Obama appointed judge fired over sex scandal

FOX Business contributor Katrina Campins broke down the mess of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's personal relationship with Nathan Wade on Jesse Watters Primetime.U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon dropped a motion on Friday to get Atlanta U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross tossed from a major election integrity case. Why? Because Ross admitted she went to a partisan Democrat fundraiser for Fani Willis, which is flat out illegal and screams she is anything but impartial.

But that is just the warm up for Ross's greatest hits album of judicial disgrace. 

Turns out that Ross, who is married, has been carrying on for years banging Atlanta deputy police chief Kelley Collier right there in her chambers during work hours. Staff overheard the sexual noises. When she got caught, she lied about it and then retaliated against the people who reported her.

This is textbook workplace sexual misconduct, lying, and obstruction of justice, folks. 

And what did the federal judiciary do about it? Gave her a freaking private reprimand. Yes, a private reprimand. That is the judicial equivalent of a participation trophy for being a sleazy embarassment. Ross should resign immediately or get impeached by Congress. She should also face federal criminal charges for lying to investigators.

The Atlanta Police Department has tons of cases in front of Ross's court. 

Collier, her regular courthouse hookup, is a nearly thirty year veteran who runs the Community Services Division and, oh yeah, he is also married. 

The Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council actually said it was only by pure happenstance that Ross never got assigned any cases from that division while she was banging the deputy chief. Relying on luck to avoid a screaming conflict of interest does not make you ethical. It makes you lucky and gross. Nothing indicates she would have ended the affair if a case had landed on her desk. 

Ross is  married to DeKalb County Circuit Judge Brian Ross. I wonder how he's taking it.

This went on right under the noses of her law clerks, young lawyers who were supposed to look up to her as a role model as opposed to a "Fans Only" woman. One former clerk had to blow the whistle to disciplinary authorities. She turned her fancy judicial chambers into a cheap love shack for several years, from 2023 until 2025. 

When staff pushed back on her illegal behavior, she cursed them out. Retaliating against whistleblowers has zero place in the federal judiciary.

Ross, an Obama appointee, also showed up at the victory party for Fani Willis, the same legal train wreck who brought that ridiculous, politically motivated indictment against President Trump and nearly twenty other defendants in 2023. Courts eventually booted Willis after it came out she was sleeping with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. 

Judges are not supposed to attend these partisan Democrat love clusterfracks. Ethical canons exist for a reason.

Ross showed zero integrity when Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor confronted her. She flat out denied everything and called the allegations outrageous. She knew she was lying through her teeth. If a lawyer pulled that stunt in court, they would be disbarred and possibly prosecuted for contempt. But the Judicial Council went soft on Ross, kept the reprimand private, and refused to name her. That lack of transparency is garbage. The public has every right to know which judge is abusing her office, lying about it, retaliating, and trying to cover it up. 

She is a caught liar with no business on the federal bench. This fiasco is exactly why Congress needs to pass Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley's bill for an independent inspector general over the federal judiciary. These judges cannot police themselves, and for one in particular, don't even mention the word 'police,' it gets her all steamy hot.

Her eventual confession changes nothing. 

The council made her skip being chief judge of the Northern District and say sorry to the staff she screwed over. Big whoop. These are pathetic slaps on the wrist. As it stands, Ross keeps collecting that sweet lifetime federal paycheck and benefits. Other judges with half a spine have resigned over less. She should do the same. The Justice Department needs to prosecute her, and the House should impeach her.

Funny how Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff has been completely MIA on this. 

Ross sits on the bench in his home state. Her antics have humiliated the Northern District of Georgia, the whole state, and the federal judiciary. Ossoff, a full-blown coward, has not called for her resignation, has not demanded transparency, and has not said a single public word about why they shielded her from accountability. That silence is deliberate, and Georgians should remember it come election time. 

Ross is a complete disgrace to the judiciary. She should slink away with whatever dignity she has left and be replaced by someone who understands that judicial chambers are not a Motel 6 for afternoon delights that the whole staff has to hear. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee, where Ossoff ought to be leading the charge instead of playing hide and seek, should demand answers on why her name stayed secret. Most important, the Justice Department needs to open a criminal investigation into the false statements she made to Pryor and her obstruction of justice. The judiciary and the country deserve way better than Eleanor Ross.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Ted Cruz's Impeachment Wish Comes True: Rep. Brandon Gill Drops the Hammer on Judge Boasberg, the Deep State's Favorite Gavel-Wielding Enforcer

Oh, the sweet sound of accountability echoing through the marble halls of Congress, like a liberal's safe space suddenly discovering the concept of consequences. Judge James Boasberg, that judicial snowflake who's been melting under scrutiny, is now officially on thin ice thicker than a Biden family business deal. As my sharp-eyed colleague Katie Jerkovich laid out last Friday, Republican Rep. Byron Donalds (FL-19) spilled the beans on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle, hinting that his Texas colleague, Rep. Brandon Gill (TX-26) was gearing up to serve Judge Boasberg a piping hot platter of impeachment articles. 

The reason for the impeachment is due to Boasberg playing activist ringmaster in the circus that was the Trump probe, green-lighting subpoenas that snagged phone records from nine U.S. Senators like they were low-hanging fruit of a loom. And leading the charge was none other than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of the subpoenaed senators, who'd been hollering for Boasberg's robe to get yanked faster than Adam Schiff can spout a lie.

Well, wishes do come true when you're not wishing on a star but on a filibuster. The House finally delivered the goods on Tuesday, with Gill introducing the Articles of Impeachment against Boasberg. 

"I just filed Articles of Impeachment against radical activist Judge James Boasberg," Gill announced with hidden glee.

"Judge Boasberg abused his power by weaponizing the judiciary against critics of the Biden Administration. As part of the Arctic Frost Investigation, Judge Boasberg signed off on frivolous nondisclosure orders to conceal the fact that sitting US Senators were being surveilled.

"Not only was this action egregiously improper; it was a gross violation of the separation of powers.

"Judge Boasberg is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit for office, and should be impeached."

In a follow-up chat that could double as a masterclass in calling out judicial malpractice, Gill didn't mince words: Boasberg had "compromised the impartiality of the judiciary." Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX), is formally introducing impeachment articles against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday for his role in the "Arctic Frost" probe.

Republican allies of President Donald Trump have been criticizing Boasberg after news broke that he was the judge who signed off on subpoenas and other measures in former Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe.

"Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis. He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction," Gill told Fox News Digital.

"Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel. I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors."

It's not just Lone Star firebrands lighting this fuse. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), whose phone records got the full Snowden treatment in this mess, teamed up with Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (OH-4) on Fox Business' Larry Kudlow show. She confirmed she had tapped Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to drag Boasberg before the committee for a testify-or-fry session. Because nothing says "transparency" like hauling a judge in to explain why he thought spying on senators was just another Tuesday.

Gill's resolution lays it out in black-and-white legalese that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to a piñata: one count of abuse of power, per the text we scooped first at Fox News Digital. "Ignoring his responsibility to wield the power of his office in a constitutional manner, Chief Judge Boasberg granted Special Counsel John L. Smith authorization to issue frivolous nondisclosure orders in furtherance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation project codenamed ARCTIC FROST," the text said.

"These nondisclosure orders covered Members of Congress who were acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution."

Look, impeaching federal judges isn't like giving out a traffic ticket. It's rarer than an honest politician's memoir. Since 1803, we've only seen 15 such spectacles in U.S. history, with a measly eight ending in Senate convictions. 

The usual suspects? "Making false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power." If rubber-stamping Deep State dirt on lawmakers doesn't qualify as the judicial equivalent of drunk-driving a gavel, I don't know what does. Buckle up, Boasberg; the bench might be getting a vacancy notice.

Wouldn't it be lovely?

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

GOP confirms Trump-aligned judge, defeating obstructionist Democrats

The Republican-led Senate just rammed through Emil Bove's confirmation to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 50-49 squeaker, and the Democrats are crying foul louder than a toddler who needs a diaper change. 

Bove, a former Trump legal eagle, got the nod despite weeks of blue-team bellyaching and enough whistleblower complaints to fill a soap opera script.

The vote was tighter than a well digger's butt in winter, with RINOs Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins siding with the Dems to try to tank Bove's lifetime appointment. No dice, ladies, Trump's guy is headed to the bench. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi was practically doing cartwheels on X, gushing, "Congratulations to our dear friend Emil Bove on his confirmation to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! This is a GREAT day for our country." She went on to praise his "tireless work" at the Justice Department, adding, "He will be missed, and he will be an outstanding judge." 

Take that, haters.

Bove's resume reads like a conservative fever dream. He was Trump's go-to lawyer when Biden's cronies tried to bury the former president under a pile of classified documents and election interference charges. He also had a front-row seat in the New York hush money circus, where Trump got slapped with 34 felony counts but walked away with what amounts to a judicial shrug. Before that, Bove was a federal prosecutor in New York, locking up drug dealers and terrorists.

But the Democrats have been clutching their pearls since Trump floated Bove's name, screaming about whistleblowers who claim he told Justice Department folks to ignore judicial orders. They're also steamed about his role in canning some January 6 prosecutors and spiking the case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams. Naturally, they’re painting him as the second coming of Darth Vader.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wasn't having it, firing back at the Dems for trying to "weaponize" the whistleblower process. "He has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably," Grassley said, defending Bove like a pitbull. "I believe he will be a diligent, capable, and fair jurist." He also took a swipe at the opposition, slamming their “vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse” as crossing the line. Tell 'em, Chuck.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck 'Nostrils' Schumer (D-NY) was out here acting like the sky just fell. "It’s unfathomable that just over four years after the insurrection at the Capitol, when rioters smashed windows, ransacked offices, desecrated this chamber, Senate Republicans are willingly putting someone on the bench who shielded these rioters from facing justice, who said their prosecution was a grave national injustice," he wailed. Dark day, Chuck? Maybe take a deep breath and a sip of chamomile tea, just don't barbecue any cheeseburgers.

Hey guys, if you enjoy Brain Flushings, I hope you'll consider supporting my work with a small donation to Buy Me a Coffee. It fuels my late-night writing sessions with fresh ideas. No pressure.

Look, the left is throwing a tantrum because their smear campaign didn't stick, and the right is popping champagne because they got their guy. Business as usual in D.C. Bove's on the bench, and the outrage machine is already revving up for the next fight. 

Tweet

Biden FBI spied on pro-life Catholics, calling them "violent extremists"

Joe Biden: Cafeteria Catholic and Fake President

Man, oh man, the Biden-era FBI really went all-in on playing Big Brother with Catholics, and the House Judiciary Committee just dropped a bombshell report on July 22 that lays it all out. We're talking way more federal law enforcement muscle thrown at surveilling Catholics than anyone thought, and the FBI didn't exactly come clean to Congress about it. Shocker, right?

The report, titled "Report: How the Biden-Wray FBI Manufactured a False Narrative of Catholic Americans as Violent Extremists," rips the lid off documents that flat-out contradict former FBI Director Christopher Wray's fantasy claim that the 2023 Richard memo was just a one-off oopsie. You remember that memo from the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, the one that slapped the label "racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists" on "radical traditionalist Catholics." 

Yeah, that one. Apparently, it wasn't some rogue agent's bad day at the office.

According to a July 22 press release from the committee, new FBI Director Kash Patel handed over a whopping 1,300 pages of internal docs that spell out how the Biden administration's FBI went full Stasi on Catholics. We're talking surveillance operations that would make your skin crawl. 

