All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2018 - Project Camelot
01:03:30
KAVANAUGH AND BLASSY FORD : PSY-OP . PART ONE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot and very happy to be here today.
We have Dr.
James Fetzer with us and we're going to be talking about the whole Kavanaugh-Blazey-Ford hearings and what really went down behind the scenes there.
And I know that some other people have been putting some information out about this, but Dr.
Fetzer is an incredible...
Brilliant ex-Marine and college professor, university professor.
And he has, I think, somewhere like 10 books to his name.
He's very widely published, and we've been doing, in the past, certainly investigating false flags and other investigations that he has.
So he's really a crack investigator, and he's been looking into this latest news story, as you can appreciate, And there have been so many unanswered questions and some very strange not-so-coincidences.
And so there seems to be a lot to investigate there, and I'm very happy to have him on the show today.
Now, because of the censorship that we've been encountering, we're going to have to deal with that.
So this broadcast will then go on to BitChute instead of staying on YouTube.
So if you're watching it now, it will have moved to BitChute later today.
And there will be a part two.
We're going to record that offline and put that on BitChute as well.
So I'm going to bring him on the show here.
He's got a number of slides to share with us.
So, Dr.
Fetzer, are you there?
Oh, thanks, Carrie.
Yeah, it's actually 36 books, 24 academic and a dozen in the conspiracy genre.
But I've got to tell you, Carrie, that this Kavanaugh thing is one of the most fascinating political conspiracies I've ever encountered.
Wonderful.
Did you say you have 36 books?
Yes.
Oh, my God.
Okay, you're incredible.
And two or three more about to appear.
You know, you're like a machine.
I have trouble writing one book.
Go right ahead.
Please do start your...
Thanks.
Thanks, Carrie.
It's a real pleasure to be back with you, and I admire your courage, given the degree to which...
YouTube, the social media generally are censoring me in particular, but the whole alternative media, particularly conspiracy researchers, generally it's truly outrageous.
The title I give this tentatively, The Kavanaugh Conspiracy Weaponizing the Hashtag Me Too Against a Supreme Court Nominee.
To appreciate what happened here, we have to go back to the political background.
Where we have the predictions that abortion would be illegal after the Supreme Court retirement of Justice Kennedy, who had been the swing voter in this image.
He's the second from the left in the foreground beside Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
We find, for example, on CBS this morning, they're talking about how the president is picking Kavanaugh.
And how he is generally regarded as conservative and whereas you had a four to four split with Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch on the conservative wing, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer on the liberal side, that Kavanaugh is going to swing things ideologically to the conservative side.
We have especially alarm coming from the left wing over Roe v.
Wade, which of course is one of the most important decisions ever rendered by the court in 1973, which basically divided the pregnancy into three trimesters where the court ruled that abortions were unrestrictedly permissible in the first trimester, that the state could regulate how they were performed in the second.
But that in the third, they could only be performed for saving the life or the health of the mother, where otherwise they were restricted and technically qualify as murder.
In essence, what the court declared was that personhood.
It's never been a question about whether the developing fetus was a human being or going to be.
That was always obvious and a question of biology.
What was uncertain was when this developing entity was entitled to certain social, legal, and moral rights as a person.
So the issue has already technically been one of personhood, which the court in essence declared occurred at the end of the second trimester, where the first primitive you might call right to life, Occurs, coincident with the attainment of viability, which is the ability for the developing fetus to survive outside of the intrauterine environment.
There's much talk about technology and these more sophisticated incubators that you can have.
A fetus that's surviving outside of a woman's uterus in one of these incubators, but the incubator is an artificial uterus, so the distinction really isn't the one that matters.
It's actually a function of lung development.
You have a fairly early heart and brain development and activity prior to the end of the second trimester, but the lungs aren't sufficiently formed for the fetus to be viable.
So, in my opinion, this was a very wise decision.
I believe it also comports with the principles of democracy to allow every woman to make a choice in accordance with her own personal circumstances.
Her situation in life, there are so many variables involved here that, in my opinion, it's a bit presumptuous for any other party to think they could make this kind of very personal decision on the part of any other woman.
And it has the singular benefit of precluding one group from imposing ideologically their views upon another, which would have, for the sake of women who prefer to not bring a fetus to term, forcing them to become reproductive slaves.
I mean, in my opinion, it's this clear cut from an ethical point of view that, you know, slavery is the illegal thing.
I mean, immoral, if any action is immoral.
Sometimes it's been legal, sometimes it's been illegal.
The history of the United States well reflects that, where slavery was legal in southern states right up to the time of the Civil War, and it's been generally recognized illegal since.
There are areas of the world, however, where slavery still occurs, including, for example, Saudi Arabia, it appears.
But let me just say, it's always been immoral because the fundamental principle of morality is treating other persons with respect and never using them merely as a means.
That's why classic examples of immorality, murder, kidnapping, robbery, rape, are all clear cases of immorality because they involve using a person merely as a means, being exploited and not respected.
When individuals violate the law and violate their obligations to respect the rights of others, of course, then they're entitled to due process.
A court proceeding before the state imposes any punishment.
It's not really a question of determining guilt or innocence insofar as an individual is guilty or innocent insofar as they committed a crime or offense or did not.
It's rather a matter of the formality of fining the individual guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law that would then thereby justify or warrant the state imposing some Restriction on their live liberty or property, which under a constitutional system is otherwise not permissible.
