Sen. Feinstein Sends Letter to FBI Director Wray Requesting Written Directive of Kavanaugh Investigation
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Sen. Feinstein Sends Letter to FBI Director Wray Requesting Written Directive of Kavanaugh Investigation
Controversial Democrarat Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote the FBI Director on Sunday demanding a written directive outlining the Kavanaugh investigation.
Feinstein fired off the demands on Sunday.
Earlier today Senator Lindsey Graham told Maria Bartiromo he wants an investigation of the deplorable Democrat Party antics and obstruction during the Kavanaugh confirmation.
HERE is the COMPLETE LIST of Inconsistencies and Lies that Prove Christine Ford’s Accusations Against Judge Kavanaugh Belong in a Trash Heap
Dr. Christine Ford flew from California to the east coast this month to testify against conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Ford said she was afraid to fly but now we know she has flown all over the Pacific Ocean and the United States for work and vacation.
Christine Ford says she is a California psychologist but her name is not in the state database and Stanford scrubbed her bio page earlier this month.
The rest of her social media presence is still a mystery — meaning it is likely full of far left filth.
Christine Ford told Congress, the Washington Post and her far left activist lawyers she had memories of Kavanaugh when she put a second front door on her home in 2012 but photos of the property show the door was installed before 2011.
And there is also a record of business operating out of the same address which would explain a second door.
And her current and changing charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh continue to evolve by the day.
Christine Ford’s testimony to Congress was littered with lies and inconsistencies.
Of course, the liberal media once again is ignoring the truth.
John Nolte from Breitbart.com has listed the many facts that discredit Dr. Ford’s testimony and her credibility.
- She has aligned herself with the far-left.
- She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly.
- She said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post.
- Her polygraph is a farce.
- Her story has been carefully weaved into a Kafka-esque nightmare no man (even with detailed calendars) can ever escape from.
- Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend.
- Her team was so desperate to have The Woman Who Wants Anonymity to testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California — and then lied about it.
- Ford’s therapist’s notes from 2012 also refute here tale, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite. Ford originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. Now she says it was one rapist and one bystander when she was 15 in the early eighties.
- Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
- In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph test, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.”
- Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened. She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Note how she skips over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack (unless it did indeed happen in her late teens).
- To later confirm the event did in fact happen in 1982, Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?
- Ford also used Mark Judge’s Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline. She testified she saw him working there 6-8 weeks after the attack. She could not yet drive, so her mother drove her there, but for some bizarre reason Ford and her mother entered the Safeway using different doors. (And now mom can’t confirm this happened!)
- Five times during her testimony she mentioned Safeway to verify the date. How could she know such a thing unless it really happened? Well, in his memoir (which began circulating online among Kavanaugh critics in the week before Ford’s testimony) Judge helpfully reveals he was working at the “local supermarket” during the “summer before senior year.”
- In summation: On top of all four of her own witnesses refuting her allegations against Kavanaugh, so too do the notes taken by her own therapist. (Margot Cleveland’s tweet thread was indispensable for much of this — you will want to readit all.)
Dr. Ford’s allegations are not only not credible — they are ludicrous, a joke…
The liberal media and FOX News pundits believe this woman is “very credible.”
There is NOTHING credible about this woman, her story, or her testimony that left her dry-eyed and without need of a single tissue.
America is better than this.
On ABC’s This Week Sunday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham defended the emotional extremes of Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony last week.
According to Graham, Kavanaugh acted like “a man who was innocent.”
The South Carolinian said he was offended by criticism of the Supreme Court nominee’s composure:
“I’m offended by the fact that anybody would hold it against Brett Kavanaugh to be upset by the way he was treated. Words were put in his mouth that he didn’t say. He’s accused of being a gang rapist, a bumbling, stumbling drunk, a degenerate person…”
Graham told host George Stephanopoulos Kavanaugh is a victim of total assassination:
“My problem is with the people who did this to him, not how he responded. … I find it offensive that if somebody defends themselves against wholesale character assassination, trying to destroy him and his family. The temperament I saw was a man who was innocent, who was rightly offended by being destroyed for a political purpose.”
This isn’t Graham’s first scathing review of Kavanaugh’s treatment at the hands of Democrats. In a fiery exchange during the proceedings Thursday, he lambasted the judge’s tormentors:
“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that — not me. … This is the most unethical shame since I’ve been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy. Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it.”
