I am certainly not partisan here in this matter. I have previously written that I did not care for Brett Kavanaugh based upon his decisions in law. I have read decisions from the Supreme Court and found that you cannot guarantee their reasoning will support Republican or Democrat. All this hype that they must oppose anyone appointed by Trump is just stupid and it really undermines the country. Justices who have been appointed by Republicans, as the Chief Justice, ended up being the key player who upheld Obamacare. So there is not a litmus test in such things. All of this yelling and screaming is really pointless.
This is a picture going around that asserts Dr. Christine Basley Ford with George Soros. There are a lot of problems with these allegations besides three witnesses saying they do not support her. She now claims she told four others back then of the incident. In law, the reason you have a statute of limitations is that one cannot defend against something 36-years before. The typical limitation in 5 years.
When the people making accusations are being promoted by political operatives, I no longer trust either side. Meanwhile, the same lawyer for Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, is now involved in the whole Brett Kavanaugh affair. It is extremely curious how this guy is always defending women making claims yet they are not paying him. Now he has tweeted that Julie Swetnick is his client who has made allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge claiming she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to get teenage girls “inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.” But a quick background check on Julie Swetnick revealed that her ex-boyfriend had to get a restraining order against her. This is just getting ridiculous. Avenatti is lucky. If this were the Obama Administration with the bureaucrats on his side, they would be targeting Avenatti for taxes or failing to file some form that carries 10 years in prison. He is obviously a reckless zealot if he does not check the stories of these women he loves to bring forward against any Republican.
There is absolutely no way to prove anything and that seems to be the whole point. This sort of sexual allegations that amounts to a bunch of I thinks should be outlawed plain and simple and anyone who makes such an accusation and their lawyer should be imprisoned. If someone actually raped someone and there was a report given to the police at that point in time, then you have something credible.
The list of wrongful conviction is horrendous to start with. There is an endless supply of wrongful convictions and few people pay attention to them. These sorts of allegations that Avenatti’s statement she believed that they intended to “gang-rape” girls is outrageous. That is what she wants to say but it is worthless in court. If they actually committed such an act then fine. To say she “thinks” that was their “intent” is like a cop throwing you in prison because he, “thinks” you wanted to kill your spouse but just never tried
There are two warring camps: Team Rosenstein and Team McCabe. Team Rosenstein consists of current officials: Jeff Sessions, Dana Boente et al; and Team McCabe has former officials: Lisa Page, James Baker, Mike Kortan et al.
Each camp has a media outlet to push their narrative. Team Rosenstein has The Washington Post; Team McCabe is using The New York Times. Sources for NYT reporting are from team McCabe; Sources for WaPo reporting are from Team Rosenstein. Understand this, and the reporting narrative context makes more sense.
Both Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein took corrupt and illegal action to try and take down the President of the United States. However, generally speaking, McCabe’s actions were specifically intended to facilitate a soft-coup; whereas Rosenstein was more of a willingly facilitating useful idiot in the grand scheme.
Example 1: Former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker and Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe worked together to assemble the post-election “small group”, which eventually gained legitimate legal authority when Baker and McCabe convinced Rosenstein to hire Robert Mueller.
Baker and McCabe were intentionally manipulating the events; DAG Rosenstein was the patsy going along because he wasn’t inside the team in 2016 when it all began.
Example 2: Andrew McCabe and the “small group” assembled the third FISA-Title1 surveillance renewal on Carter Page on June 29th, 2017. This renewal extended the use of surveillance for Robert Mueller to exploit – for intelligence against the President. Rod Rosenstein signed the third renewal, based on their word, because the corrupt small group presented it to him. Again, likely Rosenstein was the useful idiot, the patsy.
The June 29th, FISA renewal was then used by the “small group” to dig into all of the communication within the Trump administration and anyone who was in contact with the subject of the surveillance warrant, Carter Page. This surveillance included congress. In protecting their interests, it was the surveillance that was most useful. The surveillance didn’t end until late October ’17 when the FISA expired.
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein created a mess by going along with the corrupt officials inside the FBI and DOJ. By facilitating their endeavors – he was aiding the soft-coup attempt.
It’s ok to argue whether this was intentional (Team McCabe position) or unintentional (Team Rosenstein position); however, regardless of intent, the outcome was the same.
So today the Washington Post (Team Rosenstein) posts an article noting the Deputy AG will not be fired, and will likely remain in his position until after the mid-terms. If you understand the White House position, this begins to make sense.
From the White House position the knucklehead Rod Rosenstein needs to clean up the mess he has created. From knucklehead’s position, he wants out before congress starts asking him questions.
WaPo – Rod J. Rosenstein’s departure seemed so certain this week that his boss’s chief of staff told colleagues that he had been tapped by the White House to take over as second-in-command of the Justice Department, while another official would supervise the special counsel probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, people familiar with the matter said.
But by Monday afternoon, the succession plan had been scrapped. Rosenstein, who told the White House he was willing to quit if President Trump wouldn’t disparage him, would remain the deputy attorney general in advance of a high-stakes meeting on Thursday to discuss the future of his employment. The other officials, too, would go back to work, facing the prospect that in just days they could be leading the department through a historic crisis.
Inside the Justice Department on Tuesday, officials still struggled to understand the events that nearly produced a seismic upheaval in their leadership ranks — until it didn’t — and they braced for a potential repeat of that chaos later in the week. (keep reading)
Note: “if President Trump wouldn’t disparage him”; that’s codespeak for if the White House doesn’t call him out as standing at the epicenter of the corrupt eighteen months of Special Counsel horse-pucky he facilitated. The evidence of the horse-pucky origination is underneath the FISA and Bruce Ohr declassification material currently on hold.
So how did we get here?
Start with how Rod Rosenstein was hired:
03:15 “[Rosenstein] was hired by Jeff Sessions. I was not involved in that process because, you know, they go out and they get their own deputies, and the people that work in that department and Jeff Sessions hired him.”
~ President Donald Trump
I post this recent interview with President Trump because so many people keep claiming some complex strategy surrounding President Trump hiring/nominating Rosenstein etc.
President Trump brought the CEO perspective to the White House. Part of that perspective is to let Department Executive Officers (ie. cabinet members) select their own deputies. Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted Rod Rosenstein as Deputy AG. That’s why President Trump nominated Rosenstein. Nothing more. Not strategic Machiavellian deep state chess nonsense. Sessions wanted him, so Trump nominated him.
This is not difficult to ascertain. It is not complex. It is quite simple.
So the question becomes why did President Trump select Jeff Sessions as Attorney General?
Again, not a difficult question to answer. President Trump has repeatedly said why he selected Jeff Sessions. (His biggest mistake).
Senator Jeff Sessions told President-elect Trump he wanted to be the Attorney General. Senator Sessions lobbied P-E Trump for the job. Trump gave Sessions the position out of appreciation for his campaign support.
There wasn’t a political strategy behind selecting Senator Jeff Sessions, other than thinking he would likely do a good job. President-elect Trump did not know Sessions was going to recuse himself from the biggest drain on his term in office, and create two-years of DOJ chaos.
Senator Jeff Sessions wanted to be the U.S. Attorney General, President-elect Trump gave the position to him. AG Jeff Sessions wanted Rod Rosenstein as his Deputy AG; President Trump gave Rosenstein to him.
These are not complex multidimensional strategic decisions. These are straightforward reasons for what transpired. Not complex. That’s why we are here, where it all stands today.
DAG Rosenstein then hired former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel. In part due to the recommendation of FBI Legal Counsel Jim Baker and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Likely unbeknownst (at least in initial operational totality) to Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe and James Baker were part of the corrupt DOJ/FBI inside network conspiring to take-down the President. Hence the: “what do you want me to do Andy, wear a wire?”… conversation.
Because Rosenstein either: (a) participated; or (b) was a useful idiot, he has now put himself into a massive position of compromise. His stewardship over the DAG position (which is more powerful due to JS recusal), has failed massively.
And now there’s the stuff behind the declassification directive (temporarily on hold) which makes DAG Rosenstein look even worse.
Either: (a) Rosenstein is more corrupt; or (b) Rosenstein is more stupid.
So Rosenstein wants OUT before it gets worse. According to the New York Times (Team McCabe) the Deputy AG tried to politely resign five times recently. Once to Don McGahn, twice to John Kelly, and twice to President Trump.
But the White House is saying…. ‘not so fast knucklehead, you willfully made this mess – now clean it the hell up’!!
Forget the media spin on Rod Rosenstein. This is his actual position. President Trump has him by the proverbial balls. Eighteen months worth of headaches as a result of his: (a) intentional efforts; or (b) ineptitude. Because for all things that mattered the AG was recused, and the DAG was in charge.
When you have this much leverage on someone, you don’t want them to quit. You want to use their damaged and tenuous position to your advantage. President Trump is in no hurry to fire Rosenstein (not yet); because the DAG is so weak and President Trump holds all the leverage in the relationship.
Rod Rosenstein knows what he did wrong; and President Trump knows what Rosenstein did wrong. Though it could change based on new discoveries, President Trump isn’t likely to let Rosenstein go until everyone else knows what Rosenstein did wrong.
I can imagine the conversation:
“Okay Rod, *YOU* want to quit right? Well, then *YOU* get rid of the Special Counsel *YOU* started, and then *YOU* can quit. Until then, you can feel the stress and endure the reputational death by a thousand paper cuts….
….As long as I’ve got to deal with this nonsense, you ain’t going anywhere. You can deal with it right along with me…. And if congress wants to haul your butt up to Capitol Hill and have you explain why you said you’d “wear a wire”etc., then you need to go explain and deal with it.”
GOP to subpoena memos that may detail Rosenstein’s comments about Trump
House Republicans have begun the process to subpoena the Justice Department for the memos written by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that reportedly detail the explosive comments reportedly…
Kyle Cheney
✔@kyledcheney
SCOOP: House Republicans probing the FBI/DOJ have sent a new round of interview requests to:
Little by little the truth is starting to surface with respect to the blackmail of Yeltsin and the attempt to take over Russia during the 2000 election. Now the former British National Crime Agency international corruption boss, Jon Benton, says he was ordered to stop an investigation into Russian money laundering. He was the head of the UK international corruption. He says that a senior official from the Foreign Office told him to shut down his investigation. Why?
The Daily Mail has reported that his perspective was that the Government was not tackling Vladimir Putin’s cronies who stash their wealth overseas. Benton claims he was given a 37-page dossier about London-based money laundering by Russian crime syndicates linked to the Kremlin. The entire problem is that he has, unintentionally, misinterpreted the order to shut the investigation down. That directive was not to protect Putin’s friends, but to prevent the truth coming out about the attempt to stage a coup led by the New York bankers to seize control of Russia.
The governments have gone after Putin’s friends using the Magnitsky Act. So Benton’s interpretation does not make sense. It was far more likely that someone paid to have Magnitsky killed in prison because he was a key witness for Putin against Browder, Safra, and crew. Some have speculated alleging that Browder & MI6 out of Britain had Magnitsky killed. Interesting twist to that plot if true.
I have publicly made it clear that I had a face to face meeting in the Department of Justice detailing the claims of money laundering by the Russians through the Bank of New York and that the $7 billion had been stolen from the IMF loans. I discussed the entire plot of blackmailing Yeltsin. I have shown that when the story first broke, even CNN reported that the money was taken from the IMF. Later, of course, they claimed it was a ransom for a Russian businessman but nobody ever said who and not even Warren Buffet could fork over $7 billion in cash for a ransom. In my own case, they sealed countless documents from me and the public using the National Security card.
CNN Money reported on September 1st, 1999 before everyone removed the theft from the IMF as the source of the money: “[They] funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russia’s communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.” Nekrasov has had his hands full just trying to get the film shown. He is up against tremendous obstacles to shutting it down by Browder.
This is what Putin offered. The USA could interrogate any Russian concerning the 2016 elections, provided he could do the same with respect to the Russian 2000 election and specifically naming Bill Browder. It certainly seemed to be a reasonable offer if there was no truth to the Putin allegations! So are dark forces planning another war to cover their ass in this whole mess? And as for those writing in asking why the Guardian has not investigated this mess, it may be even too hot for them
There is still no reason to believe accuser Christine Blasey-Ford will appear for a Thursday hearing to review her sketchy allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Ranking Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein stated she was unsure if Ms. Ford will appear to deliver sworn testimony.
With Ms. Ford’s attendance still in question, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is using regular order to schedule a judiciary committee vote on Friday morning. The committee vote is not mandatory, but generally following procedures. This would set up a full Senate vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
(Via Politico) […] Senate Republicans hired a female attorney to use as a questioner of Ford at Thursday’s high-stakes hearing on a sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh but are declining to release her name.Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO on Tuesday that “we aren’t announcing the name for her safety.”
Asked if Republicans have received any indication of threats to the attorney they’re preparing to use, Grassley said: “I don’t know, but I guess we’re just being cautious.” (more)
Judic Cmte noticed POTENTIAL exec mtg for Friday. Still taking this 1 step at a time. After hrg Dr Ford & Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony- if we‘re ready to vote, we will vote. If we aren’t ready, we won’t. Cmte rules normally require 3 days notice so we‘re following regular order
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)
As of last weekend sketchy DC political lawyer Michael Bromwich, joined the legal team to represent the political interests of sketchy Kavanaugh accuser Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford.
Mr. Bromwich sends a letter tonight beginning to back-away from his clients prior agreement to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This latest development is entirely predictable.
How can sketchy Ms. Ford deliver credible testimony about a 36-year-old event (at an unknown time and unknown location) where there is ZERO corroborating evidence supporting her claim, and mountains of evidence refuting her claim? Five teenagers at a house party, yet all of the five say not their house. Additionally, every witness she identified as present during the event has gone on record denying any knowledge of anything within the foundation of her claim. How can she testify? She can’t.
Ms. Ford cannot testify because there’s no truth in her sketchy accusations; this was a political stunt with no intention of testimony. So, with a deadline looming it is more likely her political lawyers will try to extricate Ford from their prior commitments.
The claimed witnesses were: (1) Mrs. Leland Ingham Keyser, (2) Mr. Mark Judge, and (3) Mr. Patrick “PJ” Smyth.
According to CNN’s current reporting here’s the statements from the witnesses:
(1) 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.”
“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said (2) Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.
(3) Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement:
“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. 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 towards 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.”
According to the accusations by Ms. Ford there were five people present at the unknown residence, at the unknown time, at the unknown party. Three boys and two girls.
Four of the people Ms. Ford claimed were present, including the accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh, now publicly state they have no knowledge of anything related to the accusation; including no recollection of any attendance at any gathering at a high school party claimed by Ms. Ford.
The only person left claiming attendance to a party; at the unknown time; in the unknown year; at the unknown residence; is the accuser, Mrs. Blasey Ford.
Who’s House? According to her story, there are five teenagers at “the house”. So it has to be one of “their houses”. Yet four of the five have said they don’t have any idea what she’s talking about; it’s not their house… and it’s not Mrs. Ford’s house; so…
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.
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”.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
This is a picture going around that asserts Dr. Christine Basley Ford with George Soros. There are a lot of problems with these allegations besides three witnesses saying they do not support her. She now claims she told four others back then of the incident. In law, the reason you have a statute of limitations is that one cannot defend against something 36-years before. The typical limitation in 5 years.
Centinel2012 