All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2018 - Project Camelot
01:12:13
KAVANAUGH - BLASEY FORD PSY-OP PART TWO
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Continuing with the analysis of the Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Yeah, you're going to say something, aren't you?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sure, sure, sure, sure, sure.
Hi, everyone.
I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot.
This is part two with Dr.
James Fetzer, and we are talking about the Kavanaugh-Blasey Ford Supreme Court investigation that we know that he's been now put onto this, voted onto the Supreme Court.
However, there's a story behind how all of this went down, and this is part two.
So please stand by, and I'm going to bring Dr.
Fetzer on the screen here.
Dr.
Fetzer, are you there?
I am.
I am, Carrie.
Thank you so very much.
We have part two of the Kavanaugh conspiracy weaponizing the hashtag MeToo against a Supreme Court nominee, where we're confronted with a new liberal standard, which basically is guilty until proven innocent.
It's rather stunning that we have this development Zero Hedge, by the way, and Tyler Durden have published many, many excellent articles about the Kavanaugh hearing.
In fact, they're one of the most reliable sources about news developments in general, whether it's domestic politics or foreign affairs.
Here we have the Wall Street Journal penning a scathing op-ed claiming the democratic standard for sexual assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made.
The journal says that while the last-minute accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by itself, liberals have abandoned the entire notion of due process and the burden of proof in order to fit a political agenda.
They have it exactly right.
Here we have a couple of statements.
One of which, unfortunately, comes from Anita Hill because this was a mistake on her part.
As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain a lifetime privilege of serving on the court's highest court, he has the burden of persuasion, and that is only fair.
She's mistaken about this.
He was qualified eminently by his background in history, and this was a very unfair procedure.
Then we get this Maisie Hirono from Hawaii who dumbfounded me by numerous remarks she made.
Not only do women like Dr.
Ford who bravely come forward need to be heard, but they need to be believed.
Unless, of course, there's a mass of evidence that runs against what they've said, as we found in the case of Maisie Ford.
Here is what the Wall Street Journal editorial board had to say.
The last-minute accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by any measure, but if there is a silver lining, it is that the episode is providing an education for Americans on the new liberal standard of legal and political due process.
As Ms.
Hill and Senator Girono aver, the democratic standard for sexual assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made.
The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman.
The burden is on Mr.
Kavanaugh to prove his innocence.
If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the court.
This turns American justice and due process upside down.
The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation.
An accuser can't doom someone's freedom or career merely by making a chart.
The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts.
Otherwise, we have a Jacobin system of justice in which Jack Hughes becomes a standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta.
Another court tenet of due process is that an accusation isn't any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion, or ethnicity of who makes it.
A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you.
Ms.
Verona's standard of credibility by gender would have appalled the civil rights campaigners of a half century ago, who marched in part against Southern courts that treated the testimony of black Americans as inherently less credible than that of whites.
Yet now the liberal heirs of those marchers want to impose a double standard of credibility by gender.
A third standard of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser.
The point is to test an accuser's facts and credibility, which is why we have an adversarial system.
The denial of cross-examination is a major reason that campus panels adjudicating sexual assault claims have become kangaroo cohorts.
It's worth noting, quoting from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this month in Doe v.
Baum on a sexual assault case at the University of Michigan.
Due process requires cross-examination in circumstances like these because it is the greatest legal engine ever invented for uncovering the truth, wrote Judge Ebol Thapar.
Not only does cross-examination allow the accused to identify inconsistencies in the other side's story, but it also gives the fact-finder an opportunity to assist a witness's demeanor and determine who can be trusted.
So if a university is faced with competing narratives about potential misconduct, the administration must facilitate some form of cross-examination in order to satisfy due process.
Consider the limited facts of Christine Blasey's accusation against Judge Kavanaugh.
It concerns an event some 36 years ago she recalls only partial detail.
She remembers the alleged assaulted room she entered with some specificity, but not the home where it occurred.
She doesn't know how she traveled to or from the home that evening.
And by the way, in my opinion, not realizing who picked her up and how she escaped from that den of iniquity, had this been a bona fide traumatic incident, would have been indelibly itched in her mind.
In my opinion, this is one of the most profound weaknesses of her position.
She told no one about the incident for 30 years until a couple's therapy session with her husband.
Her therapist notes say there were four assailants, but she says there were only two.
Not two of the three other people she says were at the drinking party that night say they know nothing about the party or the assault, and Mr.
Kavanaugh denies it categorically.
Democrats claim that even asking questions about these facts is somehow an unfair attack upon her as a woman.
Her lawyer is demanding that Ms.
Ford testify after Mr.
Kavanaugh and that only senators ask questions, no doubt to bar Republicans from having a female special counsel ask those questions.
We're told Ms.
Ford even wants to bar any questions about why she waited so long to recall the alleged assault and who she consulted in finally going public this year.
Such a process is designed to obscure the truth, not to discover it.
None of these demands should be tolerable to senators who care about finding the truth about a serious accusation.
We don't doubt that Ms.
Ford believes what she claims, but the set of facts she currently provides wouldn't pass the preponderance of evidence or the 50.01% evidence of guilt test that prevails today on college campuses.
If this is the extent of her evidence, it is a Supreme Court nominee, a charge of sexual assault will become a killer political weapon regardless of facts, and the new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt.
Well stated.
I think we have here an image that summarizes the situation perfectly.
I don't always accuse SCOTUS nominees of sexual assault, but when I do, I make sure it's an unprovable accusation from the early 1980s.
We have a very interesting development that contrary to the Democrats' expectation, most Americans do not believe Christine Ford.
