Jeff Sessions provides more evidence that his mental faculties are failing, while U.S. Senate hopeful Bradley Byrne appears hopelessly out of touch with reality

Jeff Sessions

Former Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions provided more evidence over the weekend that his mental faculties are eroding. Meanwhile, a candidate for Sessions' old U.S. Senate seat sounds like his brain wattage is not so hot, either.

Sessions' most recent tussle with the language came Saturday when he addressed the Alabama Republican Party Executive Committee at the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex. From an article at Alabama Political Reporter (APR):

Sessions said that he was very proud of what he accomplished while he was Attorney General.

“No cabinet department did more to advance the Trump agenda than the Justice Department,” Sessions said.

Sessions said that he worked to make the DOJ less political. “It was time to end the politicization of the Department of Justice.”

Let's break that down into two parts:

(1) Sessions says the Department of Justice (DOJ), on his watch, did more to advance the Trump agenda than any other cabinet department -- even though long-standing rules hold the DOJ is to operate independently of the White House.

(2) Sessions claims he made the DOJ less political.

Statement No. 2 came mere seconds after Sessions admitted having worked to advance a political agenda in the nation's chief law-enforcement agency.

The notion that Sessions might be "out of it" mentally arose recently with the release of The Threat, a book by former FBI Director Andrew McCabe. From a recent report at Newsweek:

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions regularly and casually used shocking racist sentiments while serving in President Donald Trump's cabinet, according to a new book written by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

In his memoir—titled The Threat—McCabe paints a picture of an attorney general who struggled to understand the workings of government, was unable to stay on top of his busy schedule and blamed almost all the country’s problems on immigration, Washington Post reporter Greg Miller wrote in his review of the book.

In one particularly shocking exchange, Sessions reportedly told McCabe the FBI was a better organization when “you all only hired Irishmen.” Drawing on archaic and offensive stereotypes, he clarified, “They were drunks but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos—who knows what they’re doing?”

McCabe's portrayal of Sessions gets even more alarming:

Sessions’ views on race were described as “reprehensible” and constantly aimed to link immigration to crime, Miller reported. The attorney general “believed that Islam—inherently—advocated extremism,” while discussions about specific criminal suspects always began with the question, “Where’s he from?” quickly followed by, “Where are his parents from?”

Not only was Sessions outwardly ignorant about ethnic minorities, he also apparently struggled to keep up with the most basic demands of his job. The former Alabama senator—whom Trump reportedly once branded “mentally retarded” and a “dumb Southerner”—had “trouble focusing, particularly when topics of conversation strayed from a small number of issues.”

McCabe also noted that electronic tablets used to deliver the daily presidential brief to Sessions came back with no sign that he had even entered the passcode to view the important document. He not only failed to read other intelligence reports but also got confused between classified material and information he read in newspaper clippings.

Is Jeff Sessions out of touch with reality? Consider these words from APR's report on the speech in Birmingham:

“President Trump is making great appointments to the judiciary,” Sessions added. “We need another four years of good Trump judicial appointees.”

If that line doesn't make you guffaw, I'm not sure what will. A review of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court suggests Trump can't even nominate a decent human being, much less a good judge.

Bradley Byrne

As for the man who would claim Sessions old seat -- currently held by the oily Doug Jones, who is nothing more than a bootlicker for Rob Riley -- we are talking about U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Fairhope), who announced his candidacy last week. Byrne supports Trump's efforts to build a border wall and claims it is a matter of "fairness" and respect for "the rule of law." From a post at Byrne's blog:

Growing up, my parents taught me the basic values of fairness and following the rules. I think these values were common in households all across our state and country.

In today’s society, those two basic values need to be applied to the ongoing debate about illegal immigration.

In terms of fairness, we have people who are going through the legal process to enter our country, which takes time and effort, only to have people skip that entire process and just walk across our border illegally. That goes against the basic value of fairness.

Also, we are a nation built on laws, but currently illegal immigrants openly disregard the rules and laws of our country. By not holding them accountable, we are further encouraging a culture where the rule of law does not matter.

Immigrants disregard our laws? Has Byrne considered public officials from his own party in Alabama? In recent years, we've had a governor (Robert Bentley), speaker of the House (Mike Hubbard), and chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (Roy Moore) forced out of office due to corruption charges.

As for Donald Trump, Byrne claims to agree with the president on almost all issues. But how does that square with Byrne's supposed concerns about "fairness"? Wouldn't it be fair for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to have Mexico pay for a border wall, rather than U.S. taxpayers? And Byrne actually believes Trump abides by the rule of law? Perhaps Byrne needs to share that insight with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

That should fly about as well as Jeff Sessions' claim to have been a non-partisan attorney general.

We are two-time voters for Barack Obama, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that "44" deserves blame for Brett Kavanaugh's appearance on U.S. Supreme Court

Barack Obama and George W. Bush

Are you looking for someone to blame for Brett Kavanaugh's ascendance to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), a position he is not remotely qualified to handle? Well, one place to start is with former President Barack Obama.

Eoin Higgins makes that suggestion in a recent piece at The Intercept, and we think he is on target -- even though I voted twice for Obama and recognize his many attributes as a leader, including his ability to save us from a likely Great Depression II.

Obama should not receive a pass for his numerous failings on justice issues because the Kavanaugh confirmation process is not just an example of gross political theater -- it represents an assault on our constitutional rights.

Higgins' ire, and ours, dates to Obama's nonsensical claim -- made on Jan. 11, 2009, less than two weeks before he took office -- that he intended to "look forward, not backwards" on the rampant corruption that plagued the George W. Bush years. This essentially was a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card for Bush criminals and we've written scathingly of it many times over the years. (See here, here, here, and here.)

One of those possible Bush-era criminals to escape justice is . . . Brett Kavanaugh. Here is how Eoin Higgins puts it in a piece titled "Obama's resistance to investigating the Bush administration allowed Brett Kavanaugh to skate onto the Supreme Court." Writes Higgins:

In January 2009, George W. Bush left office with an abysmal 22 percent approval rating, the lowest ever recorded. Almost everyone with anything to do with his administration was considered politically toxic.

