OpenCDA

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 he 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 had to endure 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.

September 18, 2018

And That Will Help … How Exactly?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 8:41 pm

Lies-TruthIn today’s episode of the Washington, DC, soap opera entitled “As the Barstool Spins,” we learn that Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford has been receiving violent threats.  According to a post in TheHill.com,  “[Ford] has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats. As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of their home. Her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online.”

TheHill.com blog post goes on to say that, “Ford’s lawyers said in the letter that she would not testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing set for Monday until the FBI investigates her allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.”

I don’t get it.

Even if the FBI had the legal jurisdiction to open such an investigation (it doesn’t), how exactly would the FBI investigating her allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school in 1982 make the threats stop?  The FBI would be investigating very stale 1982 leads of a crime that would never be prosecuted, not the 2018 threats reportedly being made against Ford.

Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee would be limited to matters of her own personal knowledge, not the results of any FBI (or anyone else’s) investigation.

My opinion is that the letter from Ford’s lawyers, Katz and Banks, demanding a FBI investigation in return for Ford’s testimony is nothing more than another effort  delay the vote to confirm or reject Kavanaugh’s appointment.    That strategy seems contrary to their client’s and her family’s safety interests.  It seems to me that the quicker Kavanaugh is confirmed or rejected, the sooner any threat made or posed to Ford and her family loses its potency.   Ford’s attorneys ought to be trying to expedite her testimony’s completion rather than delay its commencement.

If Ford’s lawyers, Katz and Banks, are sincerely concerned about threats against Ford and her family, they need to be coordinating with the appropriate California law enforcement agencies who do have jurisdiction over threats of violence, extortion, stalking, witness intimidation, etc.

The FBI should very politely hand attorneys Debra Katz and Lisa Banks a bucket of sand and tell them to go pound it.

September 17, 2018

Derogatory? Yes. Credible? Not So Fast …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 8:58 pm

Lies-TruthWho among you did not expect the Democrats to produce at the very last second “someone” who would testify that Federal District Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the US Supreme Court, committed some unspeakable act upon her innocent body?

The Democrat’s “someone” this time is Christine Blasey Ford, a professor from Palo Alto University in California.  Ford alleges that about 35 years ago in 1982 when Kavanaugh was a junior in high school and she was a sophomore, they were at a party together at a private residence in Maryland.  She alleges Kavanaugh was drunk, held her down on a bed, tried to remove her clothing, and rubbed her through her clothing.

Ford’s information was provided in a letter to California US Representative Anna Eshoo and then on to Senator Dianne Feinstein as an allegation.   The content of the information, an allegation of wrongdoing,  qualifies it as “derogatory.”   The question is whether Ford and her information are both “credible.”   (more…)

September 5, 2018

A Snub? Or a Potential Threat Within Arms Reach?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 12:55 pm

Guttenberg-Kavanaugh-handshake-Associated-Press-640x480

You may remember seeing this photo in the skews media today.  It was taken by Associated Press Photographer Andrew Harnik.  The man on the right (blue tie) is Federal District Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.  The man on the left (hand extended) is Fred Guttenberg, the father of one of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting victims.

The photograph captures Guttenberg, an invited guest of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, approaching Judge Kavanaugh as the Judge had just arisen from the witness table after testifying in the first day of his confirmation hearing before the US Senate Judiciary Committee.   The photo accompanied the Breitbart online article headlined Debunked:  Anti-Trump Parkland Dad Targets Brett Kavanaugh With Handshake Stunt lede paragraph which read:

Democrats are swooning over the accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh snubbed Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed in the Parkland, Florida mass shooting, when Guttenberg tried to shake his hand at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

Regardless of what you might think of Breitbart’s credibility, the linked article’s story provides more contextual information that most of the stories which appeared in the legacy skews media.

The Breitbart story and the accompanying photo has some details that raise questions.

1.  How do you read the expression on Judge Kavanaugh’s face?

To have consciously and intentionally “snubbed Fred Guttenberg,” Judge Kavanaugh would have to have immediately recognized Guttenberg or at least have heard enough from what Guttenberg said to have arrived at a decision to “snub” Guttenberg.