In fact, only 25% of women believe Ford's accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
This was at the time very telling, very telling indeed.
There have been additional more troubling developments, including the fact that the USA Today added pedophilia to the Kavanaugh angle, sparking outrage.
I mean, this was completely disgusting.
With tensions over SCOTUS nominee at a boiling point, a USA Today article discusses if Brett Kavanaugh should continue coaching girls' basketball team, bringing into the story recent child sex abuse scandals in U.S. sports.
Just outrageous and disgusting.
Here's a very interesting piece by Robert David Steele, who is himself a former CIA official.
Gender, Dr.
Christine Blender works for CIA, accuser Dr.
Christine Blasey works for CIA second-generation MKUltra ties, very suspect.
This was all in the background.
None of this was brought out during the hearing, but she's the daughter of a CIA assassin paymaster.
She oversees the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University, developed by the Notorious CI Connect at Stanford University, psychiatric professor Dr.
Frederick T. Mingles, who himself took into his care the homeless woman Lois Lyon, who assassinated CIA paymaster Nick Deak.
There's a lot of stuff here.
I recommend going on to Robert David Steele's set to pursue it.
He's observing here, I'm going to put my name on this comment because I'm sick and tired of rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI and NSA pain politics.
I also feel very strongly we need to get out of covert operations, including regime change, assassination, mind control, and blackmail.
It's good stuff, very interesting stuff.
I won't belabor it here because it's among the most inflammatory of all the issues we could address.
But this finding is, in my opinion, quite stunning.
This picture comes from Christine Blasey's husband, Russell Ford's Facebook page.
She currently is operating under the name of Paula Blasey for her profile.
She turns out to be employed by Concept Therapeutics of the San Francisco Bay Area, a maker of an abortion pill.
And a $1.2 billion business.
She and her husband are both in the medical industry where she's authored eight articles on abortion drugs.
In my opinion, this was stunning condemnation of her motivation and makes her entire story totally suspect.
If we didn't know what we already know about it, this in my opinion would be all by itself sufficient to call her entire account into question.
We have now the FBI supplemental investigation that was moved by Jeff Flake He was confronted with activists in the hallway and came back to report that he would vote to move the The vote into the Senate, but he'd only vote in favor of its support if it were subjected to an FBI supplemental investigation.
This, I think, was actually a very important development in the case.
And the reason why this was so sensitive and flake made such a difference here is because the Senate has divided 51 to 48 with one independent, and his vote could alter the entire outcome.
We had the FBI then reaching out to the second Kavanaugh accuser, but the Avenatti gain rate client was ignored because she was so implausible, the story was so monstrous, it didn't deserve further investigation.
Now, the Democrats have blasted the FBI's Kavanaugh probe, but it's hard to imagine what else they could have expected from the FBI. The Senate Judiciary Committee has now released an executive summary of the FBI's confidential supplementary background investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Here's what they reported.
Supplemental FBI investigation.
Executive summary.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee's request, the FBI opened a supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh.
It's his seventh FBI background investigation in 25 years, going back to 1993.
The request was for an investigation into credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.
In the course of its investigation, the FBI decided to reach out to 11 people, 10 of whom agreed to be interviewed.
The FBI reached out to all witnesses with potential first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
I emphasize, witnesses with potential first-hand knowledge.
The FBI provided to the Senate 12 detailed F.B. 302 reports, summarizing these interviews with the witnesses, as well as supporting materials cited by witnesses during their interview.
The FBI interviewed the following 10 individuals, Ford allegations, The three individuals identified by Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford as having attended the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted, Mark Judge, P.J. Smith, Leland Kaiser.
Two other individuals included on Judge Garland's July 1st, 1982 calendar, Timothy Gaudet and Christopher Garrett, plus an attorney for one of the witnesses.
Ramirez's allegations, Deborah Ramirez.
Two alleged eyewitnesses named by Deborah Ramirez, where a third alleged eyewitness refused to submit to an interview, Deborah Ramirez's close friend from college.
Conclusion.
The supplemental background investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation.
There is no corroboration of the allegations by Dr.
Ford or Ms.
Ramirez.
According to the summary of the report, FBI agents interviewed 10, reached out to 11, focused exclusively on witnesses with a potential first-hand knowledge, and came up with no corroborating evidence, which I think more than justifies this political cartoon summing up the situation at Bronco.
This is my story, and I'm sticking to it, holding up a page with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese.
This is a background when Senator Susan Collins would address the Senate.
In all my years of professional speaking, including 35 as a college professor and many others in many other contexts as a public speaker, This was as fine an address as I have ever heard.
It was meticulously reasoned, very adapted to the facts, and provided an excellent exposition and summary overall assessment of the situation.
I'm going to read some extracts because this is so important and would prove to be decisive.
Mr.
President, the five previous times that I've come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I've begun my floor remarks to explain my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.
But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.
The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th.
Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's name in its pre-written press release.
They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.
A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known.
Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record.
Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which, although debunked hours later, continue to live on and be spread through social media.
Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.
Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years.
I've always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them.
I've never considered the President's identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations.
As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Keegan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorshep, who was nominated by President Trump.
So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing its 12-year record on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law-reviewed articles.
Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record.
I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office.
I listened carefully to the testimony of the committee hearings.
I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others, and I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.
I've also met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.
One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would likely be to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's vital protection for people with pre-existing conditions.
I disagree with this.
In a dissent on Seven Sky v.
Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full.
Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts' opinion of holding the ACA Another assertion that I've heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a judge involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court.
The basis for this argument seems to be twofold.
First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office.
Mr.
President, I believe opponents missed the mark on this issue.
The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the President does not have such protection currently.
Second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice.
That argument ignores our recent history.
President Clinton in 1993 nominated John Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway and she was confirmed 96 to 3.
The next year, just three months after Independent Counsel Robert Fisk was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Meier.
He was confirmed 87 to 9.
Supreme Court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them.
Perhaps most notably in United States v.
Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him.
Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law.
He has stated that Marbury v.
Madison, Youngstown-Steele v.
Sawyer, and the United States v.
Nixon are three of the greatest Supreme Court cases in history.
What do they have in common?
Each of them is a case where Congress served as a check on presidential power.
And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown versus the Board of Education.
One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about a check on presidential power directly.
He wrote the opinion in Hamden versus the United States, a case that challenges the Bush administration's military commission prosecution.
Of an associate of Osama bin Laden.
This conviction was very important to the Bush administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush's White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful.
As he explained during the hearing, we don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences at the moment.
We base decisions on the law.
Others I've met with have expressed concerns that Judge Kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Yet Judge Kavanaugh described the Oberfeld decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent.
He also cited Judge Kennedy's recent masterpiece cake shop opinion, for the court's majority, stating that the days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and wealth and worth, Are over in the Supreme Court.
Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control.
In one case, Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections.
Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception.
In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court President strongly suggested there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.
There's also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v.
Wade.
Protecting this right is important to me.
To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself.
He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent.
In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration.
It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness.
There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overrule a precedent.
The most famous example was when the Supreme Court at Brown v.
Board of Education overruled Plessy v.
Ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision To use the judge's term, allowing racial inequality.
But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow a long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law.
Those are Judge Kavanaugh's phrases.
As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.
Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stareidesis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim.
In short, his views on honoring President would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v.
Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following President.
He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v.
Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptives.
Griswold established a legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later.
Describing Griswold to settle law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, Meyer and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.
Finally, in his testimony, he noted that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, describing it as a president.
When I asked him, would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices had believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no.
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump's pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe.
The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980.
During this time, Republican presidents have appointed Justices O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
These are the very three Republican president-appointed judges who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe.
Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justices' nominations.
Incredibly, they even circulated buttons With a slogan, Stop Souter or Women Will Die.
Just two years later, Justice Souter co-authored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman's right to choose.
Sufficient to say prominent advocacy organizations have been wronged.
These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial independence.
I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, to any outside group on how he would decide cases.
He unequivocally assured me that he had not.
Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament.
The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating.
Its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues.
The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standard.
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified by any objective measure.
Judge Kavanaugh...
Is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.
Ms.
Blatt, who clerked for it, is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is, in her own words, an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, says that Justice Kavanaugh fits within the mainstream of legal thought.
She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession.
That Judge is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93% of the cases they heard together.
Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96% of the majority opinions offered by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
Mr.
President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction.
We live in a time of such great disunity as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates.
It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions.
It's a case of people bearing extreme ill will for those who disagree with them.
In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans.
When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our own views, we can only expect our differences to intensify.
This would have alarmed that drafters of our Constitution were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people.
Indeed, of the six objectives they invoke in the preamble to the Constitution, The one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union.
Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today.
If anything, we appear to be moving further away from it.
It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, It's viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
Mr.
President, we've heard of a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh, but as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant.
Judge, teacher, coach, husband and father.
Despite the turbulent bitter fight surrounding its nomination, my fervent hope is that Judge Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have five fewer five to four decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored.
Mr.
President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
A magnificent speech that presaged A close confirmation vote by 50 to 48 with one abstention because it was one Republican senator who was in Montana attending his daughter's wedding.
So that one opponent, Senator McCursky from Arkansas, voted to abstain in order that he not have to travel back, which was a generous gesture.
It turns out there are serious Soros connections that have been involved in the background here.
Flayton demanded the one-week FBI investigation after being confronted by activists, but it turned out they were Soros activists.
These weren't women who had suffered from sexual abuse.
Soros strikes again.
Flake, screamer, assault victim, is co-executive director of the SOAS-funded Left Wing Group Center for Democracy and Center for Democracy Action Fund.
Here's the activist leader, Ava Maria Archilla, who has nothing on her Twitter feed about being a victim, but loads of information on being an activist leader.
She led the Flake ambush.
Here we have more.
It turns out Adam Schindler later posted a photo of a protester being paid after being removed from the Kavanaugh hearing.
Notice a protester in the top left photograph being removed from the hearing.
Here she's being paid off.
Turned out the guy paying her has been identified as a Soros.
There's been a man with a bag of cash paying protesters at Brett Kavanaugh on Capitol Hill.
He's now been identified.
His name is Vinay Kirschman.
He's a social justice worker who works at the Center for Popular Democracy.
You'll never guess who funds that group.
It's George Soros.
Surprise.
I know I'm not.
He's a professional protester who hires professional protesters.
Embarrassingly bad.
We have more indications, however.
Kavanaugh's accuser's lawyer is the vice chair of a Soros pundit group that opposes Kavanaugh.
She was recommended by none other than Dianne Feinstein.
Get this, if you thought it was that bad, here's a photo of Christine Blasey Ford posing with, guess who?
George Soros himself.
And now we have...
Someone handing out stacks of cash to migrants headed to the United States now.
This is a current issue of legal interest.
I guarantee you 100% this is a George Soros-funded operation.
You don't see this kind of philanthropy every day which begs the question, where's that money coming from and why are they giving out like it's candy?
Here you see a report from the Huffington Post.
Racism engulfs the midterms.
Well, we have no reason here to forethink that racism is going to engulf the midterms, but this march that appears to be paid for and funded by George Soros' intended to create an encounter at the border The liberal groups are going to promote his racism to engulf the midterm in another desperate attempt to try to transfer the control of the House or the Senate to the liberals.
This is disgusting, and you can see it coming, and no one ought to be allowed themselves to be played for a fool by this kind of activity.
Fall out for Feinstein.
This is just after she read the new Kavanaugh report.
Something went very, very wrong.
It appears to me included in the report that we haven't read the details.
That Diane Feinstein was outed as someone who had been involved in setting the whole thing up.
That is my conclusion.
Here's the following analysis of Feinstein's body language during the press conference.
She was showing extreme stress.
How she held her head and shoulders and hands in a tight grip and her strained smile.
Deception when she said I had to leave before she could read the entire FBI report.
How absurd.
Of all the senators, she would have read the entire report, leaving not a comma out.
Putting on an act of strength, the Schumer began talking to her as her eyes pulled in when some in her thought unrelated to what Schumer was saying.
With her mouth tightly closed, her eyes blessed, she fights back tears, holding her high horror so the tears won't drain outward.
This is clear indication she knows she's been outed.
Now there are calls for Feinstein to be investigated.
California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has made a mockery out of the Supreme Court nomination process.
Now she's found herself in hot water following the controversy and it appears she is going to be investigated.
Senator Tom Cotton on face of the notion called for an investigation.
The Democrats have disgraced this process.
At the United States Senate, in the orchestrated fear campaign of character assassination, they've run against Judge Kavanaugh.
She deserved to be investigated.
I support that 100%.
Feinstein is a rat from a whopping 75% of Americans.
Get this.
Democrats hope their last-minute annexes stall the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh would pay off, but several bombshell polls just revealed that the left may have shot themselves in the foot.
On Wednesday, NPR, partly a pro-Trump source, reported that the Kavanaugh perfuffle seems to have energized conservatives for the upcoming midterm election.
Prior to the Democrats creating a media circus by forcing the respected judge to defend himself against unproven decades old allegations, the left was enjoying a noticeable advantage as liberals warm up to slam into slander.
However, those advantages have evaporated.
It's worth noting you can barely get people to agree on whether water is wet, let alone come together in a political question.
The fact that a staggering 75% of Democrats and Republicans on this issue speaks volumes.
That's exactly what business contributor Lee Carter pointed out as well during an on-air segment.
She cited that pull as proof that Democrats made a serious blunder by trying to drag Kavanaugh through the mud.
I could not agree more.
But that's not all that has taken place.
Unrelentingly, they've lodged a legal complaint against Kavanaugh for this ancient alleged offense.
But it was quickly shut down.
The Democrats sent a letter to the Montgomery County Maryland Police Department and State's Attorney told for an investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager in the summer of 1982.
Sadly, this will not be possible.
Montgomery County Police and State's Attorney responded to the Democrats on Friday.
The alleged criminal acts of assault and attempted rape were both disdemeanors in 1982 and subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
Therefore, the alleged criminal act should have reported by 1983, which would have been difficult since the victim had no idea what she's talking about, and her witnesses all reject her allegations.
Interestingly, once the Democrats went into the yearbook of Judge Kavanaugh, that made the yearbook of Blasey Ford's fair game, and it turns out to be much more damning of her than his was of him.
in Driving while hallucinated appears to have been a tradition bragged about by the Holton girls.
Here's from their yearbook, Scribe 82.
Two things sure to dampen the party's spirit are parking in curfews, leaves, snow, and trees.
Don't wander into the road make parking and driving even more of a challenge than finding a party.
Trees are only wandering into the road if you're tripping on LSD or some other powerful psychedelic or in the alternative, you're so drunk that alcohol is causing hallucinations.
That's very drunk.
That's felony drunk.
That passage is from Scribe 82, Blasey's sophomore year at Holton Arms.
It was the summer after that year, she thinks the alleged assault took place.
And we know, of course, now her yearbook has not just been scrubbed from the internet, but even the site that exposed it has been scrubbed, further indication of how much they have to hide.
The Democrats now are in the media trolling for stories to cast doubt on Kavanaugh, whether they're true or not.
This was continuing to take place.
Now they're talking about the next step.
Democrats pledge to investigate Kavanaugh, upload impeachment if he's confirmed, assuming, of course, that they take control of the House or the Senate.
Then we have an ex-boyfriend speaking out.
Shocking revelation.
Ford's ex-boyfriend said she had no fear of flying or living in enclosed spaces.
Help Fred prep for a polygraph.
Christine Blasey Ford's ex-boyfriend shared a written declaration stating Ford never expressed a fear of flight even while aboard a propeller plane had no problem living in a tiny apartment with only one door.
helped her best friend prepare for a potential polygraph test, despite claiming under oath she'd done no such thing.
Ford's ex also said she cheated on him, and a year after they broke up, she charged his credit card for $600 worth of merchandise.
When in front of Dr. Ford said she didn't use the card, but later admitted to the use after I threatened to invoke farm prevention, her ex's letter said, nice gal.
More about that you can find online.
We actually have the letter itself.
Very, very troubling stuff.
Ford testified that she never revealed the details of the alleged attack until 2012 when she was in couples therapy with her husband.
She said the memories percolated up as they revisited a disagreement they'd had over her insistence on installing the second front door when they remodeled her Palo Alto, California home.
The need to explain a decision to her husband pushed her to say she wanted the door to alleviate symptoms of claustrophobia and panic attacks.
She still suffered from an attempted rape allegedly perpetrated by Kavanaugh in high school during the early 1980s.
Is that the reason for the front door claustrophobia?
asked Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Correct, Ford replied.
She never specified when the renovation had been placed, leaving a possible impression in and the therapy happened around the same time, but documents show the door was installed years before as part of an addition and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business.
