Tag Archives: stonewall

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?

Judge X and the insurance policy

racer-xWho is Judge X?

Rep. Goodlatte said the slowdown in requested information from Dept. of Justice correlated to the Strzok & Page text messages coming out.  Those messages came out the day after Gen. Flynn’s plea, and a few days before Judge Contreras recused himself or was recused by currently unknown Judge X.  That’s where the connection is between Unguided Missile Mueller and the Steele/Clinton file.  Something there.

Also: how did Judge X figure out he had to recuse Contreras?  The lovebird Strzok & Page text messages in the newspapers?  Or does IG Horowitz also have to alert Conteras’ supervisory judge?  Have events dragged Judge Contreras into Horowitz and Huber’s net, along with Priestap, Strzok et al.?

Can Judge X see the connection between the unguided missile and the McCabe insurance policy?

Silver Blaze time: Why is Rosenstein still DAG and not supervising the cafeteria at Main Justice?

Just why is Rosenstein still DAG and not supervising the cafeteria at Main Justice?  According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, it is a long time since he miscreated the unguided missile named Mueller against the regulation of 28 CFR Sec. 600.1, viz.

The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead, appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with a crime…

 

This seems an open, easily observable error by Rosenstein. But Rosenstein is still in the DAG office. The unguided missile is still roaming the skies at full power. Why is that?

I reckon that the writers at The Conservative Treehouse have bagged a crucial fact in “the Big Ugly” of FISA abuse/Russia-Russia-Russia: that several of the DOJ and FBI insiders have flipped, testifying to Inspector General Horowitz, keeping their employment intact but moved out of the way in places like FBI’s HR department.  Is that why Rosenstein is still in the DAG office?

  • Has he flipped, and is he helping the IG?
  • He is still in the DAG office, though, not running the cafeteria at Main Justice, so is there some tactical or strategic advantage to keeping Rosenstein in the DAG office?

It is curious.  Inquiring minds want to know. #SilverBlaze

Sherlock Holmes drawing by Sidney Paget at 2014 auction

Three questions “they” should ask Hillary Clinton.

Here are three questions it would be great to ask Hillary Clinton.

  1. Do you agree never to do a Friday afternoon document dump?
  2. Will you guarantee that you’ll appoint a nonpartisan, apolitical Commissioner of Internal Revenue?
  3. Will you agree to appoint an independent, forensic IT professional to  guarantee the documentary integrity of all your emails?

It would be nice to see her torch her own campaign by weasel-wording these questions.

Unlike the living answer to Hillary’s dictum — “What difference at this point does it make?” — President Barack “Test Signal” Obama, voting present most of the time, no matter how dangerous it gets at Fardu دو  or Zahedan, and unlike someone with a clear conscience, Hillary, who represents the past and is so polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, overconfident, secretive, who considers herself inevitable and entitled to the White House and who will do anything to win, though out of touch, will not be able to handle these questions.  Even refusing to answer will not help.

Who knew it would be this easy to get inside Obama’s head?

Who knew it would be this easy to get inside Obama’s head?

This is something that has bugged me for about a year: Obama can be rumbled.

McCain did it a few times last summer with the humorous videos that mocked Obama in Berlin at the Siegessäule.

Cheney is doing it now on national security, viz.

Cheney Exposed Obama’s Hypocrisy
by Nicholas Guariglia

Cheney is likely correct about the content of the memos, which is why he is talking and Obama is stalling. Should these documents be released, as I suspect they will, and should they prove enhanced interrogation thwarted mass-casualty terrorist attacks on American soil, that would then constitute the final nail in the coffin of this political battle. Who knew it would be this easy to get inside Obama’s head?

…Has there ever been an example where a private citizen so effectively knocked the president of the United States off message and off stride? This should not be a fair fight. Through unending ad hominem caricature, Dick Cheney is supposed to embody all that is evil; Obama, all that is new, fresh, and righteous. And yet Cheney is actually winning this debate, and winning badly. Cheney is the only former Bush official to come out, state the obvious, and expose the man behind the curtain: President Obama might rebuke Bush-era policies in word, but in deed he replicates them.

What worries me is that the Russians and the Iranians can see the same weakness.

Pelosi stonewalls like Nixon

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Holds News Conference
QUESTION: Since last week, when you knew when and your comments about misleading, being misled by the CIA have been big, big news. But Leader Boehner has said produce evidence that you were misled or apologize. CIA Director Panetta has said that, you know, the CIA is not in the practice of misleading Congress.  

What’s…

PELOSI: I have made the statement that I’m going make on this. I don’t have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comments. And what we are doing is staying on our course and not be distracted from it in this distractive mode. We’re going forward in a bipartisan way for jobs, health care, and energy for our country. And on the subject that you asked, I’ve made the statement that I’m going to make. I won’t have anything more to that about it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

PELOSI: I won’t have anything more to say about it.

Another subject?

QUESTION: And were you aware that Steve King is asking for your security clearance to be revoked?

(CROSSTALK)

END

Transcript

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003124579

Pathetic — she’s obviously trying to avoid saying the word CIA. Only “the subject that you asked” is permitted.

Weak.

Even Richard Nixon had more artful moves.

I thought this administration was supposed to be transparent, not a stonewall like the Watergate bag men. It’s nice to see her on the run.

Point: It makes her look guilty.
Counterpoint: She can’t understand that.

It’s because she has never had an adversarial media before this. In other words, the press was her S L U T heretofore, removing her motivation for developing any real agility. So she has maybe three moves:

  1. “open my gas nozzle” — which all politicians have, of course,
  2. “off with their heads” for all who oppose her, and
  3. “its my microphone” — i.e., stonewalling.

Not very nifty.  Big 300-lb linemen in the NFL have more moves.

Mark Tauscher, Green Bay Packers offensive tackle.