Here is where it gets really gross: back in 2023, the Richmond office zeroed in on a Catholic priest from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a group Rome calls "irregular canonical," just because he wouldn't snitch on a parishioner the feds were sniffing around. 

So, what did the FBI do? They opened an "investigative assessment" on him. They teamed up with the Louisville Field Office and even the London Office to track his every move, where he was, where he was going, even his credit card receipts.

They even tried to weasel around priest-penitent privilege, claiming it didn't count because the parishioner hadn't been baptized or finished catechism. The committee's press release called that excuse "faulty," and I'm being polite when I say that’s putting it mildly.

It gets worse. 

The FBI analysts who cooked up that Richard memo leaned on straight-up anti-Catholic garbage for their alleged "research." We're talking sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which, let’s be real, isn’t exactly a beacon of objectivity nor has anything to do with poverty. 

The FBI confessed to using eight open-source articles, with charming titles like "Catholics are leaders and even founders of the most dangerous neo-Nazi groups in existence," "White Nationalists Get Religion: On the Far-Right Fringe, Catholics and Racists Forge a Movement," and "Traditional Catholics and White Nationalist 'Gropers' Forge a New Far-Right Youth Movement."

Not very subtle. The committee's investigators weren't having it, pointing out these sources scream bias against Catholics who actually take their faith seriously.

And of course, there’s more. 

A separate FBI memo was already floating around, warning that the SSPX was out to "recruit and radicalize white supremacists." Plus, the term “radical traditionalist Catholic” pops up in FBI docs from 2009 all the way to 2023. This wasn't a one-time thing, it’s a pattern.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, (R-IA), already spilled some tea back in June, saying the Richard memo hit at least four field offices and reached over 1,000 FBI personnel. He also flagged 13 other documents and five attachments dripping with anti-Catholic rhetoric. 

The committee is still digging, and they're not letting up. With Patel promising to keep the books open, they're vowing to keep pushing for "legislative reforms to protect American’s religious liberties from government overreach." Good luck finding a bigger red flag than the Biden FBI treating Catholics like they're the next al-Qaeda.

And all along, Biden pretended to be a Catholic.

Hey fellow patriots, if you enjoy my content, I hope you'll consider supporting Brain Flushings with a small donation to Buy Me a Coffee. It keeps me going and fuels my late-night writing sessions with fresh ideas. Let's keep the good vibes brewing!

Tweet

National Archives reveals a load of documents in office of Biden's lawyer

A total of nine boxes of documents were removed from the law office of Patrick Moore, our alleged President Joe Biden's attorney, however the National Archives does not yet know what's in those boxes. 

But with the problems the Bidens currently face for having classified documents in an office at the Penn Biden Center, you can imagine those in his family who are still lucid and drug-free, are worried of being busted.

At least Joe isn't concerned as his biggest worries are staircases and the location of toilets.

Documents were also found at his Wilmington, Delaware, home, but again, not to worry--Attorney General Merrick Garland has put in place Robert Hur as special council to "investigate" the handling of Biden's classified document trove that he has been collecting since he was a senator after former President Lincoln was assassinated. Hopefully Hur, a registered Republican, will render a fair investigation and Biden is removed from office forthwith. 

The existence of the nine boxes of documents was disclosed by Debra Steidel Wall, acting archivist of the United States, in a letter to Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Grassley, you may know, was critical of Tucker Carlson's releasing of video at the Capitol Hill demonstration on Jan. 6th 2021. He along with 10 other Republicans were against Carlson's First Amendment rights and, in this case, responsibilities. 

In response to a question from Johnson and Grassley about whether there were classified documents in the boxes, the reply said the contents are still a mystery four months after they were obtained.

“NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] has not reviewed the contents of the boxes found at Mr. Moore’s Boston office,” the letter said, revealing that they knew about the documents since Nov. 3, the day after the Penn Biden Center classified documents were uncovered. The American public did not learn of this find until weeks later.

“NARA contacted President Biden’s personal counsel on November 3, 2022, to arrange to pick up boxes from the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., they informed NARA that Mr. Moore had moved other boxes from the Penn Biden Center to Mr. Moore’s law firm in Boston,” the letter said.

So you can almost bet there will be confidential material in this find. Luckily for Joe Biden, he's incompetent to stand trial.

Journalist John Solomon posted:

Biden’s document story keeps changing, this time by nine boxes | Just The News https://t.co/AW9oHSQReI

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) March 9, 2023

“[W]hen NARA referred this matter to the Office of Inspector General on November 4, 2022, NARA informed the OIG that some boxes had been moved to Boston,” the letter said.

The letter said the boxes were moved to Boston sometime in October.

Things are looking bad for Joe Biden, but he'll only be mildly aware.

Tweet

Kavanaugh accuser lied, faces criminal charges

'Facts don't care about your feelings'-- Ben Shapiro

One of the three lying women who accused now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault was found to have lied through her feminist teeth during a congressional investigation. Judy Monro-Leighton is being charged with making false statements and obstruction and could face a serious slap on the wrist if the Democrats have anything to say about it.

According to The Beltway Report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck "Hang 'em High" Grassley (R-IA), made a criminal referral against Monro-Leighton, after she admitted that she "just wanted to get attention."

Imagine that--a person would ruin the career of another individual just to get attention. It says a lot about the "Believe All Women" movement, which only pertained to Democratic women in the first place.

The scumcrumpet also admitted that an anonymous letter she sent to then-Sen. Kamala Harris describing a graphic sexual assault by Kavanaugh and a friend was not written by her, despite her original claim of being “Jane Doe from Oceanside, California.”

When questioned by investigators of the Committee on the Judiciary, she admitted, “No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention.  I am not Jane Doe… but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your committee… I saw it online. It was news.”

In her statements, she also admitted that she never even met Judge Kavanaugh.

“In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources,” Grassley’s letter reads. “When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a ‘ploy’ and a ‘tactic.’”

Harris, who was acting [as in make-believe] as a senator at the time, went on to become the vice president without any discipline for bringing the false letter forward without bothering to check its veracity. In fact, not one Democratic senator on the committee took the trouble to investigate when they saw blood in the water.

The good thing is, however, under President Joe Biden, the country is once again coming together . . . except for White people who enjoy watching Black people getting hanged, if you believe that crap.

Tweet

Joe Biden busted by whistleblowers: knew and may have been involved with Hunter's shenanigans

Whistleblower documents reveal that President Biden was aware of his son Hunter's shady business deals and may have even been directly involved in at least some of them, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He implied that the FBI has "voluminous evidence" regarding the possible criminality of those business ventures. If this can be proved, President Joseph Robinette Biden could be the first U.S. President indicted without a functioning brain.

Sen. Grassley sent a leter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss on Monday morning. The letter specifies new allegations by whistleblowers that the bureau possesses "significant, impactful and voluminous evidence with respect to potential criminal conduct by Hunter Biden and the president's brother, James Biden." 

David Weiss has oversight of the Hunter Biden investigation.

Grassley explained that the FBI has a series of documents related to information on Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. The president's brain addled son, Hunter, sat on the board of that company. Hunter's major qualification for that position is his ability to successfully snort an entire eight ball from the belly button of a prostitute.

"The documents in the FBI’s possession include specific details with respect to conversations by non-government individuals relevant to potential criminal conduct by Hunter Biden," Grassley wrote.

"These documents also indicate that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden’s business arrangements and may have been involved in some of them," the Iowa Senator said. He added it is "unclear whether the FBI followed normal investigative procedure to determine the truth and accuracy of the information or shut down investigative activity based on improper disinformation claims in advance of the 2020 election."

"It is also unclear whether U.S. Attorney Weiss has performed his own due diligence on these and related allegations," Grassley wrote.

Senators Grassley and Ron Johnson (R-WI) led an investigation into Hunter Biden  in 2019 and found that Obama administration officials "knew" that Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma was "problematic" and that it interfered "in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine."

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Critical Race Theory, ignorance, The New York Times, and bovine flatulence. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

But you know that nothing is going to happen to the Biden circus clowns. They are all judgment-proof because the laws don't work the same for them and us. I could go on and discuss how the Bidens were outed by Tony Bobulinski on Tucker Carlson's show "Tucker Carlson Tonight," but that won't matter. They will most probably get away with it like they've been getting away with it for years. 

"Rules for thee, not so much for me."

Tweet

Only 23 violations of security protocols found by Dept. of State in Clinton emails

How many security-breached emails does it take to indict a Clinton for violating the Espionage Act? The answer must be 24 because 23 hasn't been enough, unless things change now that her protector James Comey is gone.

The State Department revealed Monday that no less than 15 people mishandled former Secretary Clinton's emails with a total of 23 different violations. Lordy, thank goodness it wasn't 24.

The revelation came in a letter written to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley.

The letter states that 15 people received write-ups for breaking state department rules, The Washington Times reported, and if this happened anywhere in the Middle East, heads would roll.

State Department assistant secretary, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs wrote in the letter: “To this point, the Department has assessed culpability to 15 individuals, some of whom were culpable in multiple security incidents.”

“DS has issued 23 violations and 7 infractions incidents. … This number will likely change as the review progresses,” she added. “The department considers and violation of security policies to be a serious matter.”

But not serious enough for an indictment of Hillary Clinton, who will never become the first female President of the United States of America.

Grassley is currently overseeing the review and responded Tuesday morning to the State Department’s findings via Twitter:

Glad state dept responded 2 my inquiry & disclosed 23 violations + 7 infractions from 15ppl mishandling classified info in Clinton email review I’ve been doing oversight on this since 2015 Classified info must b handled by the book & violators shld b held accountable

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) June 18, 2019

President Trump acknowledged the findings were “really big.” But he didn't move to lock her up, referring to Hillary Clinton, who thus far has avoided incarceration for her use of a private, unprotected and totally illegal email server, which is uncontroversial and should have landed her in prison.

President Trump tweeted:

Wow! The State Department said it has identified 30 Security Incidents involving current or former employees and their handling of Crooked Hillary Clinton’s Emails. @FoxNews This is really big. Never admitted before. Highly Classified Material. Will the Dems investigate this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2019

The State Department said that its investigation should end in early September and acknowledged how time-consuming the probe has been.

Mary Elizabeth Taylor wrote, “Given the volume of emails provided to the Department from former Secretary Clinton’s private email server, the Department’s process has been necessarily more complicated and complex requiring a significant dedication of time and resources.”

She said that disciplinary actions were pending and that “all valid security incidents are reviewed by DS and taken into account.”

While the letter did not mention any specific names, the State Department promised an additional update once the investigation is complete.

We shall see what happens, but don't hold your breath over Hillary going to the crowbar hotel anytime soon.

Please consider following Brain Flushings and also visit the ads on the pages. Follow me on Parler.com, my handle is @Heyrobo, or on Twitter--my handle there is: @RobHoey
Thanks

Tweet

Deadbeat Avenatti evicted from Calif. offices over unpaid $2l3G rent

The lawfirm of Eagan Avenatti skipped paying four months rent for its California offices totaling $213,000. They have been ordered to be evicted after the judge dismissed Michael Avenatti's attempt to block the eviction.

Michael Avenatti is a Democratic hopeful for the 2020 presidential election. He is also the attorney for pornography performer, Stormy Daniels [aka: Stephanie Clifford], and the lawyer for Julie Swetnick, whose testimony against Justice Kavanaugh was proven to be false  for which Avenatti must testify after Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley accused the porn lawyer of conspiring to provide false statement to Congress.

He also owes over $1 million of unpaid taxes on companies he once owned.

He also owes owes $4.85 million in a dispute with a former colleague.

Avenatti was also arrested this week on a felony domestic violence charge and released on $50,000 bond. His defense originally was that "she hit me first." Now he's denying he was involved in the physical assault on a woman who claims he hit her.

But let's get back to Avenatti's current problem so that he can get his life back and become the Democratic front-runner in 2020.

His firm was ordered to vacate a Newport Beach office building after the court asserted its previous ruling that ordered the vacate.

The landlord of the building in question, Irvine Co, won the case in October and ordered Avenatti's firm to vacate the premises by November 1st.

But true to form, he did not vacate but instead symbolically flipped off the law and did nothing, in true Democratic fashion.

Sure, he requested a reprieve, which put back the eviction until this Friday's hearing, and he argued on behalf of Avenatti & ASSociates, another firm he owns, that he had an "oral rental agreement with the landlord," a claim the landlord denied. [You can see what a great lawyer Avenatti is, thinking that an "oral agreement" would sit well with the court. He must have been thinking the court was like Stormy Daniels, if you know what I mean.]

True to form, as usual, Avenatti was a no-show at both hearings.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss reportedly asked the attorney for the landlord if he heard from Avenatti, to which he said that he spoke with him on Tuesday but haven't heard again.

"There were other events that transpired so I haven't heard from him since then," lawyer Mark Kompa said, according to the Times.

Avenatti told the Times that the conviction is a "non-event" because they "was already in the process of moving." [As opposed to the "process of paying what they owed in back rent."]

So if Avenatti can beat the charge of felony domestic violence [the victim has clear physical injuries, which is what makes it an alleged felony], pay back all the money he owes, and beats the rap put forth by Chuck Grassley and the DOJ, he will make a superior Democratic candidate to go up against President Trump.

Can you imagine what that would be like?

His campaign slogan: "She Hit Me First!"

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Sen. Judiciary Committee's evidence found against allegations vs Kavanaugh

The Senate Judiciary Committee detailed evidence that prompted them to refer the accuser of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Julie Swetnick and her lawyer Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for review regarding "potential violations of Senate rules, potential witness tampering, and potential false statements made to the Committee in violation of federal law."

On November 2nd, the committee released a summary of its findings which states that after an exhaustive review of more than 40 interviews and 25 written statements from potential witnesses, it did not find "any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations" against Justice Kavanaugh.

However, it did find that some of Kavanaugh's accusers potentially broke federal law. One accuser was Judy Munro-Leighton, who later confessed to having fabricated allegations against Kavanaugh for what she said was an attempt to "get attention."

She will indeed.

"As explained below, I am writing to refer Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for materially false statements she made to the Committee during the course of the Committee's investigation," committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley announced the day of the report. "Ms. Munro-Leighton confessed to Committee investigators that 91) she 'just wanted to get attention'; (2) 'it was a tactic; and (3) 'that was just a ploy.'"

Both Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick--the so-called "third accuser,"--whom several Democratic senator hacks called a "credible witness"--for review.

Avenatti has not as yet challenged Senator Grassley to a MMA fight.

After presenting summaries of the sworn statements of witnesses and evidence reviewed by the committee, the committee concluded that it "found no verifiable evidence to support Swetnick's allegations. In fact, the evidence appeared to support the position that "Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee's investigation."

"Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, § 1001, and § 1505 on October 25, 2018," the committee explained. "In addition, on October 26, 2018, the Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant."

Below is part of the committee's summary of the Swetnick allegations followed by the section presenting the evidence reviewed by the committee:

The Swetnick Allegations:

Committee investigators attempted to schedule an interview with Swetnick, but Avenatti refused. Swetnick, however, did participate in a televised interview with Kate Snow of MSNBC.55 In that interview, Swetnick made several statements that differed from her declaration. For example, although she maintained that she saw Justice Kavanaugh drink heavily and act aggressively toward women, she did not say that she actually saw him spike the punch or wait in a line to take part in gang rapes at the parties, as she asserted to the Committee via her declaration. Despite the fact her signed statement claimed it was based “on personal information,” when challenged by CNN about the inconsistencies, Avenatti later conceded: “One of her friends informed her of what she just put in the declaration or what was attested to in the declaration.”56

Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh regarding the allegations on two occasions—first, after Avenatti posted his September 23 tweet, and second, after Avenatti revealed Swetnick’s identity. Justice Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegations during both calls, and stated that he does not even know Swetnick. The Committee also conducted interviews with 11 individuals who knew Justice Kavanaugh or Julie Swetnick during the timeframe of the alleged gang rapes. The Committee also obtained a letter from 64 men and women who knew Justice Kavanaugh well in high school. None of the signers knew Swetnick, and none witnessed any behavior that even approached the conduct described in Swetnick’s declaration.

As Mr. Avenatti refused to provide additional information or witnesses, or make Ms. Swetnick available for an interview, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims. Committee investigators searched for information about Swetnick to assess her credibility. Committee investigators examined public sources for information on Swetnick’s background and readily determined that she has a lengthy history of litigation, including as a plaintiff in a sexual-harassment suit in which she was represented by Debra Katz’s firm, the same Debra Katz who represented Dr. Ford.57 Committee investigators learned that Swetnick was sued for defamation for making apparent false statements and retaliatory allegations against an Oregon company. The company also alleged she engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct at work. Committee investigators also received additional information from another individual, [REDACTED], who had frequent contact with Swetnick at local bars in the D.C. area. These men separately and independently described Swetnick as not credible and stated that she had never mentioned the name “Brett Kavanaugh” or any of the alleged sexual misconduct described in her affidavit. Another man, [REDACTED], said Swetnick never mentioned to him being raped or the name Brett Kavanaugh. Some witnesses described her as “opportunistic” and Committee investigators determined that Swetnick was in significant debt. Her ex-boyfriend also sought a restraining order against her after she threatened to kill him and his unborn child.

In its interviews sections, which contains several redacted names, the committee notes that witnesses described her as a "gold digger," "the least credible person you can ever imagine," "beyond crazy," a "serial manipulator," and a constant "problem" for her parents.

Evidence Reviewed Related to Swetnick’s Allegations:

• Declaration of Julie Swetnick (dated Sept. 25): Swetnick alleged that she attended house parties with Justice Kavanaugh and Mark Judge during 1981 to 1983. She stated that the two men spiked the punch at high school parties with alcohol or drugs in order to take advantage of women. She also asserted that Judge and Justice Kavanaugh lined up to take part in the gang rape of inebriated women.58

• Declaration of Mark Judge (dated Sept. 28): Judge categorically denied Swetnick’s allegations and stated that he does not know her. He said that he did not spike punch to get anyone drunk, nor did he witness Justice Kavanaugh engaging in that conduct. He also said that he never engaged in the gang rape of any woman.59

• Declaration of Anonymous Witness (dated Oct. 2): Michael Avenatti sent the Committee a redacted declaration from an unidentified witness who claimed to know Mark Judge and Justice Kavanaugh. The witness asserted that he or she attended house parties with Judge and Justice Kavanaugh and observed Justice Kavanaugh spike punch, drink excessively, and become sexually aggressive with women.60

• Letter from Michael Fegan (dated Oct. 1): Fegan was Justice Kavanaugh’s classmate at Georgetown Prep. He stated that he and Justice Kavanaugh did not know any girls from Swetnick’s high school, and that the parties they attended never had punch drinks, hard liquor, or drugs. He said that he would have reported any sexual misconduct to police.61

• Letter from High School Friends of Justice Kavanaugh (dated Sept. 26): Sixty-four men and women who knew Justice Kavanaugh in high school wrote to the Committee to say that none of them ever recalled meeting Swetnick. They asserted that they never witnessed Justice Kavanaugh engage in any of the conduct alleged by Swetnick, and they described him as “a man of honor, integrity, and compassion.”62

• Text messages between Dennis Ketterer and [REDACTED] (dated Sept. 27): A Facebook Messenger conversation provided to Committee investigators by Ketterer showed a conversation he had with a friend where he was notified of the existence of Twitter messages that mentioned an individual who knew Julie Swetnick and had a negative opinion of her. One of those messages was from an individual Committee investigators later interviewed, and that message mentioned that Swetnick was known to have suffered from mental problems.63

· MSNBC Interview (Oct. 2): Swetnick took part in a televised interview on MSNBC. During the interview, she walked back several of the claims in her declaration. Instead of saying she saw Justice Kavanaugh spike the punch, she said she saw him “near” the punch bowl at the house parties. She also refused to go so far as to accuse of him taking part in gang rape. She instead said that she saw him huddle with other boys outside closed rooms, but she admitted that she did not know what occurred inside.64

· NBC News article (Oct. 25): Mr. Avenatti submitted an anonymous declaration on October 2, 2018, purporting to corroborate allegations raised by Julie Swetnick. However, according to this news report, the declarant denied making the key allegations, saying that Avenatti “twisted [her] words.”65 The article thus suggests that Mr. Avenatti likely committed a fraud with a second sworn declaration.

· Declaration of Dennis Ketterer (dated Oct. 2) Ketterer stated that he and Swetnick met at a bar in 1993 and maintained a physical relationship. He said that Swetnick never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or rape and that she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh “in any capacity.” According to Ketterer, Swetnick’s father warned him that Swetnick had “psychological and other problems.” Ketterer also noted that Swetnick said she enjoyed having group sex with more than one man at a time and that her first experience was in high school.66

· Declaration of Richard Vinneccy (dated Oct. 4) Vinneccy stated that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Swetnick for seven years. While they were dating, she never mentioned being raped or attending any parties where she witnessed sordid sexual activities. Vinneccy characterized Swetnick as financially unstable and said she “always wanted to be the center of attention and exaggerated everything in her life.” Vinneccy asserted that Swetnick stalked him for almost two months after their breakup and that she threatened to kill him and his unborn child, accuse him of rape, or have him deported. He informed the Committee that although he sought a restraining order against Swetnick, he ultimately decided not to pursue it when he learned he would have to confront Swetnick in court.67

So there you have it. Now we have to wait and see what happens next. Will the "Three Stooges" face prison or will Avenatti run against Trump in 2020?

What is very clear is that the three people in this review didn't care one iota for the fact that they would be ruining a man's reputation, his career and his life for their own gains. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any of them and I hope justice will be served.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Senate panel's FBI report finds 'no evidence' to support Kavanaugh accusers' claims

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is in the clear. The accusations made by multiple women of sexual misconduct found zero witnesses that could provide evidence to back their claims, a letter to Senate Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said Friday.

According to the report released by Grassley, the FBI interviewed more than 40 people, social media and news reports. Information provided by Kavanaugh and his accusers was also reviewed.

"Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh," the report states.

Among those questioned were Mark Judge, PJ Smyth, and Leland Keyser. These individuals were claimed by accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be in the house when Kavanaugh allegedly threw her on the bed and sexually assaulted sometime in the 1980s.

Last month, Grassley requested an investigation be performed by the FBI into accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney, the execrable Michael Avenatti, known as the porn star lawyer for representing Stormy Daniels in her allegations against President Trump. Swetnick's credibility was questioned after an ex-boyfriend revealed to Fox News that "she exaggerated everything' and even threatened to kill his unborn child after he married someone else.

The investigation could not find evidence to support either Swetnick's or Ford's claims. In fact, Swetnick made several contradictory statements about her claims during TV interviews and refused to speak with committee investigators, the letter stated.

"Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruck the Committee's investigation," Grassley said.

Grassley also requested an investigation into Judy Munro-Leighton, who anonymously claimed Kavanaugh struck her and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Munro-Leighton contacted the committee last month claiming she wrote an anonymous letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, but Grassley said she later recanted authorship of the letter and admitted to not knowing Kavanaugh when questioned by the committee.

"She later admitted that she was not the author of it and merely used it as a "ploy" to "get attention" and had never met Justice Kavanaugh," the letter stated.

There was no evidence of any wrongdoing on Kavanaugh's part, but given the chance, the Democrats would try to impeach him anyway because they don't want a conservative justice screwing up their plans for a socialist nation.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Grassley's Office: Kavanaugh accuser in trouble for her false statements

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred a Justice Kavanaugh accuser, who claimed he raped her "several times" in a car, to the Department of Justice for "materially false statements" and "obstruction."

Judy Munro-Leighton, in a "Jane Doe" letter to Sen. Kamala Harris, "alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her 'several times each' in the backseat of a car."

But after her claim was investigated, inconsistencies in her story came to the surface.

Grassley's office wrote:

"Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky."

Grassley's office added in a Friday referral to the DOJ:

"Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by . . . Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter.

"When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the 'Jane Doe' from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: 'No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee . . . I saw it online. It was news.

"In short, during the Committee's time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a 'ploy' and a 'tactic,' She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation."

Last week, Sen. Grassley referred scumcrumpet attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick for criminal investigation regarding a potential "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation. Swetnick accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct and had zero evidence to support her claim.

Avenatti is a possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who is most known for his work with pornography performer Stormy Daniels.

Daniels claims to have had a consensual sexual tête-à-tête [aka: schtupping] with President Trump some years before his election.

Avenatti represented Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh during the confirmation proceedings of being involved in, or present at "gang" and "train" rapes at high school parties in the 1980s when she was in college and attended about ten parties before deciding it might be a bad idea to get raped.

So she got on her unicorn and fled.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Sleazy Avenatti hit with 2nd criminal probe over Kavanaugh

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who gained notoriety representing porn performer Storm Daniels in a case against President Trump, is in hot water after his client said that he "twisted" her words about now Justice Kavanaugh.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred Avenatti to the Department of Justice for a second criminal investigation amid reports the woman he represented recanted her allegations against Justice Kavanaugh even before Avenatti submitted her sworn declaration.

Grassley's referral follows one already issued on Thursday alleging the crap weasel Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick engaged in a "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress regarding Kavanaugh's alleged sexual misconduct--after Swetnick stepped away from some of the allegations.

This latest referral is about the second sworn declaration Avenatti submitted to the committee that supposedly backed up Swetnick's claims.

Grassley cited an NBC News report that revealed almost three weeks after Kavanaugh's confirmation that a second, unidentified accuser walked back her allegations even before Avenatti could post her statement on social media, saying the shyster lawyer "twisted" her words. Supposedly, she saw Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at the alleged parties.

But prior to the release of the statement, she told NBC News on September 30th, "I didn't ever think it was Brett" who spike the drinks and denied ever seeing Kavanaugh acting inappropriately towards women.

After she read her statement posted by Avenatti, she told the media that "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch. ...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

"I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence," she added. "Male or female." She also said that she did not "like that [Avenatti] twisted my words."

The referral letter by Grassley to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray said that the woman's sworn testimony submitted to the committee Oct. 2 "appears to be an outright fraud."

"In light of this new information, I am now referring Mr. Avenatti for investigation of additional potential violations of those same laws, stemming from a second declaration he submitted to the Committee that also appears to contain materially false statements," Grassley added.

Avenatti responded to the referral by going on a Twitter attack: "How ignorant is Grassley? He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen--it is all for show. And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS. This is what happens when you never attend law school," the arrogant scum crumpet wrote.

Avenatti is an embarrassment to his profession.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Trump laughs off Harris and Feinstein and will nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

"Elections have consequences" --Barack Hussein Obama

President Trump, not Hillary Clinton, is moving ahead to fill three vacancies on the super duper liberal  9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is basically laughing off the Democrats' resistance to nominate conservative judges.

In the past, presidents worked with senators from judicial nominees' home state in the process of selecting their judicial picks. Now it's California who needs judgeships on the bench but President Trump is not asking for either comrades Feinstein or Harris for a "blue slip" or opinion of whom they would like to see on the bench.

The White House announced Wednesday that President Trump has nominated Patrick "Boom-Boom" Bumatay and Kenneth Kiyul Lee. Both are from California and both are reportedly members of the Federalist Society, a conservative group, to the influential circuit.

You may recall how this court has been like a burr on a bicycle seat for Trump, representing nine Western states. They ruled against the travel ban and limits on funding to "sanctuary cities." The GOP has branded these libtards the "Nutty 9th," partly due to their many rulings being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to The Sacramento Bee,  White House officials had been negotiating with Feinstein and Harris regarding the court appointments earlier in the year, but the dialogue collapsed over the summer.

Perhaps if the two weren't such dick-weeds over the Brett Kavanaugh hearings for Supreme Court confirmation, Trump would have been softer and kinder. But hey, who am I kidding?

The president and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an alleged claim of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until the hearing was over. And both Feinstein and Harris voted against the Kavanaugh confirmation, so why would Trump ask for their opinion about his nomination?

Allegiances and votes have consequences too.

Both California senators were angry about the news of the latest appointments. Feinstein stated that she had been prepared to accept a reported White House proposal of three other judges. She opposed Collins and Lee because, she claims, Lee failed to disclose his "controversial writings" on voting rights and affirmative action.

Perhaps he only wants actual American citizens be allowed to vote. How terrible.

"I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial [read: conservative] candidates from an initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," she wrote in a statement.

Boo hoo.

"Instead of working with our office to identify consensus nominees for the 9th Circuit, the White House continues to try to pack the courts with partisan judges who will blindly support the president's agenda, instead of acting as an independent check on this administration," Harris mouthpiece Lily Adams told The Sacramento Bee.

Harris is wrong. If a judge is conservative and interprets the law that way, then yes, it goes along with the way Trump may be acting in his policies right now. But it doesn't make them shills for Trump. It simply means their overall philosophy is similar.

On the other hand, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, when it was stuffed with liberals, did exactly what Harris is claiming Trump's nominees would do: they voted against Trump every chance they got and then the Supreme Court usually overturned their clearly partisan decisions.

It was rule by judiciary until checked by SCOTUS.

Even if all of Trump's nominees were to get confirmed, it wouldn't result in a Republican majority.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the approval of Idaho attorney Ryan Nelson brings the Republican appointees to 10. If Trump fills the current openings, it would bring it to 13 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

But the Democrats aren't happy unless all of the 9th Circuit was filled with lefties.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Thursday that he wanted the Senate to stay in session until all of the 49 now pending judicial appointments are confirmed. 

"Lots of work to do," Grassley tweeted. "Senate [should] stay in session til all 49 judges are CONFIRMED/ work comes [before] campaigning."

Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

FBI finds for Kavanaugh, and that he shares family lineage to Jesus

Special agent Freddy D. Freilowdher

In an incredibly focused and intense FBI investigation into the allegations made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh regarding sexual misconduct, "not a shred of evidence or corroboration was found to assert the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford's testimony," FBI agent Freddy D. Freilowdher told Brain Flushings' Vinny Boombots.

"In fact, there is more evidence uncovered that shows Ford's testimony was full of holes, among other things," Freilowdher added. "What was most interesting, however, is the discovery by the agency that Mr. Kavanaugh is a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. We were able to make the trace using the Mormon database and we can say that with 87 percent certainty."

In the aftermath of the FBI's findings, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, uncle to Amy Schumer of bad sexual innuendo fame, was livid.

"It's obvious," Schumer began, "that the FBI leans hard to the right with their law and order crap, and no investigation by them is going to prove the truth--that poor, helpless Doctor Christine Ford was brutally jumped upon by Brett Kavanaugh in 1982 or thereabouts, in someone's home somewhere, and that he got visibly angry when we called him on it.

"Insofar as him being related to Jesus, heck, that's not the point. Probably lots of people are related to Jesus--not me, I'm Jewish, but hey, wasn't Jesus Jewish too? Maybe I'm even related to Jesus. Anyhow, I say we get our own non-partisan investigators and get to the truth no matter how long it takes."

McConnell basically flipped him off at that point.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.


Tweet

McConnell files cloture to end debate on Kavanaugh's nomination

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed for cloture late Wednesday night to end debate on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. This sets up a key procedural vote for Friday to end the hearing and proceed with a confirmation vote on Saturday.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, it is anticipated that Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire subscriber "Liberal Tears Mugs" will be in high demand.

The FBI's report on Kavanaugh will remain locked in a safe as 100 Senators and about 9 staff will be the only people to have access to the one copy until it is leaked to the media.

On Capitol Hill, tensions are running higher than Michael Moore's restaurant tab as senators wait with baited breath for the background investigation.

Sources previously told Fox News that senators along with some aides will be able to begin looking at the document Thursday morning and it will be Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who will get first dibs.

Earlier Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied a request made by Minority Leader Chuck "Fiery Nostrils" Schumer to approve a briefing by FBI agents on the bureau's background investigation (BI).

In a letter to Schumer, McConnell said a briefing "would be unprecedented and irregular" and said that the maneuver would merely be a stalling tactic, causing liquid to amass above Schumer's upper lip.

"And, in all candor, I believe it would be used to further delay this nomination--a goal about which you and your Democratic colleagues have been abundantly clear and single-minded in pursuing," McConnell wrote.

Tough luck Chuck.

Republicans are understandably angry over the stalling by Democrats and the acquiescing of the GOP to their demands. If the Republican Party blows it, it may be the beginning of the end for them and they know it.

Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Ex's letter may cause name change to Christine Blasey Fraud

The veracity of Christine Blasey Ford has come into question after an ex-boyfriend reportedly wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that contradicted her testimony last Thursday about her knowledge and experience with polygraphs. It caused Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to raise some doubts about her truthfulness.

The man [whose name was redacted] was in a relationship with Blasey Ford from 1992 to 1998. The letter in question was obtained by Fox News and it stated that he once saw Ford help assuage the anxiety of a friend preparing to take a polygraph by "explaining in detail what to expect" and how they work.

At the Brett Kavanaugh hearing last Thursday, Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked Ford if she had ever spoken to anyone other than her lawyers about "how to take a polygraph." Ford's reply: "Never."

The anonymous man also said that throughout the endurance of their relationship with Ford, she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or her experience as a sexual assault victim.

Grassley asked Ford's lawyers in a letter for the results of her polygraph saying the ex-boyfriend's claim "raises specific concerns about the reliability of [Ford's] polygraph examination-results."

Democrats are showing themselves to be upset that poor little Dr. Ford may not be as honest as she tries to appear. In spite of all the sexual misconduct events that have been alleged to have taken place with members of their party [Cory Booker being one of the members alleged to have been abusive to a former female partner], they have displayed indignation with the very idea of not believing Ford's story.

After being totally open to hearing it, and being respectful to Ford, the left portrays the situation as "guilty until proved innocent."


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet