Sen. scumbag-Richard 'Stolen Valor' Blumenthal: The FBI is Complicit in a Kavanaugh Cover-up, Or Something!

Sen. scumbag-Richard 'Stolen Valor' Blumenthal: The FBI is Complicit in a Kavanaugh Cover-up, Or Something!

by Guy Benson

{townhall.com} ~ Please take a moment to reacquaint yourselfwith the fact that Sen. scumbag-Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) -- the man who's been preening about the importance of comprehensive honesty in recent days -- spent his entire political career lying to voters about serving in a war. Then he got caught. Then he got re-elected. With that in mind, watch as he casually sullies the FBI's updated background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh because he's bitter that it didn't serve the partisan outcome he sought:  
 VIDEO:  https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/sen-blumenthal-...

The evidence for this supposed "cover up" can be found right next to scumbag-Blumenthal's Vietnam War records, and in the same drawer as all the corroboration of the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. Meanwhile, with other dummycrats-Democrats echoingthis pathetic, predictable talking point, here's the other half of liar-Hillary Clinton's failed ticket declaring the Bureau's work a "complete sham," clutching pearls over the fact that it took a mere five days to complete:   https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1047887512688087041?ref_src=tws...

Goodness gracious, the Bad Faithers bellow, this only took five days!? Are these people hoping that no one will remember their own arguments from just a few days ago? Senate dummycrats-Democrats put out a press release on September 23 demanding FBI involvement in the Kavanaugh matter.  Part of the precedent they eagerly cited was the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas background probe, conducted in 1991. Setting aside substantive differences between the two situations, the dummycrats-Democrats' missive included these lines: 
 
  • "It Only Took the FBI Three Days to Complete Their Investigation of Professors Anita Hill’s Allegations of Sexual Harassment so The FBI Has Ample Time to Investigate Dr. Ford’s Allegations...On the same day that President George W. Bush received this request, the White House Counsel directed the FBI to investigate, which then produced a report only three days later to the Senate, prior to the Judiciary Committee’s second round of hearings on the nomination.
They meant George H.W. Bush, of course, but facts and accuracy aren't exactly paramount these days. Meanwhile, here's scumbag/clown-Schumer on September 26th, dismissing Republican concerns that an FBI probe would amount to a serious delay: "We haven't heard one actual reason why there shouldn't be an FBI investigation. Will it slow it down? It will take only a few days." To recap, the dummycrats-Democrats argued that the FBI alone could do this job. The Judiciary Committee could not. Letters from fact witnesses, submitted under penalty of perjury, were insufficient. It was the Bureau, or bust. Republicans, worried about another delay tactic, noted that an updated background check wouldn't be a full-scale criminal probe, and would simply gather statements -- which is exactly what happened in 1991. Never fear, dummycrats-Democrats replied, it'll be very short.  And the FBI knows what they're doing.  

And now, like clockwork, they're pulling a transparently cynical and partisan about-face. It only lasted a few days! They didn't interview all the hearsay "witnesses" we wanted them to! This is a sham! These people are dishonorable and not to be trusted. They got what they wanted, at least in theory; what they actually wanted, however, was a blow to Kavanaugh's viability. When the FBI failed to serve up their preferred partisan result, they howled and threw the Bureau under the bus -- after weeks of loudly insisting that only the Bureau could perform this task. Now, of a sudden, the FBI is part of a conspiratorial Trumpian cover-up, or whatever. And all of this is coming from the party that sat on Dr. Ford's uncorroborated accusation for two months, then leaked it against her wishes, at an opportune partisan moment. Shameless.

By the way, the White House instructed the FBI to interview whomever they saw fit. The FBI saw fit to question numerous witnesses, including key fact witnesses endlessly mentioned by dummycrats-Democrats. Mark Judge  reportedly spent three hours with agents. They didn't question Kavanaugh or Ford because each of them had put their entire accounts on the record in lengthy public testimony just a few days prior, including lengthy Q&A sessions. They didn't interview people with no direct knowledge of the alleged incidents in question. They did their job, and dummycrats-Democrats are furious. I'll leave you with a crucial GOP Senator calling the process "thorough," and a CNN anchor and 
scumbag/liar-nObama alum shrugging that being accused of organizing a gang rape cult -- with Senate dummycrats-Democrats explicitly amplifying and legitimizing that outlandish, unverified, and dismantled claim --  is just part of the normal political process:

Views: 35

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 The FBI along with the FISA Courts were involved in this set up, I will not and do not have time to go into all of it.

 A lie, created before Trump even took Office.

Henry

Have to agree with you. It all started before he was ever running for office.

So, you emailed me twice more, still having edit issues, I have a x-tra 100 to get ya, for a new system.

 Sometimes we also have edit issue maybe transferring this site to California is degrading connections, Soros stated he has a plan to stop people like us from promoting Trump.

 Kiss Kiss...LOL Tif

tif

I would like your offer but I have to decline. Maybe if you dad can find a way to fix this issue.

 That part is a tough one, to get ning to place this site back on the east cost...

 And OK, I will just have to go shopping again.

Mr. Tirre,
The next time you share information, note your time where you are, so I can get a better idea of the degrading of internet connections.
I am at this moment have issue, can not post a story.
I need your time from you home or area when you post a story.
Henry

Mesquite, NV is where I am.

Posting is done at 7am, ~9am ~noon ~3pm ~5:30 somewhat accurate.

 Rudy,

 What dad wants is this, when you post a blog tonight, look at your clock and note the time. And you are the east, we know.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Will  Tea Party Hand The Liberals Their Ass On Election Day? 

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said.

One Democratic pollster said the data he’s seen makes plain that the party is favored to win a majority — but that it’s still not a sure thing. He said even now it’s unclear if the political environment will create an electoral tsunami, or merely a good year where Democrats might still fall short of a House majority.

“We’ve all learned a lesson from 2016 that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes,” said the pollster, granted anonymity to discuss polling data one month before the election. “And if you haven’t learned that lesson, shame on you. That 20 percent outcome can happen. That 30 percent outcome can happen.”

This year, Democrats have history on their side: The incumbent president’s party historically struggles during midterm elections. That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Democrats were trying to win the presidency for three consecutive terms for the first time in their history since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The GOP accomplished the feat only once in the same period, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

Some Democratic leaders say the reality of Trump’s presidency — unlike its hypothetical state in 2016 — changes the dynamic entirely.

“Democratic energy is at nuclear levels,” said Steve Israel, a former DCCC chairman. “Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote in this election.”

Israel said he still has concerns about November (political operatives always have concerns about the upcoming election). But he waves away the notion that the party might fall short of a House majority.

“Most Democrats and a heck of a lot of Republicans I speak to believe that Democrats will have the majority,” he said. “The real question is, by how much?”

Ferguson is, of course, of two minds: He thinks the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presidency fundamentally changes how voters will see this election.

But he’s also gun-shy about what could change in the next month, after the multitude of surprises that occurred during the last month of the 2016 race, whether the “Access Hollywood” recording or then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the investigation into Clinton’s emails was re-opened.

Many Republicans argue the 2018 election has already seen its October surprise, with the confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh finally motivating conservative voters to vote.

“I don’t know what the October surprises will be,” Ferguson said. “But we make a mistake if we assume that what we’re seeing today is what we’ll see for the entire month. We lived through it two years ago.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service