Send a Message to Liberals: Prosecute Ford
It Began 30 Years Ago.
The Judge Brett Kavanaugh appointment fiasco is just a recent example of more than 30 years of horrendous mistreatment of Republican nominees organized by the Democrat leadership. Of course liberals were aided by allies in the mainstream media and radical progressive organizations.
Then-US Senator Joe Biden (yes…THAT Joe Biden), created a ridiculous strategy known as the “Biden Report.” It remained the Liberal playbook in opposing Republican Judicial nominees for the next several decades.
Trending: Student Sues Over Trump Shirt and WINS
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comments.
The Ghost in Biden’s Closet
Before the fiasco of the last six weeks, the previous judicial nomination circus swirled around 41st President George HW Bush nominee Clarence Thomas to replace the late-Justice Thurgood Marshall. It would be Professor Anita Hill at that time who came forward with accusations of sexual harassment. Like Judge Kavanaugh, Justice Thomas was confirmed by a narrow margin, but the damage to his character was irreversible.
They Just Kept Going and Going
Filerbustering conservative federal judicial nominations at the beginning of the George W Bush administration is a shameful moment in the history of checks-and-balances. It was the black-eye of the Senate and Judiciary…until the Kavanaugh hearings.
According to the New York Times:
“to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever.” Specifically, they said, “there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite.”
The Senate Democrats employed the filibuster blocking the confirmation votes on several federal judicial nominees, most famously: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Charles Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Rogers Brown, William G. Myers III, Henry W. Saad, David W. McKeague, and Richard A. Griffin. Many of the nominees would never get the opportunity of a confirmation vote.
As CNN explains:
Under the agreement, three of President Bush’s nominees for appellate courts stalled by Democratic filibusters will go forward and two others will remain subject to filibuster.
Under the deal, the senators will allow three of Bush’s controversial nominees to come to a vote: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.
With 55 seats, Republicans have been unable to garner the 60 votes that Senate rules specify are necessary to end a filibuster — a form of extended debate that has been part of Senate rules since the early 19th century.
National Review attacked Democrats for veiled racism.
Indeed, if Congress were an ordinary employer and a federal judgeship were treated as a job under federal anti-discrimination law, then Estrada would likely win on a claim of employment discrimination.
‘Lowering’ The Bar.
It seems just when Liberals can’t dig any lower, Democrats find a shovel.
A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.
Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement.
That was pretty clear! Of course, McLean is the same person Ford helped prepare for a polygraph. Yet Ford claims she never took part, participated, or had ever done anything in preparation for a lie detector test! Thus Dr Ford lied under oath during her testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
This isn’t the first lie Ford told.
But Not So Fast!
National Review explains further:
This revelation has prompted many to suggest that McLean is guilty of witness tampering. Is she? Well, maybe. But it would be a heavy lift. 18 U.S. Code § 1512 holds that one is guilty of “tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant” if one “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person.” Moreover, this law applies to those who “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.”
The vagueness vanished when the irritating Senator Richard Blumenthal opened his mouth:
Any lawyer knows coordinating eyewitness accounts could constitute witness tampering. We don't know what Judge Kavanaugh said in the days before the New Yorker story broke, but it sure seems like something the FBI should've investigated, & may explain misleading testimony.
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) October 4, 2018
Proof in the Pudding
Leftists are willing to crucify Kavanaugh without any proof whatsoever. However, there are several pieces of evidence that refute Ford’s story.
According to Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Dr Ford has submitted a sworn letter to the contrary!
BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”. pic.twitter.com/jVeW0qaJD0
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 3, 2018
Connecting The Dots!
So, this is…
- The same Monica McLean from within Dr Ford’s inner circle of friends at Holton Arms.
- Also, she is the same Monica McLean who was pressuring Leland Keyser to change her story to the Senate Judiciary Committee
- The same Monica McLean who was ‘coached’ by Dr. Ford on how to fool a polygraph in order to pass her FBI entrance exam.
- And it’s the same FBI Peter Strzok and Lisa Page worked for, and Monica McLean retired from in 2017.
- Let’s not forget, Peter Strzok worked with DOJ lawyer David Laufman on the interview of Hillary Clinton in the investigation of the mishandling of classified information.
- The same David Laufman who is now Monica McLean’s lawyer in the Kavanaugh-Ford FBI investigation.
Is this yet another piece of the bureaucratic “Secret Society” attempting to another commit act of sedition against the country revealing itself? Is this another card being played the liberal DC establishment to undermine the Trump Administration?
Sticking to their Story
Ford must’ve warned McLean to stick to the story, no matter what. Therefore, it’s not surprising Agent McLean is denying the allegations, which seems good enough for the mainstream media. But not for Senator Chuck Grassley, who has demanded Dr Ford’s lawyers’ turnover the notes from Ford’s therapy sessions in which Ford discussed the alleged incident.
NEW: Fox News obtains letter through sources, sent from @ChuckGrassley to Dr. Ford's lawyers requesting "material evidence relevant to allegations of sexual assault made by your client," pic.twitter.com/Vl12AE3m33
— Pat Ward (@WardDPatrick) October 3, 2018
Ford and her attorney Debra Katz already started distancing themselves from this entire affair, by indicating neither want to pursue any further legal issues against Kavanaugh. But Democrat activists are seething at plans to implement articles of impeach against the newly minted Justice Kavanaugh, as well as pursue impeaching: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, President Trump, and Vice President Pence. That is merely just the beginning of what the Social Progressives have planned should they assume power in November.
For someone who doesn’t want the notoriety, Ford sure found it…and has thus far profited over $572,600 in the process. With the way things are now breaking, she’s going to need that newfound wealth…for legal fees.
Based on her expert opinion, sex-crimes investigator Rachel Mitchell said there was not enough evidence to bring a case against Judge Kavanaugh to prosecutors. If Dr Ford is not fully investigated and possibly prosecuted for misleading the US Senate, and the country, then what is to stop someone from doing this again to the next Supreme Court nominee?