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

 

2nd Steele Dossier, Dems & FISC Judges American Traitors


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 6, 2018

 

Two posts (BPR & CFP) are telling their readers that more and more corruption is being exposed. Showing again that Dems LIE and the former Obama Administration is riddled with a load treasonous Deep State Comrades to the Constitution.

 

The BPR post is about two Senators (Grassley & Graham) of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent a criminal referral to the FBI to investigate Christopher Steele lying under oath. A second deceitful memo authored by Steele evidently was fed “allegations” by Clinton associates against President Trump.

 

Judi McLeod has an interesting article at CFP indicating the black robed FISC Judges may have been in on Obama Administration, FBI-Leadership & DOJ-Leadership coup agenda to prevent or impeach President Trump depending on the November 2016 election results.

 

Talk about a swamp needing drained. These nefarious actions if ever successful renders our Constitutional Republic null and void!

 

JRH 2/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Second memo triggers ’emergency review’ request: Hillary’s people were ‘feeding’ info to dossier author

 

By Luis Miguel 

February 5, 2018 

BizPac Review

 

Christopher Steele isn’t getting off the hook so easily.

According a memo released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Steele, the former British MI6 agent who compiled the Trump dossier commissioned by Fusion GPS, was fed allegations from Clinton associates during his research on President Trump, Fox News reports.

 

Fox News VIDEO: Criminal referral says Clinton associates fed info to Steele

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5726475066001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
The Monday memo is an unclassified, redacted version of a criminal referral filed on Jan. 4 by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that suggests Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts or that the FBI misrepresented Steele’s statements.

 

Grassley and Graham wrote to the Justice Department in January, requesting an investigation of Steele. The Senators now ask the FBI for an emergency review of their criminal referral so that it can be made public with limited redactions.

 

In the memo, the lawmakers state “there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility.”

 

Christopher Steele. (Photo by Victoria Jones/PA Images via Getty Images).

 

One portion of the heavily-redacted memo claimed that Steele received information from “a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with (redacted), a contact of (redacted), a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to (redacted).”

 

“It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility,” Grassley and Graham wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in January.

 

The Grassley-Graham memo says that Steele used the information from the “foreign sub-source” to write an additional document related to President Trump’s ties to Russia that was not included in the infamous dossier published by BuzzFeed in January 2017, the Washington Post reports.

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite).

 

According to the memo, Clinton associate Cody Shearer was in contact with Steele about anti-Trump research. Jonathan Winer, an Obama State Department official, was a connection between Steele and the State Department during the 2016 election.

 

A House Intelligence Committee memo declassified on Friday revealed that the largely unverified Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign through the law firm Perkins Coie, was used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump associate Carter Page.

 

Friday’s memo showed that the FBI was aware of the dossier’s origins but did not disclose that information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when applying for a FISA warrant.

 

The FBI opposed the release of the Grassley-Graham referral, saying the Bureau “respects” the committee’s desire for transparency but that it “cannot and will not weaken its commitment” to protecting classified information.

 

Sens. Grassley and Graham said the FBI’s remarks “mischaracterize and misstate” the amount of classified information in the document, and have asked the Bureau and Justice Department to “immediately review the classified referral in light of [Friday’s] declassification and provide the Committee with the declassified version by no later than February 6, 2018.”

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik).

 

Despite Democrats’ best efforts, the Clintons’ full role in the Russia-Trump investigation is coming to light.

 

+++++

Obama’s FISA Men In Black Played Key Role in Russian Election Conspiracy

 

By Judi McLeod

February 5, 2018

Canada Free Press

 

FISC Membership – CFP

 

Add Barack Obama-appointed Foreign Intelligence Court (FISC) members to the braggadocio list of the “17 intelligence agencies” that Hillary Clinton openly bragged about at the Oct. 19, 2016 presidential debate when she told debate host Chris Wallace that “17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed”, the highest levels of the Russian government, including Putin himself had been caught up in “an effort to influence our election”.

 

What Clinton was, in essence saying, was that the fix was in; that Candidate Donald Trump would have zero chance of beating the rap of colluding with the Russians because “17 intelligence agencies”, including FISA judges, were at the ready to smear him as a Russian spy to discredit, first his candidacy, and then his unwanted and unexpected presidency.

 

Clinton’s admission made on national television during the University of Nevada presidential debate was jaw-dropping in its breath-taking brazenness for any who were aware.

 

Now that it’s out there, heads should roll. (video 25:16 mark)

 

CFP VIDEO: Third and final Presidential Debate (Trump/Clinton – 1:37:27)

http://players.brightcove.net/1155968404/r1WF6V0Pl_default/index.html?videoId=5178362196001
Up to the present, millions suspected the FBI, the DoJ, Jim Comey and Robert Mueller of foul play.

 

FISC sat quietly back in obscurity with no one noticing the key role it played in the Hillary Clinton/DNC-manufactured ‘Russians-stole-the-election’ conspiracy.

 

But Obama’s Men in Black were onboard from the get-go:

 

“Is it surprising that nearly all of the judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA)– the court that gave the go-ahead to wiretap the Trump campaign–were appointed by Barack Obama? (Media Equalizer, Feb. 5, 2018)

 

According to Media Equalizer, in fact 10 of the 11 judges were Obama appointees,  including Rudolph Contreras who was recused from the Michael Flynn case for undisclosed reasons, and granted the warrant based on fake material provided by the Clinton campaign after another judge denied it.

 

“Trial lawyer Robert Barnes notes that the FISA court does not operate like other courts. Because the court’s jurisdiction is limited to legitimate security threats, its judges are supposed to hold the evidence they consider to a much higher standard.

 

 

 

 

 

“As NPR noted in 2013, the FISA court has not really functioned like a typical federal court since 2008 when Obama took office.

 

“It “became less a court than an administrative entity or ministerial clerk,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. “They weren’t reviewing law anymore; they were simply sort of stamping papers as approved or filed.”

 

“That a DNC sponsored document that was poorly written and riddled with spelling errors was considered to meet the court’s high standard raises serious concerns. It is also important to recognize the damage caused by the judges at the FISA court when they used their secretive status to influence America’s most important political election.”

 

In order to keep presidential election campaigns safe from the sabotage of Hillary Clinton’s boasted “17 intelligence agencies”, patriots must learn to see through major media distractions.

 

During the 2016 election campaign Clinton tore a page from Obama’s stylebook.

 

Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t kidding when he boasted just five days before the 2008 presidential election that he intended to “fundamentally transform America”.  People were too caught up in the media hype that presented him as the Messiah to take the radical Marxist at his word.

 

Hillary Clinton wasn’t kidding when she outed the 17 intelligent agencies at the last presidential debate before election at the University of Nevada debate.

 

She counted on people being too caught up in her health issues, including her could- have-been-staged faint routine which televised her being shoved like a side of beef into a parked van on the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

 

Time for patriots to return presidential election campaigns to We the People.

 

Boot spy agencies out of the American election campaign process.

 

(#BootSpyAgenciesOutOfTheAmericanElectionCampaignProcess)

__________________

2nd Steele Dossier, Dems & FISC Judges American Traitors

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 6, 2018

__________________

Second memo triggers ’emergency review’ request: Hillary’s people were ‘feeding’ info to dossier author

 

Luis Miguel is a South Florida-based writer covering politics, society, and culture.

 

© 2018 BizPac Review. All Rights Reserved.

__________________

Obama’s FISA Men In Black Played Key Role in Russian Election Conspiracy

 

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com. Older articles by Judi McLeod

 

Copyright © Canada Free Press

 

Sen. Graham claims Benghazi survivors ‘told to be quiet’ by administration


Benghazigate Liars

Benghazigate is an issue that has NEVER been resolved. This smacks of a HUGE cover-up by the Obama Administration.  Americans are left with Conspiracy Theories based on the few facts that are available.

 

Thanks to the petition from Causes.com and the frequent updates that are sent I became aware of that Senator Lindsey Graham is exposing that the Obama Administration is intimidating survivors of the Benghazi massacre to NOT come forward with the facts that they know which could fill in the holes not provided by the BHO Administration.

 

Sign the petition:

 

WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND FULL DISCLOSURE FOR THE MURDER OF OUR AMBASSADOR AND CONSULATE STAFF IN LIBYA. THAT CONGRESS HOLD PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE BENGHAZI COVERUP

 

JRH 3/17/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Sen. Graham claims Benghazi survivors ‘told to be quiet’ by administration


Published March 15, 2013

FoxNews.com

 

VIDEO: http://video.foxnews.com/v/2229095903001/

 

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an extensive interview with Fox News, alleged that the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel they can’t come forward to tell their stories — as he urged the House to subpoena the administration for details if necessary.

 

The South Carolina senator said he’s “had contact” with some of the survivors, calling their story “chilling.” He told Fox News that “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”


The White House is denying any attempt to exert pressure on the surviving victims.

 

“I’m sure that the White House is not preventing anyone from speaking,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, when asked about the survivors.

 

But Graham said he thinks the administration is “trying to cover it up,” citing the valuable information the survivors hold.

 

“The best evidence of what happened in Benghazi is not a bunch of politicians in Washington trying to cover their political ass,” Graham said. “This is the people who lived through the debacle, and I’m going to do all I can to get them before the Congress and American people.”

 

He continued: “We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story.”

 

Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.

 

But he had pointed words for the House Republican leadership, as he urged them to issue subpoenas if the administration does not release the names of the survivors.

 

“To our leadership in the House, you’re gonna have to up your game on Benghazi,” he said.

 

For his part, Graham vowed to “make life difficult in the Senate” in order to get the information he wants, suggesting that would involve holding up nominations.

 

“(The public needs) to hear from people who were on the ground, their desperate situation. They need to understand from people who were there for months how bad it was getting and how frustrated they were that nobody would listen to them and provide aid when they were requested,” Graham said. “This is a story of an administration deaf and blind to the reality of what people were living with every day in Libya.”

 

He said they should be able to “tell their story without fear,” accusing the administration of “hiding from the American people and Congress the primary source of truth in Benghazi – people who lived through it.”

 

A congressional source tells Fox News that Hill staffers investigating the attack believe about 37 personnel were in Benghazi on behalf of the State Department and CIA on Sept. 11. With the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, about 33 people were evacuated. Of them, a State Department official confirmed there were three diplomatic security agents and one contractor who were injured in the assault — one seriously.

 

A diplomatic security source told Fox News the State Department diplomatic security agent who was in the most serious condition suffered a severe head injury during the second wave of the attack at the annex.


This agent was described as the likely State Department employee visited at Walter Reed Medical Center by Secretary of State John Kerry in January.

 

While not denying the details, the State Department official offered no comment on the nature of the injuries or whether the agent was visited by Kerry or Hillary Clinton before she left office.

 

Leading Republicans in the Senate and House have been calling on the State Department to identify the injured and make them available to congressional investigators. So far, they say their calls have gone unanswered.

 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the administration has provided “zero” documents on the matter and has not provided names of those attacked.

 

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has gathered about 60 signatures in support of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack. Wolf has said the committee is the most thorough and efficient approach to resolving the lingering underlying questions rather than the competing and overlapping committee jurisdictions.

 

Wolf, along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and leading Senate Republicans Graham, John McCain of Arizona, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have pressed the State Department for answers.

 

Fox News’ Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

____________________________

©2013 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

Stand For Liberty


Rand Paul filibuster

Justin Smith utilizes Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster as the foundational starting point to write about the Obama Administration’s – with Attorney General Eric Holder as a reference – abuse of the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/15/13

Please Support NCCR    

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

Stand For Liberty

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/14/2013 3:23 PM

 

In a fascinating and charismatic stand for Our U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Liberty for all Americans, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) demanded on March 6, 2013 that Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder specifically give clarification regarding the Obama administration’s policy on using unmanned armed aircraft (drones) overseas and on American soil. When Holder gave several ambiguous statements and circled any honest answer pertaining to provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Executive Order on 12-31-12, allowing the president to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and to kill Americans who are deemed terrorists or “enemy combatants,” Senator Paul vowed to block the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA until he received some satisfactory answers (Presidents have long used the word “privelege” in Article I Sec 9 as a tool to ignore habeas corpus). And thus ensued an amazing lesson in government and the U.S. Constitution, as Senator Paul delivered a thirteen hour filibuster!

Twelve other Republicans and one Democrat, Ron Wyden (Oregon) supported Paul during his 13 hour soliloquy, but the bulk of the Republican Party was notably and unfortunately missing in action during this intense, momentous and historic moment, which prompted Senator Paul’s observation, “If there were an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by other senators… saying they will not tolerate this.” So, in stark contrast Senator Rand Paul struck a blow for all Americans and Liberty, as Republican-in-name-only Senator Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) office would not divulge his whereabouts during the filibuster; and, RHINO Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who had dinner with Obama and eleven others during the filibuster, gushed like a teenage girl over the attention they received, as they were groomed to once more betray their constituency and the American people regarding upcoming financial matters.

Senators Graham (R-SC) and McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Senator Paul was doing “a disservice to Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government.” As McCain added, “They’re not. But we are in danger from a dedicated longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction,” I thought that statement was fairly applicable to Obama and the Progressive Democrats as much as it was to Al Qaeda.

Remember that Holder has been undermining the U.S. legal system for a long time. The Holder Justice Department has prosecuted U.S. agents unfairly due to previously approved methods of interrogating terrorists, who have no standing under the U.S. Constitution (parallels “piracy”) or the Geneva Convention. Holder himself has represented Al Qaeda terrorists pro bono during his time with the law firm of Covington and Burling. He has unconstitutionally overseen the military trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed; now, he once again has conferred Constitutional rights on a terrorist/enemy combatant where none should exist and, in fact, do not exist in the case of Sulaiman Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and chief propagandist for Al Qaeda. And this is the man we are supposed to trust when he states that “no intention” exists to use drone strikes in America… the very same Eric Holder who ignored due process in the international child custody case of Elian Gonzalez.

Due process of the law has been integral to the American way since George Mason and others penned the Bill of Rights, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointedly stated, “The question of whether the United States government can kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil when that individual does not pose an imminent threat or grievous bodily harm is a fundamental issue of Liberty. It is an issue of enforcing the explicit language of Our Constitution.” It is within this context that all Americans must take pause and object to Holder’s reluctance and hesitancy to offer an unequivocal and certain, “No…the president does not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat,” as he eventually did on March 7, after a month and a half of pressure from Congress!

This controversy largely arose over the Obama refusal to allow Congress to see the legal opinions that authorize drone strikes, although regular reports have been made to the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Forces Committees. The critical question centers on Congressional oversight of a covert war against suspected terrorists, as Obama has grabbed too much power and violated the U.S. Constitution in his so-called “efforts to keep the nation safe.”

Virginia E. Sloan, the president of the Constitution Project (civil liberties group/DC), stated in February, “We have this drone war, and the American public has no idea what the rules are, and Congress doesn’t know much more… speeches are absolutely no substitute for the actual memos in hand.”

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “What Rand Paul had to say about drones absolutely fired up conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right.” Setting aside conspiracies, a known fact represents reality; and, America’s reality is an Obama administration and Homeland Security who warned of the ranks of potential terrorists being filled by “right wing extremists” and “Christian conservatives.”

Attorney General Holder has not told us the criteria used to mark a person as an enemy combatant. He also did not back off his contention that the president has the authority to pursue military action inside the U.S. in extraordinary circumstances, which is currently and technically correct; however, this also requires numerous signatures from the other branches of government, and it still gives the impression of flying in the face of Posse Comitatus [NCCR Editor: Read HERE, HERE and HERE]. And it was this assertion that sparked Senator Paul’s filibuster, as he declared, “I have allowed the president to pick his appointees… But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”

One should also note that the U.S. has developed miniature drone listening devices that go unnoticed as they hover over areas, like something out of Bradbury’s ‘Fahrenheit 451’ or Orwell’s ‘1984’. That’s well and good if they’re hovering over a terrorist camp, but do we really want to use this in America? … Embrace Big Brother… And even if we do, shouldn’t we still demand the application of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments?

Over the course of the filibuster several senators, such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, attempted to lessen the strain of the effort on Senator Paul by asking questions and speaking themselves. Cruz read passages from ‘Henry V’ and lines from the movie ‘Patton’. At one point, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), who struggles with a cane due to a stroke, delivered hot tea and an apple to Paul’s desk, but a doorkeeper removed them; not to be outdone, House Republican Louie Gohmert from Texas stood off to the side of the Senate floor in a show of support.

One person can make a difference when they stand up for a righteous cause, and no one should take any U.S. President’s word, especially this one’s, that his administration’s policy in any area remains consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, regardless of claims of “transparency”. By offering his resolution stating that the use of unmanned, armed aircraft on U.S. soil against American citizens violates the Constitution and delivering 13 hours of explanation and education, Senator Paul opened the eyes of many Americans, who want a better balance between protecting our security and protecting our Liberty; even CodePink called and thanked him “for standing up against abuses of power.” So, the next time you hear Senator Rand Paul, or anyone, ask “are you so afraid that you are willing to trade your freedom for security,” reply “No!”…and stand up for Liberty!

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

SlantRight Thoughts on ‘McCain, Graham, Rice Will Meet – An Apology Is Owed’


Benghazi Liars

By John R. Houk

© November 27, 2012

 

Burr Deming is my Liberal friend (no I did not choke those words – Burr is a Christian man) in which obvious reigns true; i.e. we rarely agree on a point of view.

 

Burr is taking the view that Susan Rice can be excused for lying to the Senate oversight committees and the American Public about what the cause actually was for the Benghazigate murder and atrocities to a diplomatically protected Ambassador and three other Americans.

 

The liberal logic runs that Republicans are to blame because they voted to decrease Embassy security. Let’s never mind that Obama is slashing the military budget to unconscionable lows for the security of America. Never mind that regardless of Embassy security cuts it was probably a compromise to not cut the military budget even further. Never mind that a budget cut does not mean the Obama Administration through the State Department leaves an American Ambassador unprotected in a volatile nation that had glaring evidence of al Qaeda activity. Never mind that was security that was told to hold on help for Ambassador Stevens and a couple of ex-Navy SEALs dispatched themselves to aid Stevens after hearing no help was forth coming. Never mind that took the State Department spin about an insignificant anti-Muslim movie that was made on the scale of garage home videos and that only a trailer was posted on Youtube.

 

Yes, my fellow Conservatives it is smoke and mirrors to deflect the truth that Susan Rice was the mouthpiece for Obama/Clinton lies to Americans to exonerate their hind quarters for a dishonorable travesty that could have been prevented.

 

That is my two cents. Here is Burr Deming’s nickel that he sent by email that is published by now on the blog Fair and UNbalanced.

 

JRH 11/27/12

Please Support NCCR