Monday on MSNBC’s “The Beat,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) criticized the one-week deadline in the expanded FBI probe of Supreme Court associate justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Blumenthal said, “It’s the right direction, but whether they go far enough and quickly enough remains to be seen. Those 25 witnesses that I sent to the White House and to the FBI along with almost all my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Democratic side, are the minimum that ought to be interviewed. As you well know, witnesses can lead to other witnesses that have to be pursued. So I believe that Jeff Flake truly wants a real investigation, not a check the box sham. And that’s what the FBI ought to be doing. Difficult, though, because as you said very well, this deadline is tight and arbitrary. In fact, too accelerated and too artificial to really get the job done.”
As the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probes decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is calling on investigators to look into whether the judge ever sought treatment for alcohol abuse.
“Kavanaugh, so many have come forward describing your abuse of alcohol,” Waters tweeted on Sunday. “I think it is important that the American people know if you have ever sought treatment for alcohol abuse.”
Maxine Waters
✔@RepMaxineWaters
Kavanaugh, so many have come forward describing your abuse of alcohol. I think it is important that the American people know if you have ever sought treatment for alcohol abuse.
Earlier Sunday morning, the longtime California Democrat claimed Kavanaugh was a “puppet” of President Donald Trump, who, alluding to his passionate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, demonstrated a “lack of respect for others.”
“Aren’t Supreme Court justices supposed to be independent, and are they not expected to demonstrate the proper judicial temperament?” Waters then asked her nearly 865,000 followers.
Maxine Waters
✔@RepMaxineWaters
Kavanaugh has proven that he is a puppet of Donald Trump. He got his marching orders and he promptly displayed Trump’s lack of respect for others. Aren’t Supreme Court justices supposed to be independent, and are they not expected to demonstrate the proper judicial temperament?
In an interview with MSNBC’s AM Joy, Waters reiterated her opposition to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, once against describing the judge as President Trump’s “puppet.”
“We have to fight. We have to not only fight to make sure that women get the respect that they deserve, but when you have a credible person like Christine Blasey Ford, it helps us to point out that no matter how credible they are, no matter you how well spoken they are, no matter how smart they are, that these senators do not intend to allow sexual harassment to be the reason why someone will not be confirmed,” Waters said in her usual defiant tone. “And so I think that this has played out in a way that will only strengthen us and strengthen women and those who care about justice to fight and to confront them and protest against what we’re seeing.”
Waters’ comments come as the media continues to whip itself into a frenzy over Kavanaugh’s drinking habits, tracking down individuals who claim to know details concerning Supreme Court nominee’s hard-partying ways in college.
According to The Washington Post, its reporters tracked down two individuals claiming to be familiar with Kavanaugh’s college years and say the nominee’s denial of heavy drinking in an interview with Fox News are inaccurate.
“Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling,” Swisher, who says she was friends with Kavanaugh during college, told the Post. “There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”
Swisher’s College roommate, Lynne Brookes, accused Kavanaugh of attempting to “paint himself as some kind of choir boy.” “You can’t lie your way onto the Supreme Court, and with that statement out, he’s gone too far. It’s about the integrity of that institution,” she told the paper.
In an interview with Fox News last Monday, Kavanaugh denied all allegations of sexual misconduct and pushed back on claims that he was frequently inebriated at parties thrown during his high school and college years.
“[Y]es, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there,” the Supreme Court nominee told host Martha MacCallum. “And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school – I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that’s not what we’re talking about.”
In an opinion-editorial published by Slate last Tuesday, William Saletan argues the culture at Kavanaugh’s high school — Georgetown Preparatory School — paired with accusations brought forth by Christine Blasey Ford and Debra Ramirez — justify an FBI investigation into the Judge’s alleged drinking habits.
On Thursday, Kavanaugh faces a Senate hearing about Ford’s allegations. He will try to draw a line. At a rehearsal with White House aides last week, he “grew frustrated” with questions about his drinking and his sexual behavior, according to the Washington Post. “I’m not going to answer that,” he said. Judge doesn’t want to answer questions either. The Republicans who control the committee are planning to leave Judge out of the hearing.
That’s unacceptable. The alcohol theory is arguably the most plausible explanation of what happened. It’s less crazy than Ford inventing a story and putting herself through hell so Trump can nominate a different conservative judge to the Supreme Court.
…
If the committee won’t delegate this job to the FBI, senators must do it themselves. Ask Judge and Kavanaugh about their history with alcohol. Talk to the people who drank with them or saw them drunk. If you think alcohol could have corrupted Ford’s memory or Ramirez’s memory, ask about their drinking too. This is an investigative avenue with a strong evidentiary basis and many potential witnesses, and it puts everyone’s denials in doubt. To confirm Kavanaugh without checking it out would be a betrayal of justice.
Of course, the consumption of alcohol has not been a federal offense since the end of Prohibition in 1933.
Some who knew Kavanagh during his high school days have pushed back against claims that the now-Judge drank too much.
“Drinking was prevalent in high school, but some guys handled it better than others, and Brett always maintained his composure,” Tom Kane, described as a “close friend” of Kavanaugh, told the Post. “He was not a stumbling drunk. He was never all that interested in getting wasted.”
Former NBA player Chris Dudley and former college classmate of Kanavaugh said the Trump pick is the target of an all-out smear campaign.
“I went out with him all the time. He never blacked out. Never even close to blacked out,” Dudley said. “There was drinking, and there was alcohol. Brett drank, and I drank. Did he get inebriated sometimes? Yes. Did I? Yes. Just like every other college kid in America.”
BREAKING: Sen. Graham breaks from letting the woman prosecutor do questioning for Republican senators, and delivers impassioned defense of Judge Kavanaugh.
During Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) sharply criticized Democrats for their handling of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, telling them, “Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford.” He also warned Republicans, “if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
Graham said, “If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me. … This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy.”
He later stated, “Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford. None. She’s as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it, because these have been my friends, but let me tell you, when it comes to this, you’re looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.”
Graham concluded, “This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. … To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
Investigative counsel Rachel Mitchell, cross-examining Christine Blasey Ford at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, demolished her claim that she could not testify on Monday because she was afraid of flying.
Ford and her attorneys refused a Monday hearing, arguing that she was afraid to fly. One of her friends even claimed that her fear of flying was a result of the alleged assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh over 35 years ago.
The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.
Committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) then offered to travel to California to interview Ford, relieving her of the need to fly. She declined. There was talk of having Ford drive across the country to make the hearing.
Yet under questioning by Mitchell, Ford admitted that she had, in fact, flown across the country to make the hearing. She had also flown to the east coast for a vacation with family in August. She also admitted flying frequently for her work and for her hobbies, including surfing vacations in Hawaii, Costa Rica, and French Polynesia. Ford, laughing nervously, said that it was easier to fly for vacations.
Critics had speculated that the sole reason Democrats, and Ford, were refusing a Monday hearing — or even a compromise Wednesday hearing — was because a Thursday hearing would make it almost impossible for the Senate to hold a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh before the Supreme Court begins its new session on October 1.
Yes he is a descendant of Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels.
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, during a speech in September 1934.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has verbally resigned to Chief of Staff John Kelly, according to a breaking news report.
UPDATE (12:48 p.m.): White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has not resigned and will meet with President Donald Trump on Thursday. “At the request of Rod Rosenstein, he and President Trump had an extended conversation to discuss recent news stories,” Sanders said. “Because the President is at the United Nations General Assembly and has a full schedule with leaders from around the world, they will meet on Thursday when the President returns to Washington, DC.”
Rosenstein offered his resignation following reports claiming the Justice Department’s second highest-ranked official considered secretly recording President Donald Trump and lobbying cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment in a bid to remove him, Axioswrote Monday.
On Friday, The New York Times published a bombshell report alleging Rosenstein raised the prospect during a meeting with multiple FBI officials of taping President Trump without his knowledge “to expose the chaos consuming the administration.” Further, the Deputy Attorney General considered using said recordings to lobby Chief of Staff John Kelly and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to invoke the 25th Amendment.
According to the report, Rosenstein became fixated with the idea of having the president removed after becoming frustrated with the White House’s handling of FBI Director James Comey’s firing. Rosenstein reportedly told close associates that he would one day be “vindicated” for being ordered to draft the memo justifying Comey’s ouster.
The Times says Rosenstein’s remarks were detailed in a series of memos compiled by multiple FBI officials, including former FBI Dupoty Director Andrew McCabe, a claim an attorney for the fired official denies. Michael R. Bromwich, a member of McCabe’s legal team, told the paper that his client “has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”
“A set of those memos remained at the F.B.I. at the time of his departure in late January 2018,” Bromwich added.
