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
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.
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.
.
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.
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:
.
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_MommaBearHey @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
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5838889250001/?#sp=show-clips …
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.
VP
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.”
In 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.
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 