by Jack Davis

A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

— Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Chris Costlow @TheChrisCostlow

Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

Politics US News

Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

TRENDING: Franklin Graham Calls Out ‘Socialist-Leaning Dems’ in Wake of Kavanaugh Accusations

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject.

— Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in a statement, CNN reported. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

Mark Judge, who was mentioned in Miranda’s deleted tweet, said in a letter to senators that he had “no memory of this alleged incident” and “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

by Cillian Zeal

According to Fox News, a newly uncovered text message chain seems to confirm that FBI lawyer Lisa Page — one of the two lovebirds whose texts have cast doubt on the objectivity of the Department of Justice’s investigations surrounding the 2016 election — claims that she interned for one of the Clintons.

“Get inspired and depressing reading that article about how Obama approached the mail room,” Page said in a text to Strzok on Jan. 19, 2017 — the last full day of the Obama administration.

Needless to say, it was very different when I interned there under Clinton.”

The article she was discussing was a New York Times piece that described the kind of mail the outgoing president would receive.

“At the beginning of his first term, President (Barack) Obama said he wanted to read his mail. He said he would like to see 10 letters a day. After that, the 10LADs, as they came to be called, were put in a purple folder and added to the back of the briefing book he took with him to the residence on the second floor of the White House each night,” the article, titled “To Obama With Love, and Hate, and Desperation,” read.

“Choosing which letters made it to the president started here in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, in the ‘hard-mail room,’ which had the tired, unkempt look of a college study hall during finals — paper everywhere, files stacked along walls, bundles under tables, boxes propping up computer monitors dotted with Post-its, cables hanging.”

Page is 39 and graduated American University in 2000. It’s unclear which Clinton she would have interned under; President Bill Clinton was leaving office as she was graduating and Hillary Clinton was taking her role as the junior senator from New York in 2001.

Page declined to comment on the latest text.

While the text messages that received the most attention this week involved ones which plotted leaks to the press, the Clinton message — assuming it’s accurate and Page is telling the truth — would also present a conflict of interest.

Both Page and Strzok were involved in the FBI’s Midyear Exam investigation — the codename for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified email on a private server during her time at the State Department.

That wasn’t all, though.

“Strzok and Page both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates in the 2016 presidential election. Page served on the special counsel’s team on a short detail, returning back to the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in July 2017,” Fox News reported.

“Page, during her time at the FBI, was a deputy of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was long criticized by Trump and congressional Republicans for his ties to the Democratic Party. McCabe’s wife received donations during a failed 2015 Virginia Senate run from a group tied to a Clinton ally, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while the Clinton email probe was underway.”

So, is this a conflict of interest? More evidence of just how much of a morass the swamp really is? Overthinking a text message? Or none of the above?

Well, the simple answer is that we don’t know, inasmuch as Strzok, Page and everyone else around them have tried to denude these text messages of all context. Strzok’s appearance before Congress certainly didn’t elucidate much, although it may have inspired plenty of GIFs.

However, if this is true, Page was compromised from the beginning — and that’s a serious problem for anyone trying to push this as mere Jim Garrison-esque conspiracy theorizing. Time for answers, folks.

by Lisa Payne-Naeger

Sometimes I wonder if Donald Trump knew what he was really getting himself into when he decided to run for president and drain the swamp.

Everywhere he’s turned he has met roadblocks, opposition and betrayal as he tries to infuse policy he thinks will make America great again.

And ever since he was accused of colluding with Russia to sway the 2016 election, the constant turn of events have played out like a bad daytime drama. The latest twist in the plot centers around Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and if reports are true, he could be in a heap of trouble.

On Saturday, Michael Goodwin wrote in the New York Post that Rosenstein ordered United States Attorney Geoffrey Berman to recuse himself from the investigation into the Michael Cohen case, which in turn would leave his office staffed with Obama administration holdovers from Preet Bharara’s tenure as Berman’s predecessor.

Berman was appointed to the Southern District of New York position by President Trump after he fired Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee.

Since his firing, Preet has made his feelings known that he is not a Trump supporter. The bias is clear. Looks like the president made a good call on that one.

Some people hate this president BECAUSE they love this country https://t.co/B03e3mXKTz

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) February 2, 2018

So Trump can unilaterally pardon anyone, absolutely pardon himself, impose his will on DOJ, ban all Muslims, levy any tarrif, and start any war but he CANNOT tell Sessions, whom he slaps down daily, to ease up on separating infants from parents at the border? Ok

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 17, 2018

Chris Strohm of Bloomberg reports the significance of this move as they allege the strings of this case are being pulled not by the Justice Department, but by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

“Cohen’s guilty plea was secured as part of an investigation led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, not by Special Counsel Mueller or Justice Department headquarters, another frequent target of the president’s derision. Instead, the deal was made by Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the New York office,” he wrote.

“But neither Rosenstein nor Mueller is calling the shots for the investigation in New York, according to two people familiar with the matter. The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, commonly known as SDNY, has the independence to take investigative steps and charge people without approval from Rosenstein, one of the people said.

Bloomberg also states: “Rosenstein made the decision to give the Cohen case to SDNY following a referral from Mueller. That also ensured the investigation could continue even if Trump somehow managed to fire the special counsel, a politically dangerous move that many Republicans have warned the president to avoid.”

So, if it is true that Rosenstein intentionally moved the trial to SDNY, it might be more than a suspicious coincidence that a Trump-appointed attorney was ordered to recuse himself from the case leaving it to less-unbiased attorneys general.

What a mess and an endless saga of betrayal. Trump appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General in February of 2017, only to have Sessions recuse himself from the Russia investigations in the beginning of March of that year.

This left Rod Rosenstein in charge of overseeing the Russia investigations and he appointed Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor in May of 2017. Since that time there has been no evidence of Russian collusion, but the Mueller team has bull dogged members of Trumps inner circle and charged them with various unrelated crimes.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. These latest allegations are almost a kin to jumping the shark for television sweeps week.

I guess we will see who wins in the ratings race in November.

by Jack Davis

New evidence that technology’s giants are muzzling conservatives has emerged after the web site PJ Media wanted to find out if Google did in fact lurch to the left when users wanted the latest information on President Donald Trump.

Writer Paula Bolyard on Saturday reported on the results of her experiment, which the site was fully upfront about admitting was not scientific.

The headline of her article said it all: “96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets.”

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said that tech giants are trying to influence the midterm elections.

“This is their great offensive to try to silence differing opinion,” he said Monday on “Fox & Friends,” Fox News reported. “And make no mistake, it’s not because the conservative voices are offensive. It’s because they are effective.”

Kirk said conservatives must fight the tech giants.

“We need to push back because it could be a huge, huge problem moving forward,” he said.

“The very bottom line is the left hates the idea that there are other ideas. And they control these public forums or these vehicles of conversation. They’re going to use every piece of power and influence they can to try to suppress our voice. And we cannot stand for it,” he added.

Bolward was hardly the first to suggest that Google buries the right while promoting the left.

A 2017 study by the website “Can I Rank” said that the bias in Google was clear.

“Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results,” the study said.

“Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint,” it added.

Google denies doing anything to skew the results.

“Google does not manipulate results,” said Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels. “There are more than 200 signals taken into account when someone does a search which include freshness of results.”

Bolyard’s conclusion was that Americans need to be aware that their searches are being manipulated.

“With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability —  and perhaps even desire — to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image,” she wrote.