With full Democratic control of the federal government, calls came for an investigation into the scandals of the Bush administration, including torture, mass surveillance, and war profiteering. While some called for criminal prosecutions, others wanted hearings or an independent investigation that would — at minimum — put into the public record the details of who did what and when. At the least, the argument went, Democrats could ensure that the GOP had to wear the Bush administration for years; that the officials involved in wrongdoing would be written out of polite society; and that future administrations would not revert to those practices.

Obama refused. “We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” he said famously on January 11, 2009, days before he took office.

Imagine how many Bush criminals might have landed in prison -- Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Dubya himself, perhaps dozens more. Among them might have been Brett Kavanaugh, who served as an attorney for the Bush-Gore campaign battle in 2000 and then was staff secretary in the Bush White House. In fact, documents are expected to be released that could point to Kavanaugh's role in decisions that were wrong-headed, contrary to established precedent, and maybe even criminal. Writes HIggins:

Three allegations of sexual assault — the first was broken by The Intercept — and FBI investigation weren’t enough to sink Kavanaugh. Nor were indications of perjurious testimony — in part because a trove of documents relating to Kavanaugh’s time with the Bush administration that is currently being analyzed by the National Archives, including emails and memos about surveillance, torture, and Kavanaugh’s involvement with a hacking scandal, won’t be released until the end of October.

Brett Kavanaugh

The Higgins piece is dated Oct. 9, 2018, so he is making a reference to the end of October 2018. What happened to those documents that were supposed to be released then? It's unclear, but here is a link to a National Archives update on Dec. 20, 2018. Senate Democrats have threatened to sue for the Kavanaugh records. Writes Higgins:

At least 100,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh’s involvement in developing policy during his time as associate counsel to the president from 2001 to 2003, and his time as staff secretary from 2003 to 2006, have been withheld by the Trump administration, citing executive privilege. But the National Archives revealed, in response to a lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), that there are hundreds of emails in the separate, 300,000 document cache that the agency is reviewing for publication. “The communication to EPIC revealed that Kavanaugh sent 11 e-mails to John Yoo, the architect of warrantless wiretapping; 227 e-mails about ‘surveillance’ programs and the ‘Patriot Act;’ and 119 e-mails concerning ‘CAPPS II’ (passenger profiling), ‘Fusion Centers’ (government surveillance centers), and the Privacy Act,” EPIC said in a statement announcing the revelation.

With proper public understanding of Kavanaugh’s role in the unpopular policies of of the Bush White House, that role may have been disqualifying by itself.

If the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) had investigated and prosecuted Bush-era criminality, Kavanaugh's career probably would have never advanced beyond the D.C. Circuit. Many American voters might be dense, but they tend to recognize corruption and foul play when it is spelled out for them. And when Republicans create horrific messes, which they have a tendency to do, voters tend to run into the arms of Democrats to save them. Here is how we described the scenario in a November 2016 post, shortly after Donald Trump's "election":

A genuine investigation of the Bush administration probably would have led to dozens, maybe hundreds, of criminal convictions. The sight of Rove, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and others heading off to prison in orange jumpsuits probably would have caused even the most heart-headed conservatives to say, "You know, I'm starting to get the feeling that reflexively voting straight GOP might not be such a good thing. Maybe I need to study up a bit, or just stay home on election day." Under that scenario, Democrats probably take back both chambers of Congress in 2012 or '14, and the 2016 presidential race is not even close -- regardless of who the general-election candidate turned out to be. And Obama gets much of his agenda passed, without obstruction from Republicans. Obama might have truly been a great president if he had not worked against his own interests by giving GOP crooks a free pass.

If Obama had appointed a tough, competent attorney general, instead of the woefully ineffective and compromised Eric Holder, Democrats likely would not have needed to worry about taking back both houses of Congress; they never would have lost them in the first place. And Hillary Clinton would have been set to wipe the floor with Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election -- which she probably did anyway, without the assistance Trump received from Russian interests. Bottom line: Most Americans never hear of Brett Kavanaugh if a real Obama AG cleans house on Bushes. Here is more from Eoin Higgins:

Over the past decade, the political world has done everything possible to minimize and forget the crimes of the early to mid-2000s. The effect has been felt ever since. Members of the Bush administration and their hangers-on have spent their time working diligently to return to good standing in the social and professional worlds they once dominated in Washington and New York. Allowing them to reintegrate into elite society has had almost as catastrophic an effect on American politics as Donald Trump.

It’s not just Kavanaugh. The confirmation of Gina Haspel, an admitted proponent of torture who ran a Thailand black site in 2002 — a fact that became a minor issue before the Senate sent her back to Langley to run the CIA — was a perfect example of the insufficiency of the American political system to properly deal with the Bush regime toppling established norms around war and detainees. . . .

Kavanaugh’s career should have ended at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His new role as Supreme Court justice is what happens when democratic societies don’t hold criminals in the government accountable for their actions. At a bare minimum, everyone involved with the Bush administration’s war in Iraq and post-9/11 torture and detainee programs should have been thoroughly discredited and rejected from polite society. That they weren’t may end up being one of the defining moments in the 21st century.

If you need another reason to despise Brett Kavanaugh and the disgusting process that put him on SCOTUS -- we have one, thanks to Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Brett Kavanaugh

Do you tend to look back at the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as an exercise in partisan rancor? If so, we invite you to think again. That's because we have identified a constitutional right that is likely to be eroded with Kavanaugh on the nation's high court.

We are talking about the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. It generally has been held to mean that an individual cannot be subject to incarceration in a criminal trial if he has not been afforded assistance of counsel, even if he cannot afford to pay for one. SCOTUS most recently addressed this issue in a case styled Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002)

This issue hits close to home because Missouri Judge Jerry Harmison violated Shelton when he imposed a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on my wife, Carol in the bogus "assault" case brought against her related to our unlawful eviction, where deputies broke her arm. Carol did not have counsel in the case, and she did not waive her right to counsel. The SIS means Carol could be subject to incarceration if she violates terms of her probation -- and that is not allowed under Shelton.

