BREAKING: Senate Makes 51-49 Decision In Preliminary Kavanaugh Vote

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/breaking-senate-makes-51-49-decision-in-preliminary-kavanaugh-vote/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=postup

Advertisements

Web Survey Results: Does Brett Kavanaugh Deserve To Be The Next Supreme Court Judge?

americanpolling.org
Web Survey Results:
1-2 minutes

Does Brett Kavanaugh deserve to be the next Supreme Court Justice?
Yes, Judge Kavanaugh has an impeccable record and these salacious claims are just false (20,078) vote
No, there are serious and credible accusations being made against Judge Kavanaugh. He should not be allowed to be on the Supreme Court. (974) vote
Not Sure, there are serious accusations, but based on witness corroboration they could be false. (323) vote

http://www.americanpolling.org/survey/surveyfc35ffd/survey1stats.html

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

dailywire.com
ByRyan Saavedra @realsaavedra October 1, 2018 637.3k views
11-14 minutes

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell’s memo notes nine significant problems with Ford’s testimony and underscores that her case is “even weaker” than a “he said, she said” case.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Mitchell states. “But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell’s memo:

  1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

  1. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

  1. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

  1. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

  1. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply 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.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

  1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.

  1. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:

Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.
She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.
She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.
Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.
Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.
It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

  1. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:

She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.
It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, she said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault.

  1. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:

See the included https://www.dailywire.com/news/36519/prosecutor-questioned-ford-shreds-her-case-5-page-ryan-saavedra for details.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36519/prosecutor-questioned-ford-shreds-her-case-5-page-ryan-saavedra

WOW: Prosecutor Who Questioned Christine Ford Tears Apart Her Case With Brutal 5-Page Memo

ilovemyfreedom.org
Martin
5-7 minutes

The Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee has released her final report, and it is not good for Democrats.

As noted by The Daily Wire, Rachel Mitchell not only wrote in a brutal 5-page memo that she would not bring any charges against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, she also tore apart Ford’s flimsy allegations. Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her almost 40 years ago. Kavanaugh strongly denies the allegations.

Mitchell’s memo details nine major issues with Ford’s testimony and claims, and writes that her allegations are so problematic and shaky that it would be next-to-impossible to ever bring her case before a judge in court.

Here’s what Mitchell writes:

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Below are the nine problems Mitchell detailed in her memo:

  1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

Mitchell writes that Ford’s timeline is very shaky, noting that she told the media, Sen. Diane Feinstein, and the Committee three different dates for when the alleged assault took place.

  1. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

The Arizona prosecutor details how Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh by name in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, her 2013 individual therapy notes, and how there’s no proof that she named Kavanaugh when she told her husband around 2012 about the alleged assault.

  1. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

  1. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

Mitchell writes that Ford has no memory of who invited her to the party, how she heard about it, how she got to the alleged party, what house the assault allegedly took place at, where that house is located, or how she got from the party back to her home.

  1. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.

The Arizona prosecutor notes that the three witnesses who Ford claims attended the party have told investigators that they never witnessed what Ford has alleged.

  1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

Mitchell explains that Ford has changed her story numerous times about what happened, telling the media, Feinstein, and the Committee a different story each time. She also writes that Fords account of who was at the alleged party has been inconsistent.

  1. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Ford cannot remember what she told The Washington Post about the attack and what information she actually gave to the outlet.

Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

  1. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

Ford testified that she was given a polygraph examine in August in the conference room of a motel around the same time of her grandmother’s funeral. Mitchell writes that Ford doesn’t know who paid for the examine and that she should not have been given the examine while grieving. Ford was also only asked two pathetic questions.

  1. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

Mitchell concludes by writing that Democrats and the media likely influenced Ford to change her story to better fit the narrative because there is hardly any evidence to support her allegations.

Mitchell’s report is brutal, factually sound, and tears apart all of Ford’s flimsy claims.

Sen. Tom Cotton Gives Dianne Feinstein Some REALLY Bad News

Notsofeinstein, Ford’s lawyer, Sheila Jackasson Lee, and the rest of the low-life Democrat Marxist hacks should be held personally liable for slandering Mr. Kavanaugh and irreparably damaging his family. How dare they?! Interestingly, the elected body politic, in this case, is comprised of mostly attorneys who are nothing short of a lynch-mob. Those dogs believe innocence must be proven, not guilt, and I truly believe they revel in the destruction of checks and balances in favor of chaos. I really hope a legal tsunami wipes them from the positions they’ve made toxic through lies, deceit, smear campaigns, payoffs, and holier-than-thou attitudes.

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/wow-prosecutor-who-questioned-christine-ford-tears-apart-her-case-with-brutal-5-page-memo/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=postup

‘Judge Jeanine,’ Establishment Republicans caved to the Dems

Christine Blasey Ford and her Family’s Long and Deep Relationship with the C.I.A. | SOTN: Alternative News, Analysis & Commentary

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=104988

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Blaseygate Exposes Shocking Sex & Booze Culture at Christine Blasey Ford’s High School | SOTN: Alternative News, Analysis & Commentary

Cult of the 1ST Amendment

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.

On Monday September 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web.

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=104244

Kavanaugh Confirmation Fight Has Consequences for Climate Law

scientificamerican.com
Mark K. Matthews,E&E News
10-12 minutes

If Senate Republicans plow ahead and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the longtime jurist could have near-term impact on a slew of environmental cases.

Among the disputes the high court has agreed to hear this fall: a case that pits villagers from India against the World Bank in a fight over a coal plant. If the villagers prevail, it could have worldwide economic and political repercussions.

Several other climate-related issues have a decent shot, too, of getting a future date with the Supreme Court, including one closely watched fight—the “kids’ climate case”—that makes the far-reaching argument that the government must take action on global warming so as not to imperil future generations.

Kavanaugh—currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in July after three decades of service and dozens of landmark decisions.

Kennedy was often a swing vote on the ideologically divided court, and he played a key role in several major environmental cases.

In 2007, for example, he sided with the court’s liberal wing in the case Massachusetts v. EPA, which granted EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. A year later, he joined with the court’s conservatives to limit the financial damages against Exxon Mobil Corp. for its role in the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, which coated miles of Alaska coastline with oil.

Kavanaugh, nominated to the high court by President Trump in July, likely would shift the court further to the right. But a rightward shift would occur regardless of whether Kavanaugh weathers the sexual assault allegations that multiple women have raised. If the Kavanaugh nomination is derailed, Trump would likely tap an equally conservative replacement.

There’s a lot at stake for domestic and international efforts to address climate change. Here are five brewing legal fights in which the future justice could play a role.
Kids want action on climate

When they filed their lawsuit in 2015, the plaintiffs behind what has become known as the “kids’ climate case” picked the biggest target available: the U.S. government.

Three years later, their case—Juliana v. United States—appears bound, tractor-beam-like, for the Supreme Court.

The 21 plaintiffs, all children and young adults, argue that the federal government has chipped away for years at their constitutional right to live in a safe environment.

From one administration to the next, the government allowed decades’ worth of planet-warming emissions to accumulate, even though top researchers at national laboratories and around Washington knew of man-made climate change and its perils, they say.

Through their case, the plaintiffs want a court to declare that their rights as U.S. citizens have been violated and to force the government to draft a plan to phase out fossil fuels.

No matter the outcome of the case, which is slated for trial beginning in late October in a federal Oregon court, it will likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court.

Justices in July rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to halt the trial, though they hinted at concerns at the case’s scope (E&E News PM, July 30).

Julia Olson, counsel for the plaintiffs, said then, “This decision should give young people courage and hope that their third branch of government, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has given them the green light to go to trial in this critical case about their unalienable rights.”

A Justice Department spokesperson called the case “deeply misguided” and noted that the Obama administration had opposed the suit, too.
Villagers take on the World Bank

In January, a group of villagers from western India petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case against the World Bank, and at Oct. 31 oral arguments, the justices will listen.

At issue is the liability of the International Finance Corp., the lending arm of the World Bank, which financed a coal plant in Gujarat, on India’s western coast, home to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sued the IFC in 2015, accusing it of violating its own environmental policies when it extended $450 million in loans for the project to Tata Power Ltd., an energy conglomerate in the country.

“Without the IFC’s funding, the Tata Mundra Project could not have gone forward,” they said (Climatewire, July 26, 2017).

The plant spews coal dust, ash and other toxic debris, according to the plaintiffs, who say its existence has killed and scared off fish, which they rely on for income. But the D.C. Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, who want a court to declare that the IFC is not immune to lawsuits like theirs.

The IFC defends its actions, and in court papers, its lawyers argue that allowing this case to proceed would expose multinational entities such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund to a rash of similar suits from foreign nationals.

In a brief filed Sept. 10, Donald Verrilli Jr., former solicitor general under President Obama, who is representing the IFC, stuck to the slippery-slope stance.

A ruling against the IFC, the brief says, “would open U.S. courts to a flood of foreign-focused lawsuits that would require U.S. courts to second-guess international organizations’ core policy judgments, and that have only the most tenuous connection to the United States.”
Kavanaugh questions EPA’s reach

One big question before the high court is one that Kavanaugh already has dealt with—how far can EPA go to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, a class of potent greenhouse gases?

Under Obama, EPA in 2015 barred the use of HFCs in four major economic sectors: aerosols, air conditioning for new cars, retail food refrigeration and foam blowing.

Two foreign manufacturers sued in response to the rule with the claim that EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act.

Kavanaugh agreed, and in a 2017 majority opinion for the D.C. Circuit, he asserted that EPA had “tried to jam a square peg … into a round hole.”

“The Supreme Court cases that have dealt with EPA’s efforts to address climate change have taught us two lessons that are worth repeating here,” he added.

“First, EPA’s well-intentioned policy objectives with respect to climate change do not on their own authorize the agency to regulate,” Kavanaugh continued. And second, he wrote, “Congress’ failure to enact general climate change legislation does not authorize EPA to act.”

The issue is now on the radar of the high court, which soon could decide whether it wants to weigh in. Justices are scheduled to consider petitions challenging the ruling at their Oct. 5 conference.

If Kavanaugh is ultimately confirmed, his biggest impact likely could be his previous opinion, as it’s typical for justices to recuse themselves from cases in which they already have played a part.
What happens to Trump’s replacement of the Clean Power Plan?

Even if justices reject the HFC case, EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases may still wind its way back up to the high court in the form of challenges to the Affordable Clean Energy rule, the Trump administration’s proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan.

The ACE rule is aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. If finalized, it’s certain to face strong legal challenges from opponents who say the rule does not do enough to cut CO2 or protect public health.

Because EPA is still developing the rule, it would likely take until 2020, barring any major delays along the way, before the case could even get in front of justices, according to Joanne Spalding, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program.

EPA would first have to finalize the rule, and initial challenges would have to go through the D.C. Circuit.

A faster way to the high court would be if the D.C. Circuit agreed with a recent request by states and environmental groups to decide on litigation on the Clean Power Plan. The case has been on hold as the agency has been drafting the ACE rule.

If the court does decide the case—and Spalding suggested the D.C. Circuit could respond when the latest extended stay of litigation expires—parties would then be open to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Clean cars fight raises ‘interesting’ legal issues

The high court in years ahead could also look at the Trump administration’s bid to roll back motor vehicle mileage and pollution rules.

EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are examining whether to freeze the standard at 30 mpg from 2020 through 2026. The Obama administration wanted 36 mpg by 2026.

The Trump agencies also proposed peeling back California’s authority to set more stringent standards. That could kill the Golden State’s programs aimed at getting more clean cars on the road.

If a final rule revoked California’s waiver, the state would likely sue. But California and other states could also separately sue over a final rule that froze mileage and emissions at 2020 levels. That case potentially would question EPA’s ability to allow more tailpipe pollution, given the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Ann Carlson, co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court likely would be interested, especially in the California waiver question, because it’s “novel.”

“It would raise questions that the justices would find interesting,” she said. “They’ve never weighed in on the power of California under the waiver.”

In terms of a case looking at vehicle mileage and pollution levels, Carlson said, the court has “tended to take up these big, meaty environmental issues,” like regulations on mercury pollution and greenhouse gases.

“It just seems like they have shown interest in weighing in on EPA authority and interpreting the Clean Air Act in particular,” she said.

If he’s confirmed, Kavanaugh might urge his colleagues to look at a case dealing with EPA authority. “He’s interested in questions of agency power and statutory power that these cases raise,” Carlson said.

Reporters Benjamin Hulac, Niina Heikkinen and Anne C. Mulkern contributed.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at http://www.eenews.net.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kavanaugh-confirmation-fight-has-consequences-for-climate-law/

WATCH: Man Who Conducted Polygraph Says Kavanaugh Accuser Only Answered TWO QUESTIONS

ilovemyfreedom.org
Martin
3-4 minutes

Democrats have been hyping the results of Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph test and claiming that they serve as proof that her allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh are accurate.

However, the man who conducted the polygraph test in August says Ford only answered two “yes or no” questions, and reminded people that so-called “lie detector” tests are generally inadmissible in court because they aren’t reliable.

During an interview with Fox News, the former FBI agent, Jerry Hanafin, who conducted the polygraph test on Ford said he only asked her two “yes or no” questions about her allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her almost four decades ago.

“Is any part of your statement false?” he asked first, followed by, “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

Hanafin said she answered “no” to both questions, and that the test determined that she didn’t deceive with her responses. The final report also doesn’t make any mention of questions regarding specifics about what she alleges.

It appears she was only asked basic questions about what she alleges, not about anything specific that would require details.

Hanafin said he didn’t push Ford for specifics because he didn’t want to overwhelm the victim while she was revealing what she alleges happened.

Watch below:

JUST IN: Former FBI agent who conducted polygraph on Christine Blasey Ford says he only asked two questions

— Wired Sources (@WiredSources) September 27, 2018

Kavanaugh was never accused of any wrongdoing for nearly four decades while he served in the Bush administration and on the federal court — but in the past three weeks, five people have come forward and accused him of sexual misconduct.

Ford alleges he pinned her down and attempted to grope her during a party roughly 36 years ago. She and Kavanaugh are testifying on Capitol Hill on Thursday about the allegations.

The second woman, Miranda Ramirez, alleges Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party in 1983.

A third individual, Julie Swetnick, claims Kavanaugh was “present” when she attended parties in the early 1980s, where she alleges men were carrying out gang rapes. She has only accused Kavanaugh of possibly being present at one of the parties where this was taking place.

The other two allegations are from anonymous “people” who refused to give their names, locations, or literally any proof at all that they know Kavanaugh or have ever been around him at an event.

Kavanaugh strongly denies all of the allegations, but that hasn’t stopped many on the Left from portraying Kavanaugh as being the leader of supposed a “gang rape” cartel when he was in college.

Ford’s allegations have gotten the most attention because she is testifying on Thursday, and her supposed lie detector results are being portrayed as “proof” to support he claims.

As Hanafin noted, he only asked her two general questions. He didn’t ask her about anything specific or direct about what she alleges. The questions were about as vague as “Do you know Brett Kavanaugh.” Of course her answers are going to be truthful when they are so broad and general that it would be impossible to lie.

This is nothing but a last-minute delay tactic by Democrats — and Ford’s polygraph, many argue, is anything but proof.

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/watch-man-who-conducted-polygraph-says-kavanaugh-accuser-only-answered-two-questions/

CASHING IN: GoFundMe Donors Have Given Christine Ford Over $500,000 After She Made Allegations

ilovemyfreedom.org
Frank
5-6 minutes

Christine Blasey Ford, with the support of the Democratic Party, presented her story against Judge Brett Kavanaugh yesterday at a hearing in front of the Senate Judicial Committee. She could be receiving a check, or multiple checks, for a total amount of over $700,000 (so far) because of multiple GoFundMe campaigns raising money to help pay for her costs.

I don’t know if GoFundMe will send her one check for each campaign, or one large check, or if GoFundMe sends the money to the people running the campaigns. I’m not 100% certain how their system works, but if the accounts are cashed out, then Blasey Ford might literally be getting almost a million dollars after all of this is said and done. Of course, GoFundMe would have to decide on what happens with the campaigns. Either way, that’s a ton of money that Ford could have in her hands after her story and testimony accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Her story has created thunderous waves on social media and disrupted the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, even though she presents little to no evidence and no corroboration from her own friends.

No one seems to be supporting her story except for the Democratic Party, but Ford’s own friends refused to back her up.

When Ford was in front of U.S. senators during the hearing, someone had asked how she would pay for the polygraph test, which could cost anywhere from hundreds to a thousand dollars. “During a break after Blasey Ford’s testimony, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s most outspoken advocates, told reporters: “I don’t know who paid for her polygraph but somebody did.”

How was Ford going to cover other costs such as travel to appear at the hearing? What about lawyers? Nevermind that, her lawyers are working pro-bono.

Ford mentioned that she wasn’t sure if she paid for the polygraph, a check someone would not forget about cutting, but she then found out that her attorneys (referred to her by Democrats) had paid for the test.

Ford then mentioned that there were a few GoFundMe campaigns going on in support of her. A few? Upon further research, it appears that GoFundMe has 13 current campaigns raising money to support her.

CNBC reported “I’m aware that there’s been several GoFundMe sites,” Blasey Ford told Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who was hired to ask questions on behalf of Republican senators. “I haven’t had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I’ve never had one.”

GoFundMe, a crowdfunding website that allows anyone to start a fundraising effort, is hosting 13 campaigns related to Blasey Ford, according to a search on the site using her name. Most of them haven’t gotten much response, though they picked up after the topic was raised.

However, the top two campaigns have reeled in more than half a million dollars for Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology and statistics at Palo Alto University in California.”

I located two of the highest yielding GoFunMe accounts. One has $473,812 of $150,000 goal raised. Another has $209,987 of $175,000 goal raised.

The first of the GoFundMe accounts listed appears to be using Ford as a means of pushing their own material. They have several other campaigns listed in the description of their campaign for Dr. Ford. This is called being an opportunist. They’re raising money for Ford, but they’re using it to advertise their own things.

The second GoFundMe listed is basing their campaign on death threats that Ford has allegedly received. What’s odd about this is that it’s usually unhinged Democrats who send death threats or participate in violence. For example, Antifa, Steve Scalise being shot, and any of the other violence and protests conducted by liberals behaving badly. This GoFundMe is to provide funds for security, although it doesn’t seem like anyone is actually going after her.

It should be noted that many people percieve that the Democrats have used Ford as their pawn in a chess game to delay the confirmation of Kavanaugh until after the midterm elections and even possibly until after the 2020 election where they can hope to get a seat back.

The smear campaign and political agenda has been called out by numerous senators such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz.

The Democratic Party might not cut Ford a check, but it looks like she’ll be taking home a ton of donations if GoFundMe allows the campaigns to be cashed out.

That’s not a bad paycheck for agreeing to help destroy a man’s life with a smear campaign that appears to be designed by Democrats.

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/christine-blasey-ford-may-receive-over-700000-after-alleged-incident-with-brett-kavanaugh/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=postup

Donald Trump just called himself an environmentalist. Wait, what? | Grist

At the rally, Trump said something that will shock the pants off of anyone who has been even remotely attuned to the myriad ways in which this administration has undermined environmentalist regulations. He said, AND I QUOTE, “I’m an environmentalist.” Sir! This actually isn’t the first time Trump has tried to tell people that he’s a champion of the environment. In 2017, he said, ” I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment.” Watch the Vegas clip:

https://grist.org/article/donald-trump-just-called-himself-an-environmentalist-wait-what/

Some Major Twitter Owners Have Russian Interests; Trump-Kushner Connections

Mining Awareness +


555 California St. in San Franciso, California, is partially owned by the Trump Organization. Morgan Stanley is a tenant.

The Palmer Report was temporarily suspended from twitter, apparently because they had “asserted that Donald Trump would spend the rest of his life in prison.” Reportedly others have been suspended, as well [1]. This raises the question of if Twitter is defending Donald Trump? If so, why? While the obvious answer is that Trump is good for Twitter business, it raises the question of who owns Twitter? Do they have Trump or Russia ties? The answer is yes. Is this why people are being suspended? Not necessarily, but it is worth noting.

Below are some connections between some of Twitter’s major owners and Russia and/or Trump. There are almost certainly more. Russian sanctions? What sanctions? The same attitude kept sanctions from working against Hitler. Sanctions could have prevented or…

View original post 1,460 more words

America’s had enough! Owner of Portland art gallery takes down ‘behead Trump’ image after receiving threats

Trump says he accepts US intel’s claim that Russia meddled in election

nypost.co
By Bob Fredericks

In a stunning about-face, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he had “full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies” — a day after he cast doubt on their conclusion that Russia meddled in the US elections while standing side-by-side with Vladimir Putin.

Speaking at the White House, he also said “I accept” the intel community’s verdict that meddling took place.

At one point during his remarks, the lights briefly dimmed.

“That must be the intelligence agencies,” Trump joked. “There it goes. OK. You guys OK? Good. That was strange.”

Trump also claimed that he misspoke during the joint news conference with Putin in Helsinki, and that he meant to say that he saw no reason why it would not be Russia that interfered in elections.

That was the opposite of his actual comment, which was: “[Putin] just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

The president said he discovered the error by reviewing a transcript and watching a video clip of his remarks.

“I actually went out and reviewed a clip of an answer that I gave and I realize that there is need for some clarification. It should have been obvious. I thought it would be obvious but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t,” he said.

“In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word would instead of wouldn’t. The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t or why it wouldn’t be Russia.‘ So just to repeat it, I said the word would instead of wouldn’t. Sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good.”

Trump also again insisted that Russia’s actions had no impact on the outcome of elections — and added that there “could be other people also [meddling]. There’s a lot of people out there.”

But the president did not respond when asked if he would publicly condemn the Russian strongman — and called his meeting with Putin a “tremendous success.”

And he repeated his claim that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia, a question at the heart of special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation.

“There was no collusion at all, and people have seen that and they’ve seen it strongly,” he said.

And he said the US would thwart any future efforts by Russia or anyone else to interfered in US elections.

“Unlike previous administrations, my administration will move aggressively to repeal any efforts and repel. We will stop it. We will repel it, any efforts to interfere in our elections.”

He charged that the Obama administration knew about Russian meddling but did nothing — even though the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling began in the summer of 2016.

“They decided not to do anything about it. The reason they decided [was that] Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. They didn’t think it was a big deal. When I won the election they thought it was a big a sudden they went into action so it was given that in sharp contrast to the way it should be,” he said.

Moments before Trump spoke, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebuked the president over his Helsinki comments.

“Over the last few years, the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of eastern Ukraine not to mention the indisputable evidence that they tried to impact the 2016 election” showed Russian hostility to the West, he said.

“So make no mistake about it, I would say to our friends in Europe, we understand the Russian threat and I think that is a widespread view here in the United States Senate among members of both parties.”

But House Republicans earlier used a party-line vote to block a Democratic measure aimed at condemning Trump’s stunning comments about Russia — the first vote testing how Congress would react to Trump’s remarks.

By 230-183, the House rejected a Democratic measure endorsing House Speaker Paul Ryan’s remarks criticizing Russia.

The Wisconsin Republican said “there is no question” that Russia interfered in the elections and that there is “no moral equivalence” between the two countries.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/17/trump-i-accept-us-intelligence-findings-on-russian-meddling/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20180717&mpweb=755-7128979-719298164

Putin’s Pants-on-Fire claim about $400 million donation to Clinton from Bill Browder partners

 

politifact.com
Putin’s Pants-on-Fire claim about $400 million donation to Clinton from Bill Browder partners
In a press conference with President Donald Trump in Helsinki. – Monday, July 16, 2018
5-6 minutes

Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a novel idea to advance the Russia investigation during a joint news conference with President Donald Trump in Helsinki.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team could come to his country, Putin said, if Russian investigators were allowed to go the United States to dig into alleged tax evasion by American-born financier Bill Browder and his associates.

“Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over 1.5 billion dollars in Russia,” Putin said through a translator. “They never paid any taxes.”

Putin continued.

“They sent a huge amount of money, over 400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton,” he said. “Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.”

Did Browder’s associates send $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign?

No. We found $17,700 donated to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

A little background

The Russians say that Browder and his partners at Ziff Brothers Investments, a New York venture capital firm, illegally syphoned billions of rubles out of the country. To add salt to the wound, Browder had led the charge to pass the 2012 Magnitsky Act, a law that penalizes Russian officials suspected of sanctioning the death of Browder’s lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison.

The Ziff brothers came up during the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and others, and Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who promised dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign. According to transcripts from Senate Judiciary Committee interviews, Veselnitskaya’s materials described the Ziffs as Democratic donors, although Trump’s son said they gave both to Democrats and Republicans.

Follow the money

We reached out to the Russian Embassy and the Russian consulate in Washington to get details on the $400 million donation and had not heard back in time for our deadline.

Given that Veselnitskaya tied Browder and the Ziff brothers together, we researched their political donations.

Browder became a British citizen and can’t legally contribute to U.S. candidates. Ziff Brothers Investments through its executives can give freely, and they have.

Before we get into their political contributions, we also wondered if Putin could have been talking about money that went to the Clinton Foundation. In past years, Browder and Ziff Brothers Investments had given to the Clinton Global Initiative, a project of the Clinton Foundation, but the total was not more than $110,000, records show.

In the 2016 election cycle, Ziff Brothers Investments gave $1.7 million. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly two-thirds, or about $1.1 million, went to Democratic committees, and the rest to Republicans.

The center listed the firm’s top recipients:

Recipient

Amount

DNC Services Corp

$296,966

Senate Majority PAC

$250,000

Defending Main Street

$200,000

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

$40,000

Democratic State Central Cmte/Louisiana

$35,412

National Republican Congressional Cmte

$32,400

Democratic Party of Montana

$28,622

Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida

$27,287

Democratic Party of New Hampshire

$27,287

Democratic Party of Virginia

$27,287

Democratic Party of Wisconsin

$27,287

Georgia Federal Elections Cmte

$27,287

Federal law puts tighter limits on contributions to individual candidates. Here, the Ziffs mainly put their money into incumbents, and Republicans did better by a margin of about $145,000 to $46,000. Clinton’s campaign received $17,700.

Unless Putin had other Browder associates in mind, his figure of $400 million going to the Clinton campaign is a massive exaggeration. Between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, the Ziffs gave about $315,000.

The Clinton campaign raised $563 million overall, so Putin’s sum would account for nearly three-fourths of all donations. (PACs affiliated with Clinton’s campaign raised an additional $231 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

Our ruling

Putin said associates of Bill Browder gave $400 million to the Clinton campaign. The associates appear to be the Ziff brothers. According to public data, Ziff Brothers Investments gave about $315,000 to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

Overall, the firm gave about $1.1 million to Democratic committees around the country.

The exaggeration is so great, we rate this claim Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/16/vladimir-putin/putins-pants-fire-claim-about-400-million-donation/

Amazon.com, tax dodgers

Dear Kitty. Some blog

This video from the USA says about itself:

You Won’t Believe How Much Taxes Amazon Paid Last Year

3 March 2018

Guess how much Amazon paid in taxes? Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, the hosts of The Young Turks, have the answer. Get money out of politics: here.

Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world, with a personal net worth of $108 billion. In 2017, Bezos’ company, the internet retail giant Amazon, reportedly took in $5.6 billion in U.S. profits.

So, how much did Amazon pay in income tax on that bounty? Hang on, we’re getting some news…what? What’s this? Amazon effectively paid zero dollars in federal income taxes in 2017? Oh.

Amazon is projecting a $789 million windfall from the Republicans’ tax bill, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which may have factored into its reason…

View original post 149 more words

JFK files reveal FBI warning on Oswald and Soviets’ missile fears | US news | The Guardian


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/release-jfk-files-fbi-warning-oswald-soviet-missile-fears?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=249773&subid=18006728&CMP=GT_US_collection

Las Vegas: Bellagio Hotel Guests And Staff Confirm Multiple Shooters” Videos”

Nwo Report

The Bellagio Hotel lobby was sprayed with bullets by a second shooter during the Las Vegas attack, according to hotel guests and staff who recount the horrific experience in a newly surfaced video. 

Rene Downs made a Facebook Live video in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in Las Vegas, filming from inside the Bellagio Hotel which was on lockdown after “shots came firing in through the front doors of the lobby” causing “mass chaos and a stampede.”

Explaining that she was in the lobby with her husband at the time shots were fired into the hotel, Rene Downs also explains that the sheriff and mainstream media immediately covered up the Bellagio Hotel shooting, and in keeping with the “lone wolf” narrative, insisted that the Bellagio was not involved in the Las Vegas attack.


This was NOT all done by one shooter. News and LVPD…

View original post 657 more words

Vegas plot thickens: Connection between shooter and intelligence agency


http://www.blacklistednews.com/Vegas_plot_thickens%3A_Connection_between_shooter_and_intelligence_agency/61157/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Another Corporation, Reebok (Adidas), Jumps Into Politics – Against President Trump…

Source: Another Corporation, Reebok (Adidas), Jumps Into Politics – Against President Trump…

Special Report: Why Are So Many People Acting Like Zombies?

The last video is my favorite, the woman screaming...
that's what goes on in my head every time...
I have to listen to these snowflakes 😌

Nwo Report

Leftists infected with post-Trump derangement syndrome

Special Report: Why Are So Many People Acting Like Zombies?Alex Jones discusses how leftists are devolving into zombies as their minds are infected with identity and victimhood politics.

Best Of Social Justice Warrior FAIL Compilation

SJWs: Dumbed Down By Design

RELATED: Zombiefied Anti-Trump Protester Goes NUTS!

View original post

Undercover Video Shows Plans To Disrupt Trump Inauguration Using Chains on Metro Railways…

Project Veritas has released a second undercover video showing left-wing anarchists and professional agitators planning multiple coordinated attacks upon Washington DC infrastructure and mass trans…

Source: Undercover Video Shows Plans To Disrupt Trump Inauguration Using Chains on Metro Railways…

The judge defends Eric Trump

Meet the Master Of Sorcery, Fakery and Deceit- Reviewing the Obama Years (Part 1)

Don’t Put Big Oil in Charge of EPA

Donald Trump has nominated a climate change denier and Big Oil mouthpiece as head of the EPA. Demand that Trump replace this pick and stop handing our nation’s natural treasures and environment over to big business.

Source: Don’t Put Big Oil in Charge of EPA

Jill Stein Fails To Provide $1M Surety Bond For Pennsylvania Recount – Election Challenge Collapses…

Con artist and former Green Party candidate Jill Stein raised fleeced the alt-left moonbats for more than seven million dollars.  The financial ruse -as it was announced- was to fund an election re…

Source: Jill Stein Fails To Provide $1M Surety Bond For Pennsylvania Recount – Election Challenge Collapses…

Anonymous: “Soros Has Just Funded Jill Stein To Call For Legal Vote Recount In Election Reversal”

Nwo Report

Hacking Group "Anonymous" Has Issued A CHILLING AnnouncementSource: Alex Cooper

Something seriously bad is happening right now and it’s about to shift the face of democracy in the free world.

George Soros is well known by now for his donations to BLM and other extreme leftist groups, not to mention the millions he’s given Hillary.

Things just went to code red though, because Jill Stein has just initiated a campaign to demand a recount of the vote.

What is about to happen could possibly cause a civil war. Anonymous, the infamous group responsible for hacking multiple high-level officials and agencies, just made a grave announcement:

“It’s over, folks.

They are absolutely taking this from Trump. If you were able to see these stories they already have prepared for us to start running next week, your jaw would hit the ground.

They are going to “find” that the results were indeed “hacked”. They have everything set in place…

View original post 570 more words

What the Heck is Wrong with You People!

Meanwhile, From Canada…

Tweet these Hollyweirdos who said they’d leave U.S. if Trump is elected