Kavanaugh Debacle/Distraction

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Redneck
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:44 am
Reputation: 331

Re: Kavanaugh Debacle/Distraction

Postby Redneck » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:11 pm

I do think it's a smear campaign of sorts, but maybe Kavanaugh is the sacrificial lamb, taking one for the team as a diversion from other issues.

It's certainly divided people, polarized them in fact. And now if you dare to say that you doubt Ford's story then you are labelled as someone who doesn't believe any woman who says she's been raped, and you are just as bad as the rapist.

This is a very clever 'divide and rule' strategy, although I'm not sure just who is in on it and who isn't.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:20 pm



Reed Irvine asks Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh what evidence he has that Vince Foster's car was at Fort Marcy Park when Foster was already dead. "You don't tape these calls do you Reed?"


Hillary Clinton’s Continuing Lack of Interest in Cover-up of Vince Foster’s Murder
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillary-clintons-continuing-lack-of-interest-in-cover-up-of-vince-fosters-murder/

In 1997, Kavanaugh concluded his investigation of Foster’s death and the Office of Independent Counsel Report was released on October 10. The Report stated, “According to the reports of their interviews at the scene on July 20, 1993, [Doody] and [Feist] did not see anyone in or touching Mr. Foster’s car.” This statement is true only because Mr. Foster’s car was not there. This sentence cleverly made it appear Foster’s car was at the park by saying that no one touched it.

Irvine studied the official government documents concerning the death of Foster and tried to get journalists and media executives to report the facts. He lent his support to grand jury witness Knowlton, who was a key witness at Fort Marcy Park because did not see Foster’s car.

The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered Starr, over his objection, to include evidence of the cover-up as an appendix in his Report on Foster’s death. The evidence of the cover-up submitted by Knowlton’s attorney John Clarke became the final 20 pages of Starr’s Report. The evidence Irvine told Kavanaugh his investigation ignored was included, and more. The appendix includes copies of 25 federal investigative records proving: Foster’s car was not at the park, there was a bullet hole in Foster’s neck, photos of the neck wound vanished, x-rays of the neck wound vanished, the gun did not belong to Foster, and Knowlton suffered grand jury witness intimidation.

The appendix of the Report is still suppressed by the American press. It also includes evidence of the grand jury witness intimidation and crime scene photos.

After leaving the Independent Counsel’s office Kavanaugh served as White House Senior Associate Counsel, and then as Assistant to the President of the United States and Staff Secretary under George W. Bush. Kavanaugh was later nominated to the D.C. circuit of the U.S, court of appeals by President Bush. Former Deputy Independent Counsel Tuohey supported his confirmation and wrote, “[Brett Kavanaugh] is exceptionally well qualified to serve on one of the nation’s most important appellate courts…”

At his Senate confirmation hearing Senator Orrin Hatch introduced Kavanaugh to the Judiciary Committee with high praise. Describing Kavanaugh’s many accomplishments Hatch said, “Mr. Kavanaugh served in the Office of Independent Counsel under Judge Starr, where he conducted the office’s investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. In 1994, Hatch told the Senate Banking Committee, “Accordingly, I want to be clear on one point, there is absolutely no credible evidence to contradict the Fiske Report’s conclusion that Vincent Foster took his own life, and it happened at Fort Marcy Park. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. I suspect conspiracy theorists will always differ with this conclusion.”

Kavanaugh’s name is frequently mentioned as a possible Supreme Court justice as he continues “to move up the ladder.” Mrs. Clinton is attempting to move up a different ladder, but continues to show no interest in the cover-up of the death of her dear friend.

Image

Twenty-nine year old Brett Kavanaugh replaced Miguel Rodriguez when he resigned from Kenneth Starr’s Office of Independent Counsel. Associate Independent Counsel Rodriguez, an experienced prosecutor, thought he “was scoring big points” for Ken Starr investigating the death of Vince Foster, President Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel. Rodriguez’s assistant Lucia Rambusch thought they “would be getting pats on the back” for uncovering evidence Foster had been murdered. Instead, according to Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing’s notes, Rodriguez said that Deputy Independent Counsel Mark Tuohey “cancelled everything [he] was doing” and “undermined everything [he] had done.”

Kavanaugh sided with the Democrat Tuohey in opposing efforts by Rodriguez to uncover the truth. For what it’s worth, Tuohey is married to Marty Daley, the sister of Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, and the former Democratic mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley. Their father was the powerful Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley. Kavanaugh was willing to do what Tuohey expected to achieve the desired result. Rodriguez told Reed Irvine, the deceased former chairman and founder of Accuracy in Media, that “the young aspiring people, who I used to work with back in that office will say and do what they have to, to move up the ladder.”

Ewing wrote in his notes, “FBI refused to coop. w/ [Miguel Rodriguez] on [Vince Foster] death.” Rodriguez told Irvine the same FBI agents that did the Fiske investigation were working in Starr’s office and they hid photographic evidence, intimidated witnesses, and threatened him.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:05 pm

not much talk about this either...