My reading of Judge Kavanaugh’s expression is,  “Who the hell are you?”  The Judge, his wife, his daughters, and his mother had just been required to calmly sit and endure the infantile behavior of several Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee.  His wife had felt compelled to remove his two daughters from the hearing for their safety because of the admittedly choreographed disruptive and near-violent behavior by people seated behind them in the audience.

And a memory of Federal District Judge John M. Roll may have flashed across Judge Kavanaugh’s mind.

2.  Did Senator Diane Feinstein of California suggest or otherwise encourage Guttenberg to approach Judge Kavanaugh when she invited him to be her guest at the hearing? If so, was it her intent and hope Kavanaugh might react to Guttenberg in some way that the legacy media could twist into an embarrassing accusation to jeopardize his nomination?

3.  Had Senator Feinstein,  Protest Choreographer Senator Chuck Schumer and his Assistant Protest Choreographer Senator Dick (appropriately named!) Durbin forewarned Judge Kavanaugh or his security detail that Guttenberg was going to be in the audience and that he might try to speak with Judge Kavanaugh?

4.  Who was responsible for providing personal security and protection for Judge Kavanaugh and his family inside the hearing room?  If it was the US Capitol Police, why did they allow Guttenberg (or anyone else not known to them) to approach him as Guttenberg did?

Assuming he was surprised at the presence of a person unknown to him and approaching and already in arm’s reach of him, Judge Kavanaugh did exactly the right thing by not shaking hands with Guttenberg, not saying anything to him, and then quickly turning and walking away.

I wish whoever was responsible for Judge Kavanaugh’s and his family’s personal security inside the Judiciary Committee hearing room had reacted more quickly and as appropriately as the Judge did.

August 24, 2018

Three Worth Reading

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 11:51 am

Hoax+Comp+AO

When the 2016 Republican National Convention delegates nominated Donald J. Trump to be the party’s presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, it generated more of a shock inside the Republican Party than it did with the Democrats.   After all,  “everyone” including many Republicans knew and accepted that 2016 was going to be the year of the first woman President of the United States.  She was to be Hillary Clinton.  (more…)

August 17, 2018

Monetizing Hypocrisy

HypocrisyTwelve former senior intelligence officials have signed a statement criticizing President Trump’s decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.  Their letter asserts the President’s decision was based entirely on Brennan’s criticism of the President.

It is very likely that several of these officials were in that “special” category of officials who were allowed to retain their security clearances when they left the government service.   In fact, some of them may still have clearances on file with their final employer.

But as has become typical of our national, regional, and local skews media, we’re not getting the complete picture about the signators to this letter.   Some of them appear to be capitalizing on their clearance retention to financially enhance their retirement incomes. (more…)

August 6, 2018

Almost Three Years Late …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 7:34 am

2015WindstormHead1

Remember Windstorm 2015 that hit our area on November 17, 2015?

Apparently the Coeur d’Alene Press finally got around to giving it some thought for its August 5, 2018, relevant but long overdue editorial entitled Fires Ignite One Thumbs-Up — And One Down.

In my OpenCdA post entitled Our Grade?  Needs Improvement on December 7, 2015, I tried to be restrained in my criticism of the Kootenai County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and its Director, Sandy von Behren, Kootenai County Sheriff Ben Wolfinger, and the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners.  ‘Unprepared’ and ‘indecisive’ would have been the kindest terms I could have used for their collective professional failures in performing their official duties regarding informing the public.

Sunday’s skewspaper editorial finally acknowledged one of Windstorm 2015’s lessons that should have been learned long ago:  Kootenai County does not have a coordinated method of disseminating timely, accurate, and complete information to all the residents of Kootenai County.

The County thinks it does and tells the public it does on its website.  It doesn’t.

But what about Alert!Kootenai, the Kootenai County Emergency Alert Program?   How many of you who signed up for this received any message about the fires near Dirtstrip International Airport that were the basis for Sunday’s Press editorial?  I didn’t.

Sunday’s Press editorial included this statement:

This complaint isn’t just from a newspaper charged with keeping citizens informed; media throughout the region are poised to get important information to the public promptly and accurately.

The last portion of that statement, “…; media throughout the region are poised to get important information to the public promptly and accurately,” needs further discussion. (more…)

Older Posts »

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