Arizona Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell Will Question Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford at Thursday’s Hearing

TO PREVENT DEMOCRAT SENATE CIRCUS, AZ PROSECUTOR RACHEL MITCHELL WILL QUESTION BOTH KAVANAUGH AND FORD …

As reported at the WAPO, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell will question both Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Ford, who accused the SCOTUS nominee of sexually assaulting her as a teenager 36 years ago. This a a great move. Ms. Mitchell is a 25-year prosecutor and 12-year specialist in sex-crime cases, in  Maricopa County , Arizona, which also included investigations of cold cases. What better individual could you have to elicit the facts of the accusations that are being put forward? Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”

Republican senators have selected Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, a top senator announced Tuesday.

Mitchell is the chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which deals with sexual assault cases, among others. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for in the county attorney’s office for 26 years.

In enlisting Mitchell to join their staff, Republican senators are taking an unusual step. They are turning to her to ask what are expected to be personal and potentially painful questions about the woman’s youth on live television, sparing the all-male panel of 11 Republican senators on the committee some uncomfortable exchanges that could sway the public’s opinion about the session.

“The majority members have followed the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”

The hearing is set for Thursday. We shall see of Christine Blasey Ford’s actually shows as her attorneys have been making some ridiculous demands in order for their client to testify.

Democrats: We Already Know Know Brett Kavanaugh Is Guilty … So Much for the Presumtion of Innocense

SO MUCH FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE … WELCOME TO THE BAIS & TAINTED DEMOCRAT JURY.

The actions of the LEFT and Democrats should be frightening to all. Their political bias and Trump resistance at all cost, including trashing the US. Constitution and the laws of the United States is chilling.  The Democrats have deemed SCOTUS nominee Judge  Brett Kavanaugh as guilty of something he has not either been accused of in a court of law, nor substantiated. That is correct, guilty before being proven innocent. No one knows whether Kavanaugh or his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling the truth or credible, until they present their case in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. But not for Democrats, they know he is guilty. They have a crystal ball.

I have two cases for you where all thought they were guilty also, Duke Lacrosse and the University of Virginia rape case brought to us by Rolling Stone. We both know now has both of those sexual assault and rape cases went , don’t we? Both were lies. Crystal Mangum and Jackie lied. No such accusations ever occurred. But of course these two huge miscarriages of justice and jumps to conclusions seem to mean nothing to Democrats.

Let’s take a look at the fact we know. A supposed accusation of sexual misconduct happened 36 years ago when Christine was 15 years old, but was never mentioned to anyone, including family, friend or the authorities. Not until 2012 in a doctors office and no names were referenced. Her therapist notes state that four people were present, 3 individuals have come forward to say they have no knowledge or recollection of the incident.  Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home, or where the part was. She was a 15 year old girl consuming alcohol and has no memory of major facts of the case. The accused, Brett Kavanaugh has denied it ever happened. So tell me … if this was in a court of law in front of a jury, this would be the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. But not for Democrats, Kavanaugh Is Guilty, even though nothing has been presented in front of them. Talk about a tainted and bias jury.

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT, WHAT HAPPENS IF KAVANAUGH PROVIDES PROOF LIKE A PASSPORT OR PHOTO STAMPED PICS THAT HE WAS NO WHERE NEAR THIS SO-CALLED PARTY? WILL THERE BE DEMOCRAT APOLOGIES?

Watch VIDEO here.

No matter.

Kavanaugh, many Democrats say, is clearly guilty.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Thursday: “I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story.” [You know it by her story? What story? Dr. Ford's story is 36 years old and lacking the basic who, what where, when and why of any story. The accusers story is vague at best. If anything, Ford's story is so lacking in every form of detail that is pertinent to the case, that it is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.]

“Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI review the claims,” Gillibrand added. “Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.” [WTF you liberal fool, talk about your straw argument. Judge Kavanaugh does not have the right or standing to ask the FBI to do anything. The FBI is not his personal private detective. No Sen. Gillibrand, the mark of an innocent person is his obsolete denial of what he is being accused of and his want to show up on Monday and clear his name.]

When Sen. Duckworth (D-Ill.) was asked about Kavanaugh denying the accusation, the senator responded, “Well, I have heard, you know, many, many predators say and refute allegations against them.” [Actually Sen. Duckworth, many accusers actually know when and where the presumed assault took place.]

Former spokesman for Bernie Sanders and CNN contributor, Symone Sanders, said she didn’t even need to wait for more information: “For me there is no debate. I believe Professor Ford. Judge Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath.” [Wow, really Bernie. Kavanaugh lied under oath. When. I think Bill Clinton might be squirming with that position you took, hoping Juanita Broderick doesn't pursue her rape claims years later.]

And here are other select quotes from Democratic lawmakers:

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said: “I believe Dr. Ford as I refer to her because she makes a very credible case. It is really difficult for someone to come forward in this way. Why should she destroy her life? Already there are efforts to cast aspersions on her credibility, to look into her family, all of that. This is really very much like what happened with Anita Hill where she was vilified, she was called names. This cannot happen to Dr. Ford.” [Hmm, she came forward and the letter that was supposed to remain confidential was presented right before the Kavanaugh vote. It might be more credible that this is a political scam.]

Sen. Blumenthal (D-Conn.): “Let me just say right at the outset I believe. Dr Ford, I believe the survivor here, there’s every reason to believe her. She has come forward courageously and bravely knowing that she would face a nightmare of hostile and vicious scrutiny and challenge. And there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve Judge Kavanaugh after his evasive and seemingly misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee.” [So here is a dude that strictly on the accusations of a woman, he is believable and Kavanaugh is guilty. You want want to see Duke Lacrosse rape case and UVA. Really? You better hope no woman ever accuses you of anything.]

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); “I hope that she does [testify], because I’m afraid that what the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really want is they want her to go away. They don’t want the country to hear from her, and they certainly don’t want the country to hear from her live and on television. She’s absolutely right, the FBI should do a thorough vetting of these allegations. The Senate shouldn’t simply rely on hearing two conflicting accounts and decide, ‘Well, we’re OK with not knowing. We’re OK with the fact we might be putting a — someone who committed attempted rape on the Supreme Court of the United States.’ They should get to the bottom of this. And it wouldn’t take that long to do. This is the same crowd that waited a year to fill the last vacancy during the Obama administration on the Supreme Court, so why this rush? And I think they realize they have a very imperfect candidate, in fact they may have a candidate who has committed attempted rape.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.):  “Listen, it comes down to credibility to your point. It’s going to be about listening to what each party has to say, but I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to — to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage. And frankly, you know, I have personally prosecuted sexual assault cases, and my concern is— and she knows this — she is putting herself out there knowing that they’re going to try and excoriate her. She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter, who serves on that court. And she has the courage to come forward? She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?” [LOL, what does she have to gain? Seriously? She is a Democrat operative. I think we all know what she has to gain. Good grief, do not insult people's intelligence.]

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): “Well I can tell you it really does have a ring of truth to it. The fact that she can refer to therapist notes so that she did bring it up before. I am skeptical of polygraphs, but those who believe them, she has passed a polygraph test.” [The notes that Durbin refer to in no where references names.]

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): “I believe Professor Ford. I think she’s credible and I think when the investigation is finished and when she testifies and Judge Kavanaugh testifies, I think a majority of senators will find her credible.”

Christine Blasey Ford Lawyers Say She is Open to Testifying Before Congress, But Not Monday … And as Long as she Goes After Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, HUH?

WTF … FOLKS, WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS THAT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENTS AND A RIGHT FOR ONE TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER.

The four corners Democrat stall is underway …

Christine Blasey Ford lawyers know say she will testify before Congress, but with conditions. They stated that she will not testify on Monday,  The right to confront your accuser is one of the basic tenants of law in the United States, as well as the presumption of innocent. But not when it comes of all things to decide on the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone see a problem with that? Democrat already know that Kavanaugh is guilty before they have ever heard from the accuser or the accused. Seriously! So lets understand this, Christine Blasey Ford is accusing Brett Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her at 1982 party somewhere in Montgomery County, MD and Democrats know she is telling the truth merely on the accusation. However, Christine Blasey Ford cannot say for sure when the 36 year old assault was committed, she cannot say where the assault was committed and she has admitted she was 15 years old and drinking alcohol.

Christine Blasey Ford opened the possibility she would testify before Congress about her accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

An email her lawyers sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Ford “would be prepared to testify next week” if the senators offer her “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

The message came a day ahead of a 10 a.m. Friday deadline set by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley for Ford to decide whether she would appear before a hearing he set for Monday.

Testifying Monday, however, “is not possible and the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event,” Ford’s lawyers wrote.

“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email said. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

Here are the conditions that Ford’s attorney put forward in order for her to testify. Ford’s lawyers outlined these demands, according to a source close to the process. So the individual who so wanted to testify and accuse Kavanaugh now has demands. Why would that be? The one that should stand out more than anything is the one highlighted in red. In what world do these people live in because it is obviously not America. The accuser does not go second, they go first. I mean seriously, in America under the United States Law an individual has the right to confront their accuser. How in the hell would Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh know what the f*ck he is supposed to respond to if Christine Blasey Ford did not go first and make put forth her accusations. But this just shows the disingenuous of the negotiations.

• Ford will not appear any sooner than next Thursday;
• No questions to be asked at hearing by any outside counsel — only by Senators;
• Mark Judge must be subpoenaed;
• Kavanaugh would testify first, then Ford would testify, and Kavanaugh would have no opportunity to respond or rebut;
• The Friday deadline for her to provide written statement before the hearing would be waived
• Provide adequate security;
• Only one pool camera in hearing room;
• Ford and Kavanaugh allotted the same amount of time to talk.

SARA CARTER: Pentagon Whistleblower Exposes Trump Campaign Spy Stefan Halper as Key Player in FBI Russia Probe: “It Was All a Set-Up”

IT IS ALL COMING A PART AND IT IS AS CORRUPT AND DIRTY AS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN … THIS IS A MUST READ!!!

From Sara Carter comes the following bombshell, Adam Lovinger, a former Defense Department analyst stumbled upon the deep state’s hideous operation against the Trump campaign …  “It Was All a Set-Up”. Informant Stefan Halper was paid a total of $411,575 in 2016 and 2017 for work with the US government that included spying on the Trump campaign. Folks, this is as bad as corruption, conspiracy and high crimes as it gets in the United States. This cannot ever be allowed to go unpunished.

Adam Lovinger, a former Defense Department analyst, never expected that what he stumbled on during his final months at the Pentagon would expose an integral player in the FBI’s handling of President Donald Trump’s campaign and alleged Russia collusion.

Lovinger, a whistleblower, is now battling to save his career. The Pentagon suspended his top-secret security clearance May 1, 2017, when he exposed through an internal review that Stefan Halper, who was then an emeritus Cambridge professor, had received roughly $1 million in tax-payer funded money to write Defense Department foreign policy reports, his attorney Sean Bigley said. Before Lovinger’s clearance was suspended he had taken a detail to the National Security Council as senior director for strategy. He was only there for five months before he was recalled to the Pentagon, stripped of his prestigious White House detail, and ordered to perform bureaucratic make-work in a Pentagon annex Bigley calls “the land of misfit toys.” His security clearance was eventually revoked in March 2018, despite the Pentagon “refusing to turn over a single page of its purported evidence of Lovinger’s wrongdoing,” Bigley stated. Conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Defense Department to obtain the withheld records.

An investigation by SaraACarter.com reveals that the documents and information Lovinger stumbled on and other documents obtained by this news site, raise troubling questions about Halper, who was believed to have worked with the CIA and part of the matrix of players in the bureau’s ‘CrossFire Hurricane’ investigation into Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Halper, who assisted the FBI in the Russia investigation, appears to also have significant ties to the Russian government, as well as sources connected directly to President Vladimir Putin.

Halper did not respond to requests for comment.

“Mr. Lovinger unwittingly shined a spotlight on the deep state’s secret weapon – Stefan Halper – and threatened to expose the truth about the Trump-Russia collusion narrative than being plotted: that it was all a set-up.”

The Dana Pretzer Show – Thursday, August 16, 2018 – Please Join Dana Pretzer Tonight at 9 PM ET with Special Guest: Dawna Kaufmann & Diane Dimond

LISTEN TO THE DANA PRETZER SHOW

LISTEN TO PODCAST HERE

Tonight’s Guests:

• Author Dawna Kaufmann discussing the book she and Dr. Cyril Wecht wrote, ‘Final Exams’

Dawna Kaufmann is an accomplished true crime journalist whose work has been heralded by law enforcement and the media. She’s covered many hundreds of celebrity deaths, high-profile homicides, sex crimes, and missing person cases, usually from the first hint of a crime through the trial and sentencing phase.

• Diane Dimond, award winning investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist discussing her new Investigation Discovery TV special on the Pamela Smart case.

Full Bio: Diane Dimond is one of the few journalists to have mastered the art of her craft across all platforms – radio, television, books and as a syndicated columnist. As such she defies a single category.Dimond’s greatest talent may be her ability to communicate complicated stories in an understandable, common-sense way. Her reputation as a fearless investigative reporter has won admiration from her peers but she never lost the ethical and moral lessons learned growing up as an only child in a middle class home in the Southwest.