Why is that not allowed? Well, we can thank the court's liberal-to-moderate bloc at the time (Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg), who, surprisingly, were joined by Sandra Day O'Connor. The court's right-wing bloc (Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy) dissented, trying their best to plunder a constitutional right. In what should be a surprise to no one, former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor argued for the state, siding with the right wingers.

Here is the primary holding in the Shelton majority opinion, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Held: A suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged. Argersinger, 407 U. S., at 40.

(a) The controlling rule is that "absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense ... unless he was represented by counsel at his triaL" Argersinger, 407 U. S., at 37.

Ginsburg's opinion was grounded in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), which held:

The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to the assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, is not governed by the classification of the offense or by whether or not a jury trial is required. No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel. In this case, the Supreme Court of Florida erred in holding that petitioner, an indigent who was tried for an offense punishable by imprisonment up to six months, a $1,000 fine, or both, and given a 90-day jail sentence, had no right to court-appointed counsel, on the ground that the right extends only to trials "for non-petty offenses punishable by more than six months imprisonment."

The right of an indigent defendant to have assistance of counsel in any prosecution where his liberty might be at stake has been solidly grounded in U.S. law for more than 45 years -- but right wingers tried to chip away at it in 2002. Even Brett Kavanaugh's predecessor -- the renowned swing voter Anthony Kennedy -- sided with Scalia and Co. on the issue.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

What will happen if a right-of-counsel case comes before SCOTUS, now that it includes Kavanaugh. Donald Trump's appointee likely will side with the court's right wingers (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch) to override Shelton -- assuming specifics in the new case are the same as those in Shelton; a variety of issues can come under the broad right-of-counsel heading..

Do you like the idea of Brett Kavanaugh, famed for his buddies "Squee" and "Moose",  being involved in such profound decisions? I sure don't. Do you believe a "president," who apparently has acted as a Russian asset, should have two nominees (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch) help take away rights that long have been grounded in the U.S. constitution? I don't.

But that is what we could be facing. And it's because the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were more than a grotesque example of political theater. They were, in essence, an attack on our constitution.

Shane Rogers-Mauro, a classmate of Bill Pryor's at Northeast Louisiana U, says the future judge outed him in college -- pointing to a Kavanaugh-like tendency to abuse others and act in devious ways

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Your donations help Legal Schnauzer keep digging on stories that show bad actors like Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Pryor are not suited for the federal bench

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Citizens and legal analysts need not worry about Brett Kavanaugh's apparent lack of impartiality because the federal bench already is infested with crooked judges who treat the concept of fairness to all parties as a joke

Brett Kavanaugh

In the wake of Brett Kavanaugh's partisan rant before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a number of legal observers have expressed concerns about his ability to hear cases in an impartial manner.Based on our experience with federal courts, which goes back about 10 years, they should not worry. U.S. federal courts are infested with judges who make no attempt to rule with impartiality -- with quite a few making no attempt to even appear impartial. That means Kavanaugh should be an appropriate fit on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Kavanaugh will sit near the top of a system that was crooked long before he became a household name, and his presence isn't likely to make it any more crooked than it already was.

Perhaps the most corrupt federal judge we've encountered is Virginia Emerson Hopkins, from the Northern District of Alabama -- and to top it off, she has the judicial temperament of a wolverine. She makes Brett Kavanaugh look like Fred Rogers.

In fact, while the Kavanaugh fracas was playing out, we received an order from Hopkins in our "Jail Case" that is a model for crookedness on the postmodern federal bench. Given that Hopkins has consistently ruled contrary to black-letter law -- always against us -- it's the latest sign that Hopkins would not know impartiality if it bit her in the ass. (Hopkins already has issued wildly unlawful rulings in the case on the statute of limitations and state immunity issues.)

Again, why worry about Brett Kavanaugh on SCOTUS if district judges -- the ones closest to the public, the ones who actually conduct trials, the ones most likely to cheat and act like scoundrels -- get away with churning out smelly orders that have nothing to do with the facts and law of a particular case.

Hopkins' order, dated Sept. 28, 2018, involves our status as in forma pauperis (IFP) litigants, which means we are entitled to proceed by paying a partial filing fee or no fee at all. Multiple courts already have found that we meet the standards for IFP status -- including the court in this very case, the "Jail Case."

But that's not enough to satisfy Hopkins. She claims our financial data with the court was filed roughly two years ago, and thus, is out of date. She fails to mention that the financial data is old because her colleague, R. David Proctor (the original judge in the case), ruled that we had IFP status, but we were not entitled to have the court issue summonses and conduct service on defendants -- despite clear federal statutes that hold to the contrary. That forced us to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, which found Proctor was so wrong that even they had to reverse -- after letting the case sit for about a year.

Any staleness that has accumulated on the case is due to R. David Proctor, who is so corrupt that -- get this -- he recused from our "House Case" after admitting he had a conflict, but that only occurred to him after he had cheated us over and over, prompting us to file recusal motions, even though it is his duty to step down when he knows he has a conflict.

How can Brett Kavanaugh make this dumpster fire any worse?

Consider this from Hopkins' order (embedded at the end of this post), where she responds to our Notice of Appeal and Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (also embedded at the end of this post):

In their motion, the Plaintiffs note that "upon filing of an affidavit [the Plaintiffs] received approval from the district court to proceed IFP in the instant matter." [citations omitted]. The affidavit to which the Plaintiffs refer was filed in their initial Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which was filed on March 26, 2016, at the time this case was initially filed. . . . The Order to which they refer only granted them partial IFP status. . . .  The Court also notes that another IFP motion to prosecute an appeal was filed on September 6, 2016. . . . Although that motion was denied by the previous judge assigned to this case . . . , the Eleventh Circuit ultimately granted the Plaintiffs leave to appeal IFP.

We learn three key points from this:

(1) Hopkins admits we already have been approved for IFP status in this very case, the "Jail Case."

(2) The Eleventh Circuit reversed Proctor on his "partial IFP" finding and his denial of our previous motion to proceed on appeal IFP;

(3) In short, Proctor's cheat job was so blatant that even the Eleventh Circuit couldn't stomach it -- and that is remarkable.

As for Hopkins, she and her buddy have been spanked on their respective asses for failing to follow the law -- and her answer to that is to continue violating the law. Consider this from her order:

The most recent of these two motions, and the affidavit associated therewith, contains information that is more than two years old, and therefore out of date. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a current affidavit, in the form attached to this Order, within 14 days. The failure to provide the affidavit will result in the motion being denied.

Is any of this in line with the law? Not one word of it. Did Hopkins bother to check the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) before going off on a mild version of a Kavanaugh-like rant? Obviously, she did not.

If she had, she likely would have encountered Rule 24 on page 79 of FRAP as found at the Eleventh Circuit's Web site.  Under Item No. 3 ("Prior Approval"), the rule states in imminently clear language:

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless:

(A) the district court—before or after the notice of appeal is filed—certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or

(B) a statute provides otherwise.

The law could not be more clear: A party who already has been permitted to proceed IFP in the district court -- and Hopkins admits we have been -- does not need further authorization to proceed IFP on appeal. The rule notes two possible exceptions, but Hopkins cites neither one in her order. The rule says nothing about a party being forced to file a new affidavit because trial-court incompetence has caused the data to be "out of date." 

Virginia Emerson Hopkins

We probably will file a new affidavit to placate Hopkins -- and because our financial numbers are worse now than they were two years ago. In other words, our qualifications for IFP status are even stronger now than they were before. So, we can file a new affidavit and let Hopkins shove it up her ass.

But the key point is this: We've caught Hopkins making up law, something she's done throughout our case -- and her bogus rulings always go against us. So Brett Kavanaugh's ascendance to SCOTUS is not going to introduce partial, unfair judges to the system; it's already choking on them.

Does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept crooked judges? Heck, no. We probably will file a new affidavit just to see if that satiates Hopkins, but we also will file a Motion to Strike her order as unlawful.

Our court system is like a house that's being eaten by termites. You might not be able to see the damage yet, but it soon will collapse to its foundation. That requires the legal equivalent of the Orkin Man, to spray and kill the pests in the midst of their dirty work. We're talking about a real FBI investigation -- the kind that was not done in the Kavanaugh confirmation.

In the Northern District of Alabama alone, I can point to at least a half dozen judges (not counting the dead William M. Acker Jr.) who have repeatedly violated federal laws and should be in prison. I have little doubt that other districts around the country are also filled with scofflaws.

As it is, our tax dollars are being used to support a court system that is controlled by what amounts to organized crime. How long are we -- regardless of political ideology -- going to stand for that?

Brett Kavanaugh is on the U.S. Supreme Court, but a number of land mines still could blow him to smithereens and inflict pain on complicit GOPers

U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

Is Brett Kavanaugh safely ensconced on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), where he can conduct dirty work to support Donald Trump and the lifting of sanctions against Russia that would allow a $500 Arctic oil-drilling project to move forward? Not necessarily.

The whole Kavanaugh house of cards could crumble under any number of scenarios. If Democrats win one or both houses of Congress in the November midterms, that could spell major trouble for the newest member of SCOTUS, including possible impeachment. Any cooperation former Trump attorney Michael Cohen provides to the Robert Mueller investigation could lay bare the role of Russian-mafia interests in pushing for Kavanaugh on the court. And there is always the possibility Kavanaugh could face criminal indictment related to allegations raised against him during the confirmation process -- including possible charges for rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, and perjury.

If voters make the GOP pay at the polls in November for the Kavanaugh mess, two words -- "Jerry Nadler" -- could become prominent on the political scene. Reporter Matthew Miller explains in a piece at Politico:

First, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, could make clear that, should he become a subpoena-wielding chairman in January, he will aggressively investigate the FBI’s conduct in the Kavanaugh investigation. Notifying the FBI and DOJ that he will subpoena documents, demand interviews with officials at every level, and ultimately hold a hearing will have a dramatic impact on an agency that rightly worries about its public standing—and where key officials worry about their personal reputations—after several years of GOP attacks.

This comes under the heading of "political hardball," a sport where Democrats tend to consistently lose to Republicans. But Nadler has promised a Kavanaugh investigation if his party gains control of the House. Also, The Washington Post explains how Kavanaugh could be impeached:

“Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Lisa Graves wrote in a Slate column on Sept. 7, more than a week before the New Yorker published the then-anonymous sexual assault claims of Christine Blasey Ford. “After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary. I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.”

Graves wrote that Kavanaugh had misled the Judiciary Committee about the stolen documents that Graves had written as chief counsel for nominations for Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) when he was the chairman of the committee.

Kavanaugh, she wrote, “lied. Under oath. And he did so repeatedly.”

Therefore, she concluded, “he should not be confirmed. In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached.”

Michael Cohen could provide another arrow in the Democrats' quiver. From a January 2018 report by Kevin G. Hall at McClatchy:

The mysterious Russian businessman who went by the name Sergei Millian claimed last year to have long helped Donald Trump pursue Russian investors, a claim the president’s team flatly denied.

The claim is again under scrutiny with the sudden release late Thursday of closed-door congressional testimony.

A Washington intelligence consultant whose reports are at the center of probes into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign told lawmakers that Millian organized a trip for Trump representatives to promote the billionaire’s vodka brand in Russia.

The testimony of Glenn Simpson drew a sharp denial from Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, and only added to the shroud of mystery hanging over Millian, who was a visible figure early in the investigations into Trump’s ties with Russia but since had disappeared from view.