On Capitol Hill, Lindsey summed up Kavanaugh’s confirmation process thusly:
“This isn’t a job interview. This is hell.”
Brig. Gen. (res.) Issachar “Yashka” Shadmi, who gave the order for the massacre in Kafr Qasem in 1956, died on Friday in Tel Aviv at age 96.
Shadmi served as the commander of a battalion in the Harel Brigade of the Palmach elite pre-state underground Jewish militia during the War of Independence and later served in other senior command positions in the Israel Defense Forces. His name, however, is best remembered for his involvement in the incident in which dozens of Arab citizens were murdered during the Sinai Campaign in 1956.
To really understand Israel and the Palestinians – subscribe to Haaretz
Shadmi was born in 1922 in the agricultural farm of Bitanya, above Lake Kinneret. He attended the Kadoorie Agricultural High School alongside Yitzhak Rabin, where he enlisted in the Haganah pre-state military underground, and served in the Palmach and Palyam, the Palmach’s naval branch.
During the War of Independence, he served as the commander of the 5th Battalion in the Harel Brigade and participated in the Nahshon campaign to break through the Arab blockade on the main road to Jerusalem. Later, Shadmi was appointed the commander of the 7th Battalion of the Negev Brigade and took part in Operation Horev in the Sinai. Later in his military career, he commanded the officers’ training school, the Golani Brigade and was the chief of Ground Forces and Paratroopers.
On October 29, 1956, the first day of the Sinai Campaign, Border Police officers fired and killed around 50 residents of the town of Kafr Qasem in central Israel, close to the 1949 armistice line with Jordan (the Green Line), who were returning home from work after a curfew they had not been informed of was imposed. At the time, Shadmi was the commander of the brigade responsible for the area, and his troops were preparing for an escalation along the border with Jordan because of the fighting in the Sinai.
On the day of the incident, Shadmi ordered the curfew to start earlier in his area, but the residents who were at the time at work in Petah Tikva did not know of the change. They were shot upon their return home by the Border Police, who were under the command of Shadmi’s brigade.
At the military trial held after the massacre, the commander of the Border Police battalion, Maj. Shmuel Malinki, said that Shadmi ordered him to enforce the curfew using live fire. Malinki also said that in response to his question: “What will be the fate of the civilians who return to the village after the curfew [takes effect],” Shadmi said: “Allah Yerhamu” – an Arabic phrase asking God to have mercy on the souls of the dead. Malinki said he concluded from Shadmi’s response that it was allowed to shoot to kill those who violated the curfew.
Shadmi denied Malinki’s version and called it a lie. Shadmi was put on trial for murder, but was acquitted. The judges wrote that the charges were baseless and that the killings did not stem directly from the orders he gave. In the end, Shadmi was convicted of the minor violation of exceeding his authority, for pushing up the curfew without the approval of the military governor. The judges said he did so “in good faith,” and fined him a symbolic amount of 10 prutot, or a hundredth of an Israeli pound. He also received a reprimand in his army personnel file for not taking all the necessary steps to prevent “the serious incident.”
When he left the courtroom, he raised his hand high – holding a 10 prutot coin. The scene was captured by press photographers and was used to symbolize the criticism against Shadmi and the entire trial. At an earlier and separate trial, the soldiers who had carried out the shooting were sentenced to prison, but were released after a short period having received a presidential pardon.
The expression “a blatantly illegal order,” also known as “superior orders,” originated during the legal process. The instruction to Israel Defense Forces soldiers that they are obliged to refuse an order “that has a black flag flying over it” has become part of the Kafr Qasem legacy.
“During the Kafr Qasem affair, I stepped on a mine,” Shadmi wrote in his memoirs. “And like all disabled IDF veterans heroically fighting for their rehabilitation and return to life and activity, so I took upon myself the challenge of not breaking, and continuing to serve in the professional army, despite the stigma the press and parts of the public attached to me,” he wrote.
In the past few weeks, the nation has gone through some major, societal chaos.
The country’s attention has been transfixed on discussions of sexual abuse, innocence, trauma, compassion, and guilt. Two individuals, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, have been thrust into the spotlight. They’ve both experienced their share of ridicule, harassment, and threats. They’ve both been asked painful questions and we, as Americans, have reached our own conclusions.
Personally, I find Dr. Ford to be a traumatized individual. I don’t question whether she’s been abused or assaulted in the past in some way. However, according to the plain evidence before us, Judge Brett Kavanaugh does not at all appear to have been her attacker. Emotions are not fact. Suspicion is not guilt.
As I’ve watched everything unfold I have stopped to wonder more than once, “What does this eventually mean for my son?”
I’m the blessed mother of an energetic toddler boy who has brought so much joy to my life. Obviously, he is several years away from dating and meaningful romantic interactions, but that truth makes me all the more concerned. If we live in a time when women are instantly believed and men are automatically guilty, then what will the environment look like in 12-15 years?
When claims of sexual abuse and assault are made, they should be taken seriously. We owe it to males and females to consider these situations through an untainted lens and allow the facts to dictate the conclusion. There is simply no other option.
The way that things stand right now, the scales are tipped toward labeling men as guilty with no pause for the truth. The Patriarchy is a force that must be defeated and all males are to blame for sexual crimes whether they’ve committed them or not. Their inclusion in a group that so obviously sees women as nothing more than objects makes them, at the very least, an accomplice. At least, that’s what we’re told.
One major talking point that we hear repeated is the claim that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted during their college years. Ashe Schow over at The Daily Wire has written extensively about sexual crimes. In a recent piece, she debunked several of the myths surrounding these statistics.
Studies purporting to find such an astronomical amount of sexual violence on college campuses (numbers thousands of times higher than war-torn Congo or Detroit, America’s most dangerous city) suffer from many of the same flaws. They are often not nationally representative, are produced by women’s organizations determined to find women as oppressed victims in America, and are self-reported — a notoriously unreliable form of data.
The studies are often voluntary, meaning response bias could play a role as those who believe they are sexual assault victims (rightly or wrongly) may be more inclined to participate than those who don’t think the survey is about them.
Researchers don’t ask students directly if they are sexual assault victims but ask about a broad range of behaviors, such as “unwanted” behaviors that are open to interpretation, as being asked out by someone one doesn’t like could be considered “unwanted” even though it is in no way sexual assault or harassment. The researchers then determine that if students responded “yes” to any of these questions, it means they must have been sexually assaulted.
And false rape allegations?
The truth is, we don’t know how many accusations are truly false, and even if we did, one can’t walk into an investigation assuming they already know the answer.
We’re often told that “just” 2% to 10% of rape accusations are false. College administrators are told this when “trained” on how to handle accusations of sexual assault. The implication is clear: Women just don’t lie about rape, so nine times out of ten, you’d be safe in assuming the accused is guilty.
But that statistic is wildly misleading, as it only applies to accusations made to police that are proven false. Proving a negative is often impossible, especially in a “we had sex but it was consensual” situation. On college campuses, there is no punishment for a false accusation and thus no fear, as there is with lying to the police.
Here’s the bottom line: I want as much consideration given to female victims of sexual assault as I want for men who are accused of same. Assuming one or the other – devoid of evidence – is extremely dangerous.
In 2018, it would not take much for any woman to make false claims against any man. As a female, I am acutely aware of the power that I hold. Men are aware of it, too. I’ve spoken with male friends and family members who are upstanding individuals and show consistent respect to women. But there is a growing concern that they are not safe from accusations. This isn’t because they are predators; it’s because they know that a disgruntled romantic partner or female colleague only needs to point the finger of blame in their direction to dramatically and permanently impact their life for the worse.
Is this what we want in the #MeToo era? Should women feel completely powerful and men feel completely powerless? When it comes to sexual ethics, one side dominating the other is never a good thing.
It seems as if the “woke” thing to do is go along with the idea of blind belief. If we point to the facts and question the accusation, then we’re cold-hearted, anti-woman (as I’ve been told), and stuck in a previous era where women had no voice whatsoever. But this is just more of the same, emotional thinking.
There are many good men. They look at Harvey Weinstein and other predators with horrified disdain. They are angry because they, too are husbands, lovers, and brothers. The innate desire to protect women is rooted deep within. True masculinity is the opposite of the behavior they see before them.
As the mother of a growing, curious little boy, I aim to raise him with a deep respect for others, male and female. I want him to step in as a defender of the innocent. I want him to be a strong and brave, focused and resolute.
He should never feel the need to apologize for his masculinity. He should not be afraid of existing as the male God created him to be.
But as I look around, I can’t help but feel that one day, he may be forced to do both.
Kimberly Ross is a senior contributor at RedState and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.