It wasn't an escape route, but an entrance route, said an attorney familiar with the ongoing congressional investigation.
It appeared the real plan for a second front door was to rent out a second.
And here you see photographs in 2007, there was only one front door.
But in 2011, that would be before the therapy session in 2012, they'd added a second because they had a rental unit.
This woman was simply lying her face off under oath.
Deep state affiliations are equally disturbing.
Turns out that Ford's FBI friend, Bonnie McLean, was pressuring witnesses to modify their testimony and statement.
If you thought it was sketchy that Ms.
Blasey Ford's best friend was recently retired FBI and DOJ official Monica McLean, if you thought it was sketchy that McLean and Ford were together on July 30th when Ford was writing a letter to the Brian Feinstein meeting the friend Ms.
Ford's handler, For the operation against Kavanaugh, it's even more sketchy today with the report that McLean was pressuring Witness Leland Kaiser to shape her statements and testimony to the FBI. According to the Wall Street Journal, the FBI has text messages from Ms.
McLean to Witness Kaiser directing her to modify her statements more favorable to Ms.
Warren.
I mean, this is very bad, very serious stuff.
Turns out, her attorney is claiming, his name is David Woffman, any notion or claim that Ms.
McClain pressured Leland Keiser To alter Ms.
Keiser's account is absolutely false, but it turns out there was a small group of connected DOJ FBI officials who are behind the use of Ms.
Ford.
They're not even trying to hide it anymore.
Michael Bromwich is representing Ms.
Ford.
David Loftman is recommending Ms.
McLean.
The consecutive lawfare gang is working overtime, likely pro bono.
It's beyond doubt now that Ms.
Ford is not just some randomly ancillary high school acquaintance of Brett Kavanaugh, but appears to have been selected by a group of politically connected FBI and DOJ officials for the purpose of targeting Judge Kavanaugh.
And they're all part of a tight network.
We even have a diagram showing how they're connected and related.
Okay, now, thank you.
Thank you.
Dr.
Fester, what I want to do here, I'm not sure how much more you've got, but I do want to ask you whether or not you intend to cover the real reason behind the Democrat push, which is not Roe vs.
Wade in my view.
It has to do with these 50,000 plus indictments that the Trump administration is attempting to get through.
And this judge is very important for that purpose.
I think that's a very astute observation.
And I have not brought that in, but it's very important as to why the dice are so loaded, why there's all this hysteria about Trump remaining in office, because he appears to have put out a vast network.
In fact, we got a brand new report today of 236 pedophile arrests in a pedophile ring in Hollywood, including some big name players, which we're about to learn.
I think that's an excellent point, Kerry.
I'm very glad you added it to the conversation because it's looming in the background, yes.
It's not just Roe v.
Wade.
That could very well be viewed as merely a camouflage for the serious issue of cleaning up the pedophile rings.
We've been warned about this by QAnon, of course, for some time now.
We know there may be as many as tens of thousands of these unsealed indictments, and it looks as though it's starting to take place.
And it's all gonna start coming true.
And I think that you make an impeccable point.
Let me move forward to what I think is one of the key issues to understand regarding Blasey Ford, namely the ambiguity between sincerity versus credibility.
We have Blasey Ford, it turns out, co-authored papers on hypnosis used to create artificial situations.
She came across as very sincere unless you are paying a lot of attention.
One of the hypotheses I have formulated is that she either hypnotized herself or was subjected to hypnosis so that she could come across with convincing, sincere beliefs about it.
We have a reverse speech analysis of Kavanaugh and Ford, however, by David Oates, which tends to substantiate Blasey Ford and to critique David Kavanaugh.
I've written to David about it.
We're going to have more about it.
I wrote him this following note.
This is email, David.
Of course, I'd be delighted to come on your show.
He was asking me to come on about 9-11.
Sorry to be so slow.
Wanted to write about Christine Blasey Ford.
She's a student of self-hypnosis and appears to have induced in herself the false belief that she was attacked by Brett Kavanaugh.
Wanted to mention this lest you undo your years of good work by missing the boat on this one.
I do not believe your techniques can discriminate between sincere beliefs that are true versus sincere beliefs that are false.
And let me just say, we're talking here about an issue that is of profound interest to philosophers, discriminating between reality and illusion.
I do not believe there's any possibility of this technique doing that.
Let me just show you a stunning illustration.
If you were to experience the following, you might actually believe what you were witnessing here was real.
And if you didn't know about holographic technology, you might believe it.
But all the evidence is against Christine Blasey Ford, even if she can give what appear to be sincere testimony.
In fact, I know another expert on this area with even more profound understanding of mind control.
Who observes that it was clear when she was giving testimony where her voice varied from that of a little five-year-old girl to that of a 70-year-old woman.
That was a manifestation of her being under voice control.
Her body language, handwriting, and other further confirms it.
So that we have the situation where the evidence, although we had even as notable a figure whom I happen to admire as Judge Napolitano, suggesting that she was exceptionally credible We have all of the evidence that shows that what she was reporting was nevertheless false.
By any standard of truth and fairness, classical liberalism, evidence and facts, Dr.
Ford is not only not credible, she has nothing close to credible.
Let me count the ways.
She has allied 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 woven into a cost-esque nightmare.
No man, even with detailed calendars, can ever escape.
Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story.
Or has no memory of the gathering or says it didn't happen, including a lifelong friend.
Her team was so desperate to have the woman who wants anonymity testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her question in private at her home in California and then lied about it.
Her therapist's notes from 2012 also refute her here, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite.
She originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-80s.
Now, one rapist and one standby when she was 15 in the early 80s.
