Tag Archives: Conspiracy

Kavanaugh rape accuser put forward by Democrats admits she made it all up to get attention

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

The Supreme Court is important to Christians and conservatives because it decides whether rights like free speech, freedom of religion, right to self-defense, etc. will be respected by government. During the last Supreme Court hearing, Democrats put forward a number of rape accusations to block a conservative nominee. We’re now finding out how credible those accusations were.

Judy Munro-Leighton

The Daily Caller reports:

A woman who acknowledged falsely accusing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of rape is being referred to the FBI and Department of Justice for investigation, according to an official letter.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said in a letter sent Friday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the woman, Judy Munro-Leighton, admitted Thursday that she falsely claimed in an email to committee staff on Oct. 3 that Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her.

In the email, Munro-Leighton claimed to be the author of an anonymous letter sent to California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19. In that letter, a person who signed the letter as “Jane Doe” claimed Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in the back of a car.

Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said investigators quickly discovered that Munro-Leighton was a “left-wing activist” who is decades older than Kavanaugh.

But after reaching Munro-Leighton on Thursday, she admitted “that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original ‘Jane Doe’ letter.”

Munro-Leighton said that she “just wanted to get attention” for her “ploy.”

When the mainstream media reported that Kavanaugh was “credibly accused” of rape by multiple women, this is the kind of accusation they were referring to. Credibly accused by very respectable, stable, accomplished women who had nothing to gain by coming forward and reporting their truth.

Was this accusation a deliberate coordinated effort between Democrat senators and this left-wing activist? We’ll find out, as long as the Democrats don’t win the Senate and stop the investigation. Right now it looks about 50-50 that the Democrats will win the Senate, but that depends on the voter turnout. They’re almost certainly going to end all investigations in the House when they win the House on Tuesday. It’s virtually guaranteed that the Democrats will win the House on Tuesday.

Previously, another false rape accuser put forward by the Democrats to block Kavanaugh was also caught lying.

Julie Swetnick

Real Clear Politics recalls how the mainstream media reported her baseless accusations:

Julie Swetnick, one of the women accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, talks about gang-rape parties with NBC’s Kate Snow. Swetnick said she was drugged and gang-raped by Kavanaugh and friend Mark Judge. NBC News stated that Swetnick’s claims could not be independently verified.

Swetnick is represented by Michael Avenatti, who is also the attorney for adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

“I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me,” Swetnick acknowledged.

She’s now been referred to the FBI for a criminal investigation:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley today referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for criminal investigation relating to a potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Swetnick’s allegation was seized upon by Democrat politicians and activists as a “credible” accusation. She couldn’t be lying, because she had such a great career. She was respected – she had so many security clearances. The mainstream media told us how respected and emotionally stable she was. Feinstein presented the accusation in the Senate hearing, asking Kavanaugh if he was guilty of being a gang rapist. It later emerged that Swetnick preferred method of having sex was with multiple men at the same time.

Who benefits from a false rape accusation?

During the hearing, Democrat senators told the Kavanaugh accusers who had contacted them (?) things like “You had absolutely nothing to gain” by making these accusations. Is that true?

This LifeZette article reports:

Ford has raked in an estimated $1 million from crowdfunding campaigns supporting her and several book deals, RealClearInvestigations reported.

“You had absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) memorably said during Ford’s September testimony, as Breitbart noted.

“I want to thank you,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) also said during the September hearing. “Because you clearly have nothing to gain for what you have done.”

[…]Ford has also reached hero status in Palo Alto, California, her home town.

Mayor Liz Kniss, a Democrat, announced this month that she planned to honor Ford in a public ceremony at a Palo Alto City Council meeting.

What about Kavanaugh, did he get to keep the money raised for him, and will he get book deals from liberal publishers?

While Kavanaugh reportedly has turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars raised for him and his family through a GoFundMe campaign,Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, has raked in a million bucks — and several book deal offers.

Kavanaugh declined over $600,000 in small donations that had been collected during his confirmation hearings, Yahoo reported, as he endured divisive and bitter rhetoric nationally over his nomination, public protests, and multiple unfounded accusations regarding sexual assault.

If the Democrats take control the Senate on Tuesday, we can expect that all of Trump’s future Supreme Court picks will face a similar horde of false rape accusations. The difference will be that the Senate committee, which will be run by Democrats, won’t be investigating the accusers’ claims, and they won’t be referring them to the FBI for criminal investigations if they’re caught lying. It will just be the accusers, their Democrat allies in the Senate, and the lapdog liberal media, against Kethledge or Barrett or whoever the nominee happens to be.

How does the lynching of Brett Kavanaugh affect Christian men who want to have an influence?

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

Well, on Friday, I asked one of the atheist senior software engineers I work with how he felt about the Kavanaugh nomination. He told me three things. First, that they shouldn’t give a job that lasts “40 years” to someone who got angry about being accused of being a gang rapist. Second, he had not followed the Kavanaugh news for a week. And third, that Trump was a horrible President, and hadn’t don’t anything right.

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Kavanaugh confirmation process from famous religious liberty defender David French.

Here’s what’s in it:

  • the overall pattern of sensational accusations being made, then unraveling after investigations prove them false
  • the left’s insistence that Kavanaugh disprove the allegations, rather than the accusers having to prove them
  • the left’s claim that Kavanaugh’s defense against the allegations shows that he doesn’t have the temperament for SCOTUS
  • the evidential problems with Christine Ford’s accusation
  • the evidential problems with Deborah Ramirez’s accusation
  • the evidential problems with Julie Swetnick’s accusation
  • the charge that Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury when talking about his drinking and his high school yearbook

Let’s focus on the most credible accusation from Christine Ford:

It’s an assault that verges on attempted rape. But the evidence simply doesn’t support this claim. In fact, her claim is worse than just “uncorroborated,” it’s contradicted – sometimes even by her own testimony and her own evidence. And her behavior since bringing the claim raises further doubts about its veracity.

Consider the following, undisputed facts about her testimony and the evidence she’s provided. Not one of the witnesses that she’s put forward have backed her version of events – not even her own friends. At best they’ve said they have no recollection of the party. Her friend, Leyland Keyser, went further, declaring through her attorney that “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford herself has provided conflicting accounts of her age at the time of the attack and the number of attendees at the party. Even the evidence of the details of the attack isn’t uniform. Her therapists’ notes allegedly indicate that four boys were present, not just Kavanaugh and Judge. She claims these notes are erroneous, but contemporaneous notes of a conversation are almost always far more reliable than a years-later recollection of that same conversation.

Dr. Ford’s conduct since coming forward has also been disturbing. When making a serious claim against another person, it is the obligation of the accuser to come forward with evidence. Instead, she has withheld evidence – including her complete therapists’ notes and the complete polygraph record. She has defied the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to fully cooperate with its investigation. In a civil litigation context, the persistent refusal to hand over relevant evidence can lead to dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim. In this context, it should at the very least lead to a negative inference about the contents of the withheld evidence.

The article did not cover the sworn statement of Ford’s boyfriend, which directly contradicted her testimony under oath. This would open her up to charges of perjury, if pursued. And the article also didn’t mention how many of her stories meant to delay the confirmation process were falsified after being investigated, e.g. – her fear of flying which kept her from testifying on time.

What the Kavanaugh lynching means for Christian men

I am concerned about what young Christian men will have learned from the false accusations against Kavanaugh. Is it worth it to be sober and chaste in order to do well in school, and get good jobs? Well, the message of the Kavanaugh fiasco is that everything you do can be undone with a few false accusations. If you rise too high, then the secular left can destroy your reputation, your career, get you fired, destroy your finances by forcing you to defend yourself in court, etc. Good degrees and good jobs take a lot of hard work and self-sacrifice, especially in a time when progressives are receiving preferential treatment. Is it worth it to try?

Suppose a young Christian man were clever and avoided all alcohol and sex in high school and college, like I did. Suppose he did two STEM degrees in order to get into a male-dominated field like I did. I’ve worked in FT100 companies that aggressively promoted abortion and gay rights. I saw women who were outspoken proponents of same-sex marriage get promoted over conservatives with real STEM skills. Imagine I were going for a promotion in competition with a leftist woman. She could make up any story she wanted without any evidence in order to get me fired.  This is what the Kavanaugh case clearly shows.

One final point. Is it worth it for a Christian conservative man to get married and have children in an environment like this? If a man is fired from his job on a false charge, it puts a serious strain on his marriage. I am watching what gay activists are doing to Christian business-owners right now. Death threats, vandalism, organizing protests, negative reviews… trying to make it impossible for Christians and conservatives to earn a living. Trying to make it so that their children starve. Christian men who want to have an influence aren’t stupid. They count the cost of every decision before making it. A man who has a wife and kids is simply not as free to be who he really is and say what he really thinks as a man who is unmarried and who uses an alias.

A lot of Christians seem to like to say how great it is that they focus on “spiritual things” while ignoring politics. Well, when those Christians see secular leftists climbing into power and ruling over what Christians can say or do, I hope they will remember that all it takes for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Every time the secular left puts on a show of intimidation, more and more young Christians will get the message: you can’t win, so don’t try. The secular leftists are fascists – they will use power, threats of violence, and violence itself in order to neutralize the influence of those who make them feel ashamed of what they are doing.

Related posts

Did Christine Ford name Kavanaugh as her attacker before his Supreme Court nomination?

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

I wanted to post something that collects together what we know about Christine Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh. She released her opening statement for the Thursday hearing on Wednesday night. I read various articles from conservative and liberal sources to ferret out the most interesting details of this case for you. I hope you will enjoy it.

National Review posted about it:

Ford repeats her accusations against Kavanaugh but names no new witnesses and gives no new information. She also confirms that she did not name Kavanaugh as the alleged assailant to anyone “outside of therapy” “until July 2018” when she “saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees”:

I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett’s assault, and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of The Washington Post story on September 16, 2018. But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.

This all changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his potential nomination would know about the assault.

This part is important:

Per the Washington Post, Kavanaugh’s name is not in the therapist’s notes:

The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

And it concludes:

Which is to say that we have an accusation that has not been corroborated by any of the named witnesses, all of whom have either said that it categorically did not happen, or that they do not know Brett Kavanaugh, or that they have no memory of any such party or event; that is strenuously denied by the accused; and that was not fleshed out to anyone other than the accuser’s husband until the day Kavanaugh’s name became national news.

Ford’s only support comes from sworn affidavits of people who say that she TOLD THEM that she was assaulted. Did she name Kavanaugh to them? I looked over the affidavits. Her husband’s affidavit says that she named Kavanaugh in 2012 to the therapist. But we KNOW from the Washington Post that the therapist’s notes don’t name Kavanaugh, so we don’t have evidence that her husband told the truth. And he’s hardly an unbiased witness. The Keith Koegler affidavit names Kavanaugh, but only from an e-mail he got from Ford on or after June 29, 2018. And two others (Adela Gildo-Mazzon and Rebecca White) don’t mention Kavanaugh by name AT ALL. Just that she said she was attacked.

Remember, all these affidavits prove is that she TOLD THEM about an attack, NOT that the attack actually happened the way she is telling now.

Something else she claimed was also falsified.

The Daily Caller reports:

Ford’s claim that there were “4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party contradicts Ford and her lawyer’s other accounts of how many people were present.

In her letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that there were “four others” present. She also told The Washington Post that there were “four boys at the party” and two — Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge — in the room where the assault allegedly occurred.

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, later told CNN that there were four guys and one other girl at the party.

[…]Since Ford’s allegations were first made public, there have been three different accounts of how many people were at the party she claims to have been assaulted at: four boys, four boys and one girl, and four boys and a couple of girls.

Kavanaugh, Judge and two other alleged party attendees all say they do not recall the party in question or any assault.

One of her named witnesses is her lifelong friend Leland Keyser.

The anti-Trump Weekly Standard notes:

On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CNN reports that “Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.”

Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel’s podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser’s only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.

What about the polygraph? Well, her lawyers administered a polygraph in August 2018, that consisted of only two questions.

CBS News explains:

Following Ford’s interview she was given a polygraph examination with the following two questions:

  1. Is any part of your statement false?
  2. Did you make up any part of your statement?

Ford answered “no” to both questions.

Kavanaugh was not named in the two-question polygraph test.

Ford’s lawyers are refusing to release details about the polygraph to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A Wall Street Journal columnist tweets:

Kimberley Strassel @KimStrassel Potomac Watch columnist for Wall Street Journal.
Kimberley Strassel is a columnist for Wall Street Journal.

Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are considered to be unreliable as evidence.

Could Ford have gotten Kavanaugh mixed up with a different man? Yes! In fact, two men have come forward claiming to be Ford’s attacker.

The Daily Wire reports:

Politico congressional reporter Burgess Everett reported the summary from the Judiciary Committee, which stated: “Committee staff have a second interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in the summer of 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail.”

A second Politico reporter, Elana Schor, added that the Judiciary also had a phone interview with a second man who also believed that he may have assaulted Ford in the summer of 1982.

That would explain why she told the people in her affidavits about the attack, but only recently named Kavanaugh as the attacker.

Why wasn’t Hillary Clinton indicted for her private e-mail server?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Andy McCarthy writes about it at National Review. McCarthy is a former assistant U.S. attorney, and that he led the 1995 prosecution of the World Trade Center bombers, as well as prosecuting other prominent terrorism cases. So, he’s familiar with the law, and familiar with national security. The National Review is one of the most prestigious conservative publications.

Excerpt:

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. […]The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.

These emails must have involved some classified information, given the nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails. If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.

If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen.

He explains how we know that Obama knew about the Clinton private, unsecure, bathroom closet e-mail server:

As his counselors grappled with how to address his own involvement in Clinton’s misconduct, Obama deceptively told CBS News in a March 7 interview that he had found out about Clinton’s use of personal email to conduct State Department business “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.” Perhaps he was confident that, because he had used an alias in communicating with Clinton, his emails to and from her — estimated to number around 20 — would remain undiscovered.

His and Clinton’s advisers were not so confident. Right after the interview aired, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed Jennifer Palmieri and other senior campaign staffers, stating: “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.”

Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” (That is, Obama had emails from Clinton, which he had to know were from a private account since her address did not end in “@state.gov” as State Department emails do.)

They needed to “clean this up”.

Just to reiterate, there is only one reason why someone has a private e-mail server, and that is to escape the record-keeping requirements of their employer. If all your e-mails are stored on your private, unsecure, bathroom closet server, then you can just delete them when you want, and your employer will never know about them. And then if you’ve been pedaling the foreign policy of the United States for donations to your “foundation”, then no one will ever find out.

This could not be allowed to be linked back to Obama, and so it was not allowed to be linked back to Obama.

McCarthy explains:

In April 2016, in another nationally televised interview, Obama made clear that he did not want Clinton to be indicted. His rationale was a legally frivolous straw man: Clinton had not intended to harm national security. This was not an element of the felony offenses she had committed; nor was it in dispute. No matter: Obama’s analysis was the stated view of the chief executive. If, as was sure to happen, his subordinates in the executive law-enforcement agencies conformed their decisions to his stated view, there would be no prosecution.

Within a few weeks, even though the investigation was ostensibly still underway and over a dozen key witnesses — including Clinton herself — had not yet been interviewed, the FBI began drafting Comey’s remarks that would close the investigation. There would be no prosecution.

On June 27, Lynch met with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on an out-of-the-way Arizona tarmac, where their security details arranged for both their planes to be parked.

Over the next few days, the FBI took pains to strike any reference to Obama’s emails with Mrs. Clinton from the statement in which Comey would effectively end the “matter” with no prosecution.

And remember, we have a second FBI scandal being investigated, now. We’re trying to figure out whether the FBI used the Trump-Russia dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign, in order to get FISA court warrants to conduct surveillance on Trump and Trump associates. Just a little extra help for their favored presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Again, if true – we’re still investigating.

I used to think that the worst thing the Obama administration did was the IRS persecution of conservative groups ahead of Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. And now there’s this new scandal.  Now we’re finding out little by little what the Obama administration really did, but we’ll probably never know the whole truth.

Is Trump right to say that Bush lied about the Iraq war, and there were no WMDs?

There was a debate on Saturday night, and Donald Trump started screaming like an unhinged psychopath not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES.

Red State introduces the meltdowns:

In Saturday’s CBS Republican presidential debate Donald Trump was the biggest loser. It wasn’t even close. Worse, the Donald was whiney, uncivil and so very un-presidential. He threw Trumpertantrum after Trumpertantrum, interrupted again and again and was booed over and over.

Here they are:

You can listen to all three meltdowns and read the transcripts in the Red State article. Let’s look at them.

The third statement about Planned Parenthood has already been turned into an ad by Ted Cruz, who was called a liar by Trump in the debate. The new Cruz ad shows Trump saying exactly what Cruz said that he said about Planned Parenthood on the Sean Hannity show.

I’m going to cover the “George W. Bush lied us into war and there were no WMDs there” statement below, and then this afternoon, I’ll cover the “Putin is a leader and there’s no evidence that he assassinated anyone” statement.

Here’s the part of the transcript that’s relevant:

DICKERSON: … On Monday, George W. Bush will campaign in South Carolina for his brother. As you’ve said tonight, and you’ve often said, the Iraq war and your opposition to it was a sign of your good judgment. In 2008, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, talking about President George W. Bush’s conduct of the war, you said you were surprised that Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t try to impeach him. You said, quote: “Which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.” When you were asked what you meant by that and you said: “For the war, for the war, he lied, he got us into the war with lies.” Do you still believe President Bush should have been impeached?

[…]TRUMP: You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

Two points to make about this.

Chemical weapons found in Iraq
Chemical weapons found in Iraq

First, we did find WMDs in Iraq – lots of them. And this was reported in the radically leftist New York Times, of all places.

Read it:

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Second point, three different reports found that George W. Bush did not lie about the WMDs, nor did he pressure the intelligence agencies.

Excerpt:

Everyone was convinced that Saddam had WMDs. It remains a fact Saddam used WMDs against and his own people. The intelligence and common wisdom that Iraq still possessed such weapons at the time we liberated Iraq proved to be wrong, but that doesn’t equate to a lie. So lets go over the facts again.

The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Besides that report, two other independent investigations came to the same conclusion.

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found “no evidence of political pressure.” At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states: The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly “found no evidence of deliberate distortion.”

Trump can say anything he wants, but the facts are what they are.

Trump supporters in denial

I know 3 Trump supporters, and I’ve tried to speak to them about things like eminent domain, support for bank bailouts, single payer health care, touchback amnesty, Planned Parenthood support, support for Vladimir Putinadultery and divorce, support for the gay rights agenda, four bankruptcies, etc. Their response has been do deny the evidence. Trump never did those things, all the news articles are lies, and all the videos of Trump saying those things are fake. I expect better than that from Trump supporters. This time, the stakes are as high as they could be: 4-5 Supreme Court picks.  This is the ballgame for America.