests of the people. It is incestuous. Among its names are shadow government, powers that be and the simple term “they.” I call it the Deep State.

 

It is made up of faceless bureaucrats, crony corporations, the power elite, behind-the-scenes political operatives and lawyers, the banksters, the vast U.S. intelligence apparatus, the military-industrial complex (as revealed by President Eisenhower) and the globalists found in think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission.

 

The cover was pulled off a few of them these last days and weeks. They’ve been circling around the Christine Blasey Ford narrative like flies around a carcass. And, she, in fact, may even be one of them.

 

Despite hours of investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI, none of Ford’s accusations could be corroborated. The witnesses named by Ford – and by the second Kavanaugh accuser, Deborah Ramirez – denied knowledge of the activities the two women described, according to released or leak portions of the FBI investigation.

 

One of Ford’s witnesses is Leland Keyser, the sole female “witness” Ford named. Ford described Keyser as her best friend in their high school days at Holton-Arms preparatory school. Keyser is a former professional golfer who is now in poor health. Her health was the excuse Ford used to explain away Keyser’s refusal to corroborate Ford’s claims.

 

Keyser’s friends told The Daily Mail that Keyser was “blindsided” by Ford’s pulling her into the case. Ford friend Keyser was married to Bob Beckel for 10 years until they divorced in 2002. [Blog Editor: That’s the same Bob Beckel fired from Fox News for being too free with Left Wing curmudgeon profanity on The Five.]

 

Beckel worked for the State Department under Jimmy Carter, managed Walter Mondale’s president campaign, managed other Democrat politico campaigns and worked as a lobbyist for many years.  He now works as a political pundit on Fox News.

 

Ford’s friend Monica McClean is one of the “beach friends” with whom she discussed the possibility of coming forward with her accusations against Kavanaugh. She’s also the woman Ford coached on how to take a polygraph, according to a former Ford boyfriend.

 

McClean worked at the FBI for 24 years, retiring in 2016. She was a FBI field rep in the office of former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Prior to becoming U.S. Attorney, Bharara was chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Communist-NY), and played an important role on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Keyser told investigators this week that McClean had been pressuring her to change her story and admit that she knew about Kavanaugh’s attempt to assault Ford 35 years ago. Her former partner in New York is Jim Margolin. Margolin is still with the FBI and is part of the Robert Mueller investigation into former Donald Trump fixer Michael Cohen. [Blog Editor: An example the FBI “rank-n-file” may not be as politically neutral in their investigations that even many Conservatives try to paint a picture.]

 

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, is a longtime leftist political operative and fundraiser for SHillary Clinton. She is also vice chair of the George Soros-funded Project on Government Oversight. Soros money has gone to protestors interrupting the Kavanaugh nomination, and those women who cowed Senator Jeff Flake (Coward-Arizona) in an elevator last week were Soros operatives.

 

Ford’s brother, Ralph Blasey III, was formerly a lawyer with the leftist law firm Baker, Hostetler, which created Fusion GPS, the Democrat opposition research organization that employs or employed the wife of FBI agent Bruce Ohr and which created the phony Trump-Russia dossier. Blasey left Baker, Hostetler in 2004. The building in which the offices of Baker, Hostetler reside include CIA front companies Red Coats, Inc., Admiral Security Services and Datawatch. The building is owned by Ford’s father, Ralph Blasey II.

 

But Kavanaugh himself is a Deep State swamp creature. As told by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the international business editor of The Daily Telegraph and long-time reporter on American government, while Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Bill Clinton Whitewater investigation, Kavanaugh actively worked to discredit a witness in the Vince Foster death case. The witness, Patrick Knowlton, was the first person at the scene of Foster’s death at Fort Marcy Park.

 

Knowlton later sued FBI agents he claimed were working for Kavanaugh, alleging witness tampering and conspiracy to violate his civil rights. Kavanaugh later wrote the Starr Report on Foster’s death, covering up the fact that Foster was murdered and his body was dumped in the park.

 

Kavanaugh, while working as legal counsel in the White House of George Bush the lesser, also helped push the PATRIOT Act, which destroyed due process and 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

Kavanaugh’s lawyer for his Senate Judiciary process is Beth Wilkinson, a longtime Democrat lawyer who represented several top aides to Hillary Clinton during the FBI investigation into Clinton’s homebrew server. She is married to David Gregory of CNN. Wilkinson was also on the prosecution team that convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

 

That implicates her in the coverup of this false flag operation, protecting the FBI and then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, who provided the explosives for McVeigh and his partner, Terry Nichols.

 

That there exists a nebulous group or groups actively working against the wishes of the American people is a difficult concept for a people as conditioned as Americans are to grasp. But anyone telling you there is no Deep State is either blind and ignorant or is lying to you.

______________________

Bob Livingston founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

 

© 2018 Personal Liberty ®

 

Me Thinks Blasey Ford is a Liar


OR Manipulated OR Both

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Posted October 4, 2018

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 IN H-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.

 

JRH 10/4/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

************************

Ex-Boyfriend of Ford Raises Speculation That She Gave False Statements To Senate

 

By Sara Carter
October 03, 2018 3:15 PM EDT

SaraCarter.com

 

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 27: Christine Blasey Ford at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. A professor at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. (Photo by Melina Mara-Pool/Getty Images)

Christine Blasey Ford

 

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

And her story isn’t credible.

 

By David Horowitz

October 3, 2018

FrontPageMag.com

 

Christine Blasey Ford

 

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.

 

By Samantha Chang

 October 3, 2018 

BizPacReview

 

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.

 

“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.

 

Blasey Ford-Perjury-Jail. BPR photo

 

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.

 

Declaration Redacted Ford F… by on Scribd

 

 

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.”

 

10.02.18 CEG to Ford Attorn… by on Scribd

 

 

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].”

 

 

Samantha Chang is a politics/lifestyle writer and a financial editor. She is a law school graduate and an alum of the University of Pennsylvania. You can find her on Twitter at @Samantha_Chang.

 

++++++++++++++++++

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

 

By Jim Hoft

October 1, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

 

Christine Blasey Ford & Michael Bromwich

 

Christine Ford has not turned over her therapist’s notes to the Senate regarding her suppressed memories about Judge Kavanaugh abusing her decades earlier.

 

This may be because if the memories were revealed through hypnosis they would be “absolutely inadmissible” in the court of law in many states, including New York and Maryland.

 

 

There were also accusations that Christine Ford was under a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

 

 

Now this…

 

One of Christine Blasey Ford’s research articles in 2008 included a study on self-hypnosis.

 

The practice of self-hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories and “create artificial situations.”

 

Via Professor Margot Cleveland:

 

 

+++++++++++++++

Ford Co-Authored Paper Pushing Hypnosis, Using To Enhance Memory; By LISA PAYNE-NAEGER; Conservative Tribune by WJ; 10/1/18 3:42PM

 

TGP Finds Christine Ford Lie; By JRH; SlantRight 2.0; 9/30/18

 

Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved; By JRH; SlantRight 2.0; 9/28/18

 

Liar Exposed: Christine Blasey-Ford In Polygraph Perjury Trap; By John O’Sullivan; Principia Scientific International; 10/3/18

 

__________________

Ex-Boyfriend of Ford Raises Speculation That She Gave False Statements To Senate

 

© 2018 Sara A. Carter | All Rights Reserved.

_________________

SORRY FOR BLURTING IT OUT, BUT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS A LIAR

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

________________________

Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend submits sworn detailed letter refuting her testimony: She lied. Repeatedly.

 

Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview

_______________________

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

 

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

A Democratic Party Hit Job


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.

 

JRH 10/2/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**********************

A Democratic Party Hit Job

All Out Political War

 

By Justin O. Smith

A version of this submission at Facebook Group Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists

Posted on 9/30/18 8:05pm

This version sent 10/1/2018 6:00 PM

 

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 told CNN’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]

 

[***Blog Editor: VIDEO: Graham Questions Judge Kavanaugh]

 

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.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Report: Flake wasn’t pressured, he masterminded the Kavanaugh delay


It is beginning to appear that Senate RINO Jeff Flake’s cowardly submission to Dems via alleged victims of sexual assault intimidation was staged. Flake may have even masterminded the whole stall tactic to keep Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Justice on the Supreme Court.

 

Making Flake not a coward but rather a traitor to the Republican Party. TOO BAD THAT IS NOT A PROSECUTABLE CRIME!

 

For clarity on this RINO treason, here is the scoop posted at Legal Insurrection:

 

The plot to further stall the Kavanaugh nomination was hatched Thursday night in Senator Susan Collins’ (R-ME) office.  Also allegedly in attendance were Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV).” 

 

Never trust a FLAKE!

 

JRH 10/1/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Report: Flake wasn’t pressured, he masterminded the Kavanaugh delay

 

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers

September 30, 2018 12:00pm

Legal Insurrection

 

The “Flake-led rebellion” had “been building for nearly two weeks”

 

 

RINO Flake & Dem Coons

 

According to a report published by Politico, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) chose to appear pressured when, in fact, he masterminded the latest Kavanaugh delay. His subsequent media statements about his motivations and his media appearances in light of this report suggest Flake’s true motivations are far less pure than he would have us believe.

 

Flake’s focus on optics, on his raw ambition (for 2020?), and on the kind of “swamp creature” political maneuvering surrounding this planned reversal paints for the American people a hideous and disturbing portrait of the Arizona senator.

 

On Friday, Flake told the Atlantic that he insisted on the seventh FBI investigation into Judge Brett Kavanaugh because he was trying to save two institutions, the Senate and the Supreme Court.  During this interview, he also explained that he was deeply moved by Chris Coons’ pleas and decided that it was up to him, Jeff Flake, to “bring a little unity,” to stop our country “coming apart on this.” A move that apparently brought Coons near tears.

 

To follow up on his preening media tour, Flake showed up on 60 Minutes with Coons in tow.  CBS is revealing parts of this interview leading up to its Sunday night airing.

 

 

CBS News reports:

 

In an interview with “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley airing Sunday, Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, and Chris Coons, D-Delaware, discussed what they thought of Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony. Both senators were instrumental in delaying a floor vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for one week while the FBI conducts an investigation into claims against him.