The Justice Department denied the report, issuing the following statement from Rosenstein to the Times: “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”
A Justice Department spokesperson conceded that Rosenstein did discuss secretly taping the president but presented an anonymous source who told the Times that he did so in a sarcastic manner.
Allies of the president, including Fox News host Sean Hannity, warned against firing Rosenstein — a move they say could have a negative impact on the fast-approaching midterm elections.
Washington Post national political reporter Robert Costa said over the weekend that the president would not fire Rosenstein over the report. “POTUS has told several people on Fri. and Sat. that he’s not going to fire the deputy AG and is suspicious of anything that even tangentially involves McCabe, according to three advisers familiar with the ongoing discussions,” he tweeted.
EXCLUSIVE: RELEASED TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS SHOW MUELLER TEAM’S COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESS
Released messages document how Mueller’s spokesman took dozens of meetings with reporters over three months in 2017.
Reporters from nearly every major media outlet have been jockeying for influence and favoritism within the special counsel’s office.
One awkward exchange illustrates a reporter from CNN trashing an article written by White House correspondent Jim Acosta.
Hundreds of pages of emails and text messages released from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) special counsel’s office through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request show an ongoing relationship between Robert Mueller’s team and the press, according to an investigation by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Please don’t forget that the corrupt Peter Strzok was on his team also.
The documents, released in September, span months of communication and include messages from reporters ranging from a variety of outlets, including TheDCNF, The Washington Post and BuzzFeed.
While the vast majority of correspondences between Mueller’s spokesman Peter Carr and a variety of journalists ends with a “no comment,” the messages expose Mueller’s team was willing to meet with a number of reporters in private meetings and over the phone.
Coordinating such meetings cuts against the narrative that the special counsel has been hesitant to give information to the press, instead opting to give information only through public announcements and statements.
No matter if snopes lies about these SOB’s, they are friends and criminals in bed together. (Click The Picture)
The New York Times ran a story in August poking fun at the secrecy of the special counsel, with one reporter writing that Carr’s “‘no comment’ replies have become a running dark joke among the Washington press corps.”
But on July 21st, 2017, Adam Goldman from TheNYT sent an email to Carr about arranging a “touch base” meeting, according to documents provided by the DOJ.
That meeting was later rescheduled, but it is just one in a pattern of meetings and private calls from reporters jockeying for opportunities to solicit information from an investigation that has been labeled as “leak proof” from the press.
Ironically, Vox was one of those exact outlets that proclaimed Mueller’s team as immune to leaks — despite one of its reporters communicating extensively with Carr via text.
During one interaction, Alex Ward asks Carr off the record if the investigation would continue should President Donald Trump fire Mueller.
“As guidance only, the [Deputy Attorney General] testified last week that he, not the President, would be the one to make the decision. 28 CFR 600 outlines under what circumstances a Special Counsel can be removed. If it came to that, a replacement would likely be found,” Carr answers.
A day later, Carr aids Ward in describing the room in which the investigation takes place. Despite Carr’s assistance, he is never mentioned in Ward’s piece published over a month later.
From late July until the end of September 2017, Carr held at least dozens of meetings with various reporters. Those meetings have rarely been discussed with the public, by both the government or the press, until the release of these documents.
TheDCNF could not find any evidence of impropriety by Mueller’s office, nor any evidence that Carr favored specific outlets.
Regardless, the messages document hours of conversations and meetings between a spokesman involved in a politicized investigation and reporters eager to cover for him in hopes of further access.
Other messages released by the DOJ illustrate more awkward interactions, showing how some reporters will even undermine colleagues in order to build trust in their relationship with the special counsel’s office.
CNN’s Evan Perez, who had extensive conversations with Carr from at least May through August 2017, expressed frustration at a story co-authored by the network’s White House correspondent Jim Acosta.
“I had nothing to do with it. Didn’t see it until after it was published. I would not have published that. But I’m also in a poor position to stop things,” Perez said of Acosta’s reporting.
Perez then communicates concern that the story could damage the validity of the special counsel’s investigation because of the attorney general’s politics.
“By the way, this story and the pick up its [sic] getting makes it so the public will think Mueller is in bed with (one of) the most partisan left-leaning AG in the nation. I’m sure he has good people working there but the leadership has a pretty partisan agenda,” Perez says to Carr.
“Maybe that’s what the Special Counsel wants,” he adds.
A month later, Perez ran a follow-up story on the Mueller investigation, prompting Carr to offer a phone call in case he needed any additional information or clarifications.
