Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Judge Kavanaugh Confirmation Debacle

Judge Brett Kavanaugh -  Supreme Court Nominee

This is an analysis from a FB friend 
which deserves broad viewership. 
It is a succinct and lucid summary 
of the Judge Kavanaugh Senate 
hearings and issues.


1)  Six FBI background checks over 25 years:
     No Negatives found.
2) 1,325 written questions from US Senators:
    No Negative Comments
3) 65 meetings with US Senators:
    The allegations were never mentioned
4) 32 hours of public hearings:
     No mention of the allegations
5) In US Senate Judiciary Committee Executive session:
    No reference to the allegations
Booker: aka: Spartacus 
6) Senator Cory Booker
     Made no mention the allegations
7)  At the time of this post [18SEP2918], the accuser continued to refuse to appear before the Senate Committee.
     -- No other witnesses will be allowed to appear before the Committee.

8)  The Washington Post published a hit piece mentioning a single, uncorroborated, allegation from 36 years ago, during Kavanaugh's high school days, and the Senate Committee must now delay or defeat Judge Kavanagh's nomination to the Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court.

9)  Click here for Kavanaugh's biography

This is a disgraceful, partisan debasement of the 
US Senate and the confirmation process, and the 
fact that it was held until the eleventh-hour is 
suspicious, at best, and nefarious at worst!

To clarify, here is the Democrats timeline:

Senator Feinstein
• Dianne Feinstein, a Senior Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had a written statement in her possession from a woman accusing Kavanaugh of misconduct when they were both teenagers, weeks before Kavanaugh ever came before Congress for hearings.

• Feinstein did not turn the letter over to the FBI, which would then have had the authority to discretely interview those involved and assess the allegation's legal ramifications for a public figure.

• Feinstein (and other Senate Dems who presumably knew about the letter) did not ask Kavanaugh about the allegations they knew had been made against him during the hundreds of hours of closed and open testimony and thousands of submitted questions.

• Feinstein held the letter until Kavanaugh's hearing was concluded and a vote for him was all-but-sure to pass nomination, and then first mentioned the letter during a press release to reporters - where the case would be litigated in the public arena, and not within the halls of investigative or deliberative bodies whose job it is to assess these claims.

• Because Kavanaugh was never asked about the accusations or his relationship with the accuser in days of questioning by the Senate, the Judge presumably had no idea what the allegations even were.
   a) The accusations lack a time, place, and circumstances
   b) making them all but impossible for Kavanaugh's defense
   c) Such accusations would never be admissible in a court of law!

Senator Grassley
• Feinstein did not cooperate with Republicans in setting up follow-up calls with the Kavanaugh accuser who accuser continues to ignore requests from Senator Grassley for a hearing.

• Feinstein and Senate Democrats refused to speak with Kavanaugh and the Senate Judiciary staff Monday after the accuser had gone public and Kavanaugh had forcibly denied the allegations.

The accuser's lawyer says it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims against Kavanaugh
[a normal process in a court of law]

Every legitimate accuser should be  heard -- after investigation and verification;  and such cases should be  litigated to the fullest extent. However, the way Democrats have handled this claim has in no way benefitted the accuser, accused, or the greater Me Too movement.  
A court would throw out such an accusation for lack of evidence as well as the fact that the event allegedly occurred 36 years prior. The fact that the accuser is linked to the Hillary campaign and to the Steele bogus accusation degrades the accuser and the accusation. 

It smacks of political weaponization!

Who is the accuser?
Christine: Now  --                                           36 Years Ago

Here's a summary
Judge Kavanaugh's Accuser

Notably, Christine Blasey's brother, Ralph III, worked for Baker Hostetler, the Fusion GPS law firm, for 15 years.

She is affiliated with Indivisible, an Alinsky-style Anti-Trump "Resistance Group" in Silicon Valley [their Facebook page has now been taken down].


According to Michael Collesano, her lawyer, Debra Katz, a defender of Bill Clinton's assaults on women, to include Paula Jones ["a 'one-time' incident"] is a board member of POGO, a Soros-funded organization.  She is currently representing Irwin Reiter [a Harvey Weinstein company executive]

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Benghazi - Revisited

The Benghazi Attack Was Designed to Succeed
By Eliminating US Military Protection

Click here for related story [Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece by former DCM Gregory Hicks]

Chances are you missed this opinion piece of Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission in the US Embassy, Libya during the attack on the Benghazi Consulate.

Mr Hicks capsulizes his testimony in this opinion piece in order to set the record straight, vs the Spin version of the Jarrett White House and the Leftist Media.

According to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Chris Stevens twice turned down offers to beef up Embassy security with additional Military troops.

AfriCom Commander
GEN Carter Ham
-- Technically/officially, that's a correct statement.
In fact, though, General Carter Ham [Commander of the African Command], recognizing the threat to the US embassy "twice offered to 'sustain' the Special Forces security team in Tripoli, and the Ambassador 'declined'."

General Ham's offer followed a request by the Ambassador to increase the size of his security contingent to 13 from the inadequate eight assigned to cover both Tripoli and Benghazi.

The rationale for the "decline" was that control of the security team would then have transferred to the US Military [i.e. AfriCom] as opposed to the State Department; State Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy relayed to the Ambassador that the Military mission was to advise and train the Libyan Military, and thus, State would lose control over these personnel since authority would be under the Department of Defense.  The military not listed under Embassy status would not have "diplomatic immunity" -- critical to safeguarding these personnel.

The Diplomatic Immunity issue is critical to understanding the decision process.

If the Embassy or Consulate were attacked, and US Military personnel shot one of the attackers, the soldier could be liable for trial by the local government - i.e., the Libyan Government, in a Libyan Court.  Conversely, Military personnel ASSIGNED to the Embassy WOULD be covered as "diplomats" and have diplomatic immunity.


Undersecretary of State Patrick F Kennedy
thus denied the US Military offer to increase the size of the
Special Forces contingent to 13.

Pentagon insiders state categorically that the orders to STAND DOWN came from the White House, by Valerie Jarrett.

[EDITOR'S NOTE [and update] 09/2018 
Military personnel could have been assigned to the Defense Attache Office with Diplomatic Immunity; or, they could also have been attached in a MAAG [Military Advisory and Assistance Group] capacity, again with Diplomatic Immunity/Status of Forces Agreement; even so, the Military Personnel at the Embassy were ordered to Stand Down, and the AC-130 flying silently over the Consulate was ordered to NOT ENGAGE the Egyptian attackers (who shouted, 
"don't shoot, Morsi sent us" )]

General Ham was relieved of his command, by WH order [Jarrett?] when he ordered his units to respond to Ambassador Stevens' call for help when the attack began; his Command was then ordered to Stand Down, as were EUCOM  and the nearby 6th Fleet ].  Ham was recalled to the US and replaced by the FORSCOM Commander -- an unheard of command process.  We assume that Ham's family was threatened to keep him in line]

An Army Special Forces team was present with an AC-130U Spectre Gunship on the tarmac at the airport in Tripoli, Libya. 

The AC-130 is a technologically sophisticated, tactical aircraft, operated by the US Air Force Special Operations Command. It operates under the overall Special Operations Command stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, which oversees all military special operations units, including: Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Rangers and certain Marine units, as well as the USAF AC-130Us, and stealth Blackhawks,” used in the Bin Laden raid.  

The AC-130U  is equipped with weapons that sync with laser-designators, like those that Woods, Doherty and Ubben had on that lonely rooftop above the CIA Annex. The laser-designator was used to “paint” the mortar targets during the attack, subsequently claiming the lives of Woods and Doherty, and leaving Ubben without a leg. 

The AC-130U was on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, but was ordered to NOT ENGAGE, to not land and deploy a team of Special Forces soldiers.

The military-order, 
not to initiate action, 
saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the 
President's Advisor, 
Valerie Jarrett.

Friday, September 7, 2018

DeVos under Attack

As She Attempts to return the Rule of Law To Our Education System
Prepare for the Leftist Media Attack on DeVos

We feel the following reprint of a New York Post article deserves wider distribution.
Hats off to both Betsy DeVos and to NYP journalist Rich Lowry.

Click here for original article
NY Post 31AUG2018 [comments.lowry@nationalreview.com]

A judicial process that doesn’t allow the accused to cross-examine his accuser or reliably see the evidence against him is a civil libertarian’s nightmare. It traduces every principle of fairness and is blatantly un-American.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos intends to remedy this abomination, but will be savaged by the Left for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our Constitutional legal norms.

The Education Department is preparing new rules that would roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations. It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.

In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama Administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds; it did so via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.

Watch Closely as I Destroy the Constitution

The Obama process was terrible, blowing right past the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect.

And the substance was worse.

The letter reads as if it were written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings – and it was.

1) It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard
rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.

2) It essentially forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.

3) It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

4) It also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,”
i.e., a single person as investigator, judge and jury.

The Obama rules ignore central developments in 
Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago! 

 In their important book “The Campus Rape Frenzy” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out:

“Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that 
no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. 
Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a 
disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. 
Stir in a “de facto” presumption of guilt based on misguided 
Obama Administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.” 

The result inevitably, has been horrific miscarriages of justice.

Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused cannot be discarded in the process.

One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic – assuming a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus.

To the contrary, Taylor and Johnson note that sexual assaults of female college students
had dropped by more than 50% between 1997 and 2013,

-- and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college. 

The Obama rules have been battered in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.

A US District Court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University:

 “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, 
it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity t
o defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision. 
Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, 
not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, 
not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.” 

This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes.

 They are still being formulated, but a New York Times report suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.


Editorial Note:

Disbarred and prosecuted for
Criminal Actions as District Attorney
We have watched such legal abominations during the Obama years destroy the lives of college students who have been given no recourse to senseless and groundless allegations, with no rationale other than the accuser had just broken up with a boyfriend and wanted to see him suffer; or, in the case of a hooker in Durham, NC, claiming that she was assaulted by an entire LaCrosse Team --  a case elevated to and prosecuted in a local court, with the District Attorney later disbarred for concealing exculpatory evidence, to include DNA samples plus testimony by the hooker's associates who stated the hooker bragged to them that she had lied about the entire event -- she had only been hired to dance at a team victory party!

Under the Obama Administration, the Rule of Law was replaced by Political Hysteria!
We presume that the Left will use every extreme tact