Category Archives: Supreme Court

Slick Willie buddy and liberal hack George Stephanopoulos says “Trump always sides with men on sexual misconduct claims”

I bet he said that without any sense of irony.

From Fox News: Bill Clinton spokesperson-turned ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos has been called out for hypocrisy after a combative interview with press secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday, when the “Good Morning America” star accused President Trump of always siding with men when it comes to sexual misconduct claims.

“It is absolutely amazing that Stephanopoulos has the gall to say it seems like President Trump is always siding with the men when it comes to accusations of sexual impropriety and sexual assault given his work in the Clinton administration,” conservative strategist Chris Barron told Fox News.

The interview started off with a series of questions about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein before the conversation shifted to the ongoing sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“The president consistently, every single time, takes the side of the man,” Stephanopoulos said.

Sanders fired back, “It’s interesting that you say that. It’s a lot of Democrats that like to ignore Keith Ellison and Cory Booker. They love to fight and champion women until they disagree with them.”

Stephanopoulos reminded Sanders that Al Franken lost his job over inappropriate sexual behavior.

“A number of other Democrats should have the same type of scrutiny,” Sanders said, before Stephanopoulos interrupted, “Every single time, the president has taken the side of the man against women accusers.”

Sanders said that Trump knows Brett Kavanaugh and has heard his story, explaining that there hasn’t been a “shred of evidence” to back up claims made against the Supreme Court nominee — but the “GMA” star quickly changed the subject.

“Maybe ABC should have found someone with a little more credibility around this issue to ask these questions,” Barron said. “Factually, Stephanopoulos is also flat wrong. President Trump has been a high-profile defender of women like Juanita Broaddrick who were victimized by President Clinton and demonized by the main stream media.”

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Jimmy Kimmel threatens to cut off Judge Kavanaugh’s penis

Last night, Sept. 24, 2018, in his unfunny monologue, unfunny comedian Jimmy Kimmel threatened to cut off Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s penis if the Senate confirm his Supreme Court nomination.

Jerome Hudson of Breitbart gives us the background to Kimmel’s threat:

Kimmel launched into the Kavanaugh rancor midway through his monologue, noting a New Yorker article published over the weekend in which Deborah Ramirez alleged that as a drunken Yale University freshman, Brett Kavanaugh “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party.” Ramirez claimed she had “significant gaps in her memories” regarding the alleged encounter. Ramirez’s college best friend also told the paper she “never heard of” the incident in question.

Jimmy Kimmel cut to a clip of Judge Kavanaugh and his wife’s Fox News interview on Monday, in which the Supreme Court nominee called allegations from Christine Blasey Ford false and explained that he was a virgin in high school and college….

Kavanaugh has reportedly produced calendars from 1982, which purportedly prove he was out of town during the time in which Ford says he attempted to grope her at a house party.

“What 17-year-old keeps calendars of his social engagements?” Kimmel asked. “No wonder he was a virgin.”

Beginning at the 6:43 mark of the video below, Kimmel says:

“So Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. Okay. Well, in return, we get to cut that pesky penis of his off.”

Kimmel’s audience laugh uproariously, because threatening to castrate a man is just so falling-on-the-floor funny.

Kimmel really is in no position to be holier-than-thou when it comes to the treatment of women.

Recall his so-called skit wherein he invited women to touch his crotch to guess what he had in his pants. He said to one woman: “Maybe it would be easier if you put your mouth on it.” (See “Jimmy Kimmel to woman: Put your mouth to what’s in my pants“)

The latest: The spineless Senate Judiciary Committee has re-scheduled its vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to this Friday morning, a day after Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, presumably had testified before the committee.

A successful vote Friday is not necessary to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. Current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received no recommendation from the Judiciary Committee in 1991, but was still confirmed by the Senate. (Fox News)

H/t Big Lug

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Message from “Smash Racism DC” to Ted Cruz and Trump supporters: “You are not safe”

Remember folks, #LoveTrumpsHate!

This group, Smash Racism DC, decided to harass Senator Cruz and his wife last night at a restaurant because of their TDS and libtard butthurt. The temper tantrums continue…

From the deranged group’s Twitter account:

  • No—you can’t eat in peace—your politics are an attack on all of us You’re votes are a death wish. Your votes are hate crimes. Tonight Senator Ted Cruz arrived at Fiola, an upscale restaurant mere steps from the White House, to enjoy a hearty Italian dinner.
  • He could have dined on a lavish four course meal for only $145 while millions of Americans struggle to buy groceries. He might have sampled from the top shelf wine list as migrant children languish in cages.
  • He’d have laughed with his wife while women and members of the LGBTQ community collectively gasp in horror as Senator Cruz pushes forward on Bret Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. At least he could have had activists not interrupted his evening just as he was being seated.
  • Instead, activists from Smash Racism DC, Resist This, DC IWW, members of DC Democratic Socialists of America, Anarchists, women, sexual assault survivors, and members of the LGBTQ community interrupted Ted Cruz’s peaceful meal.
  • While our interruption does not compare in scale to the interruptions his actions as a Senator have had on millions of American lives, we hope that it reminds Cruz and others like him that they are not safe from the people they have hurt.
  • This is a message to Ted Cruz, Bret Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum: You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.
  • Sincerely, Some Anti Fascist Hooligans. We demand a world free of sexual violence, and state violence. We want a world without prisons, borders, or capitalism. You should be embarrassed for existing.

Sorry, losers: I’m not embarrassed for existing. Nor for supporting President Trump and Brett Kavanaugh (BTW, it’s not “Bret” you idiots.)

And if anyone of you “anti-fascist” hooligans tries to get in my face and harass me, well, you’ve been warned. Because if this girl feels threatened and unsafe, I will not be embarrassed to exercise a certain God-given right.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Christine Ford’s letter has varying font styles and sizes

“What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation? I don’t know when it happened, I don’t know where it happened. And everybody named in regard to being there said it didn’t happen. I’m just being honest. Unless there’s something more, no I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.” –Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

When you type a letter, do you keep switching font styles and font sizes?

While I sometimes italicize or bold, I’ve never switched to a different font style or font size in the course of typing a letter. Who does that?

Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of SCOTUS nominee U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, does!

Recall that on Sept. 12, the day when the Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, blocked the vote by forwarding Ford’s “confidential” letter to the Justice Department.

In the letter, dated July 30, 2018, Ford accuses Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting then-Christine Blasey 36 years ago in 1982 (date unknown), at a high school party in some home in Montgomery County, Maryland (address unknown). According to Ford, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothes against her will.

Ford does not remember the address of the house. That is odd since, according to TruthFinder, her father, Ralph G. Blasey, had owned a home in Potomac, Montgomery County, Maryland. In 1982, Christine was 15 years old, a high school student, and would be living at home in Potomac — in the same Montgomery County where the house party was.

Since Ford’s letter became public knowledge, all four alleged eye-witnesses of the alleged sexual assault have denied any knowledge. Two of the alleged witnesses are friends of Ford: Christina King Miranda was a schoolmate; Leland Ingram Keyser, a longtime friend of Ford, denies even having been at the party. Another alleged witness, Patrick J. Smyth, also denies any knowledge of the party.

See “Christine Ford, the woman who accuses Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago” and “Audio evidence of Christine Ford’s political adviser plotting in July against SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh“.

Last Sunday, Sept. 23, Feinstein finally released Ford’s letter to Senate Majority leader and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who released the letter to the public.

Below is the letter (click image to enlarge). I painted the red arrows pointing to a change in font style and/or font size.

Some comments from readers of TruthFeed and Gateway Pundit:

  • “This shit is even more edited than Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate. Look closely. Multiple fonds EVERYWHERE.”
  • “It appears like a fill in the blanks letter. Kavanaugh’s name was added AFTER the original draft”
  • “Might have been created by the Obama BC forger.”
  • “the name Kavanaugh is different too. In one of them the ‘a’ is right up against the ‘K’. In another, the line of the ‘u’ is taller than the others. In another, the letters are uneven. Maybe it’s just the copy but it seems like a computer or typewriter would always be the same spacing, etc. It’s been my experience that those ‘discrepancies’ occur when someone tries to change a document.”
  • “Who sends a sloppy letter like that to a U.S. Senator? And she didn’t even sign it with her full legal name, just her maiden name.” (Note: Christine Ford, 51, is married to Russell Biddel Ford, 56, a senior director at Zosano Pharma(ceuticals), Fremont, CA. Her maiden name is Christine Margaret Blasey.)
  • “She vacationed in mid Atlantic until August 7th. It would be interesting to note if she had airplane phobia back then and drove cross country with her family.” (Note: Politico reported that Ford had refused to testify before the Senate, claiming she didn’t want to fly to Washington because she’s uncomfortable in “confined spaces”.)

Here’s a timeline, according to Christine Blasey Ford:

Some day on 1982 – Sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, 17, at a party with 4 other teenagers in a house (address unknown) somewhere in Montgomery County, MD, on an unknown date in 1982. Cannot remember who threw the party or how she got home. Claimed to have received unspecified “medical treatment regarding the assault” (date and facility unknown). Did not go to the police or told anyone about the alleged assault, not even to her parents or siblings (according to Ford’s “close friend” Kirsten Leimroth in an NPR interview).
1983: Said nothing.
1984: Said nothing.
1985: Said nothing.
1986: Said nothing.
1987: Said nothing.
1988: Said nothing.
1989: Said nothing.
1990: Said nothing.
1991: Said nothing.
1992: Said nothing.
1993: Said nothing.
1994: Said nothing.
1995: Said nothing.
1996: Said nothing.
1997: Said nothing.
1998: Said nothing.
1999: Said nothing.
2000: Said nothing.
2001: Said nothing.
2002: Said nothing.
2003: Said nothing when President George W. Bush, on July 25, nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit.
2004: Said nothing, as the Senate stalled Kavanaugh’s nomination for nearly 3 years.
2005: Said nothing.
2006: Said nothing when the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended confirmation of Kavanaugh, when the Senate confirmed his nomination, and when he was sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
2007: Said nothing.
2008: Said nothing.
2009: Said nothing.
2010: Said nothing.
2011: Said nothing.
2012: Talked about the alleged sexual assault in couples’ therapy, but according to the therapist’s notes, did not name Kavanaugh. Ford’s husband, Russell B. Ford, claims that his wife mentioned Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court. (Washington Post)
2013: Described a “rape attempt” when she was in her late teens, in an individual therapy session.
2014: Said nothing.
2015: Said nothing.
2016: Said nothing.
November 8, 2016: Donald Trump was elected US President. Ford becomes an anti-Trump activist.

July 6, 2018: Notified her “local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing” her information of having been sexually assaulted 36 years ago.
July 9, 2018: President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
July 30, 2018: Christine Blasey Ford wrote confidential letter, with changing font styles and font sizes, accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago.

H/t FOTM readers EddieBG & Big Lug

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

DemoRAT Hypocrite Kristen Gillibrand: “A country that values women wouldn’t allow this”

Gillibrand and Harvey Weinstein

Gillibrand and Slick Willie

By now you’ve heard about the latest Alinsky tactics to derail Brett Kavanaugh.

DemoRATs are working very, very hard at this smear campaign. It’s coming fast and furious thanks to many, many demoRAT operatives. See here and the many posts on Twitchy.

And the RINOs are, of course, succumbing. Arrrrgggggghhhhh!

Another demoRAT working hard at this effort is Senator Kristen Gillibrand. You should see her Twitter timeline – full of sympathy, empathy and disdain for women who are victims of sexual assault and are not being heard because of the evil republican men.

Some examples of her tweets:

  • “We can’t change our country’s culture of sexual harassment and assault if we don’t change our treatment of survivors. A country that values women wouldn’t allow this.
  • By refusing to treat her allegations properly and by playing games to protect Kavanaugh’s nomination, they’re telling women across the country that they’re not to be believed. That they are worth less than a man’s promotion.”
  • “This isn’t just about one incident. It’s about whether we’ll send women who have experienced sexual trauma back into the shadows.
  • “Why don’t they want the facts?”
  • “We’re all better off when women’s voices are heard.”
  • To every survivor out there: I see you. You deserved better, and we will keep fighting for justice.”

You want to know Kristen about women who were sent back into the shadows because of sexual trauma? Listen to what these women have to say:

HYPOCRITE.

All you demoRATs pushing these unverified and libelous stories about Brett Kavanaugh without acknowledging the voiced experiences of Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey prove just one thing:

You don’t care about women who are victims of sexual assault ONE BIT. All you care about is POWER.

All you demoRATs involved in this smear against Brett Kavanaugh are HYPOCRITES.

I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne would have to say…had she been a survivor.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Audio evidence of Christine Ford’s political adviser plotting in July against SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh

Ricki L. Seidman, 63, is a longtime Democrat Party cadre and a former Clinton administration official (Assistant to the President; Deputy Communications Director). She also actively worked against the Supreme Court nominations of  Robert Bork (1987) and Clarence Thomas (1990), and prepped Anita Hill before she testified before the Senate, claiming she had been sexually harassed by Thomas. Seidman was instrumental in getting the Anita Hill story made into a HBO television series.

On June 27, 2018, Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation, effective July 31, 2018.

On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 53, to the Supreme Court.

From September 4 to 7, 2018, the Senate conducted hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

On September 12, 2018, the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, blocked the vote by forwarding to the Justice Department an anonymously-written letter, dated July 30, which accuses Kavanaugh of “sexual misconduct” with an unnamed woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago.

Four days later on Sept. 16, the author of the letter went public and identified herself as Christine Blasey Ford, 51, a research psychologist at Palo Alto University in northern California.

See “Christine Ford, the woman who accuses Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago”.

On Sept. 20, 2018, The Hill reported that Christine Ford had hired Ricki Seidman to be her political adviser to help her navigate a potential hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seidman confirmed her role in an interview with Politico.

Now, an audio has surfaced of political operative Ricki Seidman plotting a strategy to defeat Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. The audio was recorded sometime in July 2018.

The audio begins with a female voice asking Seidman “what are the best tools that Progressives have to challenge” the Kavanaugh nomination.

Seidman responded by acknowledging that given the Republican majority in the Senate, it is not “extremely likely” that the Democrats can defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination (beg. 0:34 mark):

“So, I will say at the outset that while I think that looking at the numbers in the Senate it’s not extremely likely that the nominee [Kavanaugh] can be defeated, I would absolutely withhold judgment as the process goes on, and I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance.”

Seidman then touts her experience of having worked “on one side or another” of Supreme Court nominations since William Rehnquist, which is hard to believe because the Senate confirmed Rehnquist’s nomination in December 1971 when Seidman was 16-17 years old.

Seidman continues (2:01 mark):

“I think that the way in which ultimately the Kavanaugh nomination needs to be approached is understanding what that standard is and the fact that Kavanaugh doesn’t meet the definition. I worry a little bit about, um, I think in this initial period, my sense is that everyone still scurrying to figure this out, and in terms of the groups that care about the issues, Justice Kennedy’s [resignation] announcement was a surprise and caught most — not everyone — people flat-footed, and the [Trump] administration knows this and that is partly why there’s a rush to nominate someone so quickly. I actually think that Kavanaugh was likely already chosen at the point that Kennedy would resign and that there was a nice show of considering people, for the White House’s political reasons.

But I do think that over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee [Kavanaugh]….”

Then Seidman points out that Kavanaugh’s problem is the absence of women among his endorsers (5:30 mark):

“Of the 34 people who were the endorsers [of Kavanaugh] put out by the White House…none of them were women. Not a single one of them were women. And I don’t think it’s an accident that Kavanaugh spent so much time in his remarks talking about women because that is a clear problem with his record.”

Seidman acknowledges that only two Republicans would likely vote against Kavanaugh — Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Seidman calls that “something that we have to get beyond” (7:50 mark).

Sure enough, a “strategy” did emerge “over the coming days and weeks” after Seidman said those words — a “strategy” that targets what Seidman had identified as Kavanaugh’s biggest problem, the lack of women among his endorsers.

And the strategy was to have a woman suddenly come forth, 36 years later,  accusing Judge Kavanaugh of attempted rape.

H/t Gateway Pundit and FOTM reader CSM

See also “Christine Ford’s letter has varying font styles and sizes

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Ageist: Rosie O’Donnell calls for senior GOP politicians to retire

From Fox News: Rosie O’Donnell took to Twitter to mock the age of prominent Republicans, calling on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to retire – despite lefty leaders being the same age.

“Grassley and hatch – too old – they should be done – come on – at thanksgiving we don’t let the 85 year olds carve the turkey #retire,” O’Donnell tweeted.

Hatch, the Senate president pro tempore and third in the presidential line of succession behind Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Grassley are two of the GOP’s most prominent members. Many Hollywood liberals, including O’Donnell, are currently upset that many Republicans continue to support Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh amid sexual harassment allegations.

Grassley is 85, while Hatch is 84 years old. But several prominent Democrats are in the same age range. Liberal icons Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein are both 85, Maxine Waters is 80, Nancy Pelosi is 78 and Bernie Sanders is a spry 77 years old.

A 2014 Gallup poll showed the average retirement age is 62.

O’Donnell, 56, has a decades-old feud with President Trump and she has been an outspoken critic of his administration. Some of her followers were offended by her call for the older Republicans to retire.

I hate to bring this up but discriminating against someone because of their age is just as wrong as any other form of discrimination. Their behavior was the same decades ago. Approaching 70 myself, I’ll match wits with you any time you’d like,” one user wrote.

“Not cool,” another follower added. “Plenty of 85 year old people are as sharp as ever.”

Just last year, CNN published a story headlined, “The Democratic Party has an age problem,” that noted the ongoing problem with the advanced age of some liberal leaders.

“Democratic leaders across both the legislative and executive branches are generally older than leadership on the other side of the aisle,” CNN’s Ryan Struyk wrote before noting the average age of Democrats on Capitol Hill was 61, while the average Republican was 57.2 years old.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Christine Ford, the woman who accuses Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court had been scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, 2018.

At the last minute, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, blocked the vote by forwarding an anonymously-written letter to the Justice Department which accuses Kavanaugh of unspecified “sexual misconduct” with an unnamed woman when they were both high school students. Judge Kavanaugh is 53 years old, which means the alleged sexual misconduct took place (if it did) at least 35 years ago.

Feinstein had the letter, dated July 30, in her possession for weeks. It is not explained why Feinstein withheld the letter from the Senate hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, but disclosed the letter only after Kavanaugh had testified at the hearings, on the day when the Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to vote on the nomination.

This is what we now know about Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser:

(1) Although the letter-writer had asked that her identity be kept confidential and her letter not made public, on Sept. 16 she went public. She spoke to the Washington Post, which published her story on Monday, Sept. 17, five days after Sen. Feinstein had given the letter to the Justice Department. She is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, 51, a research psychologist at Palo Alto University in northern California.

(2) Ford said “she believes” that in 1982, in a house in Montgomery County, Maryland (the exact location and owners of which she does not know) a drunk Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed, groped her, tried to take off her clothing, and covered her mouth from screaming. Ford told The Washington Post, “I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” and that she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house. She told no one about the alleged assault until she brought it up in couples therapy with her husband in 2012.

(3) At the time of the alleged incident, Kavanaugh was a student at the all-male Georgetown Preparatory School; Ford was a student at another private school, Holton-Arms.

(4) Kavanaugh strongly denies the allegations. He said in a statement: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” (New York Post)

(5) Ford has no corroborating witnesses:

  • Mark Judge, the high-school buddy of Kavanaugh whom Ford claims to be in the room during the alleged assault, denies that the assault took place, says he has “no memory” of the incident and  does not want to testify. He said: “It never happened. I never saw anything like what was described” and that Ford’s accusation does match Kavanaugh’s character — “It is not who he is.” (New York Post)
  • Ford’s schoolmate Cristina King Miranda claimed she knew about the attempted rape, but quickly retracted her claim when critics questioned her account, noting it contradicted Ford’s. Miranda now admits on Twitter she has no first-hand knowledge of the assault. (The New American)
  • Patrick J. Smyth, a classmate of Kavanaugh whom Ford alleges was at the house party, denies Ford’s story in a letter to and received by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 18 (CNS News):

“I understand that I have been identified by Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. … I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question, nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the committee may have.”

  • On Sept. 21, 2018, a 4th person said to have been at the party denies any knowledge of the sexual assault. Leland Ingram Keyser, a longtime friend of Christine Ford, says through her attorney: “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.” (Breitbart)

(6) Ford gave The Washington Post the results of a polygraph examination allegedly conducted by a former FBI agent in August, which purportedly show that she’s truthful in her allegations. The agent, Jerry Hanafin, said in an interview that the results showed “no deception indicated” and that “she was being truthful.” (New York Times). However, her attorney Debra Katz refused to disclose who had paid for the examination (which costs $500 to $1,000) or provide details on how it was conducted. Experts say lie detector tests are not infallible or fool-proof. A former senior FBI agent said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a conscience. (FoxNews)

(7) Sen. Feinstein gave mixed messages, saying “I believe she [Ford] is credible” and “I can’t say everything’s truthful. I don’t know.” (CNN)

(8) Before going public on Sept. 17, Ford scrubbed her internet history — deleting all her social media accounts, including her LinkedIn page, and even removed her entire high school year book. (Mike Cernovich).

(9) Ford is a leftwing activist:

  • She is an open-borders activist who has signed anti-Trump immigration letters.
  • In 2016, she posted on Facebook that Supreme Court justice Antonin “Scalia-types must be banned from the profession of law”. Like Scalia, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a conservative and constitutionalist.

(10) Ford received five student reviews when she taught social work at California State University Fullerton. One review said “Many dislike Professor Ford due to her dark personality”; another wrote, “she is exact opposite of what she teaches”. (Rate My Professors)

(11) Ford’s recovered high school yearbook is full of accounts of wild, drunken sex parties she had attended. One passage reads: “And there were always parties to celebrate any occasion. Although these parties are no doubt unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”

(12) According to a Palo Alto University document from 2015 (see page 97), Christine Blasey, Ph.D. is a professor at Palo Alto University and a “Director of Biostatistics at Corcept Therapeutics.” As “Blasey CM,” Christine Blasey Ford, whose middle name is Margaret, co-authored 8 research papers with Corcept Therapeutics, which manufacturers and markets an RU-486 abortion pill, mifepristone. As 19888560, Blasey also appears on numerous published studies at PubMed — all funded by Corcept Therapeutics. Mike Adams of Natural News points out:

Blasey is a paid researcher for an abortion pill company with a lot to lose if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court…. The company is aggressively seeking to expand the FDA-approved applications of its drugs. Thus, the financial future of this company could be heavily impacted by abortion remaining legal in the United States….

[H]aving Kavanaugh on the court represents a dire threat…to abortion “rights.” In turn, this represents a threat to Corcept Therapeutics, the drug company at which Christine Blasey has worked for years, helping to produce research that expands the company’s market reach and drug applications…. Blasey has a financial motivation to defeat Kavanaugh and keep him off the U.S. Supreme Court.

(13) Ford’s family members:

  • Her brother, Ralph Blasey, worked for a law firm that paid Fusion GPS. (True Pundit)
  • Ford’s parents were defendants in a foreclosure case in 1996 in Maryland in which Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha G. Kavanaugh, was the presiding district judge who ruled against Ford’s parents. (Gateway Pundit)

Rejecting Monday — the Senate’s date for a hearing on Ford’s accusations — her lawyer says Ford “would be prepared to testify next week” if senators offer “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.” Ford claims to have received death threats.

H/t Big Lug, CSM, John Molloy, Lola, Lophatt and Vivian Lee.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Up your meds, proggies: RBG can barely function, get ready for ANOTHER possible Trump SCOTUS appointment?

While the demoRATS do everything possible to thwart the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, there is a chance that President Trump might get to nominate another justice.

Just watch Ruth Bader Ginsburg in this interview. She is 85 years old and has survived colon and pancreatic cancer. She also has a stent in her heart.

I don’t know if RBG will make it through Trump’s presidency, let alone if he gets a second term.

You think the meltdown and antics with Kavanaugh’s appointment are epic? You ain’t seen NOTHING YET!

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s curious questions to Judge Kavanaugh on military tribunals for U.S. citizens

The Trump White House insider who calls himself Q has repeatedly posted about military tribunals and sealed indictments, now numbering an extraordinary 40,483 as of June 30, 2018.

Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.

On September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.

In the event that YouTube is censoring the video, you can watch the exchange on C-SPAN here.

Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.

Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.

Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.

Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?

Kavanaugh: That is correct.

Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.

Kavanaugh: Yeah.

Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?

Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].

Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?

Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.

Q picked up on the significance of Graham’s questions. On the same day as the confirmation hearing, Sept. 5, Q published post #2093, which highlights the distinction Graham made between military law vs. criminal law.

Lindsey Graham has a J.D. from the University of South Carolina. Before he entered politics, he was a U.S. Air Force officer and JAG (judge advocate general).

It is noteworthy that of all the constitutional rights to which American citizens are entitled, Sen. Graham specifically mentioned the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause. On December 21, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order blocking the property of persons involved in “serious human rights abuse or corruption”.

See also “Did John McCain really die from brain cancer?

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0