Since that report, Cohen's office and homes have been raided, he has pleaded guilty to making hush payments to women who claimed to have extramarital affairs with Trump, and Cohen has indicated he will cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Muller.  The McClatchy report, noting Millian's ties to the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce (based in Atlanta), indicates Cohen's cooperation could prove fruitful for the Mueller team:

Simpson, according to the 165-page transcript, alleged that Millian came to the United States under his real name of Siarhei Kukuts. After becoming Sergei Millian, he helped run a group with little Internet footprint called the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. Millian has said on resumes that he is from Belarus and from Russia, Simpson said. . . .

Sergei Millian

Simpson appeared to suggest in his testimony that Millian was working with Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer. Cohen led the Trump Organization’s push into Russia and Kazakhstan.

Cohen acknowledged last year that he and another Trump associate, Russian émigré Felix Sater, had pursued a Moscow hotel deal for the Trump Organization during the presidential campaign. In an email to Cohen made public last year, Sater boasted, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it.”

Asked anew about Millian on Thursday night, Cohen steadfastly denied any connection.

“I have never met Mr. Milian (sic). He e-mailed me several times with various issues,” Cohen said in an email response to McClatchy, adding that by November 2016 he’d “demanded (Millian) cease contacting me.”

Perhaps Cohen's seized documents -- and prompting from Mueller investigators -- will help refresh his memory.

As for possible criminal indictments against Kavanaugh, readers might be surprised to see kidnapping on the list. That generally is seen as a crime where bad guys abduct someone, take them to a remote location, and demand a ransom. But the offense has a broader definition than that in many states, including Maryland, and it seems to apply to Dr. Christine Blasey Flord's description of Kavanaugh's attack on her. An attorney, writing at Daily Kos, wonders why kidnapping and related offenses have taken a backseat to "sexual assault" in the Kavanaugh discussion:

I realize there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault in Maryland. I assume there may be statutes of limitation on “false imprisonment” and “kidnapping.” I am NOT suggesting Kavanaugh be charged with these crimes, but I don’t understand why the terms “False Imprisonment” and “Kidnapping” are not mentioned as well as “sexual assault”.

I have never done criminal work (I was a civil litigator for twenty years, including three and a half years as a Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice’s Civil Division in the seventies). Yesterday, as I was reviewing the allegations of the Blasey Ford accusation, it struck me — wait a minute — isn’t that false imprisonment and/or kidnapping???

Kavanaugh allegedly grabbed her in the hall as she was on the way to the bathroom and pushed her into another room, where he then locked the door, turned up the music and covered her mouth. (Mark Judge may have helped with some of those actions).

Once in the room, he assaulted her, with Judge looking on and egging him on, including directing him while giggling maniacally. When Judge joined them by jumping on Kavanaugh’s back (wonder what he had in his mind???? I don’t want to go there), she escaped by “unlocking” the door and going out into the hall and escaped.

To me, it appears that Kavanaugh (and Judge’s actions) provide the elements of the crime and or tort of False imprisonment. The issue with kidnapping is a little less clear, because it varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In common law it generally included an aspect of sending the person somewhere else, but I also remember issues where just moving the person from where they are to somewhere else against their will could be kidnapping.. . . 

Again, I’m not suggesting legal charges on these two crimes and torts be brought against Kavanaugh and Judge, but I am suggesting that the discussion needs to include a discussion of these two additional aspects of the attack. Adding the totality of the charges that could have been brought underscores the severity of Kavanaugh's actions.

Our research indicates there is no statute of limitations on kidnapping in Maryland.  It also indicates that Dr. Ford's description of events points to kidnapping under Maryland law. From our legal-affairs analyst, a University of Virginia law graduate we call "Ozark Mountain Lawyer":

Here's quick law in Maryland on kidnapping.

Nutshell: kidnapping in Maryland is considered as false imprisonment with any movement or concealing of the victim.

Dr. Ford testified she walked upstairs and used the restroom and then as she was trying to go back downstairs to the living room, she was pushed from behind and forcefully moved into a BEDROOM and then forcefully moved to lay down on a bed and then was jumped on by Kavanaugh (more physical restraint) and the Kavanaugh also allegedly tried to CONCEAL the kidnapped victim by having closed and locked the bedroom door and turning up the music and Kavanaugh putting his hand over her mouth to conceal their having taken control of the victim and hiding her in the room to have their way with her. This is clearly KIDNAPPING and criminal assault and felony attempted rape. See Johnson v. State, 439 A.2d 542 (Md.App. 1982), at pp. 432-33. See other Maryland kidnapping decisions cited on page 433.

Can you imagine a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice being criminally charged with sexual assault and kidnapping (not to mention perjury and rape.)? It could be right around the corner -- unless, of course, Russians help steal the 2018 election, too.

Kavanaugh confirmation likely was driven by Russian-mafia influence and a desire to remove sanctions and launch a $500-billion oil-drilling project in the Arctic

Russian drilling platform in the Arctic

Is Brett Kvanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court because Russian-mafia interests have infiltrated the highest levels of U.S. government? The answer is yes, says Alabama political insider Jill Simpson, and other voices back her up. Were machinations in the Kavanaugh confirmation driven largely by a GOP desire to remove sanctions that have put a hold on a $500-billion Arctic drilling project that Vladimir Putin desperately wants? Simpson -- who has deep knowledge of modern-era relations between Alabama and Russian political figures -- says the answer is yes, and significant evidence backs her up.

Those two factors, combined, paint a grim picture of democracy's future in the United States -- especially if somnolent American voters do not wake up, starting with the November mid-term elections. Even then, the infiltration is so serious -- and its threats to the Mueller investigation so significant -- that it might be too late.

The clearest sign of Russian-mob influence came with the FBI's cursory supplemental background check on Kavanaugh -- given that bureau director Christopher Wray has major ties to Russia, via his affiliation with Atlanta-based law firm, King and Spalding. Simpson spelled that out for us in a post on Friday A June 2017 USA Today article, just after Donald Trump had nominated Wray to replace the fired James Comey, adds layers of specifics. From USA Today:

The most troubling issue that Wray may face is the fact that his law firm — King and  Spalding — represents Rosneft and Gazprom, two of Russia’s largest state-controlled oil companies.

Rosneft was prominently mentioned in the now infamous 35-page dossier prepared by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele. The dossier claims that the CEO of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, offered candidate Donald Trump, through Trump’s campaign adviser Carter Page, a 19% stake in the company in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia. The dossier claims that the offer was made in July while Page was in Moscow.

Rosneft is also the company that had a $500 billion oil drilling joint-venture with Exxon in 2012, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO. However, the deal was nixed by President Obama in 2014, when he imposed the sanctions that crippled Russia’s ability to do business with U.S. companies. The lifting of sanctions by the Trump administration would enable Exxon to renew its joint venture agreement with Rosneft, and the law firm of King and Spalding could end up in the middle of the contract negotiations between those two companies.

There you have references to both the $500-billion drilling deal and King and Spalding's likely presence in the midst of contract negotiations. How much in legal fees have the Obama-era sanctions cost King and Spalding? Is it in the tens (maybe) hundreds of millions of dollars? Is FBI director Christopher Wray, a former King and Spalding partner, keenly aware of that -- driving him to direct a sham FBI background check that would ensure Kavanaugh's placement on the U.S. Supreme Court, as a sure vote to support anything that would lift sanctions. How many individuals -- perhaps including Wray, GOP U.S. Senators, White House officials, and Kavanaugh himself -- have been promised loads of cold Arctic cash to make the drilling deal go through. If that scenario, in fact, is playing out, it speaks to massive international criminality.

Here is more from USA Today about Wray, King and Spalding, and energy-related conflicts in Russia:

The law firm’s representation of Gazprom raises even more serious conflict issues for Wray. Gazprom was a partner in RosUkrEnergo AG (“RUE”), which is controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash. He is under federal indictment in Chicago for racketeering charges, has had numerous financial dealings with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and is generally considered to be a member of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

Though there is no indication that Wray personally worked on any of the Rosneft or Gazprom legal matters handled by his law firm, he might well have an ethical and legal conflict of interest that would prevent him from any involvement in the FBI’s Russian probe. When a law firm such as King and Spalding represents clients, then all of the partners in that law firm have an actual or potential conflict of interest, preventing them from undertaking any representation of any other client that has interests clearly adverse to those of these two Russian companies. These conflict rules continue to apply even after a lawyer leaves the law firm, so Wray could be ethically barred from involving himself in a federal investigation that includes within its scope a probe of Rosneft, Gazprom and affiliated companies. The public appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety might require him to recuse himself from the investigation.

If Wray was confirmed as the FBI director, and then had to recuse himself with regard to some or all of the Russia-related aspects of the critical investigation being conducted by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller, the potential damage to the investigation could be significant. If Wray refused to recuse himself from the Russia-Trump investigation — or at least acknowledge the potential conflict issue, a serious cloud could be cast over the FBI’s level of commitment to the investigation.

As for the Arctic- drilling deal, Simpson says it is the "Billion Dollar Baby" bouncing around behind the scenes of the Kavanaugh contretemps. We first wrote about Big Oil's plans for Arctic drilling in July 2010, and followed with a July 2018 post, focused on the likely interest of U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) in pushing the Russia deal through. From a Simpson Facebook post:

FBI Director Christopher Wray does not have me fooled, and he should not have any women fooled on what he is up to with the Kavanaugh appointment. His approval of Kavanaugh is all about a Russian Oil Company drilling in the Arctic. We have already gotten rid of his buddy, Rex Tillerson, over the Exxon deal, and now it is Wray's time. Christopher's law firm, Atlanta's King and Spalding, represents Putin's two biggest oil and gas companies, which are Roseneft and Gazprom. They (the Roseneft bunch) had a deal to do the work on the Arctic Drilling with Putin and, well folks, Christopher is in the FBI chair to put that deal through for the Russian government. It is a $500-billion deal,  but we are watching the situation closely at the Alabama Resistance.

 Wray is part of the Rove and Sessions Alabama Gang, which stands to make a lot of money off of the Arctic drilling and Putin, but we have got to stand firm. That is why the sanctions are so important. Putting Kavanaugh on the court is hugely important, as he will be their spy and Ratfcker on the Supreme Court to push through the oil drilling Arctic deal. So pay attention closely as this GOP Mafia Gang wants to put the world at risk drilling in the Arctic.

They need Kavanaugh on the bench to do so. Trump is their side show to distract us from what is truly at play. These men work for Vladimir Putin on his $500 billion Arctic deal. The FBI director's firm represents the Russian government.

Here's more from a second Simpson Fasebook post:

Have you ever wondered why the FBI is not going out and arresting all these folks involved with Russian election theft in 2016? Well the former law firm of FBI director Mr Wray firm represents Putin and his gas and oil companies, which are the biggest businesses he owns and controls in Russia. Essentially, our FBI has been infiltrated at the top levels by Putin's No. 1 law firm in the United States. In fact, the FBI director's firm (King and Spalding, of Atlanta) put together the biggest deal Putin's bunch had ever attempted -- the $500-billion Arctic drilling deal with Exxon, which was stopped when President Obama put sanctions on them for the 2014 annexation of Crimea. 

They thought getting Trump elected would lift the sanctions, but the Alabama Resistance released the info that stopped them in January 2017. They are, however, still putting players into position, like Kavanaugh and Wray, to try to put the deal through. You all will notice these guys come from Yale, the same school Bush went to.

This deal with Putin is being conducted through the Exxon bunch. So we must watch them closely. I am going to tell you these Good Ole boys want that $500-billion Arctic deal, and we must say no. This is why the GOP is so lined up with Putin.

FBI director Christopher Wray, via King Spalding law firm in Atlanta, has ties to Russia, likely explaining the bureau's sketchy Brett Kavanaugh background check

FBI director Christopher Wray has professional ties to Russia, and that likely explains a Brett Kavanaugh background check that widely is being described as a "sham," according to an Alabama political insider.

Donald Trump nominated Wray to lead the FBI in June 2017, having fired James Comey roughly one month earlier. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray to lead the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Before going into public service, Wray was a partner at King and Spalding, an Atlanta-based law firm with 10 offices around the country -- plus 10 international branches, including one in Moscow.

King and Spalding's extensive ties to Russia should raise eyebrows about the cursory supplemental background check of Brett Kavanaugh by Christopher Wray's FBI, says Jill Simpson -- whistle blower, opposition researcher, and retired lawyer from Rainsville, Alabama. In a Facebook post yesterday, Simpson notes King and Spalding's ties to a number of dubious characters and activities related to Russia.

They include Sergei Millian, a one-time Russian translator who has headed the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce (Russia Am Cham, based in Atlanta) and reportedly was a primary source of information for the Trump-Steele dossier. In short, Millian likely has loads of blackmail-worthy dirt on Trump, and guess what law firm has represented Russia Am Cham? It's King and Spalding, of course, says Simpson.

The firm also has ties to Trump-affiliated mobster Felix Sater, and Simpson says the firm (via Russia Am Cham) was involved in a failed lottery deal -- involving oily Alabama lawyer Rob Riley and his associate, Robert Sigler -- that fleeced the late Milton McGregor, attorney Tommy Gallion, and other prominent Montgomery business types out of about $40 million. King and Spalding, says Simpson, has ties to Russian oligarch/mafia figure Oleg Derispaska, one-time Trump campaign chair and convicted felon Paul Manafort, and Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions.

Christopher Wray and Donald Trump

That is a lot ugly, nasty stuff -- threatening America's democracy, and Christopher Wray, via his association with King and Spalding, is tied to all of it. Writes Simpson:

FBI director Christopher Wray should be forced to resign over [the Kavanaugh supplemental background check]. It was Wray's firm, King and Spalding, that used to host the Russia Am Cham conferences for Oleg Deripaska, Mr Millian, and Mr. Sater --  the Riley/Sessions Gang attended when they beat Milton McGregor and his buddies out of $40 million for a fake Russian lottery. 

Wray's firm represents the Russian Oil and Gas Business firm that Vladimir Putin directs. Also, Christopher Wray was a Yale Law School graduate, just like Kavanaugh,  and has been buddies with the Kavanaugh, Rove, and Sessions crowd for years. 

The FBI's Kavanaugh background check is just a report done by a member of the Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump Russian Mafia. I tried to say last week it would be bullshit, due to Wray's ties to the Russian Mafia. His old firm is a big part of Putin's legal team. Until we as a country crush the New York/Alabama/GOP Russian Mafia, we are going to continue seeing this level of corruption.

How sketchy was the FBI supplemental background check on Kavanaugh? It probably would have to improve to merit being called "cursory". According to one report, FBI agents interviewed nine individuals --  but they apparently did not include chief accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, nor any of her corroborating witnesses. From a report at New York magazine:

Several people who reached out to investigators to offer information said they were also left hanging. NBC News says dozens of potential witnesses have come forward to FBI field offices, “but agents have not been permitted to talk to many of them.” The New Yorker spoke to several people who were also unable to get an audience with the FBI despite their ability to corroborate [Deborah] Ramirez’s story and information refuting claims Kavanaugh made during last week’s testimony.

Mark Judge's bizarre use of the "C Word" has largely been overlooked, even though it suggests he does not plan to cooperate with FBI in Kavanaugh matter

Mark Judge

A single word from Mark Judge, the alleged accomplice in a sexual assault involving Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, suggests Judge will invoke the Fifth Amendment when questioned by the FBI, a Schnauzer legal analyst says.

The word is "confidentially," and it largely has been ignored in news reports about claims from Judge and his attorney that he will openly answer questions from FBI investigators. At least three news outlets have reported on Judge's use of the "C word" (see The Hill, CNBC, and USA Today), but we are not aware of any that have spelled out what it likely means.

The FBI interviewed Judge on Tuesday, according to a report at The New York Times. Was Judge forthcoming? We've seen no reports on that issue. From The Times:

The bureau appears to be moving quickly; on Tuesday, investigators wrapped up an interview with a crucial witness, Mark Judge, a friend and high school drinking buddy of Judge Kavanaugh who has been identified as the only witness to the alleged sexual assault of Dr. Blasey. Mr. Judge’s name came up frequently last week when the judge and Dr. Blasey testified before the Judiciary Committee.

We do have this quote from Judge's attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, from a piece at The Hill:

“Mr. Judge completed his FBI interview,” Barbara Van Gelder, Judge’s attorney, told The Hill in an email. “We are not commenting on the questions the FBI asked Mr. Judge.”

Before the interview took place, Van Gelder told USA Today: "Mr. Judge will answer any and all questions the FBI wants to ask him." But that's not what Judge himself said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are his words, per The Hill:

I will cooperate with any law enforcement agency that is assigned to confidentially investigate these allegations.

Was Judge expecting to have a confidential encounter with the FBI? Our expert -- we call him Ozark Mountain Lawyer (OML) -- wrote a Sept. 28 email to Legal Schnauzer, saying Judge's use of the "C Word" is both glaring and bizarre. And it suggests Judge will invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself:

Mark Judge claims that he will cooperate with the F.B.I.'s investigation so long as the investigation can be done "confidentially." See? Mark Judge is already setting this up to refuse to answer questions. Whoever heard of an ordinary citizen saying that he or she will cooperate and answer questions posed by the F.B.I. so long as the F.B.I. promises the interview will be treated confidentially? Is Mark Judge out of his mind? Or does he think he is an entitled white guy who can demand conditions from the F.B.I.? Plus, it's an absurd condition, because the F.B.I. submits all of its reports to the Senate and other government agencies and, ultimately, those records will be subject to review by the public under the United States Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

Also, if you have a woman who has alleged that two men pushed her into a bedroom and sexually assaulted her, whoever heard of the right or the chutzpah of one of those suspects saying to the F.B.I., "Yeah, I'll talk with you and cooperate, as long as you promise that my cooperation will be treated 'confidentially.'" Do these privileged and affluent white boys, who grew up in the D.C. North Land of Maryland, think that they're members of some sort of privileged rich white boys' club? This is absolutely nutty for Mark Judge to even make the suggestion that he will cooperate if the F.B.I. assures him that his statements will be treated confidentially?

So, what is ahead? OML says Judge appears to be creating false headlines that suggest he plans to cooperate with the FBI, when he actually has no intention of doing so:

Mark Judge is saying he will cooperate with the F.B.I. but then adds the proviso that he will require that his cooperation be treated confidentially. He is fencing with the F.B.I. Not real smart. I think he's playing with fire here too, because it's like he's spoofing Christine Blasey Ford for her initial request that her information be treated confidentially. Victims have some good reasons to want confidentiality, but the alleged criminal perpetrator has no reasonable right to expect any confidentiality from law enforcement, unless, apparently, you're a rich and affluent white male from north D.C. land.

Bottom line is that Mark Judge and his tribe are creating this highly misleading headline on the Web that Mark Judge will cooperate with the F.B.I., which I predict, will be a sham impression as we move forward, when Mark Judge starts waffling and saying that he's not going to talk to the F.B.I. unless they promise it will be treated confidentially, which is a promise and condition the F.B.I. will not make or give to him.

For right now, I'm assuming that Mark Judge and his crowd are only creating a headline to make it appear that Mark Judge has nothing to hide, when he will go on to blame the F.B.I. for not giving him confidentiality, thus in his pretense warranting his decision not to speak at all. It's all a tactical set up for Mark Judge not to talk.

In anonymous letter to Sen. Kamala Harris, woman says Kavanaugh groped her, slapped her, forced her to perform oral sex, and raped her in backseat of car

Kamala Harris

A woman states in an anonymous letter that Brett Kavanaugh forcibly kissed her, groped her, digitally penetrated her, slapped her, forced her to perform oral sex, and raped her multiple times in the backseat of a car, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) transcript released yesterday.

The transcript, which is embedded at the end of this post, is from an interview SJC staff members conducted with Kavanaugh on Sept. 26. Kavanaugh apparently had an unnamed attorney present on his end of the line during the interview.

Questions about the allegations of Julie Swetnick begin the interview. On page 10 of the transcript, a staff member pivots to an anonymous letter, where a woman says Kavanaugh and an unnamed friend gave her a ride home from a party -- with her in the passenger seat, Kavanaugh driving, and the friend in the back seat.

Kavanaugh interrupts the interview to state that he does not believe he has seen the letter. A staff member says the 2 1/2-page, handwritten letter was received at the office of U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a member of the SJC, who forwarded it to the chairman and ranking member for "due diligence." A staff member reads the letter into the record during the interview:

Dear, Senator Grassley, et al.

The current situation regarding the accusations made by Dr. Ford against Brett Kavanaugh have prompted me to write you today. I have moved on with my life since he forced himself on me as well. The times were so different, and I didn't expect to be taken seriously, embarrass my family, be believed at all.

I was at a party with a friend. I had been drinking. She left with another boy, leaving me to find my own way home. Kavanaugh and a friend offered me a ride home. I don't know the other boy's name. I was in his car to go home. His friend was behind me in the backseat. Kavanaugh kissed me forcefully. I told him I only wanted a ride home. Kavanaugh continued to grope me over my clothes, forcing his kisses on me and putting his hand under my sweater. 'No,' I yelled at him.

The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. He pulled up my sweater and bra exposing my breasts, and reached into my panties, inserting his fingers into my vagina. My screams were silenced by the boy in the backseat covering my mouth and groping me as well.

Kavanaugh slapped me and told me to be quiet and forced me to perform oral sex on him. He climaxed in my mouth. They forced me to go into the backseat and took turns raping me several times each. They dropped me off two blocks from my home. 'No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl,' he told me.

Watching what has happened to Anita Hill and Dr. Ford has me petrified to come forward in person or even provide my name. A group of white men, powerful senators who won't believe me, will come after me. Like Dr. Ford, I'm a teacher, I have an education, a family, a child, a home. I have credibility. Just because something happens a long time ago, because a rape victim doesn't want to personally come forward, does not mean something can't be true.

Jane Doe

Oceanside, California

When Kavanaugh is asked for a response to the letter, he replies:

Nothing -- the whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever -- anything like that, nothing. I mean, that's -- the whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn't happen, not anything close.

As this post is written, about 9 p.m. CDT on 10/1/18, The Daily Wire (TDW) appears to be one of only two news sites to publish a story about the transcript. The other is the Palmer Report, which provides a straightforward account.

The Daily Wire is a conservative news and opinion site, founded in 2015 by Ben Shapiro, and its treatment of the Kavanaugh-transcript hardly is a model of journalistic fairness. From the TDW report, by Amanda Prestigiacomo:

On Sunday evening, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of a telephone interview with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh given by Senate Democrats on Wednesday, the night before the hearing. The interview included questions regarding a highly dubious, nonspecific, anonymous accusation of rape received by the office of Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). . . .

By bringing up the totally baseless and ambiguous accusation, the Democrats ensured that it would be on record to add to the cloud over the judge.

Andrew Kreig published a link to the transcript yesterday at The Justice-Integrity Project, plus a link to the Palmer Report article, and that is where we found it.

Where is this story headed? That's hard to say. Is the letter legitimate? Is the woman's story for real? Will the FBI look into it? Will the woman come forward?

This much seems clear: If the answer to the above questions is yes, Brett Kavanaugh might be in more trouble than anyone ever imagined.