Elder Patriot – By all accounts Brett Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life. That’s what makes the 35-year-old charge of Christine Blasey-Ford so unbelievable.
First, the timing of Blasey-Ford’s accusation stinks. She waited more than 25 years before she says she confided in anyone about the alleged assault.
Then ten years after that (35 years after the alleged assault took place), after Kavanaugh had been vetted 6 separate times by the FBI for previous appointments, and the Senate had wrapped up its own investigation of him last week, then she comes forward.
Second, Blasey-Ford claims to be unable to recall the date or location of the attack.
That didn’t stop NBC’s Chuck Todd from suggesting in some twisted interpretation of the law that it’s somehow incumbent on Kavanaugh to prove he wasn’t at the party on a date and at a place unknown.
On WTOP, Chuck Todd says he doesn't know how Kavanaugh can deny being at a party that his accuser can't recall the place or time. Who has the burden of proof in this kangaroo court?
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) September 18, 2018
This appears to be the new standard leftists want to impose on their political opponents:
Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.https://t.co/MBZiN1nBjn
— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 17, 2018
This standard runs in only one direction of course. The second highest ranking member of the DNC, Keith Ellison has been accused of a significantly more violent assault on his girlfriend with 911 tapes to prove it. All we get is crickets from the Democratic Party and the mainstream media.
Third, her handler is Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein is one of the most, if not the most, corrupt senators. Her twenty-year employment of a Chinese spy was recently reported by the FBI.
Then there’s the fact former Feinstein staffer, Daniel Jones, somehow raised $50 million to continue trying to prove the veracity of the Steele dossier, post election. To put that kind of money together assuredly required the assistance of a heavy hitter like Di Fi. Perhaps, with help from Virginia Senator Mark Warner?
What is the chance that the political hit job on Brett Kavanaugh was orchestrated to deflect media attention from her involvement with the spy who held a key position in her office?
Perhaps Feinstein is relying on the propaganda media to grab onto this story in an attempt to narrow reporting on the President’s declassification order that threatens to expose the criminal construct that existed within the Obama administration’s intelligence community.
Already, we see evidence of that strategy being employed by the NY Times and the Washington Post where the accusations against Kavanaugh lead the online editions of both and the president’s declassification order is further down and under much smaller headline type.
Almost laughably, after two years of printing unsubstantiated leaks from anonymous sources within the FBI with the intention of incriminating President Trump, now the media has suddenly lost interest in the information flow. Could that be because the forthcoming information will be fully corroborated and destructive to the Russian narrative.
What does that tell you about who the real sources of Fake News are?
There’s also the question as to why Feinstein sat on this allegation for a number of months until after judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings had been concluded.
There’s a rumor circulating that might explain that. It has Feinstein offering to order the cessation of the pursuit of Blasey-Ford’s allegations in exchange for President Trump’s promise not to order the FISA application declassification.
That boat sailed last night.
I’m draining the Swamp, and the Swamp is trying to fight back. Don’t worry, we will win!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2018
This president won’t be bribed or extorted which explains why both sides fear him so much.
It’s possible that Feinstein’s (and Blasey-Ford’s) bluff has been called. That’s hard to say at this point. But, Feinstein’s refusal, to this point, to facilitate Blasey-Ford’s appearance before the committee is troubling.
Every woman deserves to be heard and every woman and man deserves to have the allegations and evidence evaluated fairly. Which is what makes Feinstein’s refusal to facilitate Blasey-Ford’s appearance before the Senate so open to interpretation.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released this statement on the matter yesterday:
“Anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard, so I will continue working on a way to hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner.
“The standard procedure for updates to any nominee’s background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties. In this case, that would entail phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Consistent with that practice, I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up.
“Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person’s identity from news reports for less than 24 hours and known about her allegations for less than a week. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs. The Minority withheld even the anonymous allegations for six weeks, only to later decide that they were serious enough to investigate on the eve of the committee vote, after the vetting process had been completed.
“It’s deeply disturbing that the existence of these allegations were leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality.
“Over my nearly four decades in the Senate I have worked diligently to protect whistleblowers and get to the bottom of any issue. Dr. Ford’s attorney could have approached my office, while keeping her client confidential and anonymous, so that these allegations could be thoroughly investigated. Nevertheless, we are working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims.”
What is Senator Feinstein afraid of?
Maybe there’s nothing to what I’m about to disclose, or maybe there is. We report, you decide.
Christine Blasey-Ford has a brother named Ralph Blasey. That was confirmed in this article from the newsobserver.com.
A check of Ralph Blasey’s Linkedin profile indicates that he was a litigation partner with Baker & Hostetler from 1989-2004.
Here’s where the reason for Feinstein’s refusal to help Grassley (and Christine Blasey-Ford) may reside.
In or around 2013, Baker Hostetler had been hired to defend Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., against U.S. money-laundering accusations. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney who is at the center of the meeting in Trump Tower that was used in an attempt to frame Donald Trump Jr., also worked for Prevezon.
What really makes this deserving of further investigation is the fact that Fusion GPS had been hired by Baker Hostetler during the Prevezon case.
While the timeframe for BH-Prevezon-Fusion GPS does not correlate with Ralph Blasely’s employment at BH, the relationships do match.
If corrupt Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was looking for someone to smear Brett Kavanaugh who better to turn to than an old H.S. classmate who grew up to become a radical feminist?
If I could link the personalities involved together by doing a short internet search, what could someone with NSA database search authorization be able to find?
Is Feinstein fearful that in bringing Blasey-Ford forward for questioning we may discover a connection to Fusion GPS? Keep in mind Monday’s session is likely to be televised and that would make it difficult for the propaganda media to keep hidden.
Grassley and the Republicans have done their part. They’ve delayed the vote on Kavanaugh until next Wednesday and are providing Blasey-Ford with a forum on Monday.
The ball is in Senator Feinstein and the Democrats’ court.