 

. . . . Coons said Kavanaugh’s reaction to questions posed by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Amy Klobuchar about his drinking and behavior in high school “went over a line.”

 

“He was clearly belligerent, aggressive, angry. And I thought there was a tough dynamic there. As I watched him, part of me thought, ‘This is a man who believes that he did nothing wrong, and he’s completely unjustly accused. And he’s being railroaded. And he’s furious about it,’” said Coons.

 

Coons added that Kavanaugh’s more “partisan” responses made him question his fitness for the bench.

 

“There were some lines that he delivered that were sharper, more partisan, more, ‘This is the Clintons paying me back. This is a Democratic smear campaign,’ that I was surprised, struck to hear from a judicial nominee,” Coons said. “I’m not at all surprised to hear that from other colleagues in the committee or on television. But I was really struck that I thought his anger got the best of him. And he made a partisan argument that would’ve been best left to be made for his advocates and defenders on the committee.”

 

Flake said he “didn’t like” Kavanaugh’s “mention of the Clintons and whatnot,” but added, “I had to put myself in that spot. I think you give a little leeway there.”

 

Watch:

 

VIDEO: Jeff Flake, Chris Coons on Brett Kavanaugh’s “angry” Senate testimony

 

Flake’s positioning of himself as some sort of unifying force whose sole mission is to save the Senate and SCOTUS because he is driven by patriotic desires for national unity is unraveling, however.

 

The plot to further stall the Kavanaugh nomination was hatched Thursday night in Senator Susan Collins’ (R-ME) office.  Also allegedly in attendance were Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV).  The four put their heads together and realized that as only Flake serves on the Judiciary Committee, they couldn’t pull off their devious plot without the assistance of another Senator serving on the committee.

 

They somehow landed on Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), and as noted above, Flake has been putting him to good use as a political prop and general useful idiot.

 

Politico reports:

 

In Susan Collins’ third-floor office in the Capitol, she and her Republican colleagues Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — joined by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia — agreed they had the power to make or break Kavanaugh. And without settling on precise details, they decided to use their leverage to insist on a process that would allow them to reach a comfort level with Kavanaugh’s confirmation process and seek more information, rather than to kill his Supreme Court nomination outright, according to two people familiar with the meeting,

 

What resulted on Friday afternoon threw Washington into chaos and guaranteed another week of uncertainty and suspense surrounding Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Just hours after Flake endorsed Kavanaugh and seemed to put him on a path to the high court, the Arizonan said he first wanted a week-long FBI investigation into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that the judge assaulted her. It was a victory for Democrats who’d been demanding such a probe, to no avail, and promises to define the retiring Flake’s legacy as someone who refused to let Kavanaugh get a vote while under a cloud of doubt.

 

. . . . But the Flake-led rebellion, however long it lasts, had been building for nearly two weeks.

 

Though Murkowski, Collins and Manchin all endorsed the FBI investigation on Friday, Flake needed another partner to pull off his move because none of them serves on the Judiciary Committee. So Flake, who’s been mocked for writing a book blasting the Trump presidency only to vote for his agenda, teamed up with a Democrat.

 

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) has spent his eight-year Senate career making earnest attempts to build relationships with Republicans, at times to liberals’ annoyance. He and Flake have taken trips around the world together as part of their duties. And on Friday afternoon, with a Supreme Court seat on the line, it all paid off.

 

Coons, who appears to be a hapless victim of Flake’s skullduggery, was then blindsided by Flake’s announcement that he was insisting on a further delay and investigation.

 

Politico continues:

 

Coons and Flake vacated the Judiciary Committee shortly before the panel was expected to vote to advance Kavanaugh, a seemingly innocuous moment that left onlookers increasingly bewildered as more senators joined them in the back room. They returned minutes later with a deal that forced GOP leaders to bow to the minority’s demand for an FBI probe, delaying the confirmation for as much as a week.

 

“I did not expect him to do this today,” Coons said of Flake, speaking for nearly everyone in official Washington.

 

Flake’s plot doesn’t stop there; it includes signalling [sic] to Senate Republicans that his intentions are not to bring down Kavanaugh. It’s unclear how true that is, but Politico continues:

 

In fact, Flake was playing a longer game. He said his statement supporting Kavanaugh was a signal to Republicans that he wasn’t joining the Democratic resistance and would show he wasn’t out to bring Kavanaugh’s nomination down.

 

“I hoped that would help provide leverage,” Flake recounted. But he needed some Democrats to endorse the FBI investigation, if not Kavanaugh’s nomination, to get fellow Republicans to agree.

 

Flake wanted to demonstrate “that the process is fair, at least, even if [Democrats are] not going to vote for” Kavanaugh, he added.

 

Flake wouldn’t say whether the protesters played a role in his decision. But he acknowledged he was in the middle of a “remarkable” moment and ticked off his “interactions with a lot of people, on the phone, email, text, walking around the Capitol, you name it.”

 

. . . . In his speech, little-noticed at the time, Coons suggested that someone with a “partisan agenda” might have leaked to the media Ford’s letter alleging the assault — harmonizing with what Republicans had been saying for days. Coons’ speech also repeated his request for an FBI investigation.

 

It was exactly what Flake was looking for.

 

Not long afterward, Coons and Flake repaired to a committee anteroom to hash out an agreement: Democrats would endorse a one-week FBI investigation into Kavanaugh, and Flake would use his leverage in the narrowly divided Senate and threaten to vote “no” on the floor if Republicans refused to go along.

 

Read the rest.

 

There is a somewhat disturbing revelation in the remaining Politico report.

 

Collins asked that Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, whom Ford alleges was in the room during the alleged assault, sign a letter and send it to the committee rather than let his lawyer do it, according to two Republican senators. The letter was turned around in a matter of hours. And Murkowski had endorsed an FBI investigation days before, only to change her tune after meeting for more than a half-hour privately with McConnell.

 

We covered this letter which was submitted, the letter states, “under penalty of felony.”

 

Meanwhile, Flake—again with Coons in tow—was proclaimed a “hero” at Saturday’s Global Citizens Festival.

___________________

© Copyright 2008-2018, Legal Insurrection, All Rights Reserved.

 

About Legal Insurrection

 

Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger.  We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown dramatically.

 

In June 2011, we switched to a self-hosted WordPress format with a custom design which incorporates many unique functions both visible to readers and behind the scenes.

 

In August 2012, we opened a related blog, College Insurrection.

 

Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation.

 

Our writings have been linked by virtually every major conservative publication and many mainstream media publications, including The Atlantic Wire, The National Review, The Hill, New York Magazine’s “Daily Intel”, The Christian Science Monitor, The Boston Herald, The New York Times, Gothamist, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, The Washington Times, AOL News, The Week, and many, many others.

 

Here are READ THE REST

 

Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved


John R. Houk

© September 28, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford, left, and Brett Kavanaugh during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill. (Left: Melina Mara/Pool/The Washington Post; right: Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

If you watched the Dems inquisition of Brett Kavanaugh yesterday you should have noticed the Dems trying to get Kavanaugh to call for an FBI investigation to prove his innocence. Senator Grassley had to remind the Dems – over and over and over again – that the FBI does not draw conclusions in background investigations. The FBI merely finds facts and allows the government agency to decide if there are any red flags to prevent trust.

 

Kavanaugh was actually investigated by the FBI SIX TIMES with ZERO red flags EACH TIME. Obviously the Dem interview of Kavanaugh was merely to entice Kavanaugh to slip up. To the Dem frustration, Kavanaugh NEVER FELL FOR DEM BAITING!

 

One of the things that bothered me was the Dem aim to vilify Kavanaugh because of his High School portrayal of a rascally social life. Surprise – Surprise. Kavanaugh and buddies participated in juvenile antics that included – GASP – beer drinking.

 

Today, I am a committed Conservative Christian upholding the moral values of the Bible. HOWEVER, if my High School Yearbooks revealed the amount of keggers I participated in – especially as a Senior – and revealed it to my Church and expected the Church leadership to treat me accordingly in the present, I would be ostracized or given the left-foot of fellowship.

 

Vilifying the Kavanaugh of today – who has had a stellar law career for decades (unlike say porn lawyer Avenatti) – based on the antics of a popular teenage boy-Kavanaugh, was simply idiotic!

 

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Real Clear Investigations has dug up some facts of teenage girl-Christine Blasey Ford based on her mysteriously internet-scrubbed High School Yearbook. And shock of all shocks! The teenage Christine Blasey ALSO participated in adolescent antics on an equal level (if not even higher hijinks) to Kavanaugh’s teen days. AND TODAY, I get the impression the adult Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has also developed a stellar and respected career in her field.

 

It bugs the tar out of my that the Dems outrageously tried to equate Kavanaugh’s teen past to his accomplished adult present while absolutely ignoring the same scenario for Dr. Ford. And it really bugs me that the GOP side of yesterday’s hearing let Dr. Ford’s Yearbook antics go totally unexamined as a comparison.

 

[Click to enlarge] Scribe Yearbook from Natural News

 

After watching Dr. Ford’s treated with kid gloves testimony, it was my opinion she came across as quite believable. For a moment my opinion that was a liar changed to she was mistaken. You can’t call Kavanaugh a liar because he has witnesses that he was never at such a party as described by Ford. Ford’s best friend has sworn Ford’s account never took place which was given under oath with the penalty of perjury if lied.

 

Dr. Ford has NO sworn backing for her account of being sexually assaulted. So, if it happened, she is mistaken about whom she accuses as perpetrator. BUT if you examine her High School antics, I find it possible she was coached into making a fabrication merely to prevent an Originalist Justice to serve on the Supreme Court. AND if that’s the case, Dr. Ford is a WICKED EVIL partisan Democrat.

 

Interestingly the blog CULT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT – a source of cached Yearbook photos – was removed from Blogger. The Free Republic has a cross post of the removed blog less the photos.

 

 

 

 

 

JRH 9/28/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Suppressed Blasey Ford Yearbooks Reveal Fast Times at Holton-Arms

 

By Paul Sperry

September 27, 2018

Real Clear Investigations

 

Democrats plan at Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to use the high school yearbooks of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which they say imply he and his prep school pals regularly got drunk and boasted of sexual conquests, to discredit what they call his “choir boy defense” against sex-assault charges leveled by Christine Blasey Ford.

 

But Ford, whose story suffers from significant gaps in her memory, wasn’t exactly a choir girl. In fact, congressional sources say her own yearbooks, among other things, present a potential issue for her and her character, and Republicans are prepared to cite them in questioning her story through the female sex-crimes expert they’ve hired.

 

A committee staffer told RealClearInvestigations, “We have her yearbooks,” which had been mysteriously scrubbed from the Web prior to Ford coming out with her allegations. “She will not make a good witness.”

 

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that the annual class books feature a photo of an underage Ford attending at least one party, alongside a caption boasting of girls passing out from binge drinking. Her yearbooks also openly reference sexually promiscuous behavior by the girls, including targeting boys at Kavanaugh’s alma mater, Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school in the affluent Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ford attended neighboring Holton-Arms School, an all-girls academy.

 

While congressional sources say Ford’s yearbooks could be an exhibit at the hearing, longtime Capitol Hill watchers caution that going after her reputation could backfire on Republicans.

 

“That’s a minefield, especially given the #MeToo movement,” one said.

 

A spokesman for Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office declined to comment.

 

Other evidence indicates Ford, a popular cheerleader at the time, was immersed in an alcohol-fueled party culture and no stranger to “keg parties” in the D.C. area — or the “bar scene” along the Maryland and Delaware coast. In fact, Ford was known as a “party girl” on the Delaware shore during summer breaks, another source with direct knowledge of the congressional investigation said.

 

One report, moreover, recounts how Ford once got caught in “a romantic triangle” at Dewey Beach that ended with the two men getting into a fistfight over her.

 

At Holton-Arms, the source added, she was known by classmates, and even some parents, by a sexually derogatory nickname playing off her maiden name Blasey, suggesting she was promiscuous.

 

“She was not the wholesome Catholic girl they’re trying to portray her as,” the source said, making her claims of victimization at the hands of Kavanaugh “harder to believe.”

 

Ford and her attorney did not respond to requests for comment. But they have cast a much different narrative, suggesting Kavanaugh and other boys from Georgetown Prep aggressively targeted Ford and other reluctant girls from her school while plying them with alcohol. Specifically, Ford alleges Kavanaugh and another older boy took advantage of her at a house party somewhere in the Chevy Chase or Bethesda area of Maryland in the early 1980s.

 

She says she has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from the alleged attack, which she says involved an inebriated Kavanaugh forcefully groping her on a bed over her clothes while clapping his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. She added that she has had to seek therapy and other medical treatment to deal with “panic attacks” and “anxiety” from the incident, which she did not report to authorities.

 

Ford cannot remember key details from that night, including the location of the house or the date of the party, while claiming to have consumed just “one beer” there. She says she told no one about the “assault” at the time, not even her close girlfriend, who she says was with her at the party, or her mother.

 

Ford claims the reason she didn’t tell her parents about almost being “raped” is that she didn’t want to get “in trouble” for drinking at a party.

 

“I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys,” she said.

 

But classmates said the former cheerleader, who was known as “Chrissy,” was part of the underage drinking tradition that was no secret among Maryland prep schools in the early 1980s, when the drinking age was 18.

 

Her own school yearbooks (in which parents took out paid ads) celebrated “boys [and] beer” and pictured beer bottles and beer cans and scenes of boys and girls drinking at parties. One published a photo of Ford and other girls at a Halloween party alongside a caption boasting of “pass[ing] out” after playing “Quarters” and other binge-drinking games. Her father, Ralph Blasey, was president of the local country club.

 

Neither her parents nor her two siblings have come out to voice support for Ford, and they did not sign a family letter of support for her and her claims circulated by her husband.

 

The Holton-Arms yearbooks in question, which cover her sophomore, junior and senior years, are titled “Scribe ’82,” “Scribe ’83” and “Scribe ’84.”

 

Among other things, the annual books objectified men and even talked about hiring male strippers, including one in a “gold G-string,” for sweet 16 parties. They also featured the young Holton coeds dressed as Playboy bunnies and posing seductively atop desks, school-uniform skirts hiked up.

 

One section, “While the Parents Were Out,” talked about partying with boys at area house parties where kids got so drunk they “ruined” their parents’ “heirloom Persian rugs” with vomit.

“The tenth grade taught us how to party,” the girls bragged in another section. And, “Loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”

 

A caption on another page talked about girls having “their choice of men” at the neighboring boys schools, including Georgetown Prep: “No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.”

 

Jay Martin, who went to school in the area at the time, asserted that Holton-Arms girls back in the 1980s were hardly innocent “victims” of Georgetown Prep boys.

 

“I am her age,” he said of Ford. “I went to high school next to Prep and knew lots of Holton-Arms girls. This is pure false memory syndrome.”

 

Added Martin: “One of my best women friends had Kavanaugh ask her out [and] she said he was ‘one of the nice ones.’ His mom was a judge. I mean, seriously?”

______________________

Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved

John R. Houk

© September 28, 2018

______________________

Suppressed Blasey Ford Yearbooks Reveal Fast Times at Holton-Arms

 

© 2016 RealClearInvestigations.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the site.)

 

We provide our stories for free but they are expensive to produce. Help us continue to publish distinctive journalism by making a contribution today to RealClearInvestigations.

 

What is the Actual Dem Resistance to Kavanaugh?


Phone, FAX or Email your Senator to CONFIRM!

 

John R. Houk

© September 26, 2018

 

Breaking News as I was constructing this post

 

Julie Swetnick

 

A “Julie Swetnick” is now accusing Brett Kavanaugh not of sexual assault but of being one of many High School contemporaries of Kavanaugh of being a member of gang rape gangs.

 

AGAIN no corroboration or witnesses just Switnick’s word who is being represented by lawyer sleaze Michael Avenatti. The same Avenatti losing legal battles representing Stormy Daniels the porn actress who broke her nondisclosure agreement which she pocketed Trump cash. The same Avenatti who has his own legal and financial problems.

 

Even CNN (should be acronym for Communist New Network) brings up Avenatti’s criminal past in a story to potential financial involving $$$ MILLIONS:

He’s a convicted felon whose rap sheet is 15 pages long and spans four decades, according to court records. He served time in prison in the early 90s and was arrested on domestic violence charges as recently as February. (He pleaded not guilty and the case is awaiting trial). (Exclusive: How a ‘nobody’ ex-con pushed Avenatti law firm into bankruptcy; By Maeve RestonScott GloverSara Sidner and Traci Tamura; CNN; 6/1/18 Updated 8:12 PM ET)

And now as the Dems & Leftist MSM hops on the crucify Kavanaugh Train, Swetnick’s propensity for mental illness is being brought up:

In the wake of the 3rd Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick’s identity becoming public through her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, The Kuhner Report received a call from a man who identified himself as “Thomas in Boston,”  whose family knew the Swetnicks “Well” in Maryland, and discussed the known “Issues of Substance abuse,” and “Mental Issues from Julie.”   He detailed a phone call from his sister this morning, who still lives in Maryland, where she said “Can you imagine a more delusional whack job is the one that came forward against Kavanaugh?”

“Thomas” also went on to describe the[y] are where they grew up in Montgomery Village, “Quite a distance from Bethesda” and that the “Social circles” would not have interacted.  He refutes that during High School “No way that she would have encountered these same social circles, certainly not during High School.”

He did say the information he received was “Second hand,” as it came from family members, but, he also offered details of the Swetnicks and his own family that lend credence to his story.

You can hear “Thomas in Boston” below: [i.e. on WRKO-AM 680 – The Voice of Boston page toward bottom] (Family Friend” of Julie Swetnick Details Her “Issues”; posted by Kuhner Report; WRKO-AM 680; 9/26/18)

 

What we have going on here is lie after lie by Dems trying to prevent Kavanaugh’s Confirmation.

 

+++****+++++****

Steven Ahle writing at DavidHarrisJr.com, lists 10 Republican Senators who have not committed to vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s  confirmation to SCOTUS.

 

The Republican Party is supposed to stand for Conservative principles of governing. AND YET these GOP Senators will not go on the record to confirm Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh represents an Originalist view of the U.S. Constitution. This is as opposed to the official stand of the Dem Party that places its political principles on the so-called Living Conservative.

 

A brief description of Living Constitution:

 

In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, “living” document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism. [Bold text Editor’s]

 

A brief description of the Originalist Constitution or Originalism:

 

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws but only to uphold them. The term originated in the 1980s but the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism. Today, originalism is popular among some political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory. Originalism is an umbrella term for two major theories, principally: ⁕The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. ⁕The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated. [Bold Text Editor’s]

 

Both descriptions are from Definitions.net. It may be my imagination but it seems Definitions.net interpretation of Originalism though accurate in my opinion, is slightly dismissive. That annoys me. And so an affirmative analysis of Originalism comes Conservapedia:

 

Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.[1]

 

The most common form is so-called “original meaning” originalism. This form that focuses on how ordinary people at the time would have understood the language of the constitutional provision. A largely-discarded form of orginalism [sic] is so-called “original intent” originalism, which focuses on what the authors of the constitution might have meant.

 

The philosophical basis of originalism is that a constitution only has force because it was approved by the people when it was ratified. Thus, the understanding of the constitution by the people who ratified it is the only valid interpretation.

 

Originalists reject the “evolving standards of decency” approach to constitutional interpretation that allows judges to effectively amend the constitution based on their own views of what the constitution “should” say. Instead, originalism is anchored in one certain interpretation. READ THE REST for even more details

 

Hmm… The concept of “evolving standards of decency” rather than a concept of “We The People” decide the rule of law by the vote is the fear that a Kavanaugh confirmation will ignore. Since Dems and Leftists in generals cannot stand that THE PEOPLE can comprehend what is good for them, Dems and Leftists would rather decide what is good for PEOPLE and what is good for society in general.

 

AND THAT IS WHY Dems in the Senate will do ANYTHING – lie, fabricate and/or rewrite laws via judicial activism – to prevent an Originalist to become a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

OBVIOUSLY fabricating accusations of rape on Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the Dem process of doing ANYTHING to transform Constitutional Interpretation away from Originalism to Living Constitution is the purpose of the incredulous character assassination happening now.

 

Kavanaugh has already gone through SIX FBI investigations in his Federal journey of working for WE THE PEOPLE. In the confirmation process Kavanaugh experienced for the Federal Judiciary and Appellate Judiciary met hardly any Dem resistance. THEN he is nominated for SCOTUS and suddenly and mysteriously a couple of ladies with a sudden memory resurgence think it might have been teen Kavanaugh in High School and his Freshman year in college involved in their sexual assault that neither women reported to the police OVER 35 FREAK’IN YEARS AGO!

 

Only an idiot or an infected Leftist ideologue could believe such accusations. Are you an idiot are a mind-diseased Leftist Ideologue?

 

Think about your state of mind when you realize that there are actually TEN Republican Senators who haven’t made up their own minds on confirming Kavanaugh for SCOTUS.

 

Below Steven Ahle lists those ten Senators including their official phone numbers. MY GOD! If you are a constituent of one of these Senators call their office to demand Kavanaugh’s confirmation!

 

  1. Susan Collins:

 

Collins Contact:

 

ph: (202) 224-2523

fax: (202) 224-2693

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.collins.senate.gov/contact

 

  1. Senator Bill Cassidy:

 

Cassidy Contact:

 

Ph. 202-224-5824

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/contact

 

  1. Senator Bob Corker:

 

Corker Contact:

Main: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-0566

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailme

 

  1. Senator Jeff Flake:

 

Flake Contact:

P: 202-224-4521
F: 202-228-0515

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff

 

  1. Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi:

 

Enzi Contact:

Phone: (202) 224-3424
Fax: (202) 228-0359
Toll-Free: (888) 250-1879

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-senator-enzi

 

  1. Senator John Kennedy:

 

Kennedy Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-4623

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/email-me

 

  1. Senator James Lankford:

 

Lankford Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-5754

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/contact/email

 

  1. Senator Jerry Moran:

 

Moran Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

 

  1. Senator Lisa Murkowski:

 

Murkowski Contact:

 

Phone: (202)-224-6665
Fax: (202)-224-5301

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact/email

 

  1. Senator Ben Sasse:

 

Sasse Contact:

 

Phone: 202-224-4224

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-ben

 

Here is an example email from what I sent to my Senator in Oklahoma according to the Steven Ahle list:

 

Senator Lankford,

It has come to my attention that you as a Conservative Republican have not committed to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to SCOTUS (https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/ten-senators-who-havent-committed-to-kavanaugh-yet/). I find this quite shocking as a Conservative! The only basis I can think of for any hesitation are the alleged sexual assault claims from ladies with very vague memories from over 35 years ago. AND IF Kavanaugh was a frisky teenage boy in High School and as a Freshman at Yale, can you not remember you were once a teenage boy. Even the most stellarly behaved teenage boy at very least has raging hormones that as more responsibility arises in life, more focus on mature life issues grow.

Surely you recognize that the sudden memory recovery of ladies that never reported a heinous crime of sexual assault when the alleged incident occurred are untrustworthy in their accusations. I have been doing some reading on sexual assault on women. In spite of MSM and/or Democratic Party assertions otherwise, sexual assault leave an indelible memory of revulsion and personal violation. Are you seeing this from Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers?

Dear God in Heaven Senator Lankford as a Conservative from Oklahoma, you should feel compelled to honor your constituents and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Sincerely,

John R. Houk

Feel free to amend and place your Senator and name to an email or FAX.

 

JRH 9/26/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Ten Senators Who Haven’t Committed To Kavanaugh Yet

 

By STEVEN AHLE

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

DavidHarrisJr.com

 

There is one thing you have to admire about Democratic Senators. They stick together and move forward, public opinion be damned. I really wish Republican Senators would do the same. If they mess up the Kavanaugh nomination, it will cost them on November sixth. They try to please the Democrat voters who will never vote for them regardless, so why do they even try? Currently, 10 out of 51 Republican Senators are not committed to Kavanaugh. They are:

 

  • Maine Senator Susan Collins -office number 202-224-2523

 

  • Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy – office number 202-224-5824

 

  • Tennessee Senator Bob Corker office number 202-224-3344

 

  • Arizona Senator Jeff Flake – office number 202-224-4521

 

  • Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi – office number 202-224-3424

 

  • Louisiana Senator John Kennedy – office number 202-224-4623

 

  • Oklahoma Senator James Lankford – office number 202-224-5754

 

  • Kansas Senator Jerry Moran – office number 202-224-6521

 

  • Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski – office number 202-224-6665

 

  • Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse office number 202-224-4224

 

Look at all the RINOs. Jeff Flake has already said that he may vote against Kavanaugh because of the bogus accusations against him. But the truth is, Flake hates Trump more than he likes his constituents.

 

From The Gateway Pundit

 

Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti is set to roll out Kavanaugh’s 3rd alleged accuser in the next 48 hours–Michael Avenatti took his grotesque attacks to the next level and informed the Senate he is accusing Kavanaugh and witness Mark Judge of getting women intoxicated at parties with drugs and alcohol so they could be gang raped by a “train” of men.

 

Call these Republican Senators and tell them enough is enough!

 

Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats earlier Monday from the Senate floor.

 

McConnell said the resistance has become a smear campaign aided and abetted by members of the U.S. Senate.

 

 

 

To stay up to date with David’s No Nonsense News, make sure to subscribe to his news letter on his website at www.davidharrisjr.com and follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

 

He has also just announced that his book “Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent” is available for pre-order! Click the tab “Book” on the Home Page on his website. Over 600 books have already been ordered! He has increased the signed pre-orders to the first 700 books! Pre-order yours today and it will be signed by David!

________________________

What is the Actual Dem Resistance to Kavanaugh?

Phone, FAX or Email your Senator to CONFIRM!

 

John R. Houk

© September 26, 2018

_____________________

Ten Senators Who Haven’t Committed To Kavanaugh Yet

 

Copyright © David Harris Jr. All Rights Reserved.

 

ABOUT DAVID

David James Harris Jr & Wife Jennifer

 

David James Harris Jr is a passionate pursuer of life, love and hope and seeks to use his platform as Founder/CEO of Uncorked Health. Wellness, Inc. to help as many individuals as possible. David has been an entrepreneur for over 20 years launching his first business at just 20 years old. It became a multi-million dollar company within two years. He’s also tasted of life’s setbacks and chooses to seek for growth opportunities in every downfall. David has overcame many of life’s obstacles, both personally and professionally.

 

David is crazy in love with his high school sweetheart, Jennifer… The girl of his dreams and often in his dreams. They are about to celebrate 23 years of marriage this year. They have two amazingly talented and beautiful daughters Corbin, 20 and Skyler, 18 who’s passion for life and love for others are contagious. They each chose to start off on the road to adulthood by attending Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry in Redding, Ca, seeking to lay down a spiritual foundation before tackling all that life has to offer.

 

He is openly a lover of God, having had an encounter that he describes like unto that of Saul in the bible. His perspective on life, himself, and his reason for existence was eternally altered from these encounters, which led to him referring to God as… “Daddy”. He seeks to be a light in a dark world, operate a business that helps people achieve their goals in mind and body, while bringing messages of hope and love that enhance the spirit. Join him on a journey through life, filled with hope and enduring love…

 

Ramirez: I Think it was Kavanaugh Who Waved His Penis in My Face


John R. Houk

© September 24, 2018

It is very apparent that Christine Blasey Ford will not be able to substantiate her accusation of rape by Judge Brett Kavanaugh when he was 17 and she was 15. So what do the desperate Dems do? They find another woman with an even sketchier memory than Ford’s who claims sexual assault by waving his penis in front of her face when Freshmen at Yale.

 

So says the memory of a then drunken Deborah Ramirez at a drunken dorm party.

I haven’t had the chance to digest all the facts on the Ramirez accusation yet, ergo below are a couple of posts from relatively Conservative sources (because I don’t trust lame-stream media sources and because I know Dems lie).

 

JRH 9/24/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*******************

JUDGE SEX CLAIMS 

Who is Deborah Ramirez? Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale University classmate who accused him of sexual misconduct

 

By Nicola Stow

September 24, 2018 3:57 pm

The Sun

 

Who is Deborah Ramirez?

 

Deborah Ramirez, 53, was raised a “devout catholic” in Connecticut, according to the New Yorker.

 

She and Kavanaugh were classmates at Yale, where she studied sociology and psychology. the pair graduated in 1987.

 

According to NBC News, Deborah is a board member and volunteer at Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, an organisation that helps domestic abuse victims.

 

She currently lives in Boulder, Colorado. READ THE REST

+++++++++++++

Yes, Let’s See The Emails That Led To Deborah Ramirez’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh

 

By ALLAHPUNDIT

Posted at 1:31 pm on September 24, 2018

Hot Air

 

Stop Kavanaugh Protestor

 

Here’s how the New Yorker described Deborah Ramirez’s journey towards speaking up:

 

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away…

 

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez alluded to the allegation and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.”

 

Emails? Tell us more about these emails, Jane Mayer:

 

 

Read the excerpt above again. After 35 years of uncertainty, within the span of six days, Ramirez somehow recovered her memories sufficiently to accuse a Supreme Court nominee of having sexually assaulted her. And coincidentally, this memory recovery appeared to happen only after her classmates had begun emailing about Kavanaugh’s time at Yale following his nomination this summer. At some point, by Ronan Farrow’s own admission, Senate Democrats got involved in the process.

 

Robert VerBruggen raises a very obvious possibility: “These emails would appear to be important evidence regarding how this ball got rolling. They also may bear on the question of whether Ramirez’s memory closely matches the anonymous source’s simply because they’re both the account that was circulating while Ramirez was putting her memories together and contacting her former classmates. Let’s see them.” Yeah, let’s. Let’s see if it was Ramirez or someone else who first identified Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her. Let’s see just how many gaps in Ramirez’s memory required filling in by others, seemingly not one of whom actually witnessed the incident. Let’s find out how many second-hand or even third-hand “witnesses” were needed to help the victim herself “remember.”

 

The New York Times spent a lot of time looking for first-hand witnesses over the past week. No dice:

 

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

 

This sure sounds like a case of someone’s hazy memory being reshaped after the fact through the power of suggestion. Ramirez may have remembered that someone did something lewd to her once at a Yale party along the lines of what she described to the New Yorker and then gradually became convinced that it was Kavanaugh after classmates told her “I heard from a friend of a friend at the time that it was Kavanaugh.” Or maybe it was less innocent than that: One person who spoke to the New Yorker told them that they thought Ramirez’s accusation “may have been politically motivated,” albeit without hard evidence. Imagine how much suggestive power a plea from someone attached to Senate Democrats in a high-stakes confirmation battle might have had on the memory of a person who’s inclined for ideological reasons to support Democrats anyway.

 

Ramirez isn’t the only person connected to the New Yorker piece whose credibility is shaky. I can’t imagine what Ronan Farrow was thinking attaching his name to such a journalistic sh*tpile, lacking not only even one first-hand witness to the incident but saddled with a victim whose memory he has every reason to believe is unreliable. He and Jane Mayer seem fully aware that the story is garbage too, per their careful framing of Ramirez’s accusation. It’s not that it’s true or even probably true, you see, it’s that Democrats are interested in it:

 

What a shrewd way to launder a smear into “news.” Investigate it privately, leak to the New Yorker that you’re investigating it, then cite their report that you’re investigating it privately as evidence of its seriousness, worthy of yet another delay in the confirmation vote. If you asked me yesterday to name five big-name non-Fox mainstream reporters who are broadly respected on the right, I would have told you “Jake Tapper, Ronan Farrow, and uhhh…” That’s a testament to how compelling Farrow’s #MeToo reporting over the past year has been: Even credentials like a stint on MSNBC and time spent working for the Obama administration weren’t enough to spoil all the credibility he earned among right-wingers from his reporting on Weinstein, Eric Schneiderman, and Les Moonves. The scariest words any Republican heard over the last week were “Ronan Farrow is looking into this” because you know what that usually means — he has the goods. Multiple accusers, in all likelihood, and even if not, at least multiple examples of contemporaneous corroboration from a single accuser. Instead he produced Deborah “I think it happened, but maybe not” Ramirez. The New York Times wouldn’t publish her claim, so thin was it. But Farrow would.

 

I don’t think his motive here was primarily partisan, although he obviously leans left. Weinstein and Schneiderman were both Democratic power players and he had no qualms about nuking them from orbit. More likely he and the New Yorker decided to lower their standards because the hunt for a second Kavanaugh accuser is the hottest story in America right now. Ramirez was under some form of pressure (intentional or not) from her classmates, it seems, to confirm that Kavanaugh was the man who assaulted her. But Farrow was under pressure too. He owns this beat. He’s the reporter everyone is looking to for the smoking gun that Kavanaugh really is a sleaze. And the clock is ticking. It’s possible that the Judiciary Committee will vote to confirm Kavanaugh this week, which wouldn’t close any window on accusations against him but might very well close the window on public interest in the matter. Under normal circumstances, Farrow and Mayer would have kept the story in a drawer and spent the next few weeks talking to sources while they tried to substantiate Ramirez’s claim. Instead the two of them and the New Yorker threw what they had at the wall, replete with some ass-covering “to be sure” qualifiers. Maybe Kavanaugh did something to Ramirez, but maybe not — but maybe! Ask yourself: What possible reason could there have been to rush this half-baked story into print apart from either (a) trying to monetize intense public interest in a topic with whatever you have available, or (b) derailing Kavanaugh’s nomination? Are either of those reasons conducive to good, responsible journalism?

 

Here he is this morning defending the report. He has enough home runs already as a reporter that one strikeout in a big spot won’t damage his general reputation but Republicans will probably never look at him the same way.

 

 

++++++++++++++++

KAVANAUGH AND LAST-MINUTE ACCUSATIONS

Democrats pull out all the stops.

 

By Joseph Klein

September 24, 2018

FrontPageMag.com

Brett Kavanaugh

 

Democrats are pulling out all the stops and enabling salacious last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in order to sink his candidacy. Now that Christine Blasey Ford has finally agreed to testify this Thursday at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her charge that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a long-ago high school party, these new charges have suddenly emerged from left field.

 

On Sunday, a former classmate from Judge Kavanaugh’s time at Yale accused the Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her at a party. The New Yorker has just published an article written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, based on information that was reportedly sent to at least four Democratic senators. The article recounted a claim by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s, concerning “a dormitory party gone awry.” As the article acknowledged, however, “her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” The article goes on to say that in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, Ms. Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” It was only after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” that Ms. Ramirez was suddenly able to pinpoint Judge Kavanaugh as having committed an unsavory act, even though she admitted being “foggy” at the time. The New Yorker article also noted that the magazine “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”

 

Meanwhile, the ever-present Michael Avenatti, attorney of porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had information from anonymous sources that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend had “targeted” women with drugs and alcohol at parties to facilitate “gang rape.”

 

Haters of Judge Kavanaugh are turning the process of Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee into something worse than a travesty. His opponents in the Senate have transformed their “advise and consent” function into a campaign of no-holds barred character assassination.

While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys.”

 

A week has already gone by since Ms. Ford went public with her story in an interview with the Washington Post while Ms. Ford and her attorneys stalled for time. They raised one procedural issue after another while claiming that the committee majority was “bullying” Ms. Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-I) has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford’s preferred scheduling for her appearance. He extended the deadline several times for her to come to a decision on whether to testify at all. He had offered various options for her to testify publicly or privately or to be interviewed by committee staff in her home state of California, whichever setting would make her more comfortable. However, in Senator Grassley’s e-mail thanking Ms. Ford for finally agreeing to a time certain for her testimony, Senator Grassley correctly reminded her attorneys that “the committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, and what order to call them and who will question them. These are nonnegotiable.”

 

While the negotiations with Ms. Ford’s attorneys for her testimony were underway, Democrats were sitting on the latest allegations, ready to pounce as soon as Ms. Ford’s accusation was about to be heard. Some Democrats are already using the Ramirez episode to push anew for a fresh FBI investigation and to postpone Thursday’s scheduled hearing.

 

Ideally, if the Democrats cannot apply enough pressure to force a withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through their relentless campaign of character assassination, they want to push any Senate votes until after the midterm elections at the earliest. Then they will claim that the newly elected senators should be involved in the confirmation decision. In the meantime, Judge Kavanaugh’s adversaries in the Senate, the mainstream media and progressive circles continue to bludgeon Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion. All of their stratagems are an obvious attempt to buy time in order to persuade any wavering senators that Judge Kavanaugh is too tainted by sexual assault charges – whether proven or not – to sit on the Supreme Court.

 

Proof does not matter to those wanting to bring Judge Kavanaugh down at any cost. Regarding Ms. Ford’s accusation, they know that the proof so far is non-existent, aside from Ms. Ford’s own assertions contained in her confidential letter given to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, last July, and in her Washington Post interview. While a redacted version of Ms. Ford’s letter has been published, Senator Feinstein has refused to date to give even Senator Grassley a copy of the completely unredacted version. The FBI has already conducted 6 background checks, no federal crime is alleged, and there is no forensic evidence to investigate after 30 years at a site that Ms. Ford cannot even identify.

 

What we do know so far tends to undercut the credibility of Ms. Ford’s accusation. Ms. Ford cannot corroborate her decades-old charge of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Whatever corroboration Ms. Ford was hoping for from “witnesses” she claimed were at the alleged party is non-existent. The individuals she reportedly named in her unredacted confidential letter given to Senator Feinstein have either denied being at such a party or do not recollect what Ms. Ford has alleged. Moreover, by her own admission to the Washington Post, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember some key details of the incident.” She does not remember, for example, where it happened, how the party came together in the first place, or how she got home after the alleged incident. She believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, but reportedly could not be more precise on the day or even the month of the party.

 

Afraid that Ms. Ford’s sexual assault allegation could be readily challenged and anxious to establish some sort of pattern of sexual misconduct beyond this single alleged incident, the Kavanaugh haters have latched onto Ms. Ramirez’s story.

 

The New York Times published an op-ed column last week by a psychiatrist, Richard A. Friedman, who cited neurological science to conclude that Ms. Ford’s claim that she has “a vivid memory of an attack that took place when she was 15” is “credible.” The reason, he wrote, is that “memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.” The only problem with Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that Ms. Ford has apparently forgotten such key details surrounding the alleged sexual assault as when and where it happened and how she got home. Moreover, when Ms. Ford finally told someone about the incident in any detail some 30 years later in 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband, she did not name Judge Kavanaugh specifically, according to the therapist’s notes that Ms. Ford had provided to the Washington Post in connection with her interview. The Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes it reviewed “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”

 

Ms. Ramirez’s story is even less credible. It took an attorney and six days of very belated reflection to help revive her memory of an incident she claimed happened while she herself was very drunk.

 

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of Judge Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics who told men to “shut up” regarding Ms. Ford’s allegations, said she doubts Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility because of “how he approaches his cases.” Aside from mischaracterizing the constitutional textualist reasoning underlying Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, she is saying that she does not believe Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of the sexual misconduct allegations lodged against him because of the opinions he wrote that she does not like. Such circular “reasoning” would be amusing if it were not so emblematic of what one writer called “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also suffering from the same syndrome. She said Thursday regarding Ms. Ford: “I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story.”

 

Ms. Ford’s supporters are exploiting the “Me Too” movement to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty simply because Ms. Ford is a woman who has made what they call, without any corroborating evidence to date, a “credible” charge. The same would presumably be the case for Ms. Ramirez. They argue that since the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal judicial trial, but rather a legislative hearing for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, the normal burden of proof shouldered by the accuser should not apply. Judge Kavanaugh should have to prove that he is not guilty, they are in effect insisting. This is another case of Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome.

 

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the normal burden on the prosecution in a criminal case – to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – is not applicable regarding the charge against Judge Kavanaugh since he is not a defendant in a criminal trial. However, that should not flip the burden of proof onto Judge Kavanaugh altogether. Judge Kavanaugh is being subjected to charges of a criminal nature that could not only deprive him of a seat on the Supreme Court for which he is otherwise eminently qualified. Ms. Ford’s unsubstantiated accusation can completely destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s life by causing irreparable damage to his reputation for integrity and good character and to his career, which he has built up during decades of public service. His family’s lives have been completely upended. Placing the burden on Judge Kavanaugh to prove that he was not involved in an uncorroborated incident from years ago, about which even his accuser does not recall key details, turns the fundamental constitutional principle of due process upside down. Ms. Ford should have the burden to prove her accusations by at least a preponderance of all the evidence presented.

 

This charade must come to an end. No more extensions for Ms. Ford to come forward and testify. If Ms. Ford does not follow through with her agreement to testify in an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this Thursday and do so upon the conditions set by the committee, she should go home while the committee proceeds to an immediate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. If Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh do testify, the senators deciding on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as well as the American public following the testimony must remember one cardinal rule. In a nation guided by fairness and law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, many of Judge Kavanaugh’s haters have thrown that rule aside.

 

If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled as a result of the smears and character assassination, President Trump should immediately nominate someone on his short list such as Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate Republican majority should then push through the new nominee’s confirmation as soon as possible. Delay is not an option.

 

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

++++++++++++++++++++

Critics condemn New Yorker over uncorroborated Kavanaugh story: ‘Lazy at best, slimy at worst’

 

By Brian Flood

September 24, 2018

Fox News

 

The New Yorker’s sketchy report that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh may have exposed himself to a college classmate decades ago has media critics asking if the prestigious magazine cares more about getting a story or getting it right.

 

The article, headlined “Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years,” was co-bylined by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. It details a claim by Debbie Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh sexually harassed her during a Yale University party.

 

Yet, beneath the story’s explosive thesis lie substantive seeds of doubt and a complete lack of corroboration that prompted howling from a chorus of media critics.

 

 

 

 

 

“It’s worth noting that Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer could not confirm ‘with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.’ It’s also worth noting that this disclaimer was buried to the ‘10th paragraph’ of the Deborah Ramirez report. Lazy at best, slimy at worst,” Mediaite columnist Joseph Wulfsohn wrote.

 

National Review editor Charles C.W. Cooke penned a column calling the piece “grossly irresponsible,” which slams The New Yorker for publishing the story.

 

“I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of ‘journalism’ in a major outlet,” Cooke wrote. “There is no scaffolding beneath this story.”

 

Jedediah Bila wrote that she is typically a fan of Farrow but his latest report is “not good journalism.”

 

“New Yorker piece doesn’t even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party, contains an admission of memory gaps by Ramirez due to intoxication, and has numerous people on the record disputing her claim. Once again, I’m awaiting facts: evidence, corroboration, possible testimony,” Bila wrote.

 

The story has been criticized for admitting a lawyer spent six days assessing Ramirez’s memory, failing to confirm Kavanaugh actually attended the party, burying the fact that the New Yorker couldn’t confirm the story with witnesses and relies on decades-old hearsay.

 

“Ronan Farrow, Jane Mayer and the New Yorker ran with a story where the accuser still, today, right now, can not say that the person she is accusing actually is the one who did what she is alleging. IS THAT NUTS,” New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz wrote in a series of tweets mocking the story.

 

“The New Yorker piece is a terrible piece of journalism and it really seems like Farrow and Mayer know it,” Markowicz wrote. “I can’t remember the last time I was this angry about something in politics. This is disgusting.”

 

“I have no words for how sickened I am by how the left and the establishment media are weaponizing non-credible sexual assault claims to destroy a human being,” Daily Caller media editor Amber Athey tweeted.

 

Syndicated radio host Dana Loesch questioned if Farrow — who helped launch the #MeToo movement with his reporting on disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein – was given a byline to add credibility to the report. Erick Erickson echoed Loesch, saying the piece doesn’t live up to Farrow’s pristine reputation.

 

“All of these New Yorker stories about Kavanaugh seem as if they’re Mayer stories that Farrow was added to for credibility. Because they’re not up to his standard sourcing. Hell, they’re not really even sourced,” Erickson wrote.

 

Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York sarcastically noted that the latest allegation “has it all.”

 

“Accuser was drunk. ’Significant gaps’ in her memory, recovered recently with help of lawyer. Memories fuzzy all ’round. Some say never happened. Accuser ‘never described incident until Brett’s SCOTUS nomination,’” York wrote.

 

While many of the piece’s critics are conservative pundits, several mainstream media members have also questioned the report. “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King asked Mayer if she was ok knowing that Ramirez admitted that she had gaps in her memory from the night in question.

 

 

 

“The story is very transparent about what she does and doesn’t remember,” Mayer insisted.

 

The CBS morning show further pressed Mayer, and Fox News contributor Stephen Miller called the exchange “embarrassing” after co-host Norah O’Donnell tweeted a clip.

 

The New York Times wasn’t as comfortable as Mayer, Farrow and The New Yorker — admitting it couldn’t find anyone with firsthand knowledge of the claim.

 

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the Times wrote in a story that followed the New Yorker report. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

 

“So it was too shaky for the New York Times, but The New Yorker went with it. Very telling,” Fox News’ Britt Hume wrote.

 

Pundit Steve Cortes wrote that the “sham” story “couldn’t even meet the low standards” of the Times.

 

Despite all the criticism the story has received, Farrow and Mayer spent Monday morning defending their work with a variety of media appearances.

_____________________

Ramirez: I Think it was Kavanaugh Who Waved His Penis in My Face

John R. Houk

© September 24, 2018

___________________

Yes, Let’s See The Emails That Led To Deborah Ramirez’s Accusation Against Kavanaugh

 

Copyright HotAir.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved.

___________________

KAVANAUGH AND LAST-MINUTE ACCUSATIONS

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 ____________________

Critics condemn New Yorker over uncorroborated Kavanaugh story: ‘Lazy at best, slimy at worst’

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: In full disclosure I did not seek permission from Fox. That portion of this post will be removed upon request.]

 

Dems Lie So I Believe Kavanaugh


John R. Houk

© September 17, 2018

 

 

Christine Blasey Ford – 1984 Yearbook Photo & More Recent

 

Christine Blasey Ford (Blasey 36 years ago – Ford after marriage) has been identified as Brett Kavanaugh’s rape victim accuser. In a letter she gives a detailed description of Kavanaugh’s alleged assault at the age of 17 while in High School. The letter was made public by CNN with “REDACTED” of an alleged accomplice to the alleged sexual assault. REDACTED has been identified as Mark Judge who was Kavanaugh’s High School buddy. Judge stipulates the described incident NEVER occurred.

 

Mark Judge

 

A Paul Sperry tweet claims Brett Kavanaugh told Senator Orin Hatch “he wasn’t even at the party in question” (Gateway Pundit).

 

So where does that leave Americans following this sordid drama of Dems determined to protect old Judicial Activism of a probable unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision validating child murder of unborn babies because birth control wasn’t used when two people do the wild thing?

 

I’ll tell you where that leave us. Someone is blatantly lying! And I’ll also tell you how this will at least partially proceed. An already polarized America will weigh in on this She said/He said situation based on political ideological differences and not really happened or didn’t happen.

 

Since I am a Christian Conservative, I’m lining up with what He said unless some solid proof shows Kavanaugh perpetrated a teenage hormone filled sexual assault. And here is why.

 

Leftist oriented Dems have a huge documented history of lying to push a Leftist agenda or protect the image of Leftists. The number one Leftist method of protecting their own image is develop a twisted or down false image of a situation or person.

 

The paradigm should read simply Leftists/Dems lie and the Leftist cadres believe the lie because it suits the Leftist agenda more than the truth.

 

HENCE, I have no problem believing Brett Kavanaugh is the victim of a smear campaign.

 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh

 

Let’s look at some recent examples from the previous Presidential Administration (by no means an exhaustive list of lies and deception) courtesy FrontPageMag.com:

 

Solyndra Scandal – The Obama administration provided this failing solar company with a $535 million stimulus-funded loan, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Taxpayer money kept pouring in despite the fact that the Office of Management and Budget warned that Solyndra was not a profitable or viable company. But it gets worse. The family foundation of billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama fundraiser, was one of Solyndra’s main investors. Can you say quid pro quo?

 

Veterans Affairs Scandal – Over 40 veterans needlessly died while waiting to be seen by doctors at a Phoenix VA facility. Another 1,700 veterans were forced to wait for months before being seen by medical personnel. An audit of the VA confirmed that VA officials systematically altered records and appointment schedules in a deliberate and methodical VA scheme to manipulate data to meet fabricated goals.

 

Operation Chokepoint Scandal – The Obama DOJ utilized the power of big government to pressure banks to cease doing business with industries with which the administration had ideological differences. Gun manufacturers and gun stores were prime targets even though they had not violated any laws. Eventually, the FDIC admitted to misconduct, bowed to pressure and significantly curtailed the discriminatory regulations after affected businesses threatened legal action.

 

Gibson Guitar Scandal – Armed federal agents executed four search warrants on Gibson Guitar Corp. facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., seizing guitars, electronic files and other inventory including wood that was purchased in India and Madagascar. The DOJ alleged that Gibson’s had violated an obscure law known as the Lacey Act which made it a crime to violate the environmental laws of another country. Gibson produced an affidavit from government officials in Madagascar stating that Gibson had violated none of that nation’s laws. Gibson also alleged that the DOJ was misinterpreting Indian law. Gibson’s CEO was a major donor to the GOP but his competitors, who purchased the same materials and were not GOP donors, were untouched by Obama’s DOJ. As part of a settlement to drop criminal charges, Gibson was required to pay a $250,000 fine and was required to donate $50,000 to an environmental group. Gibson was eventually able to retrieve its inventory from the clutches of the DOJ.

 

Fast & Furious Scandal – A scheme concocted by the Obama administration that went horribly wrong. The administration lost track of some 1,400 guns that made their way into the stream of criminal enterprises including those of the Mexican drug cartels. Two of the guns were found at the scene of the shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Attorney General Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents relating to the scandal. It was the first time Congress had taken such an action against a sitting Cabinet official. Seventeen Democrats joined Republicans in voting in favor of the criminal contempt resolution.

 

DOJ-James Rosen Scandal – FOX News journalist, James Rosen became the target of Obama’s DOJ in yet another example of extreme government overreaching. Believing that Rosen was responsible for a leak concerning a policy decision on North Korea, AG Eric Holder sought a subpoena for Rosen’s emails claiming that Rosen had broken the law “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” The government’s affidavit also accused Rosen of possibly violating the Espionage Act. It appeared that the DOJ was acting like the East German Stasi in chasing fictitious enemies of the state. In a rare instance of bipartisanship, Holder was roundly criticized from all sides of the political spectrum and Holder himself was later forced to acknowledge that he regretted the episode.

 

Gruber-Obamacare Scandal – To establish Obamacare’s validity, Obama hired economist and academic Jonathan Gruber to give the plan his seal of approval. Gruber was later caught on video and audio making several disparaging remarks about Americans, stating that Obamacare’s passage rested on the “stupidity of the American voter.” Democrats later tried to distance themselves from him and tried to minimize his role in formulating Obamacare but there was no debating that he was one of Obamacare’s chief architects and was paid nearly $400,000 for his services. Gruber confirmed what most of us already knew; that Obamacare passed as a result of a concerted effort by the administration to deceive the American people.

 

Skolkovo Scandal – While serving as secretary of state, Clinton oversaw a program meant to “reset” relations with Moscow and improve ties. The program centered around the Russian city of Skolkovo near Moscow with the stated aim of “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the American and Russian people.” The program transformed Skolkovo into a technology hub akin to a Silicon Valley. Sensitive American technology was transferred to the Russians, substantially enhancing their military and cyber capabilities. The US Army and the FBI concluded that Russia had exploited the program for military applications. The FBI warned American technology companies doing business in Skolkovo that the Skolkovo project was a means by which the Russians would acquire dual use technologies and apply them for military ends. According to investigative author Peter Schweizer, Russian and American companies and individuals involved in the Skolkovo fiasco “had major financial ties to the Clintons.” Moreover, during the Russian reset period, those entities provided the Clintons with “tens of millions of dollars” in the form of “contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties.”

 

Benghazi Scandal – U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed during an attack on the American consulate office. The Obama administration initially denied that the attack was terror related and instead peddled the now false and discredited narrative that it was triggered by a reaction to an anti-Muslim film. However, emails later confirmed that administration officials were well aware that it was a well-orchestrated, premeditated attack planned by Islamist terrorists and had nothing to do with an internet film. In addition, a congressional committee found that the delay in deploying military assets to the theater, which it attributed to needless bureaucratic bungling, almost certainly cost those men their lives.

 

IRS Exemption Scandal – IRS officials, taking their cues from the White House delayed, ignored or rejected nonprofit status applications from groups deemed to be right-wing or pro-Israel. Eventually, Former IRS senior executive Lois Lerner, one of the key actors in the scandal was held to be in contempt of Congress, though Holder’s DOJ refused to prosecute.

 

Iran Ransom Scandal – In deal to secure the release of four Americans held hostage by Iran, the Obama administration gave the Iranian government $1.7 billion in unmarked, untraceable cash, stacked in pallets. The money promptly went to finance Iran’s terrorist activities. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was required to sign off on the ransom deal but no paper bearing her signature was ever produced despite congressional calls compelling her to do so.

 

Bergdahl-Guantanamo Scandal – Obama released 5 hardened Taliban terrorists for convicted deserter Bowe Bergdahl. The release of the terrorists was in violation of the National Defense Authorization Act. Obama was required to provide Congress with 30-days’ notice prior to releasing the Guantanamo detainees but he only provided notice on the actual day of the exchange. Consequently, the chief counsel for the Government Accountability Office determined that the Pentagon had illegally spent the money used to facilitate the prisoner exchange. In addition, like Benghazi, the administration tried to spin the story and portrayed Bergdahl as a soldier who “served with honor and distinction.” Lastly, at least 3 of the 5 detainees released for Bergdahl have reverted to their terrorist habits placing America and its allies at risk.

 

Dossier Scandal – Elements within the FBI and DOJ who were hostile to Trump and friendly to Clinton obtained a salacious and unverified dossier on Trump which was compiled by a British foreign agent from Russian sources. In addition to being unverified, unreliable and based exclusively on Russian sources, the dossier amounted to opposition research because it was obtained by agents and operatives working directly and indirectly for the Clinton campaign. Despite this knowledge, the FBI dressed up the dossier to appear as if it was a legitimate intelligence document and then used it to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on American citizens.

 

Clinton Email Server Scandal – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used an unsecured bathroom server to send and receive classified information. It is a virtual certainty that many of Clinton’s emails were compromised by foreign, hostile governments. Over 33,000 emails belonging to the State Department were deleted and some of Clinton’s state department emails ended up on a registered sex offender’s laptop. Clinton was criminally exonerated by the FBI and Loretta Lynch’s DOJ blindly accepted the FBI’s findings and recommendations without conducting an examination of its own. FBI agent Peter Strzok, who maintained a visceral hatred toward Trump and was deeply involved in the email investigation, later changed the wording of a memo exonerating Clinton to “extremely careless” from “grossly negligent.” The change was significant because the latter language tracked the wording of the criminal statute. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was also involved in investigating Clinton, failed to disclose that his wife had accepted $500,000 for her state senate campaign from long-time Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe.

 

Uranium 1 Scandal – While serving as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton signed off on a deal that allowed Russia to acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium mining capacity. While other members of the Obama cabinet were also required to sign off for approval of the deal, Clinton was the only cabinet figure to obtain direct pecuniary benefit, to the tune of millions of dollars, from entities with vested interests in seeing the acquisition completed. She never disclosed this conflict of interest when giving her authorization. Once in Russian hands, some of the uranium, the foundational material for nuclear bombs, was exported abroad.

 

Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton Tarmac Scandal – While Hillary Clinton was being criminally investigated by the FBI, Loretta Lynch, the nation’s top law enforcement official met with Bill Clinton for 30 minutes at a Phoenix tarmac where she says they discussed “grandchildren” and “golf.” Later, it was revealed that she instructed FBI Director James Comey to refer to the investigation as a “matter” rather than an investigation, tracking the Clinton campaign’s talking points. Finally, Comey testified in a closed session before the Intelligence Committee, that he confronted Lynch with a sensitive document in which it was suggested that Lynch was going to use her authority and power of her office to thwart prosecution of Clinton irrespective of the FBI’s findings. Lynch reportedly stared at the document and then “looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office.”

 

Project Cassandra Scandal – In an effort to curry favor with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Obama administration delayed, obstructed and ultimately shut down a DEA initiative aimed at thwarting Hezbollah arms trafficking, drug trafficking and money laundering schemes. As a result, Hezbollah continued to import drugs into the United States, continued to supply anti-American insurgents with deadly Explosively Formed Projectiles and continued to engage in massive money laundering schemes. (THE OBAMA YEARS: A LEGACY OF SCANDAL AND DECEPTION; By Ari Lieberman; FrontPageMag.com; 12/27/17)

 

You must realize there are more lies and deception not mentioned by FrontPageMag.com. And I haven’t touched the pre-2008 Obama lies and deception, or the Bill and (Crooked) Hillary Clinton scandals. I’m telling you DEMS LIE!

 

AND GUESS WHAT?

 

Christine Blasey Ford is a dyed in the wool Dem dedicated to the Leftist agenda. What’s the paradigm? That’s right, Leftists lie.

 

To date though we are still left with She said/He said. The Kavanagh camp have signed endorsement of 65 female past High Schoolers attesting to Kavanaugh’s good character. Not to be out done, the Christine Blasey Ford camp has “alumnae of Holton-Arms School, and we are writing in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford”:

 

“The letter concludes by saying it has already been signed by “200+” Holton Arms alumnae stretching from 1968 through the present day.” (Hundreds of Women From Christine Blasey Ford’s High School Sign Letter Supporting Her; By Rafi Schwartz; Splinter News; 9/17/18 2:04pm)

 

Take note those vouching for Ford’s stretches “1968 through the present day.” This indicates the signatories did not necessarily know Christine Blasey Ford but are supportive of what they believe she stands for as a past graduate of Holton-Arms School. Whereas Kavanaugh’s 65 lady contemporaries from his High School years knew Kavanaugh’s character.

 

Since Dems have a propensity to lie or believe a lie for the sake of the agenda, I will assume Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Give me some kind of forensic evidence that proves otherwise or I’ll stick with paradigm – DEMS LIE!

 

Of possible interest:

 

GOP Weighs How to Proceed With Brett Kavanaugh Nomination; By Kristina Peterson and Peter Nicholas; Wall Street Journal; 9/17/18 3:29 p.m. ET

 

Kavanaugh’s Accuser is Discredited AGAIN – Classmate Comes Forward With Blistering Stat[e]ment; BY AMY MORENO; Truth Feed News;  9/17/18

 

Bad Blood: Judge Kavanaugh’s Mother Foreclosed on Far Left Accuser’s Parents’ Home; By Jim Hoft; The Gateway Pundit; 9/17/18

 

BREAKING: Writer of Confidential Kavanaugh Letter Speaks Out – She’s a Far-Left Activist! By Cristina Laila; The Gateway Pundit; 9/16/18

 

HAPPENING NOW: Kavanaugh Hits Back at His Accuser in This Powerful Statement; BY AMY MORENO; Truth Feed News; 9/17/18

 

JRH 9/17/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**********************

VIDEO: REPORT: Court Records Reveal a Sinister Connection Between Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s …

 

Posted by BreaKing News 24H

Published on Sep 17, 2018

 

REPORT: Court Records Reveal a Sinister Connection Between Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s Family. The evidence is stacking up against the woman accusing patriotic and honorable Judge Kavanaugh. It’s…

 

https://truthfeednews.com/report-court-records-reveal-a-sinister-connection-between-christine-blasey-ford-and-kavanaughs-family/

 

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…


John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

Cliff Kincaid has been using his political pulpit to warn Conservatives that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a bad choice for a nomination to SCOTUS. On a personal level I say further investigation is warranted before I join Kincaid’s warning.

 

Kincaid’s warning centers around Kavanaugh’s association in the death of Vince Foster. Officially Foster death was ruled a suicide. Detractors of the suicide label believe Foster was murdered to look like a suicide to protect the Crooked Clintons.

 

Here is an excerpt on Vince Foster’s death written by Cliff Kincaid for AIM in 2016:

 

Donald J. Trump has brought up the case of the mysterious death of former Clinton aide Vincent Foster, calling it “fishy.” Trump is right. Foster is the man who knew too much. He had knowledge of various Clinton scandals, including Travelgate, the Waco tragedy, and possibly some illegal activities involving national security. His body was found in a Virginia park on July 20, 1993, and the media accepted the verdict of suicide.

 

But as AIM founder and late chairman Reed Irvine and I reported on the case, there were so many anomalies that the Special Division of the Court of Appeals ordered an appendix added to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster. The appendix exposed serious flaws in the report that cast strong doubt on the suicide finding. These anomalies included:

 

  • No bullet was ever found in Fort Marcy Park, even though Foster supposedly shot himself there.

 

  • The gun that was found in his hand has never been positively identified as his.

 

  • Foster’s fingerprints were not found on the gun.

 

Many people in the media claim that numerous investigations confirmed it was a suicide. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post says there were “five official investigations into Foster’s death, conducted by professional investigators, forensic experts, psychologists, doctors and independent prosecutors with unlimited resources.” CNN’s Jake Tapper says it is “shameful” for Trump to question these findings.

 

But the official government investigations, including the one run by ardent “Republican” Kenneth Starr, were flawed. Nobody knew this better than Miguel Rodriguez, the lead investigator of Foster’s death for Independent Counsel Starr. He uncovered evidence that Foster had not committed suicide. However, Rodriguez, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of Foster’s death, resigned because of interference with his investigation. As Irvine noted, “If he had been permitted to complete the grand jury investigation, he would have exposed the many lies that were told to cover up Foster’s murder.” Irvine exposed many of these lies in a 2001 edition of the AIM Report.

 

 

Some other critical facts:

 

  • Foster’s car, a 1989 gray Honda, was not at Ft. Marcy Park when he died.

 

  • The .38 revolver found in his hand was not the gun that killed him. It was not his gun. The caliber of the gun was too large to be consistent with the small hole in the side of Foster’s neck. A memo by Rodriguez found at the National Archives stated that “the corpse was staged with the revolver brought by” investigators.

 

  • Foster’s so-called suicide note was a forgery. It said nothing about suicide. Handwriting experts say the note, which had no fingerprints on it, wasn’t even written by Foster. The note was found in a briefcase that had previously been searched.

 

Yes, something was, and is, very fishy in the case of the death of Vincent Foster. READ ENTIRETY (Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case; By Cliff Kincaid; AIM; 5/26/16)

 

Kavanaugh was on a SCOTUS list in 2017 that eventually went to Justice Gorsuch. Joseph Farah wrote a report then about Kavanaugh’s link to a cover-up in the Foster death:

 

 

… the White House noted the following credentials: “Brett M. Kavanaugh is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before his appointment in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and was a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and in the Solicitor General’s Office. Judge Kavanaugh also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh is a cum laude graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.”

 

Conspicuously not mentioned in that biography is Kavanaugh’s role in leading the badly flawed investigation into the death of Vincent Foster in July 1993.

 

In fact, Kavanaugh took over that investigation when his predecessor, attorney Miguel Rodriguez, resigned, saying in a letter to Kenneth Starr dated Jan. 17, 1995, because evidence was being overlooked in a rush to judgment in favor of suicide and closing the grand-jury investigation, WND reported last year.

 

The smoking-gun information was reported by WND exclusively early in the 2016 presidential campaign in the form of two documents: a two-page letter of resignation and a 31-page memo both written by Rodriguez, Starr’s original lead prosecutor.

 

 

Rodriguez refers in his letter to photographs showing a wound on Foster’s neck – a wound that did not exist according to accounts in Starr’s official government report.

 

The obvious questions: How could a suicide victim be found with two wounds – a .38-caliber gunshot into the mouth that exited through his head and another wound on the right side of his neck that one of the paramedics described as a small-caliber bullet hole? And why would government investigators go to great lengths to cover it up?

 

 

The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.

 

 

Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.

 

Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.

 

Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.

 

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

READ ENTIRETY (IS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING ‘VERY FISHY’ IN FOSTER DEATH? By JOSEPH FARAH; WND; 11/20/17 7:42 PM)

 

Kavanaugh took over the Vince Foster death investigation after Rodriguez’s resignation:

 

 

The press publicized the search of Fort Marcy Park for the fatal bullet to give the public the impression Starr was doing a thorough investigation.  The bullet was never found because it remained in Foster’s head.  Rodriguez discovered that the FBI, with the assistance of Doctor James Beyer, had destroyed the evidence that showed the bullet remained in Foster’s brain.  People asked Rodriguez if exhuming Foster’s body for an X-ray could reveal the bullet trajectory.

 

THE GREY HONDA

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Supreme court candidate Brett Kavanaugh previously of the Independent Counsel discussed the problem with the brown car with Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media.

 

Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh admitted that “all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described [the car] as brown.”  Vincent Foster’s car was NOT BROWN.

Foster did not drive to the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park, contrary to press reports. On October 10, 1997, when the 137-page official report, vol 1vol 2, was released to the public, the American press concealed the evidence of the cover-up, and only reported on the existence of the first 114 pages of the report.

 

Narrator

 

Kavanaugh’s statement that people clearly saw Foster’s car is not true.  Descriptions of a brown car are not descriptions of Foster’s gray car.  How does Kavanaugh resolve the problem?

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

So, people were screwed up on the colors, period.

 

Narrator

 

Brett Kavanaugh called eyewitnesses “screwed up” because what they saw did not agree with the desired result.

 

But Kavanaugh slipped up.  He admitted that all of the police and medical personnel saw a brown car.

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

Well it all comes down to that brown car issue, right?   Ah, all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described it as brown.

 

Narrator

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Reed Irvine asks Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh what evidence he has that Vince Foster’s car was at Fort Marcy Park when Foster was already dead.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Supreme candidate Kavanaugh, from the deep state, led murdered Vince Foster coverup; By Bunkerville; BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! 7/3/18)

 

Now for the Cliff Kincaid email where I place the video he refers to at the bottom.

 

JRH 7/6/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

By Cliff Kincaid

Sent July 5, 2018, 2:06 PM

Sent via America’s Survival

 

To ASI Supporters:

 

Watch the media closely. If you see no coverage of the Foster case, then you can safely assume who is calling the shots. Pardon the pun.

 

Kavanaugh Still Favored For Supreme Court

 

Time is running out. My old friend, John Gizzi, one of the best political journalists in the country, says President Trump is on the verge of naming Foster cover-up artist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

 

Brett Kavanaugh & Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Here’s what John is reporting:

 

With barely four days to go before President Trump makes official his choice to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, the favorite remains D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has an advantage because he has the most consistent conservative judicial track record of the known candidates — one that mirrors Trump’s views on several key issues, including immigration, trade deals, abortion and gun rights, according to two sources familiar with the current White House selection.

 

This would be a major catastrophe. What my old friend leaves out of his piece is Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Foster cover-up.

 

If Kavanaugh is nominated, the Deep State wins. Our video explains how Kavanaugh went along with the cover-up because he wanted to play ball and be a member of the team, so he could move “up the ladder.” This is how the Swamp operates.

 

Remember that President Reagan was tricked into nominating Anthony Kennedy. And Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Kennedy!

 

Everywhere you turn in the “conservative media,” you are getting endorsements of Kavanaugh – without any mention whatsoever of the Foster case.

 

We have also learned that Kavanaugh is the preferred choice of White House counsel Don McGahn. He is pushing Trump to nominate him for the Supreme Court. “McGahn’s backing helped Kavanaugh secure a spot on Trump’s existing Supreme Court list last November, when the president added five names,” Politico said.

 

Watch our video. Decide for yourselves. Everything we have is documented.

 

Official FBI photograph of the black gun placed in Foster’s hand at Fort Marcy Park to stage the crime scene.

 

Thanks to those of you who have responded with donations. But we need your help more than ever.  If you haven’t helped, please consider a donation.

 

Rather than nominate Kavanaugh, Trump should order a new investigation of the “fishy” Foster death. That’s the way to get to the bottom of the way the Deep State operates.

 

If Trump wants to save his presidency, he must investigate the Deep State, not capitulate to it.

 

Give me your thoughts at: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

For America’s Survival,

Cliff Kincaid, President

 

Donate to America’s Survival

 

VIDEO: Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Posted USA Survival

Published on Jul 4, 2018

 

Possible Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “is part of the ongoing cover-up of the murder of the [Clinton] White House deputy counsel” Vincent Foster. So charges researcher and journalist Hugh Turley. In this explosive video, learn how the Swamp operates in bipartisan fashion to cover up crimes, including murder, and how Deep State agents are deployed to intimidate witnesses and alter evidence. Turley worked with AIM’s Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid on this case for years, only to face a cover-up from the liberal AND conservative media.

__________________

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…

John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

_________________

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

© America’s Survival, Inc

 

About America’s Survival

 

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is recognized as a 501 (C) 3 educational organization. ASI President Cliff Kincaid is editor of the ASI web sites www.usasurvival.orgwww.leninandsharia.com  and www.religiousleftexposed.com ASI  is on Facebook and Twitter and has a YouTube channel featuring videos from ASI conferences and other events. We have an app for smart phones and operate a TV channel on Roku called “America’s Survival TV.”

 

ASI specializes in exposing the United Nations, international organizations and extremist movements.

 

Office telephone: 443-964-8208

Email: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

Mailing Address:
America’s Survival. Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Owings, MD 20736