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

Dem. Kamala Harris may lose her seat on Senate Judiciary Committee

The GOP is considering reducing the size of the 21-member Senate Judiciary Committee as they prepare for the next Congress.

If this should happen, Sen. Kamala "The Interrupter" Harris, (D-Calif.), a possible candidate for the 2020 presidential campaign, could be booted from the panel, according to a hopeful report.

This is due to the fact that she is a first-term senator and the most junior and obnoxious member. She would be the first to go, but whether or not she goes quietly remains to be seen.

Some butt-kissing Democrats are reportedly scrambling to find a way to keep Harris on the committee, the report said. The ideas include negotiating with Republicans -- who maintained control of the chamber after this month's midterm elections -- to keep the committee at 21 members, or convincing a more senior Democrat to step aside. If the Republicans agree, then they deserve what they get and just watch what happens in 2020 to the GOP.

Although she has been a U.S. senator for less than two years, Harris – a former state attorney general in California – drew attention during the summer for her questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She could not have been more infuriating as she would ask a question then not allow Kavanaugh to answer it.

Harris and Kavanaugh had a heated exchange over whether he discussed the Russia investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller with anyone at a law firm associated with President Trump’s personal lawyer. It was a trick question designed to make him look guilty, rather than a question in pursuit of the truth as to whether he perpetrated sexual misconduct when he was a teenager.

“I think you’re thinking of someone and you don’t want to tell us,” Harris said as if she was a mindreader.

In September, the Washington Post gave the annoying senator a rating of Four Pinocchios, because she selectively edited a video of Kavanaugh comments about abortion-inducing drugs, in a bid to argue that he was against birth control.

Harris told Senate Minority Leader Chuck "Nostril Caves" Schumer, (D-N.Y.), that she wants to keep her Judiciary spot, her spokeswoman Lily Adams told the Post. It keeps her in the spotlight when the committee goes on TV.

Her supporters say that Harris, 54 – by being half Jamaican-American and half Tamil Indian – helps Democrats underscore that the GOP side of the committee includes only white males.

“Not only would it be unconscionable to remove the only African-American woman from the committee, but Sen. Harris also is the most skilled questioner on the entire panel,” Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a group tries to get liberal judges appointed, told the Post.

She is not actually the most skilled, if she were, she wouldn't need to ask trick questions. She is the most obnoxious, sneering and sneaky person on the committee.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is said to be considering Sen.-elect Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., for a Judiciary seat, the Post reported. 

According to the Post, serious discussions about the makeup of the committee will begin sometime after Tuesday’s Senate run-off election in Mississippi.


Hello fellow conservatives. Please click the "Follow" button in the margin 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

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

Ford is incredibly uncredible--here's why

I believe Christine Blasey Ford knows that she's lying, as in not telling the truth about her allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago.

Ford doesn't remember exactly when and where, and the people she alleged who were supposedly at the pool party all deny being there and her close friend that was supposedly with her at the party said [under penalty of a felony] says she doesn't know Brett Kavanaugh.

She also said she doesn't travel by plane but that was untrue.

She also said that she was not told the committee would accommodate her in a place "of [your] convenience."

I believe Republican senators and the conservative media [such as Fox News] are claiming to believe that she, at least, believes her story while defending Kavanaugh, while actually believing she is lying. However, I suspect the reason they're saying they believe that she believes it is their fear of the MeToo movement.

So what else do we know about "Dr." Ford?

One thing we know is that prior to appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she deleted her social media.

BUT . . . more importantly, it appears that her Bio Page from Stanford WAS ALTERED just 10 days before the hearing according to Jim Hoft in the Gateway Pundit.

At the hearing, Ford identified herself as a "Research Psychologist" at the Stanford School of Medicine. But after searching the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, there were no results found for Christine Ford or even deviations of her name.

There are no state records showing Ford as a licensed psychologist, but her Stanford Bio Page describing her as a "Research Psychologist" that in 2015:

Was changed on September 28, 2018 to appear thus:

It looks like Ford's got a lot of 'splainin' to do. If not her, then her lawyer(s).

This is definitely a mark against her credibility. According to Gateway Pundit, Ford's Stanford bio page was REVISED SEVEN TIMES before she gave her testimony to the committee, and her original page where she gave her title as "Research Psychologist" has since been removed.

So why should I believe Ford, who has exactly zero corroborating data to support her claim, as well as her longstanding friend who refutes it, over Brett Kavanaugh who produced evidence to corroborate his statement that he did not engage in any  inappropriate activity Ford alleges?

They say in court that if you're caught lying in one instance, the jury can take it to mean that you're lying altogether.


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.


Tweet

Joyless Behar hates her white skin

Joy Behar said on Friday that the reason Senate Republicans want to push Kavanaugh's vote for confirmation to the Supreme Court without an FBI investigation is the GOP's way of retaining their "white power."

Behar, a co-host of the 'special needs education' TV programming known as "The View," made her racist, self-loathing statement [she is a Caucasian female] as a reaction to Thursdays Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh is accused of sexual misconduct by Christine Blasey Ford who cited people who she alleged witness the crime, that was said to have happened 36 years go, but all of those she mentioned have refuted her story while Kavanaugh was able to show corroborating evidence that he was never at the so-called party Ford mentions in the allegation.

"The people on the Republican side, it looks to me," Behar began, "do not want to investigate this any further. They just want to hold on to their power. They know that this country is getting darker. White Europeans are now 61 percent of the population . . . In 2045 it will be 49 percent."

[Gee, that never occurred to me. I don't count people by their skin color like liberals tend to do. I'm not even married to a white woman and I happen to be white.]

The low-information host was referencing stats from a 2014 study from the Brookings Institute.

"So it's almost like they're worried that, 'Oh white people are going to lose all their power.' So they don't care if she's lying or he's lying. They just want to hold onto their power."

What power? Aren't there laws to ensure that skin color is not a determining factor in outcome--except for liberal institutions that make a preference for people of color. Harvard University apparently favors blacks over others and have even made it more difficult for Asians to be accepted as they require a higher score than blacks.

And facts do not make me a white supremacist, because I am not and never have been. But I am sick and tired of liberals attacking "old white men." That's racist and ageist all rolled up into one form of racism.

There is a guarantee of opportunity in this country, not a guarantee of outcome. Not everyone in the adult world gets a trophy. It's the liberal way of thinking and it's immoral because it attacks the concept of hard work and various natural abilities.

Behar went on to claim that the U.S. would soon look like South Africa; an apartheid nation, "where ten percent of white people were running the country."

Ironically, the 115th Congress elected in 2016 is the most diverse in U.S. history.

The U.S. will never look like South Africa.

On Friday, President Trump ordered the FBI to conduct a limited "supplemental" background investigation into the unsubstantiated allegations made by Dr. Ford, after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to endorse Kavanaugh in a 11-10 party-line vote. The inquiry is not to last more than one week.

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.


Tweet

Long-time friend of Blasey Ford has a different take on the 'party'

Leland Ingham Keyser, a long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, reached out to the Senate Judiciary Committee Saturday.

Ford claims Kavanaugh pushed her onto a bed and pinned her when he was drunk at a pool party. When she tried to scream for help, he covered her mouth and attempted to undress her. This alleged incident took place in perhaps 1982, or maybe '81 or '83. Anyway, they were both in high school--he was maybe 17 and she was possibly 15 or so.

But the friend of Ford's has denied she was at the party where the alleged assault allegedly occurred.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to Leland Ingham Keyser.

Keyser's lawyer, Howard Walsh, responded to the committee late Saturday with a written statement:

"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

Keyser isn't just some woman who Blasey Ford knew in passing when they were in high school, they are lifelong friends, according to Walsh. Keyser is the third person to deny suggestions that they were at the alleged party. Mark Judge and Patrick J. Smyth have also issued statements denying Ford's recollection of the alleged party.

Smyth said in a statement: "Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friends, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women."

Ford is a California psychology professor. She has said she's willing to testify to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday but said she is afraid to fly to Washington, D.C. and must drive from California, which is why she asked for a delay until Thursday rather than the originally scheduled day on Monday. Ironically, she was not afraid to fly to Hawaii a few years ago to intern there.

The details of Ford's testifying are being negotiated with her attorneys.

One request was to have Kavanaugh go first as a witness, which is insane, since he has nothing to defend until he is told what is being alleged.

Another request is to not have Kavanaugh in the room when Ford testifies and that he must be denied the right to an attorney to represent him. Only Republican senators on the committee can represent him in order to solidify the Democratic base for the November midterm elections.

If he chooses to do so, Kavanaugh can use a kangaroo to represent him to keep in line with the judicial procedures Ford hopes to employ.

Kavanaugh has denied the accusation under oath. "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes. To her or to anyone," he said.

And after all this fuss, I believe he's innocent. Prove me wrong, Ford.


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.


Tweet