So we had Chuck Shermer vowing to impose the Kavanaugh nomination with everything I got, given this against the background of the belief that the viability of Roe v.
Wade was at stake.
The mere prospect of Kavanaugh on the court has induced a fever, a fugue of provio that resembles those end-of-the-world apocalyptic visions of medieval sculpture, as though the whole world were going to fall apart if Kavanaugh were put on the court.
And against the very significant social development of the MeToo movement.
This, of course, came into prominence with the expose of Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood, who was exploiting young actresses to sexual abuse, some of which appear to have been extreme.
I've heard of descriptions of Gwyneth Paltrow have been virtually Harvey Weinstein's concubine.
It appears to have been that bad.
And, of course, it's had political ramifications that have been relatively far-reaching, including even, of course, the case of Al Franken of But Minnesota, who as a comedian, I think, actually got caught up in the bifurcation of his roles as a comedian and as a politician, a political figure, a United States senator, when he posed for a photograph as though he were grasping the brass of a reporter who was asleep in a chair.
I don't know that Al Franken actually deserved to be Taken out of the Senate, but he resigned in embarrassment and disgrace as a consequence.
This is the essential background now to the situation we encounter with Kavanaugh.
Feinstein drops the bomb.
This was very stunning, where Democrats were doubling down on character assassination.
And as I go through the development of the story, Kerry, not everything is going to be in exact chronological order.
I'm seeking to analyze the case from the logical point of view and how the evidence emerged is basically chronological.
But not strictly.
So here we had Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh thrust into turmoil Sunday after a woman accusing him of a high school-era sexual misconduct told her story publicly for the first time.
Democrats immediately called for a delay in a key committee vote set for later this week, and a Republican on the closely divided panel said he's not comfortable voting on the nomination without first hearing from the accuser.
The woman, Christine Blasey Ford, told the Washington Post now, this is in her interview with the Washington Post, not her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that Kavanaugh had pinned her to a bed at a Maryland party they attended in the 1980s, closely tried to remove her clothing, and put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.
I thought he might inadvertently kill me, Ford said.
He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.
Ford, 51, a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University, California, said she was able to get away after a friend of Kavanaugh's in the room jumped on top of them and everyone tumbled.
Kavanaugh, 53, in an appeals judge in Washington on the circuit court, the highest court in the country, generally regarded below the Supreme Court, repeated an earlier denial of her allegations categorically and unequivocally.
The committee recently concluded four days of public hearings on the nomination, where the vote had already been scheduled, and after the vote had been scheduled was when Dianne Feinstein dropped this bomb.
It turned out to be a letter she'd actually had in her possession since July.
It was already suspicious that she would wait until after the deliberations had been concluded by the Judiciary Committee, since many of them are conducted in private, it would have been very appropriate.
Had she brought the letter forward in a timely fashion to have conducted private interviews and investigations because even Blasey Ford was insisting she didn't want herself to be publicly identified.
So there were lots of issues from the beginning.
When we consider that this is an event that was alleged to have occurred at a high school, it's worth reviewing the bidding about Kavanaugh's early years in life.
As a teenager, he attended Georgetown Prep, a Jesuit prep school where he was two years senior to future Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has just preceded him onto the court.
But get this, he was captain of the school's basketball team, was a ride receiver and a quarterback for the school's football team.
He was also friends with classmate Mark Judge.
Most were in the same class with Maryland State Center member Richard Maddaleno and graduated in 1983.
After that, he attended Yale, where he had a paternal grandfather as an alum.
Several of his Yale classmates remembered him as a serious but not showy student who loves sports, especially basketball.
He unsuccessfully tried out for the Yale Bulldogs men's basketball team, played for two years on the junior varsity team, wrote articles about basketball and other sports for the Yale Daily News, was a member of the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon, and graduated from Yale in 1987.
Now, my opinion, and I have taught at a wide range of universities as well as having been an undergraduate at Princeton and done graduate work at Indiana, a guy who's a captain of his basketball team, a wide receiver, quarterback for the football team, is not going to have any trouble having girlfriends if he is so disposed.
It appears that Kavanaugh, in fact, was actually a bit shy socially.
Which is another reason for suspecting what's going on here.
Here we had a particularly interesting report early on from Carrie Severino, who turns out to be the Judicial Crisis Network Chief Counsel and Policy Director, who has herself considerable legal background and experience, where she was commenting about this.
Where Republicans in the Trump administration have criticized Feinstein's actions, noting she'd been aware of the letter in July but said nothing during her personal meeting with Kavanaugh during the nominee's hearing.
Here is a Serovino statement.
Judge Kavanaugh is admired in his church, in his community, and in his profession.
Throughout his distinguished career in public service, he has undergone half a dozen FBI background checks and never a whisper of misconduct.
Until the eve of his confirmation, 65 women who were his contemporaries during high school have all come out saying that Brett Kavanaugh was and is a man of character and integrity.
Countless women who have known Brett Kavanaugh personally and professionally spanning three decades have all testified to his respect for women, his character and his integrity.
Furthermore, Senator Weinstein apparently did not believe the allegations were serious, credible or relevant enough to share with the FBI or any other member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, even in the confidential background portion of the committee process.
It doesn't add up.
But what does add up is that Democrats are doubling down on a strategy of character assassination seeking to destroy the life of a distinguished public servant for the sake of appeasing their base.
I think it's very clear from other reports that were taking place that the idea here was to delay.
It wasn't necessarily to stop the hearing dead in its track, but to delay it until after the midterms, when the Democrats were expecting to pick up seats, quite possibly take control of the Senate, and at that point in time, not only Kavanaugh's nomination, but any other nomination to the court from the present president would be dead on arrival.
So here you see a typical announcement being made from left-wing sources.
Our campaign to block Kavanaugh's working.
Democrats are standing strong against Trump and his nominee.
Now, this requires us to think things through.
We have an apparent anomaly.
We have something puzzling.
It doesn't fit into our background knowledge.
You have a candidate who seems to have an impeccable career, a background that isn't suggestive of any improper performance or attitude toward women versus women.
Allegations from a woman who at least initially appears to be highly credible as a professor at Palo Alto University.
She has an advanced degree and a background that leads one to suppose this would be an authentic, perfectly legitimate complaint even if it had been mishandled by Senator Feinstein for political purposes.
So speculation then arises What could be the possible alternative explanation?
And of course, clearly, they really fall into two broad categories.
One, that it's a fabricated allegation that these aren't sincere complaints, but they're advanced for political purposes.
Two, that they are legitimate, and that even though Kavanaugh appears to have an impeccable credentials and background, that in fact he may have had a lapse in high school, The question then becomes, which of these hypotheses, if they were true, would make the available evidence more probable?
In other words, we're going to look at a whole lot of evidence as we proceed, and we need to have in the back of our mind whether they strengthen or weaken the evidence, the support for one or the other of these hypotheses.
When the evidence tends to settle down, and as we go through All of the evidence during our conversation, you'll find they do settle down.
Then you're entitled to accept as true the best supported of the two alternative hypotheses, but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science, meaning as new evidence or alternative explanations become available, it may be necessary to reject an hypothesis we previously accepted, accept an hypothesis we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
Almost immediately, looking into the background of Blasey Ford, questions arose about her motivation.
Turns out she's an anti-Trump leftist who attended the Women's March, donated to the Democratic National Committee repeatedly.
She participated to make the attempt to delay his nomination look increasingly like a desperate political ploy.
Here are some of her activities.
She signed a letter attacking Trump's zero-tolerance policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, asserting it was violating fundamental human rights.
She attended a Women's March event and even wore a version of the infamous pussy hat made to look like a brain.
Records show she donated to the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, friends of Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps, and this is very troubling, in an attempt to hide her motives, Ford scrubbed her social media presence before the allegations came to life.
This is rather striking, in my opinion, because if she had nothing to hide, why would she be hiding it?
Judge Kavanaugh's acuter, Christine Blasey Ford, has donated money to the DNC, DCCC, and Friends of Bernie Sanders, but it was scrubbed.
In addition, it turns out that this is really striking, that Kavanaugh's mother, who herself was a judge, was the presiding judge over Blasey Ford's father's foreclosure, which suggests she might even have a personal motivation.
Not only that, but we have the man she identified as having been in the room with Kavanaugh during the attacks, as it never happened.
From the Daily Caller, a former classmate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh has vehemently denied allegations a Supreme Court nominee attempted to force himself on a young woman during a party in high school.
Mark Judge, who attended Maryland's Georgetown prep with Kavanaugh in the 1980s, told the Weekly Standard on Friday the assault allegations were just absolutely nuts.
I never saw Brent act that way, Judge said.
Details of the alleged assault were first reported Friday morning by The New Yorker, which published the account of an unnamed woman who said Kavanaugh in a male class made a costa during a party.
The woman alleged that Kavanaugh held her down and covered her mouth while the classmate turned up music in the room to conceal the sound of her protest.
They're suggesting here that the Democrats were so dirty they had to go back three decades to dig up dirt to be used here.
But we'll suspend judgment on that point and simply say, This is troubling.
This is very troubling.
Okay, James, sorry to interrupt you here.
You're not changing slides on our screen here.
I don't know if you intend to be changing slides.
Oh yeah, 100% Carrie, 100%.
I've been changing slides right along.
I don't know why that is.
You know, you are showing your screen.
I'm not sure how you're Now that's a change in slide, but prior to that you did not change slides.
Well, that's very bad.
Should we go back to the quick least?
Perhaps you could go through the slides up until where we are now and just give a brief say this went with that explanation.
Here's the grim predictions.
Abortion will be illegal where Justice Kennedy is the second from the left.
Here's a slide showing the division of the court into the conservative versus the liberal wing.
Here is the slide I was showing when I was discussing Roe v.
Wade and its significance and why it appears to me to have been very well founded.
Here we have Chuck Shermer vowing to oppose Kamen on nomination with everything I've got.
Bear in mind, Chuck Shermer is a very resourceful guy, very politically savvy.
I don't have any doubt about him.
Be willing to reach for any ammunition he could use, any money could sling at the candidate.
Here's an image about how the left is reacting in a virtually apocalyptic fashion that we're virtually at the end of the world if Kavanaugh appears on the court.
Here's a slide related to the Me Too movement where I was discussing how it began with Harvey Weinstein and has gone on from there.
Some cases appear to have been particularly egregious, including his apparent abuse of Gwyneth Paltrow.
Then we turn to Feinstein dropping the bomb.
We have the Judicial Crisis Network about how Democrats are doubling down on character assassination.
I was reporting from the New York Times about Trump's nominee and how we had Dianne Feinstein coming forth with this allegation with Christine Blasey Ford doing an interview with the Washington Post.
This is separate and prior to her appearance before the Judiciary Committee about how the committee had gone through all of this process and could have privately investigated this question if only Only Dianne Feinstein had shared it in a timely fashion.
Here's from actually the Wikipedia on his early life and education.
Let me just mention a couple of points I didn't make before.
He was born on February 12, 1965 in Washington, D.C., the son of Martha Gamble and Edward Cavanaugh, Jr., where his father was an attorney and served as president of a cosmetic association for two decades, and his mother was a history teacher.
But also earned a JD and served as a Maryland Circuit Court judge.
That's where, of course, she presided over the bankruptcy hearing of Lazy Ford's father.
Here's where I gave you a recap about his background as a captain of the basketball team, wide receiver, cornerback for the football team, and going to Yale.
Here's Kerry Severino, of the Judicial Crisis Network, who gave us a recap about these views, about him being admired in his church, his community, and his profession.
Throughout his distinguished career, he's undergone a half a dozen background checks and never a whisper of misconduct.
Bringing us up to this slide about the way in which the left was pitching in our campaign to block Kavanaugh's working, well, it's very evident, I think, to anyone who takes a serious look that this was a democratic strategy to carry this nomination over until after the midterms in the hope.
They would regain control of the Senate and be able to block not only the Kavanaugh nomination, but any other nominations coming from Donald Trump.
And I suggest that here we have a typical situation, a puzzle, but something doesn't fit.
We have the anomalous accusation vis-a-vis his background.
So how are we going to sort it out?
We need to speculate about what could be the alternative possible explanations.
And, of course, there really are two, basically, to wit.
One should.
That these are fabricated as a desperate ploy to defeat the nomination and at least carried over past the midterm for political gain, alternatively.
And it's actually bona fide and legitimate in that she didn't want to come forward, but she was being used by Dianne Feinstein, dropping it at the last minute, where we have to look at all the evidence to see if we can sort it out.
Ask yourself, which hypothesis confirms a higher probability on the available evidence where We're entitled to accept as true the explanation that's best supported when the evidence is settled down.
But that will still be in the tentative and fallible fashion of science where the access to new evidence, the new alternative explanations may require that we revise our opinion, our conclusion, reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
Here we have, then, reflections, reports that were forthcoming about her background and apparent motivation, which suggests that she was actually an anti-Trump leftist, Who attended the Women's March, donated to the DNC. This obviously is reinforcing of the hypothesis that these are fabricated allegations.
She had a history of left-wing political activism, signed a letter attacking Trump's zero-tolerance policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, asserting it was violating fundamental human rights.
She attended a Women's March event, even wore a version of the infamous pussy hat made to look like a brain.
It turns out that Records show she donated to the DNC, to the Congressional Campaign Committee and Friends of Bernie Sanders, where I find it extremely striking that in an attempt to hide her motives, it would appear, she scrubbed her social media presence before the allegations came to light.
In fact, of all of these we're noting, I think that is the most damning.
Then it turns out, of course, that, whoa, Kavanaugh's mom was a presiding judge over her father, Blasey Ford's father's foreclosure, suggesting she hadn't had personal motivation.
And then we find with all of those issues questioning her motivation, we find the report from the man who she identified as having been in the room, Mark Judge, saying the whole thing is absolutely nuts.
It never happened.
Now it turns out we're caught up in turning to more disconcerting discoveries because it turns out that Kavanaugh's accuser recovered her memories about this allegation at the very time that the Democrats were panicked that Mitt Romney could win and might nominate him to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
This is from American Thinker, which often has very provocative, well-researched notices about current events.
By Thomas Lifson, which is noticed an odd coincidence that after telling no winner's story about the alleged incident for decades, he suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples therapy in 2012, when leftists perceived the possibility Mitt Romney ahead in the polls might win the presidency and appoint Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
This is already back in 2012.
He was running well against Obama until his 47% gaffe, He actually had a shot at winning.
For the Democrats, as has been the case since Ward, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never-retired Ruth Bader Ginsburg at perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the court.
With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, recalled something interesting he'd read back in 2012.
Namely, the left preparing for a possible Romney win, they assess that Kavanaugh would be a Supreme Court fifth, and this accusation was ready to go, then Obama won, so the story died.
Now it's reemerged.
Read the last few lines of this 2012 article.
This is from The New Yorker, where Jeffrey Toobin, who's a well-known expert on the court and legal issues, frequently on television, He offered an analysis about Brett Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court.
According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the court, might overturn Obamacare.
And just pay attention to that last paragraph.
If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh.
Now, what's fascinating about that is that already in 2012, you see, Kavanaugh was prominent because of his impeccable record as a potential nominee to the court.
So we had this unusual situation that it looks as though Blasey Ford may have been setting things up and giving this report to her therapist in 2012, even though she didn't name Kavanaugh at the time.
Not only that, but it turns out that her letter that was sent to Dianne Feinstein has varying font styles and sizes.
As one who has spent a lot of time on issues of fabricated documents, including Obama's fake birth certificate from Hawaii and a phony death certificate for Noah Posner in relation to Sandy Hook.
These are very telling.
That her letter has varied font sizes and styles, suggests it is indeed a fabrication, not a legit, and that reinforces the idea that this is in fact not a bona fide accusation, but a political stunt.
Here are some of the members of Truth Feed and Gateway Punder.
This shit is even more edited than Mary Satora's birth certificate.
Look closely, multiple fonts everywhere.
It appears like a fill-in-the-blank letter.
Kavanaugh's name was added after the original draft.
Might have been created by the Obama birth certificate forger.
The name Kavanaugh is different, too.
In one of them, the A is right up against the K. In another, the line of the U is taller than the others.
In another, the letters are uneven.
Maybe it's just a copy, but it seems like a computer or typewriter would always be the same, spacing, etc.
It's been my experience that those discrepancy occur when someone tries to change a document.
Who sends a sloppy letter like this to a U.S. senator and she didn't even sign it with her full legal name, just her maiden name?
No, Christine Ford, 51, is married to Russell Biddle, 4, 56, where her maiden name is Christine Margaret Blasey.
Turns out she vacationed in the mid-Atlantic until August 7th.
It would be interesting to note if she had an airplane phobia back then, because this was already being reported in the press, and drove across country with her family.
Politico reported Ford had refused to testify before the Senate, claiming she didn't want to fly to Washington because she's uncomfortable in confined spaces.
Well, this is all troubling, and then it turns out, lo and behold, the Democrats are refusing to cooperate.
Here we had a hearing set for Monday, here Kavanaugh and his accuser, and yet it turns out the Democrats are refusing to participate in a call with Kavanaugh after the assault allegations or even making contact to Christine Blasey Ford.
This is all extremely suspicious.
After Grassley attempted to set up a private call with Kavanaugh Democrats as a whole on the committee refused to participate.
With only a few hours notice and over the objections of ranking member Feinstein Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans scheduled a staff level phone call with Brett Kavanaugh concerning the allegations he sexually assaulted a young woman.
In view of the enormity and seriousness of these allegations, this is now coming from the Democrats.
The staff-only phone call behind the closed doors is unacceptable, and Democratic staff will not participate.
This isn't how things should be done.
It is a complete violation of how the committee has worked in the past.
They're saying now the FBI has the resources and know-how to conduct an objective, independent evaluation of these sensitive allegations with appropriately trained investigators.
This isn't just about an interview.
It's about analyzing information, gathering the facts.
That's what the FBI does, and that's why they're in charge.
But the fact is, the claim about the FBI was a BS on its merits.
A sexual assault is not a federal matter.
At best, it's a state matter, namely in Maryland.
Where the alleged incident occurred where she did not file a complaint at the time.
It's nonsense because Democrats are supposed to be Ford's biggest advocates.
If the allegation were truly serious, they'd be doing everything they can to uncover the truth and as soon as possible.
But by refusing to participate in the call, they show they have no intention of getting to the bottom of these allegations.
They're using it to malign the credibility of Kavanaugh.
And really, more importantly, to delay the confirmation process.
I think at this point in time it was becoming increasingly evident That that was how it was playing out, where now we got a report that Kavanaugh accuser Blasey Ford indicates she may not testify at all.
Here we had Christine Blasey Ford set to give the whole game away and then some, where the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault is set to testify, but now she seemed to be backing out getting cold feet.
And here we had a really fascinating report, an interview with On Tucker Carlson.
Watch this.
Very appropriate.
Okay.
We don't have any sound.
Okay.
Okay.
Let me see what we can do here.
I think if I go to a full screen, you can hear it.
Just make sure the sound on the actual video is on.
Right, right, right, right.
I may have to unplug my headset.
I've noticed sometimes that it works that way.
Can you hear it now?
Well, you'd have to push go.
Okay, okay, wait a second.
Let me return to where we were.
So we have some breaking news for you.
The details are coming in and we want to get this right.
Christine Blasey Ford, who was scheduled, we thought, as of an hour ago to testify to the Senate this Monday about her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, obviously, who has been nominated by the President of the Senate Supreme Court.
Apparently has just indicated that she is not going to testify on Monday next, but will instead await the final results of an FBI investigation that apparently she and her lawyer and some Democrats are calling for into the charges.
What does this mean?
Does the FBI have jurisdiction here?
What might they find?
We have switched topics midstream on Joe DiGenova, a frequent guest, because he is also a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and knows a lot about how DOJ works.
So, Joe, does this make sense to you?
Is this something the FBI has jurisdiction over?
And could they conceivably come up with meaningful information in a case 36 years old?
No, this is not utter nonsense.
This is another delaying tactic.
She really doesn't want to testify because when she does, she's going to look like the loon that she is.
She may very well believe everything she's saying, and that is one of the signs of lunacy, believing something that isn't real.
But her lawyer is even lunier.
The FBI is not going to investigate a non-federal matter of an alleged assault Which is unconfirmed by even the witness herself.
She's not sure when it happened, where it happened, who else was present.
She never reported it to anybody.
This is nothing.
Okay, so I just want to say I have no idea of her mental state at all.
She's having listened to her account.
She seems sincere, but I wonder if the FBI... They cannot, because she does not know when it happened, where it happened, and who else was there.
Judge Kavanaugh has already He categorically denied it.
There's no useful evidence to be served by interviewing him.
It cannot be investigated because there is nothing to investigate.
So then why would Republicans go along with something like that in the Senate?
You know, I have no idea about why the Republicans are doing what they're doing.
They wanted to give a chance for a hearing.
She has now denied them a chance for a hearing.
Interesting.
So what, I mean, if you were advising Republicans in the Senate, what would be your advice right now?
Have a vote on Thursday like you promised you would.
Do you think they will?
Oh, God, no.
They're scared of their own shadow practically right now.
But Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed now because this is clearly a desire to delay the proceedings even further.
The FBI is not going to investigate this, and they have said that they will not.
Yeah, that makes sense to me completely.
Judge Jennifer, thank you for that.
I needed some perspective.
Appreciate it.
You bet.
Now, Carrie, can you see the screen now?
Yes.
Okay, so a second accuser comes forward.
In other words, Blasey's, you know, receiving a certain amount of criticism, so we get a second accuser coming forward.
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is seeking immediate postponement of any further action on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination amid a new report of alleged sexual misconduct.
The co-author of the Kavanaugh hit piece, this was in The New Yorker, admits a witness she claimed to have to support the account never saw the incident.
The standard for what constitutes a printable story these days has taken a serious downturn.
Jane Mayer, the co-author of the already thoroughly specious story claiming that another woman was the victim of inappropriate behavior from Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Admitted that her corroborating witness provided only a second-hand account of the story.
Actually, she first claimed that he remembers the story clearly before being cornered by CBS anchor John Dickerson.
Did he see it?
Dickerson asked.
No, Mayor responded.
As I've said, he heard it from someone who was there.
And that right there is why multiple outlets passed on the story while a two-bit operation like the New Yorker ran with it.
And Kerry, this is particularly striking because this is a woman at Yale who claimed that he had exposed himself to her when they'd be drinking on a campus like Yale.
And this is now as a graduate student.
This must have been a huge news all over the campus.
Three major venues, the New York Times, NBC, and the Washington Post, put out a dragnet to try to find supporting witnesses and came up with none.
So the fact that it was published by the New Yorker anyway is really, frankly, an embarrassment.
Numerous doubts have arisen from the latest accuser's story.
Deborah Ramirez claims that she and Kavanaugh were both students at Yale.
The future Supreme Court justice exposed himself and caused her to touch him in a sexual manner.
The proof behind Ramirez's claim is completely non-existent.
The New York Times investigated the claim in Meyer and co-author Ronan Farrow's story prior to publication.
After interviewing several dozen people, they were unable to find anyone who could corroborate the accusation, except for that one aforementioned witness who heard it from someone who was there.
And I just want to emphasize now we're going to find, you know, even to this day, there are those who are insisting that there were these other witnesses, for example, on the Yale campus.
But we know already early on that they did not exist.
They couldn't be found from the number one, the number two and the number three most aggressive anti-Trump sources reporting in the news, the New York Times, NBC and The Washington Post.
So here we have from Brian York tweeting, New Yorker Kavanaugh allegation story has it all.
35 years ago, accuser was drunk.
Significant gaps in her memory recovered recently with help of a lawyer.
Memory is fuzzy all around.
Some may never happen.
The accuser never described this until Brett Skoda's nomination.
The 53-year-old accuser, Demra Ramirez, told The New Yorker she was initially hesitant to speak out because she was drunk at the time and her memory had gaps.
She spent six days carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney before going public.
Now, how does consulting with your attorney enable you to recover memories that are vague to begin with?
I cannot imagine.
So it goes on to comment.
This is amazing.
Two male students who were allegedly at the party, the wife of another male student, three other Yale classmates, all tell Ronan Farrow that there is no way Kavanaugh assaulted Ramirez.
Deborah Ramirez's best friend, says Ramirez, never told her about this incident and suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated.
Mayer, it should be noted, also took aim at Justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings in which Anita Hill had accused him of sexual misconduct.
In the end, Mayer Farrow and the mainstream media don't need actual witnesses or solid facts to run stories anymore.
Their endgame here is trying to derail Kavanaugh's nomination, all in the name of saving the right to abortion.
They do the Democrats bidding, even if it means destroying an innocent man and his family.
She, Ramirez, came forward because Senate Democrats began looking at this claim, Farrow admitted, a politically motivated smear, if ever there was one, just to comment on Clarence Thomas.
I believe Anita Hill was completely in the right.
I believe her testimony.
There was significant evidence about Clarence Thomas that was never introduced.
He was a pornography addict.
He had rented maybe a thousand videos from a local porn store.
They were never allowed into evidence, never allowed into testimony.
So I think Anita Hill got the short end of the stick that she showed great courage in coming forward and that she was honest and sincere in her testimony.
That, however, cannot be said a blazy for it.
And the deeper we go, the more we find that's troubling about her, for example.
Christine Ford claims to have been too afraid to fly to D.C., but she plotted a move to New Zealand after the 2016 election, and she attended the University of Hawaii.
So what did she do, paddle over to Hawaii on a surfboard?
In a bid to further delay a vote on Judge Kavanaugh, Christine Lazy Ford's associates claimed earlier this week that she was too afraid to fly to Washington, D.C., from California, and instead needed to drive.
Let's look at the Kavanaugh accusation and take it at face value.
A drunk 17-year-old boy improperly touches a 15-year-old girl at a party.
The girl goes to a notorious high school where they are literally turned into sex objects.
This most common episode in America allegedly happened 36 years ago.
The accuser doesn't remember where it occurred, when it took place, or who was there.
And the Democrats have turned on an unproven third-degree misdemeanor into a first-degree felony conviction with not a shred of proof.
And this is coming from a former 17-year-old boy.
Kavanaugh hearing exposes the utter insanity of the Democratic Party.
This was from State of the Nation, which had a number of quite incisive pieces about it.
Who in their right mind can argue with the above subtitle, the left has gone stark raving mad?
Who said it?
Just about every rational person watching the Kavanaugh Confirmation Circus.
Here's the most recent outrage.
The Republicans have asked again to see the most important piece of evidence, the original unredacted letter submitted by accuser Christine Blasey Ford, that unexpectedly triggered the postponement of the confirmation vote for SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The Democrat ranking member, Senator Dianne Feinstein, has steadfastly refused to hand it over to her peers or the GOP leadership.
Not only that, but Feinstein et al.
are calling for a new FBI investigation into the matter, which the FBI has refused to conduct.
There's nothing for them to investigate.
It's a 36-year-old case that was never reported in the first place, and foreigners have refused a testimony.
Moreover, as we've observed, it wasn't a federal offense.
It was a state.
All the while the growing phalanx of female social justice warrior attorneys surrounding the accuser is making more demands by the day.
One would think that these lawyerly feminists are running the Senate Judiciary Committee so brazen and unprecedented are their unreasonable requests.
And get this, here's a photograph of Christine Blasey Ford at a pool party submitted by a female classmate.
Key point.
Okay, now wait one second.
Your slides are not changing again, so...
Oh, no.
Okay, okay.
Let me go back and we'll fix it.
Do you see this one now?
Yes.
Lazy Ford, too afraid to fly, but she plotted to move to New Zealand and attended the University of Hawaii?
Right.
Here's a story from a former 17-year-old boy about this alleged groping incident.
I mean, how commonplace could that be?
That a slightly intoxicated high school boy makes a pass at a high school girl, which appears to have been elevated from a Third-degree misdemeanor until a first-degree felony to trash her.
And then we get this rather fascinating photograph from a classmate of Blasey Ford at a party.
She's passed out on a table surrounded by beer bottles.
And this is from one of articles in the State of the Nation, which published quite a few.
We notice increasing evidence about Blasey Ford and her suspect motivation.
Here's another.
I found this allegation about the holier-than-thou Christine Blasey Ford.
She admitted she was an alcoholic back then and regretted being so easy.
She sold her best friend.
She had 64 sexual partners between 11th grade through college.
She's also a liberal activist who wrote in her Facebook in 1916, scaliotypes must be banned from the law.
Now that's rather damning.
Not only that, but juxtaposed it with this report from Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a virgin during high school.
Frankly, he appears not to have lost his virginity until the age of about 20.
On my own show discussing Kavanaugh yesterday, one of my callers acknowledged that that was true of him, and frankly, it was also true of me.
So I don't think this is all so unusual.
Given the report from Lazy Ford's friend about her regretting she was so easy if there had been an encounter between Kavanaugh and Lazy Ford, Blasey Ford would have been the sexual predator and Kavanaugh would have been the target.
Here we get now from two of the 65 women who signed a letter supporting Kavanaugh in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against him.
Their names are Fitzgerald and Kane.
They further defended his character in an interview with Fox News' Martha McCullough Monday night.
And both women stated that Ford's allegations are the polar opposite of the Kavanaugh they knew.
Now, let me just make an obvious point.
The Me Too movement insists you should take the word of women at face value.
Well, you've got these two or three women accusers with no supporting or substantiating evidence on the one hand, and you've got 65 women who knew Brett Kavanaugh well and who attest to his good character and deportment, his propriety in dealing with women.
It seems to me there's a double standard here that they want to say you should believe all the accusations if women make them, but none of the defenses, even though women in larger quantity with a greater breadth of experience and familiarity with the candidate in question, is making them.
And then we get the bizarre situation of a third accuser making her debut.
Now this, frankly, Was really a bridge too far.
A Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick becomes a third Kavanaugh accuser.
This is virtually bizarre because we have her claiming she attended 10 parties with high school boys after she'd already graduated.
She was a couple years ahead of them.
Allegedly, she observed them getting the girls using date rape drugs get in a soporific state, though they could be gang rape.
This was highly implausible on its face.
Among the questions to be raised here is if she graduated from high school in 1980, why was she going to these high school parties with minors in 1982?
Not only that, but if she was witnessing the offenses as the only adult there, why was she not reporting them to the police?
And the third, why would she go back again and again if this was taking place?
It seems to me this was clearly inspired by the situation with Bill Cosby, who actually was using the date rape drug.
And it was part of using the Me Too movement as a background to trash Kavanaugh.
No one took it really seriously because it was so outrageous.
Kavanaugh said this is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone, which was completely appropriate.
We have other commentators observing, isn't it weird that Kavanaugh only assaulted far-left radical feminists?
In other words, all three of these women appear to have their own political agendas.
It's not only highly improbable he would have been targeting them, it's much, much more probable that they would have been targeting him.
That if he is on the hot seat and they can contribute to the defeat of a man who in their minds represents the end of Roe v.
Wade, They might very well come forward.
There are lots of discussions about their politics.
We've already talked about Blasey Ford.
Deborah Ramirez is also a registered Democrat who lived in Colorado for the last 16 years, married for more than a decade.
It's not obvious why she came forward, but her story is so sketchy.
Anyone with a modicum of sense would not have advanced it, given six hours with her attorney debating about it.
Julie Swetnick is a whole nother matter.
You can find out a lot about her, which is very disturbing stuff.
So then we come to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Ford is telling the Senate graphic details of the alleged Kavanaugh assault.
There was an excellent summation of what she would say here.
She's accusing him of a violent attempted rape.
I thought he might inadvertently kill me, trying to attack me and remove my clothing.
But her story is growing less believable by the day.
Here are eight reasons why it's hardly anti-woman for senators to question her account at Thursday's hearing.
First, Ford can't recall the basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event of her life, not where the assault took place, not sure whose house it was, what street it was on, or when.
She's not even sure of the year, let alone the day and the month.
She's not certain how old she was, what grade she was in, when she says an older student violently molested her, but she doesn't plead inebriation.
She can recall very clearly having had exactly one beer, two.
Fort Conceit, she told Dolan what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend.
That means she can rely on no contemporary witness to corroborate her story.
Three, worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all denied knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingram Kaiser, who she calls a lifelong friend.
Kaiser's lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee, simply put, Ms.
Kaiser does not know Mr.
Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with or without Dr.
Ford.
The other two potential witnesses, Mark Judge and Patrick P.J. Smith, also deny any recollection of attending such a party.
The committee took their sworn statements under penalty of perjury.
These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Judicial Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford's attorney last week.
In her original letter to Devine Feinstein, she claimed Kavanaugh talked to Kaiser and Smith right after he assaulted her, yet neither shared her memory.
This is to say the least highly problematic for her case.
No witness corroborates any part of her story.
Four, her own immediate family doesn't appear to be backing her up either.
Her mother, father, and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband's side of the family.
The letter attests to her honesty and integrity.
Why didn't her parents and brothers sign the letter?
A congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.
Fifth, this summer Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory.
They couldn't help her.
I've been trying to forget this all my life and now I'm supposed to remember every little detail Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in the San Jose Mercury News 6.
bombshell charge contacting the Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer.
Ford is also a Democrat as well as an anti-Trump marcher raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.
Seven, Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account, but they don't mention Kavanaugh.
They also point up inconsistencies in her story.
For instance, Sir Shriek noted that Ford told her there were four boys in the bedroom, not two, as she now says.
The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her late teens when she was assaulted, but Ford now says she may have been only 15, 18.
In another inconsistency, he foretold the Washington Post he was upset when Trump won in 2016 because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick.
But Kavanaugh wasn't added to Trump's list of possibilities until November 2017, a full year later, even though, as I mentioned, in relation to Mitt Romney, he was already being speculated because his His credentials are so impressive.
On top of all that, Kavanaugh unequivocally denied Dr.
Ford's allegations under penalty of perjury during the September 17th.
The women interviews will no doubt be used to test the consistency, yet the Democrats have already tried and convicted Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
Without the hard evidence, without some substantiation, Some even go beyond Ford's claim to call him an out-and-out rapist, a sexual predator, even a child predator.
As a result, Kavanaugh and his family have been subjected to all kinds of threats.
Let me close today, because we're short on time, with a marvelous moment when Lindsey Ford addressed his colleagues on the committee about the hearing and their conduct there.
At 9.23...
On the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said, 23 minutes after your nomination.
I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything I have.
I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same.
The stakes are simply too high for anything less.
Well, if you weren't aware of it, you are now.
Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?
I did meet with Senator Feinstein.
Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr.
Ford?
I did not know that.
Did you know that her and her staff had these allegations for over 20 days?
I did not know that at the time.
If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us.
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.
You've got nothing to apologize for.
When you see Sotomayor and Kagan tell them that Lindsey said, oh, because I voted for them.
I would never do to them what you've done to this guy.
This is the most unethical sham 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.
Are you a gang rapist?
No.
I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.
Boy, y'all want power.
God, I hope you never get it.
I hope the American people can see through this sham.
That you knew about it and you held it.
You had no intention of protecting Dr.
Ford.
None.
She's as much of a victim as you are.
God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends.
But let me tell you when it comes to this.
You're looking for a fair process?
You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.
Do you consider this a job interview?
The advice and consent rule is like a job interview.
Do you consider that you've been through a job interview?
I've been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution.
Would you say you've been through hell?
I've been through hell and then some.
This is not a job interview.
This is hell.
This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap.
Your high school yearbook.
You have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation.
You're supposed to be Bill Cosby when you're a junior and senior in high school.
And all of a sudden you got over it.
It's been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don't stop.
Here's my understanding.
If you lived a good life, people would recognize it.
Like the American Bar Association has the gold standard.
His integrity is absolutely unquestioned.
He is the very circumspect in his personal conduct.
Harbors no biases or prejudices.
He's entirely ethical.
He's a really decent person.
He is warm, friendly, unassuming.
He's the nicest person.
The ABA. One thing I can tell you, you should be proud of.
Ashley, You should be proud of this, that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for Dr.
Ford.
To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.
You want this seat?
I hope you never get it.
I hope you're on the Supreme Court.
That's exactly where you should be.
And I hope that the American people will see through this charade.
And I wish you well.
And I intend to vote for you.
And I hope everybody who's fair-minded will.
Carrie, we can stop there as a suitable place to take a break and continue with part two as appropriate.
Okay.
All right.
I think that that's a good idea.
I think that we could continue to broadcast.
So if you want to stand by and the people want to stand by, what I will do is take this I will put it on my channel.
I don't see anything offensive in this.
You're covering news stories and so on.
So at the moment, I think that we could continue the broadcast live if people are interested.
At any rate, you and I will continue, all right?
Yes, perfect.
Okay, so at this point, I'm going to hang up with you.
I'm going to take this This show offline and we'll be back with part two shortly.
You got it.
Okay.
▲
Export Selection