OpenCDA

December 2, 2018

First, Build the Wall. And Then …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 4:23 pm

The Wire WallWhen he first declared his candidacy, now-President Donald J. Trump strongly advocated building a wall to separate the United States from Mexico.

The wall, regardless of its final design and construction, was to be formidable enough to discourage illegal aliens from entering the United States illegally (that’s why they’re “illegal” aliens).  At the same time, the wall was to preserve the process which allows lawful immigrants or temporary residents (e.g., workers) to make lawful application and then enter the United States lawfully.

“A wall won’t work.  It won’t be effective.  It will never stop everyone,” many opponents scream.

These opponents are only partially correct.   A wall can work, it can be effective, but by itself it is never expected to indefinitely prevent illegal entry.

For these opponents, this post will be a tutorial.   (more…)

November 29, 2018

If Only He Could Dribble a Basketball …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 5:20 pm

Shapiro[

The Washington Free Beacon online news outlet is reporting “A Gonzaga University administrator blocked an event featuring conservative pundit Ben Shapiro not over the content of his speech, but because protesters might use hateful language.”

Here’s a link to Washington Free Beacon article posted today.

Somehow I suspect that Shapiro would have been welcomed with open arms if he could dribble a basketball, if he had promised a large endowment to the athletic department, or if he had assured the Gonzaga pearl-clutchers he would say nothing nice about President Trump.

November 17, 2018

Just Kidding … Maybe

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 1:19 pm

nuclear-explosion-1Eric Swalwell,  a 38-year old lawyer elected to Congress to represent California’s 15th Congressional District, has a plan for gun control.  His plan is for the federal government to buy back every “military-style semiautomatic assault weapon” in the United States. (You’ll need Dramamine in boxcar quantities if you try to mentally resolve the factual descriptor conflicts in that five-word quote from Swalwell.)

For those who won’t voluntarily sell back the rifle, Congressman Swalwell says the federal government can nuke us.

Swalwell’s intellectual deficiencies became apparent when he was questioned by the National Rifle Association’s spokeswoman, Dana Loesch.  She may wish to apologize to him, however, for jumping to the conclusion that a US Congressman advocating the use of nuclear weapons against US citizens even in jest might still be mentally stable enough to hold any elective office, anywhere, anytime.  Clearly she was wrong if she concluded that.

And by the way, Swalwell is considering a run for President in 2020.  Well, why not?  After all, Hillary Clinton did a pretty fair imitation of Kim Philby, so why shouldn’t Swalwell take a crack at imitating Pol Pot?

 

November 14, 2018

This Does Not Sound Encouraging …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 8:01 pm

Providing for the Common DefenseThis report does not sound encouraging.  In fact, it sounds downright ominous.

The 116-page report is entitled Providing for the Common Defense:  The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission.

The recommendations in the report make it very clear that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch must get in synch on our national defense.

That hasn’t been happening since President Trump won the November 2016 general election and was inaugurated as the President of the United States.    It seems even less likely to begin now that the “leadership” of the House of Representatives will include rage-blinded, ignorant clowns intent on using any means necessary to remove President Trump from office.   Still, someone needs to politically slap some sense into both the President and the Clown Car Congress.

Failure to correct the socialist, screw the United States course begun by President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry, and the Clown Car Partisans of Congress has resulted in dangerously unprepared national defense strategies and tactics.  As the report notes:

“… the costs of failing to meet America’s crisis of national defense and national security will not be measured in abstract concepts like ‘international stability’ and ‘global order.’   They will be measured in American lives, American treasure, and American security and prosperity lost.  It will be a tragedy — of unforeseeable but perhaps tremendous magnitude — if the United States allows its national interests and national security to be compromised through an unwillingness or inability to make hard choices and necessary investments.  That tragedy will be all the more regrettable because it is within our power to avoid it.”

September 29, 2018

A Prediction and a Question

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 3:40 pm

Lies-TruthPresident Trump has directed the FBI to conduct a supplemental background investigation to determine if Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh had any relevant involvement in the allegations raised by Christine Ford and Deborah Ramirez.  President Trump further directed the FBI to conclude its supplemental investigations by next Friday, October 5.

I predict:   Between November 28 and October 5, Christine Ford and her attorneys will try to file a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh with the state of Maryland.   Fox News is reporting that “Earlier this week, a group of Maryland lawmakers, all Democrats, called for the state to conduct its own criminal investigation into decades-old sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh …”  A letter in response from the Montgomery County Police and the Montgomery County  State’s Attorney’s Office indicated they would conduct a state level investigation into such allegations if the victim filed the complaint.

If as I predict Ford files the complaint with the state of Maryland, the investigation would be difficult to complete by Friday, October 5.   Almost certainly Senate Democrats would demand under penalty of #MeToo that the Senate confirmation vote on the Kavanaugh nomination must be postponed until the Maryland state investigation has concluded and the State’s Attorney has made a charging decision.

Question:  Why did President Trump assign the Brett Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation to the FBI and not the Office of Personnel Management, National Background Investigations Bureau ?  Why were Senate Democrats and some Republicans so intent on getting the FBI involved in this?

Given the allegations of FBI and DoJ wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 presidential campaign, and particularly considering the mounting evidence that the FBI and DoJ knowingly submitted  applications which intentionally included false and misleading information to obtain a FISA warrant and three renewals to surveil Carter Page, a Trump campaign low-level staffer,  why would anyone want the FBI anywhere near the Kavenaugh mess?  The supplemental BI does not require the involvement of any criminal investigative body, certainly not the FBI.

The supplemental BI is an administrative investigation, not a criminal one.  NBIB agents would not be asking questions predicated on proving or disproving criminal allegations; they would be investigating to gather factual information which the sponsoring agency could use to determine an applicant’s suitability or fitness for federal employment.

September 28, 2018

The Swamp (ABA Division)

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 9:07 am

Lies-TruthThe Democrat-led inquisition designed and unashamedly executed to destroy the lives of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his family goes on even after being exposed by Judiciary Committee member Senator Lindsay Graham on Thursday, September 27.  Note that at 3:17 / 4:33 of the video, Senator Graham reads from the American Bar Association’s (ABA) earlier letter favorably evaluating Judge Kavanaugh for elevation to the US Supreme Court.

Today we see that the ABA’s President Robert M. Carlson penned a letter yesterday urging that <Democrat echo chamber>”… the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (and, as appropriate, the full Senate) to conduct a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States only after an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Ford and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” </Democrat echo chamber>.

I wonder if Carlson actually listened to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before sending the letter or if he sent it immediately after Christine Ford’s performance concluded.

The second paragraph of Carlson’s letter states the request is made “… because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.  The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”

His request is pure, unadulterated hypocritical “bullshit.”   Carlson apparently lacks any level of understanding of the federal background investigation process.

If Carlson had been paying attention to yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, he would have heard references to sworn statements about the “accusations and facts” he demands now be re-investigated by the FBI.  I wonder if it occurred to Carlson to ask who contacted the people identified by Ford, administered the oath, and took those sworn statements before Ford gave her testimony yesterday?   I wonder if Carlson knows that even if the FBI special agents had gathered the background information, the “careful examination of the accusations and facts” would still have been done by the Senate Judiciary Committee and its staff, not by the FBI?  That’s generally how the federal background investigation program works.  Here’s a more complete description.

Is Carlson suggesting that only the FBI has the integrity and competence to conduct personnel security background investigations?  If so, he needs to contact the CIA, NSA, DoD, DHS, Congress, and other agencies as well.  They may not yet have been informed that their in-house BIs don’t measure up to The Swamp (ABA Division) standards.

Then again, maybe Carlson’s idea has some merit.  There are a lot of now-former FBI agents who have plenty of time and probably still recall how to conduct BIs.  Let’s see:  How about Earl Pitts?  Or Richard Miller?  Or Robert HanssenJames ComeyPeter Strzok?

Oh, and don’t forget Andrew McCabe.  In fact, he should probably have the inside track.  He is being represented by attorney Michael Bromwich, one of the attorneys engaged to represent Christine Ford during her testimony at the Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

As for what Senate Judiciary Committee Rankest Member Senator Dianne Feinstein and her only slightly less rank cohorts have done to Judge Kavanaugh and his family, I suppose that’s a representative example of  “… the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.”

September 25, 2018

Oh, Please, Mr. Bromwich!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 12:18 pm

Lies-TruthChristine Ford’s latest attorney (joining Katz and Banks) is Michael Bromwich.  Bromwich has been a federal prosecutor, a special prosecutor, and a Department of Justice inspector general.

On Monday we learned that Bromwich is objecting to the Senate Judiciary Committee planning to use an outside attorney who is a woman and an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” to question Christine Ford when she testifies (or doesn’t) at the Committee on Thursday.

(ADDENDUM:  09-25-2018 at 19:44 PDT — Late word is that the “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” engaged by the Republicans to question both Ford and Kavenaugh will be Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s office in Phoenix, Arizona.)

The wording of Bromwich’s letter to the Committee Chairman Grassley was, I believe, an effort to portray Bromwich in the image of a knight in shining armor lawyer who will protect his client Ford from that evil outside prosecutor intent on bullying  Pure-as-the-driven-snow Chrissie with a withering examination to humiliate and demean her as if she is some mopus erectus child molestor.

In fact, that is exactly the kind of treatment of Ford that Bromwich and the Democrats would like to see the Republicans on the Committee inflict.  It would forever etch in viewers’ minds that Christine Ford is somehow being victimized by the old white Republican men on the Committee and, by extension, by Brett Kavanaugh.

Bromwich’s real concern, though, is more likely to be based his knowledge of how an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” is really likely to question Ford during the nationally televised Judiciary Committee Circus on Thursday.

Bromwich is likely worried that instead of the viewing public seeing some aging great white Republican sharks cruelly playing with the bloody defenseless seal before leaving its carcass floating in the ocean, we are more likely to see the “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” woman having a sympathetic conversation with another woman, Christine Ford, who may very well have been a victim of an attack by someone some time in her high school years.

The “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” likely is a trial prosecutor with several major cases in front of juries.  On Thursday the real jury will be the viewing audience, and every Senator on the Judiciary Committee knows it.  Ideally, the “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” will draw on her criminal trial experience to gently point out the inadequacy bordering on complete absence of Ford’s information supporting her allegation while at the same time avoiding anything close to a personal attack on Ford.

In simple terms, Bromwich fears the woman prosecutor will be able to show the insufficiency of Ford’s information while generating the kind of sympathy for Kavanaugh and his family that Bromwich, Katz, Banks, and the Democrats hoped the curmudgeonly male Republican Senators’ questioning would produce for Ford.

It’s a lot to hope for, but I also hope the so far publicly unnamed “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” will be the one to question Kavanaugh.

It will be difficult for the ego-engorged Senators to surrender their coveted on-camera bloviating face time to an outsider not really a member of their club.  However, this same woman prosecutor can accomplish something more than just a respectful, professional examination and elicitation of Ford’s information.  She will be able to allow Kavanaugh to articulate his unquestionably superior professional qualifications.  She will be able to elicit from Kavanaugh the scope and frequency of the background investigations he regularly endured, thus pointing out the unproductive redundancy of yet another time-consuming background investigation.

Beyond that, the woman prosecutor will be able to appeal to the sympathies of viewers at home for Kavanaugh, his wife, Ashley, and two young daughters, Liza and Margaret, who have endured personal physical threats of unimaginable violence and vulgarity.

Although Brett Kavanaugh is the President’s nominee to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, he and his family are being subjected to mental violence that most of us would be unwilling and unable to endure.

And for what I believe is the first time in the history of Judiciary Committee hearings for appointments to the US Supreme Court, the nominee is being threatened by members of the Democrat Party that if he is confirmed by the Senate and sworn by the President, he will be impeached and removed from the Court as soon as the Democrats have sufficient numbers in the House and Senate to impeach and convict.  No evidence of wrongdoing will be necessary; his being appointed by President Trump will be sufficient to justify impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.

The last thing Michael Bromwich wants is an “experienced sex crimes prosecutor” who can show the viewing public that if anyone is callously exploiting Christine Ford’s early life circumstances, it is members of the US Senate who want partisan surrogate legislators rather than impartial justices on the US Supreme Court.

September 24, 2018

09-24-2018 Kavanaugh Letter to S. Judiciary Committee

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 12:13 pm

Lies-TruthHere is a link to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee today, 09-24-2018.

Not surprisingly, you may have some difficulty finding this entire letter linked in any of the national skews media’s online sites.

The only disagreement I have with Judge Kavanaugh’s letter is his politely addressing Feinstein as “The Honorable Dianne Feinstein.”  Among all the adjectives that could be used to describe the Rankest Committee Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Honorable” is not among them.

September 23, 2018

Next …!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 8:01 pm

Lies-TruthTo very few people’s surprise, certainly not mine, just as Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation about Brett Kavanaugh began to unravel, the Hit Team has “found” another woman to raise another aged allegation.  Next …!

This allegation goes back to 1983-84 when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale.

Notice that the time frame of Ford’s allegation was in about 1982.  Deborah Ramirez’s allegation is in 1983-84.

Ramirez’s allegation addresses many of the credibility-damaging defects in Ford’s allegation.  Imagine that!  It’s a miracle!

When, I wonder, was the first background investigation (BI) report completed on Brett Kavanaugh by the federal government?   Did his first BI include the time frame of either the alleged Ford or the alleged Ramirez incidents?  If so, were the incidents included in the BI report?  How did the adjudicator discuss and assess the “facts” surrounding these alleged incidents?

Given the time frame of both the Ford and Ramirez allegations,  it is very likely the “facts” allegedly associated with them would (or should) have shown up in the reports written as part of Kavanaugh’s first full-field BI.   If they weren’t reported in Kavanaugh’s first full-field BI, then it may mean these  alleged incidents were never officially reported to police, schools, hospitals, etc.   If the alleged incidents were reported to officials or were derived from interviews of listed and derived (spinoff) references, then they should be in the first BI reports.  So should any adjudication of any effects the information had on Kavanaugh’s suitability determination for government employment or security clearance.

In some agencies’ BI reports, the investigator who conducted the interview is permitted to separately include his or her personal observations concerning the credibility (e.g., stated biases, cooperativeness, etc.) of the reporting party.  When permitted, these are almost always under a separate, clearly marked heading such as “Agent’s Notes.”

If you’re part of a Hit Team trying to “find” witnesses who will compose credible derogatory information about an older applicant, you would try to “find” witnesses whose acquaintence with the applicant preceded the applicant’s first official BI.

The kind of allegations raised so far against Brett Kavanaugh would almost certainly have been reported and adjudicated in his first or subsequent full-field BIs if the incidents leading to the allegations occurred.

To believe that the US Senators who are screaming the loudest for another “FBI investigation” of Kavanaugh, you have to also believe the screaming Senators are too ignorant and too stupid to have security clearances themselves.

Then again, the Rankest Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, did for decades have a driver allegedly with connections to the intelligence service of the People’s Republic of China, so …

September 21, 2018

Provenance? We Don’t Need No Stinking Provenance!

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 11:59 am

Lies-TruthIf you believe the national skews media, the Rankest Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, is refusing to let Committee Chairman Charles Grassley see the original Kavanaugh letter from Christine Blasey Ford.

Why not?  Supposedly that is the letter that has launched the current phase of the “intergalactic freakshow” known as the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing.  As far as we know, the letter is the best evidence of the collective thoughts of Christine Blasey Ford (and no one else) about Brett Kavanaugh’s suitability to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Why doesn’t Feinstein want to hand over the original letter to Grassley?  Very likely it’s because Grassley would want to know every detail of the letter’s provenance.    He would quite properly want the letter authenticated.  That is important because the original letter “locks in” Ford to the information in the letter.

That letter is represented to be the original work of Christine Blasey Ford, a present-day writing of her recollection of an alleged incident that occurred in 1982 involving Kavanaugh and her.   Presumably that letter contains all the relevant information in her recollection of the alleged incident.  So for her to suddenly now in September 2018 remember some highly relevant detail from 1982 that isn’t in the letter would be highly suspicious.

Among others, she should be asked these questions under oath and under penalty of perjury:

  • Did you write and send this letter on your own initiative?  With whom did you discuss writing and sending a letter concerning Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination before doing it?
  • Confirm that these were your words and and ideas only rather than the words of any second party such as attorneys Debra Katz or Lisa Banks, Representative Anna Eshoo or her staff, or Senator Dianne Feinstein or her staff.
  • Were prior versons of this letter prepared and then modified in any way or even completely rewritten after consultation with any other parties such as Eshoo, Feinstein, Katz, Banks, etc.?     Identify all persons with whom you discussed this letter before preparing and sending this (original) version.

The purpose of Grassley’s reasonable demand for truthful answers to those questions is to reassure the Judiciary Committee that Ford’s testimony is based only on her own personal knowledge and belief of the incident as it occurred in 1982.

Asking those questions of Ford under oath gives her the opportunity to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in her own words, not the words of some attorney or political hack or staffer or polygraph examiner.     If someone has applied either subtle or coercive outside influence on Ford to get her to testi-lie under oath before the Judiciary Committee, she needs to reveal that to avoid committing perjury and to keep her own and Judge Kavanaugh’s reputations intact.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2018 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved