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.”


  1. Unbelievable mockery of our justice system. Feinstein is where we should place the blame, and I would go as far as to say she has deliberately obstructed justice in the confirmation process of a supreme court justice . Hopefully, this proposed week long FBI investigation finds their way into her dirty bag of tricks. She is one very good reason why we need term limits.

    Comment by Stebbijo — September 28, 2018 @ 12:54 pm

  2. Stebbijo,

    Feinstein should be expelled from the US Senate. She had help (e.g., Schumer and Durbin), but she orchestrated this two-week circus intended to put so much pressure on Kavanaugh and his family that he would withdraw.

    If the letter Dr. Ford provided was so important in Kavanaugh’s confirmation decision, Feinstein should have immediately contacted her and explained why it needed to be provided to the Judiciary Committee so it could be timely and thoroughly investigated. Instead, Feinstein sat on it. Feinstein created the unnecessary artificial delay. (In this case, it appears that a lack of timeliness on her part intentionally created an emergency on the Senate’s part.

    Feinstein should be ashamed, but she has no shame, no conscience. The Republicans are too cowardly to politically cut her fast, deep, and often. At least Senator Graham had the courage to publicly stand up to her and call her out. The Democrats are too amoral and too cowardly to stand up to her.

    The one-week supplemental background investigation now underway is administrative, not criminal. The distinction is important. Not one person contacted by the FBI can be compelled to even open their door and talk with the agents, let alone provide them any information. (Cynically, I think the Democrats know this very well and have demanded that the FBI conduct this supp BI more because of the FBI’s intimidation factor than their investigative skill.) The completed reports are supposed to be turned over to Congress, probably the Senate Judiciary Committee, for evaluation and whatever decision the sponsoring agency (the Committee?) deems appropriate.

    My greatest fear is that as the clock is running out on this “supplemental background investigation”, another seemingly credible witness with equally seemingly credible new allegation will miraculously be “found” and give Feinstein’s Clown Act just enough faux-evidence to demand opening a protracted criminal investigation.

    I would have thought FBI participation in evidence fabrication and manipulation for political purposes pretty unlikely bordering on closer to impossible since Watergate. But then the House Intel Committee and Senate Intel Committee uncovered very compelling and credible evidence that the US Department of Justice and the FBI used insufficient and likely falsely sworn affidavits to the FISA Court to obtain FISA warrants authorizing illegal surveillance on nominee and then President Donald Trump’s staff. Given the lingering corruption likely in DoJ and FBI as well as the aforementioned amorality of the Democrats and the cowardice of the Republicans, that possibility cannot now be discounted.

    Dr. Ford is, I believe, emotionally fragile. I think both Judge Kavanaugh and Senator Graham recognized Dr. Ford’s condition.

    Dr. Ford’s performance was believable to an audience who is seeing it for the first time and is already sympathetic to her.

    Dr. Ford’s testimonial information is insufficient in content and timeliness to have much relevance or credibility. It has little lead value for the supplemental background investigation sought. Presumably she has provided it in good faith and to the best of her ability.

    I believe Dr. Ford was horribly and cruelly used by Feinstein and possibly the attorneys supposedly representing Dr. Ford and her interests but in reality willingly using her purely for political gain. It would be completely unsurprising if we were to eventually learn that Senator Dianne Feinstein knowingly exploited Dr. Ford’s circumstances and emotional fragility for political gain.

    As for Judge Kavanaugh, I sincerely hope that Congressional investigators have already gone back and reviewed the accuracy and completeness of his preceding BIs. The investigators should be asking, “Did the preceding BIs miss or misinterpret anything?”

    To my knowledge, the public does not yet know when the first full-field BI was completed on Judge Kavanaugh. If that first full-field BI was conducted some time after the incident Ford alleges happened, it is highly likely that there would have been indicators of derogatory information about Kavanaugh. Might investigators have improperly considered Kavanaugh’s parents’ social, political and economic status in determining the credibility of the derogatory information? Might cred derog intentionally have been excluded from reports in deference to his and his parents’ status? (If you live in Kootenai County, Idaho, you probably already know the possible answer to that broad but valid question.)

    Both Ford and Kavanaugh were believable when they testified. I think both witnesses believe their own testimony. Kavanaugh opponents bore the burden to present credible derogatory verified information to reject his appointment to the US Supreme Court. My opinion is that Ford’s testimony by itself, unsupported by other relevant credible information, was insufficient to meet that burden.

    Comment by Bill — September 28, 2018 @ 2:09 pm

  3. I happened across this cite. The letter ‘looks’ legitimate and, if so, it would explain the bizarre conduct by ABA pres (Montana attorney) Carlson.

    Comment by Tributary — October 16, 2018 @ 12:28 pm

  4. Tributary,

    Thank you! I had not seen that American Thinker article nor any of the “corrections”.

    Clearly Sulzberger’s Slimes at the New York Times and Senator Dick (appropriately named!) Durbin believed Carlson had the authority to issue the letter on behalf of the ABA. The ABA membership ought to be demanding that Carlson’s next sigmoidoscopy be done with a 24-inch long by 3/4-inch steel auger bit.

    I still question whether any of the various entities demanding yet another “FBI investigation” understood (or are even capable of understanding) the distinction between an FBI criminal investigation and a personnel security investigation (a full-field background investigation) conducted by the FBI on behalf of the requestor, in this case the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will adjudicate the findings of the FBI’s PSI. The FBI is not involved in the adjudication process except to clarify or correct information it provided to the adjudicator.

    Comment by Bill — October 16, 2018 @ 8:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved