Kirsten Gillibrand blasts due process over Biden allegations

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is like a weather vane. Whichever the wind blows, that's the direction she takes. She pretends to be a feminist but all she ends up showing us is that she's a hypocrite. The Washington Examiner has an entire article from last year dedicated to her flip-flopping.

Gillibrand's Native American name is "Shines Through Both Ears."

In fact, ever since the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, the #BelieveAllWomen movement has become a bad joke, and Democrats who are now making excuses for Biden after having gone tooth and nail against Brett Kavanaugh's SCOTUS appointment, are being unmasked as the fools that they are.

Recently, in a radio interview with Evan Dawson, host of the show "Connections," Gillibrand was questioned about the differences between Kavanaugh's allegations and Biden's. In order to make a pro-Biden case, she lied about the facts in Kavanaugh's case.

The senator falsely asserted: 

“There were multiple allegations against Brett Kavanaugh in various circumstances. Not only Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegations but several from his college days. Um, there was a similarity in the multiple allegations against him, um, and he had a terrible record on supporting women and I opposed him based on his actual record and I did not believe his statements and so I think they’re very different. Also, Brett Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court Justice nominee for a lifetime appointment and my responsibility was to vote up or down and I voted against him on the merits of him not being qualified for that job.”

First of all, the "multiple allegations" against Kavanaugh were all proved to be highly doubtful. Even those of Blasey-Ford were disproved by her best friend and others "witnesses" she tried to get to corroborate her story. Her friend could not even remember meeting Kavanaugh, so Blasey-Ford and the media went after her friend accusing her of having mental illness.

Even her so-called facts were lacking veracity. She couldn't remember the year the alleged assault happened in spite of her being in high school at the time, which should have easily narrowed it down, alternating the claim that it occurred in the mid 80s to the early 80s.

The similarities between the allegations made against Kavanaugh versus those made against Biden are as comparable as night and goldfish, and Gillibrand should know this as she is supposed to be a lawyer.

One allegation alleged Kavanaugh pushed a woman on a bed and groped her. Another allegation made by another woman said he dropped his pants and exposed his penis to her. Yet another claim said his penis was put into another woman’s hand by a third party. Yet another false accusation said he organized teenage gang-rape parties. And finally, a false accusation said he raped someone in a van.

All proven to be lies or false memories [to be nice about it].

Gillibrand simply doesn't like Kavanaugh's conservative judgments, and let's face it, everything she says, including "pass the peas" is political. As long as Biden is on the left side of issues, he's okay and deserves to be president as far as the hypocrites on the left are concerned.

Biden may have been accused, but he’s passed policies that Gillibrand likes, so even if he might be guilty, he can’t possibly be guilty in Gillibrand's way of thinking. This is the case in spite of the fact that there’s actual evidence Biden met his accuser while there is absolutely no evidence Kavanaugh had ever met Ford.

Gillibrand then falsely claimed in the interview that she voted against Kavanaugh because she didn’t think he was qualified for the job, but her words tell a different story.

This is what she said during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing:

“Do we value women in this country? Do we listen to women when they tell us about sexual trauma? Do we listen to their stories about how their lives have been forever scarred? Do we take their claims seriously? Or do we just disbelieve them as a matter of course?”

But what she meant only intended to apply to conservatives and other non-leftists.

“She has come forward, she has spoken, and they have done an investigation in several outlets. Those investigations, Vice President Biden has called for himself,” Gillibrand said. “Vice President Biden has vehemently denied these allegations and I support Vice President Biden.”

So much for the rule of law in Tara Reade's case. For Gillibrand, politics is more important than process, more important than justice and truth.

Gillibrand was also asked about policies from the Department of Education that would provide college students with basic due process protections in cases of alleged sexual misconduct.

The senator without a soul naturally trashed the policies, instantly going back to favoring allegations over evidence. Had her thinking been applied to Biden, he would be guilty based on accusation. Gillibrand time and again, proves herself to be a wavering idiot.

“Well, I think Betsy DeVos has been a disastrous Secretary of Education and she has intended since the minute she had that position to roll back protections for students on campus and to roll back Title IX protections."

Title IX only protects the accuser to the point of barring the accused from confronting the accuser and having the right to defend himself. Accused students could never get “fair justice or a fair review” when colleges dismissed exculpatory evidence and allowed accusers to avoid having to produce evidence of their claims. The Department of Education under Title IX was running the show like a gulag.

Gillibrand continued to bloviate: "She has undermined the ability for anyone to get fair justice or a fair review on any college campus and I think it’s a big mistake. Um, so I look forward to when Betsy DeVos is no longer our Ed. Secretary,” Gillibrand said, discounting the fact that the accused is also a person who deserves to be heard.

What does this senator from New York know about fair justice? She thinks justice belongs to people who can further her political career.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.




Tweet

Kevin Spacey wants to skip court next month

BOSTON -- Just like Hillary Clinton wants to skip campaigning and simply become president, Kevin Spacey wants to skip court next month, and just be left alone.

Attorneys for Kevin Spacey are asking a judge to allow the homosexual actor to skip his arraignment on sexual assault charges in a Massachusetts courthouse next month.

The Boston Globe reports that Spacey’s attorneys have filed a motion asking to excuse his presence at a January 7th hearing in Nantucket District Court. The reason was not given but it's obvious he has something more important to deal with.

Prosecutors asked the judge to deny the motion. The judge did not immediately rule.

Cape and Islands Assistant District Attorney Michael Giardino wrote that Spacey, a 59-year-old actor and winner of the self-aggrandizing Oscar award, is charged with a felony indecent assault and battery.

Prosecutors alleged that he groped an 18-year-old man in a Nantucket restaurant in 2016.

Spacey’s attorneys have not spoken publicly about the case but in a court hearing questioned the evidence.

He certainly deserves due process, just like Brett Kavanaugh, and I do hope he finds true love some day.

I hope you have a great New Years, my fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do.




Tweet

Michael 'Believe All Women' Avenatti

Michael '"Believe All Women" Avenatti, the "lawyer" suing President Trump and his former "lawyer" Michael Cohen on behalf of porn performer Stormy Daniels, tried to get federal prosecutors to break precedent by filing criminal charges against Trump over related campaign finance law violations that have yet  to undergo due process, something Avenatti only believes in only when it comes to him.

The unsuccessful, Trump-hating lawyer tweeted:

“@realDonaldTrump should be indicted for committing the two felonies designed to get him elected. Now. No court has ever ruled that the POTUS cannot be indicted and there is nothing in the constitution that states as much.” 

Avenatti's call for an indictment came on the heels of prosecutors in the Southern District of New York filing court documents Friday in the government’s case against Michael Cohen, 52, implicating Trump in his former lawyer’s admitted campaign finance law violations.

In anticipation of a future sentencing hearing, prosecutors said in their filing that Cohen deserved a "substantial" prison term in connection with crimes that included paying two women during the 2016 presidential campaign to keep quiet about their alleged sexual relationships with Mr. Trump, identified in the documents as “Individual-1.”

Avenatti, 47, sued Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen over a similar nondisclosure agreement between Cohen and Daniels, 39, during the 2016 presidential race. Avenatti has considered a 2020 election run against Trump, but has since bowed out on the advice of his children. It is thought that this is how he makes most of his important decisions.

The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel concluded in 2000 that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

“It is time for the SCOTUS to decide the issue,” the follicle challenged Avenatti tweeted Saturday.

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.

Tweet

Outgoing Loser McCaskill gets it half right

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) lost her re-election shot in the midterm elections in November, and doesn't have the ability to understand, at least in part, as to why she lost.

She blames her loss on how her party tried to destroy Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life over bull crap accusations, not one of which was corroborated, on sexual assault.

She doesn't see her own role in the hearing as to why normal people were disgusted with the Democrats.


"I don't think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred," McCaskill told NPR host Rachel Martin last week.

The very fact that she didn't have the courage to vote against her party is why she lost her seat. There was no evidence but still she was ready to condemn a man to a ruined career.

"There were mistakes made by my party in terms of how that was handled. I don't think that communication [from Christine Ford] to the judiciary committee should have been kept private as long as it was. The FBI deals with a lot of confidential information, and that would have absolved [judiciary committee ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein] of the very real perception that this was an 11th-hour attempt to gut a guy."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) received the allegations from Ford on July 30, 2018 – nearly a month after Kavanaugh had been nominated and before his confirmation hearings. Feinstein didn't share the letter with fellow liberals and didn't bring it, or its contents up, during the confirmation hearings. It wasn’t until the letter was leaked to certain members of the press that Feinstein acknowledged its existence. 

It was a plan to "gut a guy," as McCaskill said, and still, she voted against his confirmation.

Kavanaugh's name was dragged through the mud over empty allegations that had no evidence to back them up. In fact, there is more evidence that points to the allegations being mistaken or flat out untrue.

But let us not forget that McCaskill paved the way for these types of accusations with her support of the Obama administration’s war on due process, something that all accused deserve. She is the freaking Queen of the "Believe Women" movement that insists due process is an impediment to justice.

It is truly excellent that she lost the election. She deserves to be put out to pasture in the field of politics. The American voters who refused to cast their trust in her have everything to be proud of because, by their vote, they support due process and our rule of law.

Now Missouri has Josh Hawley waiting to be seated in the U.S. Senate. I don't know much about him [and I plan to learn] but he has to be better than someone who has no regard for ethics, law and decency.

Hello fellow conservatives. Please click the "Follow" button in the margin to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, if you would visit the ads on this page it helps the economy grow and it does a world of good for me.

Tweet

Trump admin. to weigh expanding expedited deportation

The Trump administration is considering a new policy to give the Department of Homeland Security a lot more power to speed up deportations of certain illegal immigrants.

Under the proposal, the DHS would be empowered to seek the expedited removal of illegal immigrants apprehended anywhere in the country who can't prove they've lived her continuously for more than 90 days. Since 2004, the DHS could only bypass immigration courts for those who've been living here illegally for less than two weeks and were caught within 100 miles of the border.

If enacted, these new guidelines would be a major increase in the agency's authority to speed up deportations.

The proposed new policy wouldn't need congressional approval, according to two administration officials, who wished to remain anonymous in order to let us guess as to whether or not this should be considered 'fake news.'

One anonymous official said that the memo was circulated at the White House and the DHS is reviewing comments on the document from the Office of Management and Budget.

Joanne F. Talbot, a DHS spokesperson, said she hasn't seen the memo and describes it as a draft and emphasized that no final decisions have been made by DHS's John Kelly.

This proposal may give an entirely new meaning to the term: 'Adios.'

Illegal immigration rights advocates denounced the proposal saying it would strip illegal immigrants of due process rights that don't apply to them.


Tweet