Blasey Ford’s testimony trap

This morning I read an article about the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, making me think of the excruciating trap that Christine Blasey Ford is about to face.

to_kill_a_mockingbird_1962_trailer_2-820x330

The novel and movie present a parallel to the trap that Blasey Ford faces — the same trap that the character Mayella Ewell faced: tell the truth or stay safe.  This is IF something did happen to Blasey Ford.

The four other people she claims were there, Kavanaugh, Patrick Smyth, Mark Judge and Leland Keyser, all assert that she is wrong.  Either they were not there or nothing happened like what Ford claims.

Is it possible that Blasey Ford is correct AND the four others are correct?

Because eventually, one of the Senate Judiciary questioners will ask the question, the central question, the question Blasey Ford will fear to answer, the question she must stave off to a safe distance by manufacturing a list of people she knew but who were not there.

Q: There was someone else, wasn’t there?
A: Yes, there was someone.

Like a John le Carré novel, sending Alec Leamas sent all the way into East Germany to fireproof the bastard Mundt, like dropping Jim Prideaux into Brno to find the one word answer to the Tinker Tailor riddle though he, as well as George Smiley, already knew the answer and he got a bullet in the back instead, and like Ned and the entire Russia House searching England and finally tracking down Barley Scott Blair in Lisbon to ask the one question about Scott Blair’s seedy lunch on a recent visit to the Soviet Union: “But there was someone else, wasn’t there?”

Yes.  It was Goethe, the missile scientist.  The movie’s script renames him Dante.

05_the-russia-house-pic1-with-sean-connery

For Christine Blasey Ford, if she is telling the truth about being assaulted, and if the other four are also telling the truth, then who was also there?  Someone else?

Her answer — what price will Blasey Ford pay to speak that answer truthfully or to stay safe?

Advertisements

Lisa Page resigns, James Baker resigns, but no appearance on CNN yet

Not promoted to talking heads yet!

  • Lisa Page resigns from DOJ.  Nice.
  • James Baker resigns from DOJ. So tremendous.
  • No appearance on CNN yet?

 These two corruptocrats, I am sure they are ready for their closeup now, Mr. DeMille.

Winston Churchill to Jack Churchill, November 15, 1895 ← ← good to reread in 2018

Winston Churchill to Jack Churchill, November 15, 1895

Well worth rereading in the present day. Two pull quotes:

But essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth.
A great, crude, strong, young people are the Americans – like a boisterous healthy boy among enervated but well bred ladies and gentlemen. Some day Jack when you are older you must come out here and I think you will feel as I feel–and think as I think today.

Picture to yourself the American people as a great lusty youth – who treads on all your sensibilities – perpetrates every possible horror of ill manners – whom neither age nor just tradition inspire with reverence–but who moves about his affairs with a good hearted freshness which may well be the envy of older nations of the earth.

Thank you, young Winston!

“I would like to nail one to the door as a message,” on Valentines Day

Inspector Comey, speaking his own doom.

” would like to nail one to the door as a message.”
McCabe weasel boy Comey drama ballerina

So tremendous.

And another thing: no PADAG testimony?

Now that I think more about it, why isn’t there more testimony, sworn statement or any interview information from the PADAG in question, whether it was Matthew Axelrod or someone else.

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Lisa Page and Strzok Man are in the OIG report, but nothing from PADAG, other than one footnote, about what he told OIG, that the PADAG call leak was accurate to what he recalled, but that

“…the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”

What does it signify that PADAG is just a footnote?  Reminds me of the the tiny quote of Bill Priestap in the Nunes Memo.  Priestap’s quote signified that he was talking to OIG or Huber or both, and perhaps that he had flipped, being the only guy still in place in his original job and not demoted to HR or some such.  PADAG is out of government now?  Or it was someone other than Axelrod and still inside the DOJ?

Matthew Axelrod was PADAG in the summer of 2016?

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Matthew Axelrod was PADAG in summer of 2016, presumably the PADAG who jawboned the Clinton Foundation investigation over the phone with Andrew McCabe.

For the past few years, his lawyering career has been a DC revolving door between Department of Justice and various private DC law firms. Here is former PADAG Matthew Axelrod’s LinkedIn page.

 

“As of approximately 1 month later, McCabe had failed to execute and return the draft SSS.”

Stonewall.

In regard to the Wall Street Journal leak that McCabe had engineered, he let on that he was a victim.  He knew nothing about it.  This was during a private interview in which his interviewers from FBI Inspection Division (INSD) had him swear an oath.  They later drafted a statement for him to sign, an SSS, “signed sworn statement,” viz.

On 05/09/2017, [INSD-Section Chief] and [INSD-SSA1] provided me with a photocopy of a Wall Street Journal article, dated 10/30/2016, and requested I evaluate and assess the content of the first three paragraphs appearing on the last page for accuracy. My assessment of the referenced portion of the article is that it is basically an accurate depiction of an actual telephonic interaction I had with a Department of Justice (DOJ) executive. I do not know the identity of the source of the information contained in the article. Since this event, I have shared the circumstances of this interaction with numerous FBI senior executives and other FBI personnel. I gave no one authority to share any information relative to my interaction with the DOJ executive with any member of the media. I initialed a photocopy of the article, which is attached to my statement as Exhibit Number 5.

However, there was a little problem. The INSD twice emailed McCabe a draft of the signed sworn statement, but he never signed it. “McCabe did not sign the draft SSS and did not communicate with INSD regarding the draft SSS until August 18…”

Stonewalling the FBI.