BRETT KAVANAUGH REPEATEDLY RULED IN FAVOR OF THE SECURITY STATE, MOST RECENTLY FOR THE CIA — AND AGAINST ME
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/17/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-cia/

Image

ON A MONDAY AFTERNOON, on July 9, the D.C. Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 decision against me and in favor of the CIA in a long-running Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. At 4:20 p.m., Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, filed a 14-page opinion with the clerk of the court in Washington. They ruled that the CIA had acted “reasonably” in responding to my request for certain ancient files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Appended to their decision was a 17-page dissent from their colleague Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who strongly objected to their decision.

That evening, President Donald Trump announced to the world that Kavanaugh was his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. In his remarks at the White House event, Kavanaugh touted his “Female Relationship Resume” and declared, “My judicial philosophy is straightforward: A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.”

In her tart dissent issued that morning, Henderson, the senior judge in the D.C. Court of Appeals, called that claim into question. She took Kavanaugh to task precisely for a lack of independence and for making law, rather than interpreting it. On the issue of compensation for successful FOIA litigants, Henderson said the prospective Supreme Court justice ignored the letter of the law while siding with a “recalcitrant” CIA over a working journalist — i.e., me — who had uncovered information of genuine public benefit.

Kavanaugh’s ruling in Morley v. CIA was of a piece with his record as an advocate of unbridled executive branch power. His view that a sitting president cannot be indicted, or even subpoenaed, is well known. Less known is his permissive treatment of the CIA. In my case, as in another key FOIA case from 2014, Kavanaugh ruled that the agency could not be held publicly accountable for its actions — even ones that occurred more than 50 years ago.

Image

JFK files: 15-year lawsuit over mysterious CIA agent drags as final files await release
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/19/jfk-files-15-year-lawsuit-over-mysterious-cia-agent-drags-final-files-await-release/435989002/

WASHINGTON — For 15 years, journalist, author and assassination expert Jefferson Morley has fought to compel the CIA to produce records about longtime spy George Joannides, who worked with a group associated with President John F. Kennedy's acknowledged assassin and then aided the committee that tried to investigate that killing.

In his last decision before his Supreme Court nomination, Brett Kavanaugh sided with the CIA
http://jfkfacts.org/on-jfk-secrecy-brett-kavanaugh-sides-with-the-cia/

The D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on July 9th that the CIA does not have to pay my court costs incurred in the long-running FOIA lawsuit Morley v. CIA. The split decision was joined by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was nominated by President Trump later that day to serve on the the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh’s opinion disparaged my reporting and vouched for the very “reasonable” actions of the CIA.” ( The word appears 23 times in the decision; “reasonably,” and unreasonably,” another 23 times.) It is reasonable to conclude that Kavanaugh is deferential to the CIA.

About the information I obtained via litigation, the unsigned opinion said, “the public benefit was small.” The decision made no reference to extensive coverage of Morley v . CIA in the New York Times, Fox News, San Diego Union, St. Paul Pioneer Press, CBS News in Dallas, and the New Yorker, among many other news organizations. It is not surprising that the CIA denies any “public benefit” to a closer look at some of its shadier JFK secrets. But does the DC Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land, deny it too?
Judge Karen Henderson

No. A strong dissent by Judge Karen Henderson takes a much more balanced and independent view of the case, in my view. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Henderson points out that the court had previously found that I had met the standard of “public benefit” established in case law.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:25 pm

Ron Wyden says Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied in 2006 testimony
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/ron-wyden-says-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-in-2006-testimony

Image

Sen. Ron Wyden said Thursday that it appears Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lied to Congress in 2006 when he testified about when he learned of a post-9/11 surveillance program. The Oregon Democrat said in an emailed statement to the Washington Examiner that documents published by the New York Times appear to contradict Kavanaugh’s testimony.

“Yes, the documents made public this week strongly suggest Brett Kavanaugh was involved in discussions about the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping programs, and that he misled the American people in his 2006 testimony,” Wyden said. “That kind of deception is unacceptable for someone who seeks a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land,” said Wyden, a prominent critic of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

Kavanaugh testified during his 2006 confirmation hearing to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that he learned about “the president's NSA warrantless wiretapping program” when he read a December 2005 article in the New York Times.

"Did you see documents relating to the president's NSA warrantless wiretapping program?" Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked at the time.

Kavanaugh, who worked in the George W. Bush White House, told Leahy: "Senator, I learned of that program when there was a New York Times story — reports of that program when there was a New York Times story that came over the wire, I think on a Thursday night in mid-December of last year."

"You had not seen anything, or had you heard anything about it prior to the New York Times article?" Leahy asked.

"No," Kavanaugh said.

Leahy pressed him at the 2006 hearing: "Nothing at all?" Kavanaugh confirmed: "Nothing at all."

Kavanaugh was more equivocal Wednesday, telling Leahy he could not “rule anything out like that” when asked if he raised issues “about the constitutional implications of a warrantless surveillance program” with Bush administration lawyer John Yoo in 2001.

An email published Wednesday evening by the Times revealed that on Sept. 17, 2001, Kavanaugh emailed Yoo, asking if there were “any results yet” on the Fourth Amendment implications of “random/constant surveillance of phone and email conversations of noncitizens who are in the United States ... to prevent terrorist/criminal violence.”

The Bush-era program exposed in 2005 began shortly after the email exchange. It monitored the international phone calls of people inside the U.S. in an effort to prevent al-Qaida terrorism.

White House spokesman Raj Shah defended Kavanaugh's historical truthfulness, telling the Times his 2006 testimony was "entirely accurate" and that Kavanaugh's 2006 answer should be seen as whether he reviewed information about the program “as staff secretary," a job he took in 2003, after working in the White House counsel's office.

“The only controversial thing about this email is that it was leaked to the media, despite being ‘Committee Confidential,’ a violation of committee rules,” Shah said.

Image

Wyden's statement is one of the most forceful responses yet. Leahy, for example, did not return to the subject when he had a second opportunity to question Kavanaugh on Thursday, though he did tweet, "We have discovered evidence that Judge Kavanaugh misled the Senate" in 2006 and about a separate matter in 2004 regarding leaked Democratic documents.

Lying to Congress is a federal crime, but rarely prosecuted. There's a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it may not be possible to charge Kavanaugh.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that "at best, the answer is incomplete," though "such imprecision is often denounced as perjury but rarely prosecuted as perjury." "In terms of influence [on] someone like Sen. Susan Collins, it would likely take a confession to flip a GOP vote," he said.

Turley said that Democratic allegations related to Kavanaugh's testimony "are undermined by their own tolerance for perjury in taking no formal action against figures like James Clapper," the former director of national intelligence, who avoided potential charges this year for admittedly inaccurate testimony about NSA surveillance.

Kavanaugh's stance on NSA mass surveillance has not received significant attention during his confirmation hearings, despite public scrutiny of a 2015 opinion in which he upheld the bulk collection of U.S. call records, a program that replaced presidentially mandated collection that began in 2001.

According to a 2014 report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, "[f]rom late 2001 through early 2006, the NSA collected bulk telephony metadata based upon presidential authorizations issued every thirty to forty-five days. In May 2006, the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] first granted an application by the government to conduct the telephone records program under Section 215 [of the Patriot Act]."

Criticism of the NSA's now-discontinued call record dragnet and earlier surveillance programs was bipartisan, but Republican critics including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, support Kavanaugh's nomination, which is expected to be approved in a majority vote.

George W. Bush called undecided senators to sway them to vote for Kavanaugh: report
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408995-george-w-bush-reportedly-called-undecided-senators-to-sway-them

Former President George W. Bush reportedly called senators who were previously undecided in their vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in an effort to sway them to favor Kavanaugh's nomination, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

a few weeks later, during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings...

Image

Image

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 12076
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5587

Postby Masato » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:34 pm

^^ great stuff by Daglord. reminds me of the gigantic hype the MSM made over Bill Clinton/Lewinsky adultery case, at the same time when you could have also gone after Clinton for drug smuggling and a slew of other much more horrendous crimes he had been caught involved in



Been watching a bit more on the case... I find Ford to be completely unconvincing. Her whole testimony is full of holes, 'I can't remember', and inconsistencies. No facts whatsoever.

Yet I still see many many people CONVINCED that she is telling the truth and that Kavanaugh is a rapist, horrified that her 'repressed memory' statements didn't beat evidence-based Rule of Law.

To these people I want to ask; What exactly has convinced you that she is telling the truth? In what way is her testimony more believable than Kavanaugh's? What has caused these people to invest such emotion in this particular case?

One small detail that caught me was that they made a big deal about her fear of flying, that she couldn't appear at a hearing etc because she was terrified of being on a plane. Then one of her prosecutors or whatever started asking about her travel blogs where she admits to loving travel and having flown all over the world to Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific Islands, and French Polynesia etc no problem lol

Also she claims that her coming forward at this time (36 years later) has nothing to do with his appointment to the SC. Ya think?

Hillary Clinton chiming in saying she believes her, lol

This looks clearly to me like a political smear tactic. The irony is that they are using emotional hooks and empty repressed memories and completely un-provable testimony to try to attack someone who is supposed to take a position where RULE OF LAW is supposed to be the modus operandi

I don't give a shit about Kavanaugh, but I'm glad he won the case. Imagine if he had lost, what a precedent it would set. It would have completely destroyed the legal system, and made it so any woman could just stand up and make a claim against any man alive and subsequently ruin him

I really don't understand how so many people got so emotionally triggered to believe her. You couldn't write a weaker testimony imo

Lots of great vids all over ripping Ford's credibility. Find me one that is convincing in the other direction.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:55 pm



Patrick Knowlton, eye witness in Vince Foster death, returns to discuss his personal experiences with Bret Kavanaugh and how Kavanaugh covered up Foster investigation.

User avatar
Shinkicker
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:47 am
Reputation: 278

Postby Shinkicker » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:46 am

How did she get Google to delete all of her internet history? Even the yearbooks from her high school? And her arrest record (just a traffic violation, but still)?


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests