Tag Archives: sealed indictments

Dianne Feinstein in tears after reading FBI report on Kavanaugh

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, received Christine Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Supreme Court nominee U.S. District Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh on July 30, 2018, but made no mention of the letter nor questioned Kavanaugh about Ford during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s 4-day hearing on the nomination, Sept. 4-7.

Feinstein sat on the letter and waited until September 12 — the day when the Committee had been scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination — to forward the letter to the Justice Department.

On September 27, Kavanaugh and his accuser appeared before the Judiciary Committee, after which Feinstein and other Democrats demanded an FBI investigation into the accusations against Kavanaugh, although the FBI had already thoroughly investigated him six times.

On October 3, the FBI completed its 7th investigation of Kavanaugh and submitted its report to the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The FBI’s supplemental background report on Kavanaugh, to which all senators have access, concluded that there is no corroboration for the allegations made by Ford or a second Kavanaugh accuser, Deborah Ramirez.

On October 4, Feinstein and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) held a press conference on the FBI report. Feinstein complained that the FBI had not interviewed either Kavanaugh or Ford (both, of course, had already testified under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee), and accused the Trump White House of “blocking” the FBI “from doing its job” and “tying its hands”.

Then it was Schumer’s turn to speak. Standing behind Schumer, Feinstein was visibly distraught, fighting back tears.

The following is an analysis of Feinstein’s body language during the press conference by Mandy O’Brien, who calls herself “Dr. Bombard”:

  • Feinstein was showing “extreme stress” as seen in how she held her head and shoulders and her hands in a tight grip, and her strained smile.
  • Deception, when Feinstein said “I had to leave” before she could read the entire FBI report.
  • “Putting on an act of strength” as Schumer began talking.
  • Fear, as her eyes pulled in in some inner thought unrelated to what Schumer was saying.
  • With her mouth tightly closed, her eyes glistened. She fights back tears, holding her head higher so that the tears won’t drain outward. All her movements are unrelated to what Schumer is saying, but have to do with her personal thoughts.

Meanwhile, the number of sealed indictments as of September 30, 2018 is a whopping 55,677, as President Trump beefs up Gitmo (the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) with more than $200 million in new construction this year and next, including $115 million for a new 848-troop barracks.

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

UPDATE (Oct. 7):

A FoxNews poll finds that 75% of Americans, across party lines, blame Dianne Feinstein for the Kavanaugh fiasco:

~Eowyn

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

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:
error0
 

Epidemic of medical boots: Now it’s Rep. Jackie Speier

Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:10:32 +0000

eowyn2

There is an epidemic of foot issues among our politicians.

First it was Hillary Clinton, who was fitted with a medical “walking” boot on October 15, ostensibly for a broken toe from “running downstairs wearing heels” and “falling backward”.

Two months later, seen at an appearance in Vancouver on December 14, Hillary is still wearing the boot, albeit a different one, although the recovery period for a broken toe is 4 to 6 weeks.

On December 21,  NBC News reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered the Justice Department to interview FBI agents with knowledge of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s role in a uranium deal with Russia, reviving interest in what President Trump has called a “modern-age” Watergate.

Sessions’ order comes a month after Republicans in Congress had urged him to appoint a second special counsel to investigate Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, the Uranium One deal, and the FBI’s handling of its investigation into her private emails at secretary of state.

See “The real U.S.-Russian conspiracy: Russia gave $multi-million bribe to Clinton Foundation for 2010 uranium deal“.

Then it’s RINO senator John McCain, who was fitted with the boot on his right leg. His office said in a statement on November 6 that the boot was because of “a minor tear in his right Achilles tendon”.

Two weeks later, he switched the boot to his healthy left leg to, as he put it in a tweet, “give it a break”. Not only does it make no sense to put a cumbersome medical boot on a healthy leg, that he no longer wears a boot on his right leg means that his Achilles tendon is healed.

Bloomberg reported in 2016 that Saudi Arabia donated $1 million to the McCain Institute, a contribution the Institute has refused to explain publicly. Then there is the rumor that McCain is the “Republican politician” who ordered the entirely bogus “golden showers” Russian dossier on Trump.

That both Hillary and McCain suddenly sported medical boots on their respective right leg triggered speculations in the Alternative Media that their boots may conceal ankle monitors.

Now, the boot epidemic has hit Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA), who was seen with the boot on her left leg (source: Reddit):

According to Garth Kant of WND, Jackie Speier is one of “three Democratic lawmakers who employed the criminal Awan brothers and who are on the HPSCI” (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence).

As information technology (IT) staffers, the Awan brothers — Abid, Imran and Jamal —  compromised U.S. national security by hacking into classified or other sensitive information of members of Congress. The FBI arrested Imran Awan in July 2017. He is currently awaiting trial on charges of bank fraud.

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

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0