The same people who castigate their fellow media for giving Trump a billion bucks in "free media" during the campaign - and who tell us Putin swayed the election with 100K in Facebook ads - don't understand why the rest of us see their across-the-board activism as a...
...24/7 advertising campaign for the Democratic party, and Leftist policies, organizations, and culture in general. The most heinous aspect of this 24/7 advocacy for liberals and liberalism is that they will never admit it - everybody knows that a political ad is the paid...
Oct 6, 2018 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Can someone from the #WeBelieveSurvivors crowd explain to me the difference between Dr. Ford and Ms. Swetnick? Both have come forward and accused BK of inappropriate sexual predation, but Dems like Senator Gary Peters are saying that the Swetnick allegation wasn't "serious"...
...or "credible." Swetnick says she was the victim of a gang-rape, which would certainly qualify her as a survivor. She says she saw Kavanaugh at the party the night she was assaulted. Why are Dems - who are willing to believe Dr. Ford's allegation absent evidence, and who...
Oct 4, 2018 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
The journalistic malpractice in this article was so egregious it made me go back to their original Ramirez article to read it more closely. Two issues jump out - First, Farrow and Meyer were given the names of two eyewitnesses, whose identities they chose to keep confidential.
What happened to those two witnesses? They had their names. Certainly they were contacted - nothing better for a follow-up story than an on-the-record account of an eyewitness, right? Yet in their follow-up shitshow of a story today, Farrow and Meyer don't mention these two...
Oct 4, 2018 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Please read every word of this article. If you need any more evidence that the assault on Kavanaugh's character has turned journalists into advocates with no interest in the basic standards of source credibility, it's here.
They interviewed a guy named Kenneth Appold. He said he was 100 percent certain that the story about Ramirez was true. He said he was certain because he'd been told the story by an eyewitness. He said he hesitated to come forward until he could contact that eyewitness.
Oct 2, 2018 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
Here are a few of the issues that jump out from this interview with Swetnick.
- First, she says she remembered Brett Kavanaugh was at those parties after 36 years because he "has a very distinctive face." He doesn't have anywhere near a "very distinctive face." By any stretch.
- Next, she said she believes he was wearing a Georgetown Prep uniform. At a gang rape party. In the summer.
- She said the reason she came forward was “I thought that I might have some information that might corroborate some of the things that she had stated.”
Oct 2, 2018 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Many of you are aware of my background as an interrogator for about 3 decades. Just watched this video of the @tvkatesnow interview with Julie Swetnick. There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that Ms. Swetnick's story is complete, utter horseshit.
I'm not saying she's 'mistaken' or that something may have happened to her but it didn't involve Brett Kavanaugh. I'm saying that just about every word out of her mouth in this interview is contrived. She's lying. (And I would wager that Kate Snow had the same reaction.)
Sep 29, 2018 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Note to media and political analysts/pundits: If you are going to give us your hot take on why Kavanaugh was indifferent to another FBI investigation without noting that his perspective is that of a man adamant of his innocence, you're not doing your job.
Is it too much too ask for a short aside - maybe a line or two - informing the reader/watcher/listener that it's not particularly surprising that an innocent man facing 3 false accusations wouldn't be interested in another week of delay? Or are you going to keep rhetorically...
Sep 29, 2018 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Again, an alternate universe. 'Impartial'? You orchestrated an ambush assassination of his character and accused him of being an attempted rapist and a black-out drunk. What would be your idea of 'impartial' here - "Thank you, Senator, for your candor - I'll certainly take...
...your accusation that I attempted to rape Dr. Ford into careful consideration as I sit before you, my family, and the world as the nominee for Supreme Court Justice. If you'd be so kind, Senator, would you mind if I offered a word or two in my defense? I'll be brief."
Sep 29, 2018 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Hold the phone. I read the polygraph report and assumed that the polygrapher had followed standard protocol for the test he administered, the You Phase ZCT. Just watched this video, and I've got a lot of questions. insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/27/chr…
It sounds like he's saying he really only asked two questions - which would be an absolute farce of a poly exam considering the fact that the You Phase calls for 9 questions, with the 2 relevant questions asked 5th and 7th. The response data from those questions is compared...
Sep 28, 2018 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
Worth considering as this plays out: Ask yourself why Dr. Ford was interviewed in open session, on national television. Grassley repeatedly offered the options of a closed hearing or an interview in her home. Her lawyers chose an open hearing. They also advocated..
...for the Republican Senators to question her, rather than the sex crimes prosecutor, who they knew would be more respectful and experienced at getting to the truth. If her testimony is true, she wasn't aware she had the option of being interviewed in her home.
Sep 27, 2018 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
I know @ChuckGrassley had little choice here, what with all of the "Old white men badgering a survivor on national television" imagery, but from a debriefer's standpoint this is a horrible set-up. We like to work methodically TO something - which we develop and refine as...
...we work through the questioning. Pace and pattern is important. Sequence of questioning, be it individually or as a segment, is important. Ms. Mitchell is clearly well-prepared and knows what she's doing. But she can't possibly do her job in 5-minute stretches...
Sep 26, 2018 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Thought experiment. Say Kavanaugh did exactly what his accusers are claiming. Each accusation involved overt, public displays of sexual harassment and/or assault. He was neither sneaky nor careful - no attempt to hide his actions. It would represent a pattern, but...
...that would be a PUBLIC pattern - which would almost guarantee that Kavanaugh's PUBLIC actions would become notorious. Kavanaugh would be a well-known sexual abuser - the cad who women avoid and guys pull out of inappropriate situations and send home.
Sep 25, 2018 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
.@donlemon constructs a straw man: "So it has been really frustrating to me to hear people ignorantly excusing a 17-year-old possibly committing sexual assault as 'boys will be boys,' 'teenage hormones,' 'testosterone at work here.' Well let me tell you - in my life it...
...hasn't mattered (talking about sexual abuse he personally experienced) if the person was 17 or 70 - the pain and the damage are real and it never goes away."
I feel for Don Lemon and hope he can find some peace in light of what he experienced as a young man, but I don't see...
Sep 25, 2018 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I'm going to keep tweeting it - 1) the Clarence Thomas FBI investigation was appropriate because he was a federal employee accused by another federal employee of sexual harassment. That's an issue under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Ford's allegation is a local LE issue. Not FBI.
2) - The only public reporting of Dr. Ford's polygraph states the polygrapher "concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate." As I tweeted at the time, this 'finding' is useless to understanding the truth regarding...
Sep 24, 2018 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
If I were to interview @SenGillibrand, I'd ask her the following:
-- What sexual assault claim have you heard, or heard of, that you found non-credible?
-- What aspects of the non-credible claim led you to conclude it was non-credible?
-- If you've never heard a non-credible claim, what is your evidentiary standard for making a conclusion of credible, versus non-credible?
-- How many sexual assaults have you committed?
-- If someone claimed you did, what right do you believe you have to defend yourself?
Sep 18, 2018 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
.@RepAdamSchiff and his colleagues, particularly @ericswalwell and @tedlieu, have assured us for months and months that the information hidden under those black redaction lines convinced them that Carter Page was a Russian agent. They said that the FISA application could stand...
...alone without the Steele dossier information (the alleged meetings with Sechin and Divyekin) because the redacted information was derived from separate sources and sufficiently compelling to convince a judge that Carter Page was a Russian agent. If this is true - if the...
Sep 12, 2018 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Sorry, folks - not breaking news here. @Comey prepared an op-ed on Russian attempts at election influence for possible publication in September 2016 - White House shot it down at the time but decided in October to publish a similar, but separate, summary.
It would make sense that Page and Strzok had a hand in drafting the proposed op-ed, and these texts, in context, appear to reference that process. The timing fits, as does the unlikelihood of Strzok/Page deciding to go rogue with an unsanctioned, anonymous op-ed.
Sep 12, 2018 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Okay, House Dems, I'll bite: Are you saying the leak Strzok was congratulating Lisa Page for was for the New York Times article on Comey (which included info on Carter Page, FISA, et al), so don't worry about it? Nothing to see here? We're cool with THAT leak? Help me out here.
I was at an American embassy in the middle east. Me and the rest of the Defense Attaché Office were gathering in the office reception area, putting on our jackets to head over to a function at the Ambassador's residence. While I waited for everyone, I sat down at the office...
...unclassified computer and checked the news. Saw a picture of WTC w/ a smoking hole in it - said it appeared a small plane may have crashed into it. Turned on the TV in the outer office (CNN on Armed Forces Network). Everyone gathered to watch. When we saw a close-up...
Sep 8, 2018 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Before I call it a night - needs to be said. The linchpin - the guy who allegedly prompted the FBI investigation, who's behavior was so suspect as to prompt the deployment of a confidential human source and initiate a full investigation. Who all the smart people assured us...
...was wearing a wire for 6-8 months prior to being publicly charged and had all the goods on Trump/Russia collusion. That guy just got 2 weeks in jail - AND the FBI said he didn't cooperate worth a shit for those 6-8 months. IOW, they thought something was there that he could...
Sep 7, 2018 • 4 tweets • 3 min read
It'd be more accurate to say that @KamalaHarris is choosing Kavanaugh's words carefully. The anatomy of this deliberately-misleading smear begins with clipping the first part of his sentence - 5 words which make it clear he is simply relating THEIR argument in their lawsuit.
Harris (and many, many others) are ascribing the "abortion-inducing" characterization to Kavanaugh, when it's perfectly clear that he's summarizing the Priest for Life's argument in the suit. Contrary to "choos(ing) his words carefully" - he quoted directly from the complaint.
