In 1991 Democrat Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden explains how an FBI investigation is useless in relation to an accusation against a Supreme Court nominee:

In October 2015 the DOJ announced it was dropping the investigation into the IRS, Lois Lerner, and the unlawful sharing of taxpayer data in the IRS targeting investigation surrounding True The Vote et al.  However, they never EXPLAINED WHY.

(Washington DC) Project Veritas has released the fourth story in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials who candidly discuss the IRS’s unfair treatment of conservative non-profit groups. The two officials in the report are Thomas Sheehy, an IRS tax examiner and member of the Austin Democratic Socialists of America in Texas, and Jerry Semasek, an IRS attorney in Washington, DC.

Sheehy boasts about and appears to justify former disgraced IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was mired in scandal for losing tens of thousands of emails regarding the Lois Lerner controversy. The Lois Lerner controversy occurred in 2013 and involved revelations showing that the IRS unfairly scrutinized conservative groups. (read more)

Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley speak out in their first television interview since Dr. Christine Blasey Ford levied accusations against Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Judge Kavanaugh faces questions on Ms. Ford’s allegations and how this has impacted him, his family, and his future as a Supreme Court nominee.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh releases the following letter amid the face of malicious allegations from two politically motivated accusers.

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy.

At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.

Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.

Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.

These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.

As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last minute character assassination will not succeed.

I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday.

Sincerely,

Brett M. Kavanaugh

(pdf version)

Entering the U.N. for an earlier General Assembly meeting President Donald Trump was asked about Judge Kavanaugh.  President Trump was firm in stating his continued support for Kavanaugh.  The president remarked “this could be one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything”, and directly noted that all accusations against the judge were “totally political”.

It’s clear the stall tactic behind the original Christine Blasey-Ford strategy was likely due to democrats understanding the accusations would collapse under scrutiny; and as a consequence they needed more time to concoct the Deborah Ramirez construct; which is even more flat out ridiculous than Blasey-Ford.

Judiciary Chairman Grassley releases a batch [see here] of letters and documents.  One of them is the original unsigned Blasey-Ford letter to Feinstein of unknown authorship:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t need to grant credence to the accusations by denying them.  Instead just refer to the accusers own witnesses.  Both political accusations from Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez are refuted and denied by the witnesses they stated would back-up their claims.  This is a transparently political con-job.  Nothing more.

LIES !

This is beyond bizarre.  Seriously.  Forget the salacious details in the story…. the construct of the story is so stunningly flawed it is jaw-dropping as presented.

The New Yorker runs an article about an accusation made by a woman named Deborah Ramirez (53, pictured right) about a freshman party at Yale, where she claims she was in a drunken stupor and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then 18, pulled out his penis during a drinking game.

Etc. Etc. Etc….  Really, no need to go further.

Why?

Because despite their search, and discussions with “dozens” of potential witnesses…

“The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident”…

….the New Yorker was unable to find a single witness to corroborate the story being made by the accuser.  None.  Not a single confirming witness to back up the claim.   They write:

…”The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”…

But wait.

It gets better.

The accuser did give the New Yorker six names to support her claim.  Six witnesses Deborah Ramirez stated could substantiate her accusation.  And when the New Yorker interviewed them, ALL SIX said it never happened.

[…] “In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.”

“We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.””  (The Article)

Now, stop for a minute and think about this.

A claim is made.

The New Yorker tries to substantiate the claim.

The New Yorker finds ZERO people who can validate the claim.

The six witnesses the accuser says will back up her claim all deny any knowledge of the claim; yet the New Yorker still runs the article.

100% of the evidence discovered by the New Yorker refutes the claim.

Yet they publish it.

Enter the Star Chamber….

A retiring roosterhead appears on CBS to discuss: (1) the pending Ford -vs- Kavanaugh hearings (rooster clutches pearls on fainting couch); (2) the Rosenstein wire-taps (rooster-rod); (3) AG Jeff Sessions (rooster haz sad); and (4) declassification of FISA documents (nothing to see here rooster).

The document Gowdy references he has not seen is the John Brennan originating “IC document”, provided by the CIA to the FBI, which initiated the 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign. HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, a Gang of Eight member, has seen this document and has called for it to be declassified and unredacted.  The IC previously went bananas over that request.

.

Many have pondered if Gowdy was positioning for AG in replacement of Sessions. I disagree. IMHO Roosterhead was/is positioning for FBI Director; but that won’t be happening either.

Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing declassification of document issues surrounding DAG Rod Rosenstein and fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe.