WE BARREL & PORK ENDORSE RICHARD’S NEW BOOK “KILLING BILL O’REILLY” – How the LEFT tried to kill Bill’s career and failed. Bill is back with a vengeance. By Richard W Linford.
Buy it on amazon.com. Click on this link.
BARREL, what kind of a grade should I give Senator Susan Collins for her speech today?
PORK, give her an A+. She nailed it. She set forth Brett Kavanaugh’s excellent credentials. She documented that there is no corroborating testimony whatsoever for Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and allegations. Ended by saying she is voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court.
Click here for the full text. https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/05/full-text-susan-collins-senate-speech-announcing-yes-vote-for-brett-kavanaugh/
PORK, Christine Blasey Ford’s story has completely unravelled. It was stitched together with lies. It is my conclusion that Christine Blasey Ford is a consummate liar and that her story is a calculated, fabricated effort to take down Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a man with an unblemished record.
Why do I say that? Because of the following:
- After 36 years, did she “remember” and claim that she drank only “one beer?” Yes.
- After 36 years, did she “remember” music was playing in the room? Yes.
- Can she show us the house on a map? No.
- Can she tell us how many people were there at the house? No.
- Can she tell us how old she was? No. She said 17. Then she said 15.
- Can she tell us how she got home? No.
- Can she tell us the address where the alleged assault took place? No.
- Can she tell us the date of the alleged party? No.
- Can she tell us the month the alleged party happened? No.
- Can she tell us the place? No.
- Can she tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
- Can she tell us who drove her home? No.
- Can she tell us who drove her to the alleged party? No.
- Can she tell us who owned the house the alleged party was in? No.
- Can she tell us how many persons were in the room where she was allegedly assaulted? No. First it was 4 and then 2.
- Did she leave who her parents and brothers are off from her Wikipedia site? Yes.
- Did she admit that she drinks, having drunk only “one” beer at the alleged party? Yes.
- Did she explain why she is alleged to have been a serious alcohol binge drinker during high school? No.
- Did she explain to us why she is a liberal activist? No.
- Did she explain to us why she is anti-Trump? No.
- Did she explain to us why she is alleged to have written “Scalia-types must be banned from law” on her Facebook page in 2016?
- Did she explain to us why she is alleged to be portrayed in Holton Arms year books as a wild promiscuous party girl with multiple partners, as many as 54, during high school to college? No.
- Did she explain why it is alleged that she asked that the letter not be disclosed and then personally disclosed the letter? No.
- Did she explain why it is alleged that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and or her staff to create and leak the letter? No. Did she name the other people she allegedly colluded with to produce the letter? No.
- Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II worked and still works for the CIA? No.
- Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II was vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations? No.
- Did she explain why it is alleged that her grandfather was a key figure in the CIA? No.
- Did she explain why it is alleged that she heads up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University? No. Did she explain that her husband is responsible for mind control drugs? No.
- Did she explain why she has now raised $750,000 off her story and will yet make several millions of dollars – Anita Hill is now a millionaire after lucrative book writing contract with Doubleday – when her attorneys are allegedly working pro bono? No. Did she explain who set up the go fund me initiative that raised the $750,000 plus? No. Did she explain when the go fund me initiative was set up? No.
- Did she explain why there are at least 14 serious errors in the letter she claims to have written, errors no PhD would make, errors that would be made by an inexperienced writer or an old person of another generation like Senator Feinstein? No.
- Did she state that she left the alleged party without telling anyone there were two rapists in the building? Yes.
- Did she lie about being claustrophobic? Yes. Has she explained why her ex-boyfriend has come forward to state that she has no fear whatsoever of close spaces – no fear of rooms or buildings with single exits? No. Did she explain why she lived in a small 500 square foot house with one door without complaint? No. Did she explain why she really got a second door so she could rent out part of her house not because she was claustrophobic? No.
- Did she fly long distances for vacations yet use the excuse of fear of failing to put off the hearing and buy the democrats added time? Yes. Did she explain why she readily flew during six years while involved with a boyfriend? No. Did she explain why her ex boyfriend says she flew on small prop planes without complaining? No.
- Did she and or her accomplices diligently try to scrub the internet of anything incriminating? Yes. i.e. her binge drinking and promiscuity.
- Did she reveal her alleged harm to democrats only? Yes. Did she collude with them? Yes.
- Did she go out of the way to reveal herself to the anti-Trump Washington Post all the while trying to convince the nation that she didn’t want her letter disclosed? Yes.
- Did she state that she came forward because she saw Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list? Yes.
- Was Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list at the time she alleges? No. It was added later so she would not have seen it and thus she lied about it.
- So did she lie about the reason she came forward? Yes.
- Did she tell anyone at the time of the alleged incident? No.
- Did she tell anyone there were two “rapists” in the house? No.
- Did she tell her brothers? She says not
- Did she tell her father? She says not.
- Did she tell her mother? She says not.
- Did she tell us why it is alleged that her brother Ralph Blasey III worked for the International Law Firm of … Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier”? No.
- Did she tell us who her brothers are and what they do for a living and what they did when she was in high school? No.
- Did she tell us who her father is? No.
- Did she tell us who her mother is? No.
- Did she turn over her therapist notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee? No.
- Did she withhold dispositive details about the alleged polygraph? Yes. Is she still doing so? Yes. Did she explain why, according to her ex-boyfriend, she coached a close friend who subsequently joined the FBI and worked for the DOJ on how to take a polygraph? No
- Does any person she lists as being at the alleged party confirm her story? No.
- Does any witness corroborate any element of her story? No.
- Does her life-friend who Mrs. Ford alleges was at the alleged party support or deny her story? Denies. Did she tell us that Monica Lee McLean, another best friend, was an FBI Special Agent, who lives in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware? No. Did Mrs. Ford tell us she drafted her “letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh” from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware? Yes. Did the democrats know a former FBI agent was close to Ford? Yes. Did the democrats orchestrate FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, to Ford’s legal team? Yes.
- Is her “little girl voice” demeanor during her testimony credible? No.
- Is her lack of emotion credible? No.
- Is her polygraph uncorroborated as it is and thus worthless? Yes.
- Is her Safeway reference credible? No.
- Is her slight show of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
- Is her tucking of the head demeanor and tongue pushing during her testimony indicative that she was not credible? Yes. Did she look abnormal during her testimony? Yes.
- Is she specific after 36 years that she locked herself in the bathroom? Yes. Did she mention once during six years she dated her ex boyfriend that she had been victim of sexual assault? No. Did she tell anyone else? Not according to her testimony. Did she mention Brett Kavanaugh during that time? No.
- Is she an accomplice and shill of the far left democrats? Yes.
- Was she raped? No.
- If she was Holton Arms High School promiscuous during her teenage years as alleged does this negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes.
- If she is tied to certain people in the CIA and the FBI and the law firm that created the infamous “dossier” and the Clintons in multiple ways as alleged, and the democrats, in a coordinated scripted effort to take down Judge Kavanaugh, does this further negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes.
- Did she collude with others including Senator Feinstein, whose attempt at plausible deniability was blatant and unconvincing, and Senator Feinstein’s staff, and others she refers to as friends in California and elsewhere? Yes.
- Did she fabricate her story about Judge Kavanaugh? Yes. Did she commit perjury? Yes. Did she and the democrats con the nation? Yes. Did she and the democrats con Judge Kavanaugh and the Senate? Yes. Did Senator Feinstein commit perjury? Yes. Keep in mind Senator Feinstein pled plausible deniability.
- AreMrs. Ford and Chuck Schumer and Senator Feinstein and the democrats responsible for the lies that caused the trauma to Judge Kavanaugh and his family? Yes. Do they owe him? Yes. Big time.
- What happens now? Wait and see what the FBI reports and applaud Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate in the next few days.
Why should we confirm Brett Kavanaugh, BARREL?
That’s easy, PORK. Looks like the Democrats by their underhanded treatment of Brett Kavanaugh and his family have just turned the American people against them and lost both the midterms and 2020 in a landslide for republicans and POTUS Trump.
- The uncorroborated bald allegations of the accusers are that these events happened in high school early in the 1980s. For benefit of the doubt, let’s say 1985. That means that the events are alleged to have happened 33-35 years ago during which time these people did not step forward.
- The accusers have flawed memories. No one, and I mean no one, can remember with precision back that far and without corroborating witnesses, there is no controversy and no legal case of merit.
- Those who were alleged to have been present further testify that such acts did not take place and that Brett Kavanaugh was not present if they did take place.
- Brett Kavanaugh has testified under oath, under penalty of felony perjury, that he was not present and he did not engage in such acts, and it is fair to say that any civil or criminal causes of action are long since tolled by statutes of limitations and if for some reason they might be heard in a court of law there is no compelling evidence whatsoever in support of the allegations.
- Regarding the new allegation, Brett testifies unequivocally that such did not happen and that Mz Ramirez has made “a false and uncorroborated accusation,” that such is part of the democrat “frenzy” to block his confirmation and part of a “coordinated effort to destroy his good name.”
- He states, and rightly so, that these allegations “debase our public discourse” and are a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country.”
- He further says, “Such grotesque and obvious character assassination – if allowed to succeed – will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.”
- He courageously said, “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process.”
- Brett has an unblemished record on the court and he has stood his ground well and has garnered an unblemished record in the hearings, having been subjected by democrats and others to a withering barrage of questions, all of which he has answered well.
- There are many women who have worked with him for years who testify as to his good character, which is to say the preponderance of female testimony places in question the integrity of the women who allege that Brett committed such acts.
- The Democrats had their chance during the hearings to raise these issues and they failed.
- They now are engaged in last minute character assassination in their “frenzied” effort to prevent POTUS Trump from achieving the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
- These reasons are more than sufficient to confirm him to the Supreme Court.