She's refused to give her therapist notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph, she etched out early 80s so it would only read 80s more.
She told the committee of the primary impact that the event occurred during the four years after she happened.
She goes on to say, I struggled academically.
I struggled very much at 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 year in high school, the two years directly after the attack, unless it did indeed happen in her late teens, when presumably she would have been most profoundly affected.
To later confirm the effect that in fact happened in 1982, Ford told the committee she was able to pin it down in 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her driver's license.
But she also said she doesn't remember how she got to her from the House party, so how does she know she didn't drive herself?
I reaffirmed.
If this had been real, she would have been so grateful to have been rescued from the traumatic event.
She could never have forgotten who picked her up and took her to a position of safety.
In my opinion, that is among the most damning evidence against her.
Ford also uses Mark Judge's Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline.
She testified she saw him working there six to eight weeks after the attack.
She could not yet drive, so her mother drove her there, but for some reason, Ford and her mother entered by different doors, and her mom can't therefore confirm this happening.
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 a senior year.
on summation on top of all four of her own witnesses refuting her allegations against Kavanaugh so too to the notes taken by her own therapist where Margo Cleveland's three tweet thread was indispensable for much of this you need to re-read it towards allegations are not only not credible they are ludicrous and a joke okay now wait one second so Sorry about this.
I just want to interject here that you did not mention, I think, two of the issues that I have with her testimony.
And given they aren't specific to evidence, but they are very interesting and have a lot more to do with the deeper story as to why she, in particular, was chosen for this sort of bogus job.
And that is that her father is the paymaster for the CIA, if I understand it, assassination squads.
And number two is that she herself recruits for the CIA, for Stanford University, in her job as a professor.
So, I mean, the CIA link-ups are, you know, you cannot avoid.
There's a third thing which has to do with her background, and I believe writing papers and being involved in investigation research.
Of mind control herself and MKUltra type of investigations.
So this is major.
Those points, Carrie, I did in fact mention them.
Robert David Steele has testified.
Yes, you mentioned them a while back, but you didn't in this litany list.
You're right.
I'm glad you did.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, very, very good.
Now, it turns out there are unintended political repercussions that are flowing now.
It looks as though Kavanaugh could help in the GOP Senate midterm, not in the House races.
My own prediction has been that the Republicans are going to pick up three to five seats in the Senate and run even in the House.
And here's an anti-Trump Latino blasting the Democrats over the Kavanaugh hearings, immediately switching party.
This is really fascinating.
As I have been following the circus surrounding the confirmation process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, I've often wondered if there were any liberals who saw through the hijinks coming from the Democrats.
The answer to my question is yes, at least one Latino man writing under the Tim name Thomas Mendoza became so enraged at the bad behavior coming from the Senate Democrats it inspired him to leave the party and pledge his support to Republicans in 2018 and 2020.
We also have the Manchester Union leader from New Hampshire.
The politics of personal destruction reached a new low last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
We cannot imagine what it was like for Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be dragged through the sewer pipe of the Supreme Court confirmation process.
Ford's testimony that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her was powerful and credible, but it's not been supported by any other.
The witness, Ford Place, doesn't remember such a party.
Ford didn't mention Kavanaugh's name until 30 years after the alleged attack.
Kavanaugh anger at Committee of Democrats was justified.
They sat on Ford's claim for six weeks, bringing it forward in a last-ditch attempt to stop him.
As Democrats stalled, Kavanaugh and his family were subjected to increasingly ludicrous attacks.
Some senators seeking further delay so the FBI can investigate Ford's claims and two other unsupported charges.
There's nothing left to investigate.
Ford does not remember where or when it took place.
No physical evidence, no witnesses.
Meanwhile, the committee itself has investigated every attack on Kavanaugh and two men who claim they were the person who attacked Ford.
Most of these claims have been properly dismissed.
Reviewing the Senate Court nomination is the Senate's job, not the FBI. I believe, actually, that was in relation to Ramirez, where two others came forward and said they were the ones who'd expose themselves to Ramirez at Yale.
Given the chance to question Ford about the alleged assault committee, Democrats asked about his yearbook and how much he drank in college enough.
Kavanaugh has an impressive record of his judge.
He's won praise from liberal and conservative legal experts.
It's time to end this force and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
We also have the idea of a Senator Brian Schatz.
It's a crime to lie to the Senate implicating Christine Blasey Ford.
We have American shame.
This is now from the foreign press observing.
This was in Russia today.
Many outside the U.S. watched Thursday's hearing with open-mouthed revulsion that the bad faith lock of due process and inhumanity on display is functioned in the biggest Western democracies.
That's a poor example for the rest of the globe.
The present does not own the monopoly on ugly scenes in Congress.
The McCarthy interviews are on tape, after all, nor do either of the parties from Kenneth Starr's ultimately futile humiliation of Bill Clinton for their intransigence during Obama's two terms.
Republicans largely set the tone for the partisanship that reigns today.
But make no mistake about it.
In the age of hysteria and agenda-driven news media and social media that amplifies its worst aspects, The Kavanaugh and Ford testimonies marked a new low.
It is the Democrats who have guided the process to a high-stakes wrestling match in a toxic swamp.
Disagreeing with Brett Kavanaugh's nomination on ideological grounds and questioning his record and temperament are fine, even if it's to whip up your base before the coming midterms.
That's what the confirmation we're for, minus the choreographed Interruptions from the gallery, but that's not what we have.
And a wonderful cartoon sums it up.
Reject Kavanaugh.
A man who attacked a woman cannot be entrusted to uphold America's most cherished legal principles, to which the response is appropriately made.
You mean like due process and the presumption of innocence?
All very appropriate.
We seem to have the Democrats hurt.
The Republicans' help is a cartoon of how it has backfired on the Democrats.
I think that's exactly what has played out.
Recent polls have shown a new Quinnipiac poll.
The Democrats are dropping like a stone.
The Republicans are coming up.
Their plan to take back the House is falling.
We have Donald Trump, who's a shocking pulse of major problems for the Democrats heading into the midterms.
The red tide is 10 pivotal states, so the Democratic Party may see a red tide instead of the blue wave.
Including re-election bids by John Tester, Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Joe Motley, and Heidi Heitkamp.
Those are all states where Trump won handily, which are now in jeopardy, where the Republicans, I predict, are not going to be re-elected.
There is more breakdown state by state by state in West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Wisconsin.
And Trump is going out on rallies around the country.
He understands the importance.
On this particular midterm, the left went a bridge too far.
We have a marvelous piece I highly recommend for an overview by Patrick Bache.
Is it too soon to call Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey, for it a liar?
He points out that the Democrats have adopted Saul Alitsky's rules for radicals.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
He reviews a lot of the bidding here.
The prosecutor brought into question her, didn't find her at all credible.
She said this was worse than a he said, she said confrontation.
We know about her many lies, including the two doors, one among many.
At the State of the Nation, they did excellent work about Blasey for its father, Ralph Blasey Jr., and his long association as a CIA operative and his work for various CIA proprietories.
Why has this vital information been suppressed?
Dr.
Blasey Ford works at Stanford and monitors a program called the CI Undergraduate Internship Program, which Carrie Cassidy has emphasized very appropriately.
Stanford has recently scrubbed all photos and job titles for Blasey Ford to conceal her deep state involvement.
A previous professor and a physician at Stanford was deeply involved in the CI's MKUltra Mind Control Project.
This is fascinating, fascinating stuff.
We are going to see the outcome now.
Kavanaugh has actually stepped up for women.
This is fascinating, too.
In his first day on the job, he hired as many black law clerks as Ruth Banner Ginsburg has in her entire tenure.
Ginsburg has hired over 100 law clerks, just one of whom is black, whereas Kavanaugh hired four law clerks, one of whom is black.
Not only that, A 2017 study published by the National Law Journal found 85% of all Supreme Court clerks between 2005 and 2017 were white.
Approximately two-thirds were male.
Just hours after the Supreme Court confirmed the new Justice Kavanaugh was sworn in, And he quietly hired a suite of offices, formerly occupied by Justice Alito, with the first Supreme Court justice to hire an all-female class of clerks.
The Wall Street Journal is absorbed.
After failing to take down Kavanaugh, Democrats are smearing the court itself.
This is embarrassingly bad.
They're doing everything they can to attack and discredit the court, which is completely outrageous.
What we've actually had happen is the following, well summed up by Judicial Watch, their statement on Kavanaugh.
In confirming Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate has confirmed a good man with an impeccable record of honoring the U.S. Constitution.
It shows him to be a believer in the rule of law, and I believe we will serve the American people with distinction.
We're grateful that a majority on the Senate rejected the leftist smears, abusive process, and rejection of constitutional norms.
Now, there must be accountability for this lawless assault on our constitutional republic.
Judicial Watch has launched an investigation into the Senate ethics and legal abuses by anti-Kavanaugh senators, and we will continue to pursue our Senate ethics complaint against Senator Booker for his admitted violation of Senate rules, a violation of which requires expulsion from the Senate.
Judge Roberts has requested a judicial review of Kavanaugh's Senate testimony.
Listen to this.
This is a left-wing publication and the editor expressed his concern.
Listen to this.
A major concern with the investigation highlighted in this piece is that it could effectively sanitize the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh if the court finds no wrongdoing.
We should recall that this review is being done without the thousands of documents requested by the Democrats from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White House, which Democrats claim demonstrate that Kavanaugh committed perjury.
Moreover, this investigation could potentially immunize him from further examination, even undermine the subsequent investigations by other investigative bodies, such as the House Judiciary Committee, which could review his conduct in a more objective light, I would add.
When he was a White House counsel, he had a client.
He was obligated by the canons of judicial ethics to represent vigorously.
That had nothing to do with his opinions as a court justice.
And I closed by observing.
I'm now engaged in a whole new venue of publications.
These will be my 37th and 38th books.
These are novellas.
Fictionalized accounts of real events with advice for further research at the end.
A convincing liar has just gone into print.
It's been preceded by the capstone event, which bears resemblance to the Sandy Hook and what we know about it.
Kerry, I can't thank you enough for giving me this opportunity to discuss the Kavanaugh case, which in my opinion is one of the great scandals in American political history and an object lesson for every American citizen to learn to separate the true from the false and the legitimate from the illegitimate appropriation of a judicial process, a formal hearing of the Senate to promote a biased political agenda.
Okay, I think you're losing your voice.
I want to thank you so much, James Fetzer.
Now, I wonder if you'd like, you can briefly switch your screen so that you are visible rather than the, you know, presentation so you'd have to stop sharing your screen is all.
But at any rate, what I wanted to say here that, and I don't know, you know, we've been going for a while and Once I learned the sort of content in more detail of what you were going to share, I realized that we should be able to not have a problem with broadcasting this on YouTube.
I would be extremely shocked if they found an issue with your presentation of what is in the mainstream press, basically, all the evidence.
You certainly compiled it very closely.
Very nicely and with expertise, obviously, and great analysis.
What I want to do and what I want to ask you is whether or not you could be tasked with investigating the MKUltra aspects of this story, because I think those are And the CIA, you know, because those aspects are, I think, even more fascinating than what you've already laid out, at least from my point of view, given that that is the kind of thing I'm interested in.
And so I just want to throw that out here.
Obviously, you're a very busy man.
You do a lot of investigations.
But this thing, this sort of way things are playing out with the The indictments that may be coming forward with the emphasis on Kavanaugh and the fight that seems to be going along party lines, but mysteriously so in a certain sense.
I think there's a lot more beneath the surface going on here, and there are individuals who have said...
With all due respect to Kavanaugh, that there is a side to this in which he himself has been, let's say, confused, misled, whatever you want to call that.
Now, I don't know what the evidence presents exactly on that side of the story, so I'm not going to Allude to it any more than I have, but I do want to say that this is a very important juncture in our history in the United States.
Obviously, there's lots of misleading psyops that have been conducted, as well as what we call false flags and things like Pearl Harbor and And, you know, so on going through history and you've certainly been a wonderful investigator in those.
But this type of psychological operation that involves the different parties and then getting, you know, this kind of a warlike situation, it actually breaks down also in terms of or breaks out.
To allude to a sort of civil war or impending civil war within the United States, it's so polarized, let's say.
And I was happy to hear you talk about the various Democrats that may actually be seeing the light of day with some of these tactics that their party is engaged in.
However, it goes deeper than party lines because we're really talking about who's really running this country, the higher levels of power going above the parties.
And as Jordan Maxwell would say, those are just two wings of the same bird.
You know, the emphasis on bringing, you know, a thesis and then its opposite and then getting a sort of synthesis is this is a tactic that the Illuminati engage in and So we're seeing it played out in the news in a very obvious fashion now, in America especially.
And so I think it's a deep question.
I think it's something worth investigating, and I'm just throwing that out for your consideration.
In addition to this presentation and in addition to the books I've already mentioned, I am editing a book with the same title, The Kavanaugh Conspiracy, that has a very impressive collection of contributors.
And I am inviting David Oates to submit a chapter and I'm going to have a critique of his analysis by the expert to whom I alluded who knows more about mind control than anyone else of my acquaintance.
I agree with you 100% this is a profoundly important issue.
You allude to the other work.
What I have done again and again is bring together the best experts On different aspects of these various cases, we have published on Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando in Dallas, Charlottesville.
We're about to publish on Parkland.
That should be up next week.
These books are all at moonrockbooks.com.
There will be a book on Las Vegas, which has been dragged out and dragged out in such a way that I recognize the wisdom of my decision to leapfrog Las Vegas to go to Parkland Especially because of its significance for the midterms,
and while I'd hope we'd have it out earlier in relation to that deadline, it will be out before the midterms, and suggest that just as the Democrats are willing to fabricate phony sexual abuse allegations to defeat a candidate for the Supreme Court,
they're also willing to fabricate school shooting events in order to promote their political agenda of gun control, where the March for Our Lives Which was only officially scheduled about a month and a week after the Parkland shooting, allegedly inspired by the Parkland shooting, actually was permitted six months in advance.
In other words, they knew the Parkland shooting was going to occur because it was going to be a staged event to benefit what would be a massive Democratic voter registration drive with billions in free publicity.
So I agree with you on all these issues, Carrie.
I think you're doing extremely important work.
I'm just saying YouTube has been savage in going after many of the studies I've done, especially about Sandy Hook, for example, and we'll see what happens here.
But I couldn't agree more that this is the kind of information that every American citizen It is not only entitled to know, needs to know, really, to understand and appreciate the political context within which they live and will be voting in the midterm to come.
Yes, absolutely.
But I also do, and thank you for that.
I think just a footnote about Vegas, because I think Vegas has not seen the light of day, the true events there.
I know some people will be interested to know Paladin.
I think it's okay to say.
I think he might have done a few videos on his investigations.
Not sure how far along he is.
But I can tell you that that, I think, is, after 9-11, one of the biggest sort of...
In essence, false flags that we have seen on American soil since 9-11.
And I think that it's a very, very important case and that what really went down behind the scenes in Vegas has never been revealed.
I did bring forward some of my theories in some articles around the time that it was done.
They involve things like going back to Britain, to various sides in the Illuminati, to Satanism, and even to the The Flying Dragons, the Shakars, which are actually statues outside of Mandalay, gigantic statues of Mandalay, where the whole thing took place.
Well, at least one part of the Vegas thing took place.
So, you know, there's a lot going on beneath the surface of America at this time and a lot which needs to be revealed and will be revealed and is being revealed.
Thanks to people like you.
Dr.
James Fetzer.
So we've been going a very long time.
I'm going to let you go.
And thank you again for coming forward to make me aware of your research in this area.
And I hope people found this valuable.
I think there's a lot more that we can dig into in terms of the The mind control aspect, and I'm glad that Robert David Steele did at least address that, but we need some investigators to go into that area.
More to come, Carrie, and I can't thank you enough for this opportunity of ultimate importance to the American people.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right.
So I'm going to hang up with you here, Dr.
Fetzer, and you take care.
Thanks, Carrie.
Thanks again.
Bye-bye.
Okay, so that's quite extraordinary.
And he is really a master researcher.
And so that compilation of the evidence is really, you know, just amazing.
And it's all in one place, which can be very valuable to people that, you know, have trouble surfing all over the Internet to get every little bits and pieces.
I don't think there's much he missed there, if anything.
So...
Then as I say, perhaps we can get more into the MKUltra mind control aspects of what is really happening to the mind control of America is really, and this gets into the 5G, gets into the AI, and to the preparation of the population to handle certain things that they are planning to basically put in effect.
And probably are doing so as I speak.
So stay tuned to Project Camelot.
Have a great weekend, and we'll have some more interesting guests next week.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection