Sketchy Business: Grassley Releases Original Ford Letter to Feinstein…

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.


New Yorker Publishes Accusation Containing ZERO Evidence to Support, and 100% of Evidence To Refute…

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.


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….

Sunday Talks: Trey Gowdy Discusses Kavanaugh, Rosenstein, Sessions and Declassification…

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.

Sunday Talks: Tom Fitton Discusses McCabe and Rosenstein With Maria Bartiromo…

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.

Sunday Talks: House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte Discusses Kavanaugh Confirmation, McCabe and Rosenstein Corruption…

  • Nellie Ohr is scheduled to testify on Friday October 19th !
  • Chairman Goodlatte will subpoena documents this week.
  • Goodlatte urges POTUS to pressure IG for FISA report within two weeks.

Representative Bob Goodlatte is both the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and primary Chairman on the Joint House Committee (Judiciary/Oversight) tasked with investigating the DOJ and FBI.

In this interview Maria Bartiromo asks the important questions about the pending Judge Kavanaugh confirmation, and then goes deep on the issues surrounding the corruption within the DOJ and FBI.   Lots of information here:


The second part of the interview highlights Ms. Bartiromo’s righteous frustration, reflecting exactly how many Americans feel about what has taken place.  See below:

There’s a lot of information jammed into this last few minutes:


Sunday Talks: Chairman Devin Nunes Discusses McCabe -vs- Rosenstein on FISA Abuse…

British intelligence, apparently seeking to protect Robert Hannigan, the former Director of GCHQ; and Australian intelligence intelligence seeking to protect Alexander Downer, Foreign Affairs Minister and Ambassador to the U.K; have asked President Trump Trump NOT to release un-redacted FISA documents.

Chairman Devin Nunes discusses the involvement of the U.K and Australia, along with the conflict between DAG Rod Rosenstein and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe ‘s attempt at a Coup d’état to impeach President Trump.


The latest *claim* (defensive positioning) from the camp of Rod Rosentein, is that the Deputy AG enlisted Robert Mueller because Rosenstein viewed McCabe as intent on abusing his office to take down the president.  This inherent risk is the reason team McCabe leaked the damaging information on Rosenstein to the New York Times.

Jennifer @Jenny_MommaBear

Hey @iprior1177 is this you at the beginning of this clip, this morning?

A lot of people have had that same idea about getting the investigation away from McCabe, I have just never heard anyone say that publicly yet 😲 

Beware the Common Thread that runs through War


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You seem to argue that the sanctions against Russia are unjustified with respect to their invasion of Ukraine. I understand that Kiev was the original capital of the Rus. You do not agree with the sanctions I assume because you argue they are pointless and will not work. Can you elaborate on that view?

Thank you for your insights.


ANSWER: I look for patterns and when you see the same pattern time and time again, history becomes merely a Shakespear play performed for centuries where the plot remains the same and the only difference is the actors in the performance. So let us look at this objectively and without bias.

There was the famous parting speech of President Eisenhower who warned about the risk of the growing military establishment. Most people do not know that in December 1897, Otto von Bismarck met with the last Emperor of Germany Wilhelm II. It was then when Bismarck had warned Wilhelm about the rising influence of military establishment just as Eisenhower warned the American people. He warned that especially of the admirals were pushing to construct of a battle fleet. They even named a ship after the man who warned against their aggression. In reality, you cannot have a standing army always training for a war that never comes. They get their toys and they historically always want to use them to the detriment of the people and the nation.

What does Japan, German and Austria-Hungarian Empire all have in common? In the case of Japan, World War II was instigated by its military and the Emperor was subservient to the military class. In Germany, Emperor Wilhelm II was not the instigator of World War I. Wilhelm was on a cruise and upon his return to Berlin on the 28th of July in 1914 he eagerly read a copy of the Serbian reply to Austria-Hungary following the assassination of the Archduke. Wilhelm wrote his comment on it:

“A brilliant solution—and in barely 48 hours! This is more than could have been expected. A great moral victory for Vienna; but with it every pretext for war falls to the ground, and [the Ambassador] Giesl had better have stayed quietly at Belgrade. On this document, I should never have given orders for mobilization.”

What he did not know was that the military general had already convinced Emperor Franz Joseph who was rather old and feeble to declare war. Wilhelm was disturbed and wrote a lengthy commentary containing his observations of the situation:

“… For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves—knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria—to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us … Our dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honourable Emperor has been exploited to create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe.”

Montesquieu-3In each of these cases, the common thread is that the military establishment pushed for war and took advantage of weak political governments. Baron de Montesquieu, was a tremendous influence on the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution. Montesquieu met the political leader and soldier known as the Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736). The political discussions between these two men helped Montesquieu understand the evils of government and forged the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the right to bear arms. The Prince of Savoy was considered, even by Napoleon, as one of the seven greatest strategists in military history. He fought against the Turks (1683-1688, 1697, 1715-1718) and he fought against the French in the War of the Grand Alliance (1689-1691). He was also the teacher of Frederick the Great of Prussia (b 1712; 1740–1786) who he shaped into a brilliant military strategist.


The Prince of Savoy also fought in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). Nonetheless, jealousy attached to his accomplishments and he was plagued by a rumor that he was really the illegitimate son of King Louis XIV of France, which he perpetually denied. Yet, Louis XIV was always ashamed of such offspring and he restrained the prince’s ambitions as if he was perhaps his son. So after 20 years of living in Paris and Versailles, he left France and offered his talent to Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (1640-1705) who was fighting the Turks. He distinguished himself in the siege of Vienna in 1683 and his military career was born.

The Prince of Savoy acquired brilliant skill and wisdom that allowed him to see that military victory was merely an instrument for achieving political ends. He was Europe’s most formidable general who was wounded 13 times, yet always faced a world of cunning foes with conspirators at his back, which he regarded as the “hereditary curse” of Austria. He served three emperors: Leopold I, Joseph I, and Charles VI. Of these three men, Prince of Savoy considered that the first had been a father, the second a brother, but with the third, he was just the hired help.


He was a truly brilliant man of many talents. The Prince of Savory came to see standing armies as evil, for they were easily used because of the expense of keeping them. He came to see that there should be NO armies and that was the only way to reduce the risk of war. The brilliant insight of the Prince of Savoy greatly influenced Montesquieu, for this was his source that it laid the foundation for the right to bear arms, as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The underlying idea was to eliminate standing armies that feed the cycle of war.

The Prince of Savoy was also a student of history. He understood that the early days of Rome were based upon citizen militias. The story of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus reflected him coming from his farm to lead the army defending Rome and then returning to his land. This was such a profound story that even George Washington was part of the Order of the Cincinnati.

Indeed, there is a tremendous risk of standing armies and building huge defense systems. These people naturally want to play with the toys they create. It would give them such pleasure as if this were some video game for children. My concern looks at patterns. I believe the military establishment is moving us closer and closer to war and their target seems to be Russia.

I do not see why war is even feasible anymore. Nobody wants to actually occupy other countries. The military establishment does not want to occupy Russia. So what is really the objective here? It just seems as if war has been reduced to two drunks in a bar who end up fighting because one looked at him strangely. There is nothing to be gained anymore other than standing on a hill and pounding your chest that you won a victory over absolutely nothing. So beware of the common thread. It is typically the military who desires war so they get to do what they have been training for all these years.

Deep State is just getting deeper & Rosenstein is a member of a coup to overthrow an elected official destroying the Constitution ending Democracy

The Deep State is just getting deeper, yet like an onion, the layers are slowing peeling away to expose the core. Members of Congress filed impeachment motions against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and now many are calling Trump to fire him after reports surfaced that he discussed invoking the 25th Amendment and suggested wearing a wire during encounters with the president. That is a direct violation of National Security. Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, has become the target of House Republicans who filed articles of impeachment against him in July. It is becoming painfully obvious that Mueller’s entire investigation under Rosenstein is corrupt and has been intended to overthrow an elected president.

Rosenstein is clearly becoming a major player in the Deep State behind the coup targeting Trump because they are abusing their power to enforce their own political philosophies if not just trying to protect the swamp.

The New York Times report that Rosenstein called for wearing wires to meet with Trump has been met with an unusual degree of people on the Hill beginning to understand that there is really a coup underway by the Deep State. At this point, Rosenstein should be immediately suspended at the very least and a special prosecutor should be appointed who was NOT a former employee of the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, or NSA or any other capacity whatsoever. This is a serious development for it really does not matter who is president. If this is allowed to become precede3nt, then the Deep State can remove ANY president who they personally dislike. That is an overthrow of the Constitution and the end of democracy altogether.

Of course, there are people who just hate Trump and want him gone at any cost. They cannot separate the person from the position. They think this is a popularity contest with all smiles like Miss America who prays for world peace before she goes to sleep every night. What they fail to comprehend is that to stand by and allow this to take place means that Trump may, in fact, be the very last President to be elected – end of story!

Any president who dares to offend the Deep States will be gone in the future if this is allowed to continue. This is looking more and more like the last days of Rome with puppet emperors ruling as the real power lurks behind the curtain. Do we really want a system where retaliation will be the creed if the next president is a Democrat? This is not about Trump the person – it is about the office of the President and how it has been degraded globally. Why should anyone trust America if it cannot trust itself?

Many people write in and say they cannot support Trump publicly since they are immediately attacked by others. A policewoman in Massassachusets rammed into the back of a car because the driver had a Trump sticker on the back. This has been going on since 2016. People with Trump stickers have been harassed on the road in many parts of the country. The hatred is just unprecedented and it will lead to major civil unrest in the years ahead. This will be why the computer will be correct forecasting the break up of the United States.

Trump is the 45th President, however. he is the president during the 57th term rather than counting people. We will reach term 62, twice Pi, in 2032. Trump could be the last democratically elected president. From here on out, it could be more what Joseph Stalin boasted – elections are not decided by the votes, but who counts the votes.

This post from Armstrong Economics is Background for what Eventually turned into the The Magnitsky Act

Gag orders & Cover Ups

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I watched the film the Forecaster. I then read your plea. You simply said you failed to tell your clients that the bank took the money. How is that a crime? Then the bank pleads guilty, has to return the money, and you have no restitution. This all makes no sense.


ANSWER: Oh it gets better. First, you have to understand for them to do such a movie, they have to get insurance to cover any lawsuit claims. Everything in that movie had to be presented to Lyods of London to prove that all statements could be proven in a court in order to even get such insurance. They had to investigate the claims in detail on both sides or such a film would never be made. It was funded by the German TV station.

When it became clear that the receiver was trying to paint me as a rogue trader who conspired with the bank’s own people against my own clients, that would have allowed the bank to keep all the money. So I did an interview with the Japanese press and told all my clients to come to New York and file suits against the bank. They did. I met with their lead lawyer and I agreed to help them and testify against the bank. The bankers ran to the government and they escorted them into my case and placed a lifetime gag order on me to prevent me from helping my clients against the bankers. No lawyer I know of has EVER heard of such a gag order. This single action demonstrates that there is no rule of law in New York and you will NEVER win a lawsuit against a New York bank – PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


TR01072002 - HSBC Criminal Plea

It is true that because I got my clients to file suits against the bank, there was no choice. My clients were public corporations and institutions – not individuals. They had the resources to go all the way. The bank had to return the money and walked away without even a fine. Republic/HSBC pleaded guilty and had to pay $640 million because they simply took the money. Because you have careers at stake who filed complaints without any investigation to protect the bankers, then it becomes all about covering everything up.

Owens-Richard D 1-9-2002 Transcript

The interesting thing is that the notes were in Japanese yen, not dollars. They called it $1 billion fraud and never understood the currency issue. When they did, they protected the bank by selling our notes to the bank to let them take our profits which were $400 million. Republic/HSBC pleads guilty to $700 million at the beginning. The head prosecutor Richard D. Owens explains to the court on January 9th, 2002 that in truth the notes were in Japanese yen not dollars and now Republic only needs to pay $650 million but the yen remained the same. Then 30 days later, the yen declined further and now it was $606 million. Owens handed HSBC $400 million in our profits to the bank and the courts all looked the other way.

As for my plea, they would not drop the charges and Richard Owens said to my face he knew I did not take any money. Obvious! You either write a check or you wire it out. You cannot yet beam it out like Star Trek. They would not drop the charges so the compromise was I was given a script to read like any hostage held by terrorists.

So the compromise was that I failed to tell my clients that the bank took the money on a Friday and went to my lawyer Monday morning to file a lawsuit. Of course, we have more than 100 institutions and they were not individuals you could call at a home on a weekend. But reality and truth have nothing to do with anything

Three Witnesses Described by Kavanaugh Accuser Do Not Support Her Claims….

Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford has stated three witnesses were present at the mysterious high school party where she claims supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her approximately 36 years ago.

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.”

CNN article link.

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…

…She’s lying!


Kimberley Strassel

1) Breaking, and a big deal: Fourth person that Ford named as present at infamous event denies even knowing kavanaugh, much less ever attending a party where he was present.

Kimberley Strassel

Statement from Leland Keyser’s 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.”

So to be clear: All four people named have said this party never happened. It isn’t even as if one of them is saying, “oh, i remember the party, but my memory of how things played out is different.” They are saying it NEVER HAPPENED. That is powerful evidence.

Kimberley Strassel

And BTW, where does that put all those folks who claim the new standard is that we must automatically “believe” women? Because here is a woman, and she is saying Ford has it wrong.