OCTOBER 3, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

I DO WONDER WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BRING IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. I JUST HOPE THAT THIS BUNCH OF TRUMPITES WILL BE ROOTED OUT AND FENCED IN BY SOME BETTER LAWS TO CONTROL ANYTHING LIKE A HOSTILE TAKEOVER OF THE USA AGAIN. IF WE DON’T LEARN FROM THIS EXPERIENCE, I’LL BE VERY SAD.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-more-prosecutors-leave-robert-muellers-special-counsel-team/
CBS/AP October 3, 2018, 7:48 AM
Two more prosecutors leave Robert Mueller's special counsel team

Special counsel Robert Mueller is trimming more attorneys from his office, another sign his team of prosecutors is winding down parts of their investigation into potential ties between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign.

Two prosecutors detailed to the Russia investigation for the past year are returning to their duties in other parts of the Justice Department. They join two other attorneys who left the team over the summer.

The Special Counsel's office confirmed on Tuesday that lawyers Kyle Freeny and Brandon Van Grack left the team. Both lawyers were involved in former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's case. Van Grack is also involved in the Michael Flynn plea, and Freeny is involved in the indictment of 12 Russian agents.

A spokesman for the Special Counsel's office says that Freeny will leave the office in mid-october and will return to her job at the Department of Justice's Criminal Division's Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section. Van Grack has already concluded his time in Mueller's office and has returned to the National Security Division. He added that Van Grack will continue to represent the office on pending matters that were already assigned to him.

They join Ryan Dickey and Brian Richardson, two other prosecutors who left the office in late August. Richardson was part of a team that prosecuted former Skadden Arps attorney Alex van der Zwaan for lying to the FBI while they were investigating Manafort and others involved in his Ukrainian work.

Once Freeny leaves in October there will be 13 prosecutors left at Mueller's office.

The departures are the latest indication that the special counsel is wrapping up at least some pieces of an investigation that has shadowed Trump's presidency from the outset. But it's only a limited view into the tight-lipped Mueller's timetable or possible endgame. Critical investigative strands still remain, such as an active grand jury probe of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone and ongoing negotiations over an interview with Trump.

Besides the grand jury inquiry into Stone, other elements of the Mueller investigation remain active, including inquiries into whether the president took action to obstruct the probe and the central unresolved question of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.

But after a series of indictments and high-profile plea deals with Trump associates in recent months, Mueller's shown signs of narrowing his focus, referring cases to other offices of the Justice Department, letting other U.S. attorneys largely take over cases he brought and allowing prosecutors to leave his team without replacement.

Prosecutors in Manhattan, for instance, secured a guilty plea in August from Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, a case referred by Mueller. The U.S. attorney's office in Washington has been assigned to the special counsel's case against 13 Russians charged in a hidden but powerful social media effort to sway American public opinion.

That same office also prosecuted W. Samuel Patten, who pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent in a case also referred by Mueller's office.

All told, Mueller's team has obtained six guilty pleas, including from four Trump campaign advisers, and a jury conviction. He has pending indictments against 26 others and three Russian companies.

CBS News' Clare Hymes contributed to this report.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


I HOPE THAT FROM THIS POINT THE FBI WILL, INDEED, LOOK CLOSELY AT WHAT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH WOMEN WHEN DRUNK WAS REALLY LIKE; AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HE WAS DRUNK PRETTY OFTEN. ANY OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH ALCOHOLIC THINKING AND REACTING WILL KNOW THAT A DRINK WILL ALWAYS BE PRESENT IN THE MIND SOMEWHERE WAITING TO GROW AGAIN. IT’S LIKE A SEED IN THE GROUND WAITING FOR WARM WEATHER AND WATER TO COME BACK AGAIN.

THERE IS A TYPE OF ALCOHOLIC CALLED A PERIODIC ALCOHOLIC. THEY ACTUALLY DO LESS WELL THAN THE DAILY DRINKER WHEN IT COMES TO FINALLY ACCEPTING THE DRINK-FREE LIFE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GREATER PROBLEM REALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CAN’T “CONTROL” THEIR DRINKING WITH THEIR WONDERFUL “WILL POWER.” THE PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOLISM IS BEING ABLE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT ONE CANNOT SAFELY TAKE ONE DRINK.

I BELIEVE IN A SUPPORT GROUP, AND A.A. IS THE BEST. IT’S A PHILOSOPHY, A PLAN OF ACTION FOR BECOMING AND STAYING SOBER, SOME SORT OF FAITH WHICH IS PERSONALLY HELPFUL, AND A POSITIVE, SUPPORTIVE GROUP OF FRIENDS. WHEN LIFE GOES WRONG, THERE WILL BE SOMEONE TRUSTWORTHY TO TALK TO.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409565-2-former-yale-classmates-withdraw-support-for-kavanaugh
Two former Yale classmates withdraw support for Kavanaugh
BY MICHAEL BURKE - 10/02/18 06:08 PM EDT

A pair of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's former classmates at Yale Law on Tuesday withdrew their support of him after previously endorsements.

Michael Proctor and Mark Osler wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that they can no longer support Kavanaugh's confirmation because of the "nature" of his testimonty [sic] in front of the committee last week while addressing accusations of sexual misconduct.

“In our view that testimony was partisan, and not judicious, and inconsistent with what we expect from a Justice of the Supreme Court, particularly dealing with a co-equal branch of government," they wrote.

They added that their decision to withdraw their support was not based on the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, who has said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school.

Proctor and Osler were previously among 27 of Kavanaugh's classmates who in August wrote a letter to Grassley and Feinstein advocating for Kavanaugh. In that letter, they and the other signatories wrote they "firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh would make decisions thoughtfully, honestly and impartially."

But Proctor and Osler wrote in their new letter that they “fear that partisanship has injected itself into Judge Kavanaugh’s candidacy.”

Kavanaugh during his testimony Thursday accused Democrats of undermining him with "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" that was part of a revenge plot "on behalf of the Clintons."

The high court nominee has seen his confirmation process upended by allegations of sexual misconduct made by three women: Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. The FBI is currently conducting a new background investigation of Kavanaugh focusing on those accusations.


AMAZON HAS GIVEN IN TO REASON, AND MAYBE THE WISDOM OF THE MARKET. THEY HAVE BOOSTED THEIR MINIMUM WAGE NATIONWIDE TO $15.00 AN HOUR. PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT BEING A GOOD NEGOTIATOR, BUT CLEARLY BERNIE IS TOO. ONE THING THAT’S GOING ON HERE IS THAT THE PUBLIC ISN’T DOING GREAT FINANCIALLY, SO IF WALMART AND AMAZON AND TARGET WHO EMPLOY SO MANY LOW WAGE WORKERS DON’T MOVE UP TO THE LINE AND DO SOMETHING FOR THEM WE MAY SEE STRIKES AGAIN IN THIS COUNTRY YET.

I THINK BERNIE SHOULD WORK ON A BILL NEXT WHICH TAKES AWAY THE EMPLOYER’S RIGHT TO BE COVERED UNDER “RIGHT TO WORK” LAWS, AND FIRE UNION ORGANIZERS. WE HAD THAT, AND THE REPUBLICANS (ABETTED BY “CONSERVATIVE” DEMOCRATS) WRESTED THE RIGHT TO UNIONIZE AWAY FROM WORKERS. NOW THE RICHER PEOPLE HAVE YET ANOTHER PIPELINE INTO MORE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND THE LOWER 1/4 OR SO ARE ON STARVATION WAGES. THIS REALLY DOES NEED TO STOP. PEOPLE AREN’T ASKING FOR PIE IN THE SKY. THEY’RE ASKING FOR A DECENT LIVING WAGE.

THERE WAS A MOVIE LONG AGO IN THE 1980S OR SO IN WHICH A BUSINESSMAN WAS CONFERRING WITH ANOTHER, AND A SUPER SULTRY BLONDE WITH AN EYE-POPPING FIGURE WALKED INTO THE ROOM. HER BOSS ORDERED HER TO BRING THEM A CUP OF COFFEE AND SHE SAID “GO GET IT YOURSELF.” HIS GUEST IN THE OFFICE ASKED HIM “WHY DON’T YOU GET RID OF HER?” AND THE BOSS SAID, “I KEEP HER AROUND BECAUSE SHE’S GOT A BUILT-IN BULLSHIT DETECTOR.” THAT’S WHAT I LIKE ABOUT BERNIE, TOO. HE ALSO HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR. THIS IS THE TITLE OF HIS NEW BILL: “TOO BIG TO FAIL, TOO BIG TO EXIST.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-bernie-sanders-banks-732633/
Taibbi: Chatting With Bernie Sanders About a Looming Financial Crisis
The Vermont Senator just stood up to Amazon — but what about those Too Big To Fail banks?
By MATT TAIBBI

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Bernie Sanders Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Ten years ago, George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the TARP bailout. The rescue forked over $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out giant Wall Street banks that were already too big, and were about to get bigger.

On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced new legislation on TARP’s anniversary. It is aimed at the central, still-unaddressed issue of the last disaster: the ungovernable size of the country’s biggest banks.

Dubbed the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist” act, the Sanders-Sherman bill revolves around a simple concept: If a bank controls assets that collectively represent more than 3 percent of the country’s GDP, or about $584 billion, it has to shrink or be broken up.

“We bailed these banks out ten years ago because they were ‘Too Big To Fail,’” Sanders tells Rolling Stone by phone. “Now it turns out that our four largest financial institutions — J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup — are on average 80 percent bigger than they were before we bailed them out. That’s not right.”

Banks have long been a focus for Sanders, who is hoping to use new tactics to take on old foes. He has been experimenting with the use of public pressure and journalism-like tactics — including the launch of a series of video testimonials about workplace conditions at companies like Disney and Amazon — to try to augment legislative efforts at reform.

Recent successes on that front have Sanders in a good mood. Just a month after being blasted by Amazon for “misleading accusations” and triggering a national controversy that saw much of the pundit class, along with Democrat-aligned think tanks, take Amazon’s side in the labor debate, he watched as the retailer this week appeared to capitulate, announcing a $15 minimum wage across U.S. operations.

“Look, at the end of the day, you rally public opinion, you force people to have to do the right thing,” says Sanders, who has spoken openly in the past about his frustration with the slow pace of change on the Hill.

It’s hard to understate just how much bank concentration has eaten at Sanders over the years. Beginning decades ago, the administrations of both Republican and Democratic presidents embarked on a series of policies intentionally designed to consolidate financial power.

The first major move on this front was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. This law torpedoed restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These rules dated back to the McFadden Act of 1927, passed specifically with the idea of preventing financial concentration.

RELATED
A Mexican girl who seeks for asylum in the US, looks through a fence at El Chaparral port of entry in Tijuana, Baja California state, Mexico on August 10, 2018, as she and her mother line up to cross to United States. - From the south border with Guatemala to the north border with the United States, AFP met during 24 hours migrants in pursue of their "American dream" risking their lives though Mexican territory, who share their journey stories. (Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS / AFP) (Photo credit should read GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Border Patrol Was Only Authorized to Keep Kids for 72 Hours; They Kept One for 600

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Declares Both Kavanaugh and Ford ‘Victims at the Hands of Democrats’

Signed into law by Bill Clinton, Riegle-Neal helped usher in the era of giant national banks. By 2016, Americans had 57 percent fewer FDIC-insured banks than they had in 1994. Sanders cast the only “no” vote against Riegle-Neal on the House Financial Services Committee.

The next major move was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, better known as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. A post-1929 safety measure passed in FDR’s day, Glass-Steagall prevented the mergers of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

The ostensible justification for the repeal of this historically successful reform was that such restraint was no longer necessary. Moreover, the creation of “supermarket” financial institutions was needed to keep America competitive with giant “universal” banks in Europe and Asia.

In reality, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed to retroactively legalize the Citigroup merger, which had brought Travelers Insurance, Salomon Smith Barney and Citibank under one roof. That deal had been struck before Glass-Steagall was even repealed in 1998.

In one of the all-time revolving door atrocities, then-Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who helped push through the deal, later took a job with Citigroup and earned over $100 million as a “senior adviser” over the course of about a decade.

This early effort at banking concentration had Sanders even back then thinking about possible bailouts. In an examination of then-Fed chief Alan Greenspan in 2000, Sanders asked why any regulator would approve placing so many assets under one roof.

“Are you concerned about such mergers as Travelers Insurance and Citicorp when they form a company with assets of almost $700 billion?” Sanders asked. “What happens if they fail? Who in God’s name is going to bail them out? Are you concerned about that?”

Greenspan characteristically demurred. “We do not believe that in the event that it turns out that a substantial institution fails that they should be bailed out,” he said.

About the same time, future Treasury Secretary and then-CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson began lobbying for the relaxation of the so-called net capital rule, which ostensibly barred investment banks from borrowing more than 12 dollars for every one they actually had.

Within four years, the top five investment banks were meeting with the SEC to press for this change, and soon achieved it. Although the actual impact of the net capital rule change has been hotly debated, what’s not in question is the fact that by 2008, debt-to-equity ratios on Wall Street hovered around 33 to 1.

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange holds his head as he walks off the floor September 29, 2008. Wall Street blue-chip stocks suffered their worst single-day point decline Monday as markets went into convulsions after US lawmakers rejected a massive rescue of the financial system. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank 777.68 points (6.98) percent to close at 10,365.45 in its biggest single-day point decline ever. AFP PHOTO/ TIMOTHY A. CLARY (Photo credit should read TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange holds his head as he walks off the floor September 29th, 2008. Photo credit: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Of the five investment banks that pressed for the changes in 2004, three of them (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers) would be dead within four years.

When the big crash happened in September 2008, most of the economic world focused on crafting a rescue to “stabilize” the economy. Sanders, however, honed in on the fact that any state-aided mergers and rescues would likely continue the dangerous concentration trend. As far back as September 17th, 2008, in fact, he complained on the floor of the Senate that any rescue of Wall Street that didn’t include mandated breakups would leave the underlying problem unaddressed.

“This country can no longer afford companies that are too big to fail,” he said back then. “If a company is so large that its failure would cause systemic harm to our economy, if it is too big to fail, it is too big to exist … We need, as a Congress, to assess which companies fall in this category … Those companies need to be broken apart.”

By that time, however, officials in the Federal Reserve and George W. Bush’s Treasury Department — including, notably, Paulson, who by then was Bush’s Treasury Secretary — had already moved in another direction.

They’d begun concocting a rescue plan, the chief characteristic of which was to double- or triple-down on the concentration narrative, using public funds to make dangerously large financial firms even bigger and more powerful.

This brand of rescue would continue in the next administration. Barack Obama’s chief bailout architect, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, had also been involved in the Bush rescues as head of the New York Fed, and had been a protégé of Rubin in the Clinton Treasury.

When Bear Stearns teetered, Geithner and other officials used Fed funds to help stuff the mess into the balance sheet of JP Morgan Chase. Later, when Merrill Lynch failed, it was folded into Bank of America. Bailout recipient Wells Fargo was prodded to swallow the toxic disaster over at Wachovia. The FDIC seized another basket case, Washington Mutual, and crammed it into Chase for a bargain price, with the state eating much of the loss.

These shotgun weddings had the immediate impact of preventing further meltdowns, but everyone knew that the longterm impact would be to further concentrate economic and political power.

For some, this created a major safety issue, as this kind of concentration virtually assures that future bailouts will be necessary. Even former TARP administrator (and Goldman banker) Neel Kashkari estimated as recently as this summer that the likelihood of a future bailout was 67 percent, absent some kind of effort to address Too Big To Fail.

For Sanders, however, the extreme concentration of economic power is a problem even if there isn’t another collapse in the next 10 minutes.

“It’s a movement to an oligarchy in this country,” he says. “Are we comfortable as a nation with a situation in which six financial institutions have assets equivalent to 54 percent of the GDP? What kind of economic power is that, what kind of political power is that?”

When work began in the summer of 2009 on the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, which was to be the signature legislative response to the crisis, everyone with a brain on the Hill knew two things.

First, the by-far biggest problem that needed to be addressed was the Too Big To Fail issue. And second, any meaningful effort in that direction would be a complete political non-starter.

Not only did the banks still own so much of Congress that such a move could never pass, but the government had long ago stepped away from its mandate to break up dangerous concentrations of corporate power.

“We don’t do [antitrust] anymore as a nation,” Sanders says.

Still, there have been scattered efforts to address the issue of economic concentration. Sanders issued his first attempt at a bill to break up the banks in November 2009. Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Ted Kaufman of Delaware also introduced an amendment to Dodd-Frank that mandated breakups of over-large companies based on simple, numerical caps.

NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 17: A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) September 17, 2008 in New York City. Following news late Tuesday of the U.S. government takeover of insurer American International Group (AIG), U.S. stocks opened lower Wednesday as investors digested the news. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

That bill was walloped in the Senate, 61-33, with 27 Democrats voting against it, often using some version of a “size doesn’t matter” argument. “Size is not the appropriate restriction,” is how Virginia Democrat Mark Warner put it.

Brown, Sanders and California’s Sherman over the years kept at it, introducing different proposals to target Too Big To Fail banks. A consistent problem with these efforts has been a lack of support within the Democratic Party, whose economic policies have been dominated by the same Rubin-Geithner-Lawrence Summers Wall Street-friendly ideology (what one financial analyst friend of mine deems the “Rubino crime family”) for two-and-a-half decades now. It will require massive voter repudiation of these ties on the Democrat side to even begin to take real action on these ideas.

Sanders has been consistently ripped by Democrats for his bank-breakup concepts. During the 2016 campaign, when the official position of the party and the Clinton campaign was that shadow banking had caused the crisis, Barney Frank went so far as to pen an editorial for the Washington Post saying “Too Big To Fail is an Empty Phrase.”

Pundits piled on. The Financial Times claimed Sanders had “struggled to articulate how” he would go about a breakup, and claimed Fed reports had described the banking system as safer since Dodd-Frank. Slate said it was “hard to take Bernie Sanders seriously” on this issue.

Today, however, Sanders feels like he has a new weapon in the effort to bring about change on matters the public cares about. Amazon represents an example of how his office feels it can bypass the logjam both on the Hill and in the press, and take issues directly to the public.

“We changed the office around to a television station, Sanders Broadcasting,” he says, laughing. “You know, we do our agitation and we rally people.”

Sanders wants to use these tools to make the concentration of financial power among certain companies a leading issue for Democrats heading into the 2020 election season. The new bill would affect the six richest banks in the country — JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley.

“We’re going to have to reeducate people,” Sanders says. “This is the ten-year anniversary of economic calamity that resulted in millions of peoples lives being radically altered for the worst. Losing jobs, losing their homes, losing their life’s savings. It was a cataclysmic impact on our entire society.”

He adds: “We think that breaking up any financial institutions [that have] assets of more than 3 percent of GDP — which is about 580 billion dollars — is the right thing to do. It’s what should have been done a long time ago.”

Looking back at the catastrophe of three decades of concentration, it’s hard to conclude that he’s wrong. At the very least, the public is likely to agree with him on this score. Let’s hope that this time around, the Democrats realize this in time for the presidential election.


THIS IS THE THIRD REPORT OF THE FBI SILENTLY REFUSING TO TAKE THE CONTACT INFORMATION AND TESTIMONY ON WITNESSES, EVEN THOUGH THE WHITE HOUSE HAS TOLD THEM TO INVESTIGATE AS DEEPLY AS NEEDED. CLEARLY, THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE VOICE OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS INSTEAD. NOBODY IS ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT IT IS HAPPENING, OF COURSE, SO SOME OF THE PUBLIC WILL SAY “THEY’RE DOING THE BEST THAT THEY CAN,” AND OTHERS WILL SAY, “YOU CAN’T FORCE THE SENATE TO ACT.” THAT’S NOT TRUE, THOUGH. IF YOU REMEMBER THE VIETNAM WAR AND CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, THEY ACTED GRUDGINGLY, BUT THEY DID ACT.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/409798-ex-kavanaugh-classmates-say-they-havent-been-able-to-share-info-with
Ex-Kavanaugh classmates say they haven't been able to share info with FBI
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 10/03/18 07:55 PM EDT

Several former classmates of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh told CNN that they've had trouble getting in touch with the FBI to share information they believe is relevant for its investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against the judge.

The network spoke with several individuals who said they had not heard back from the FBI despite making efforts to reach out to the bureau.


Liz Swisher, a college classmate who suggested that Kavanaugh had been misleading about his drinking habits while he was a student at Yale University, told the outlet that she had not been contacted by the FBI as of Tuesday night.

Chad Ludington, who told CNN that he often drank with Kavanaugh during their first years at Yale, also said he had not heard from the FBI as of Wednesday afternoon, despite filling out a form to indicate he had information.

Kerry Berchem told the network that she sent multiple emails to the FBI, but had not heard back as of Wednesday. Berchem reportedly knew both Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a college party in the 1980s.

Kavanaugh has denied the allegation.

CNN legal analyst and former counsel to the U.S. assistant attorney general for national security told the network that it was not uncommon for those reaching out to the FBI to not hear back from the bureau.

"As a general matter, if the FBI is conducting an investigation," Cordero said. "They decide who they need to talk to."

The FBI is conducting a supplementary review of sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh. In addition to Ramirez, Christine Blasey Ford has alleged that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and groped her during a high school party in 1982.

Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week regarding the allegations. Senators voted Friday to delay Kavanaugh's nomination, giving the FBI one week to investigate the allegations against him.

Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, late last month that Kavanaugh attended a party where she was drugged with "Quaaludes or something similar" and attacked by a series of men in a "gang rape."

Kavanaugh has fiercely denied all allegations against him.

Senators are expected to review a report on Thursday from the FBI on its review of the claims.

As the investigation appears to near its conclusion, Senate Democrats have cast doubt on the thoroughness of the scope of the review, citing statements from Ford's attorneys and others saying they had not heard from the FBI.


WHEN THE CHURCHES RANT ABOUT HELL AND ASK FOR MONEY, SHOUTING AGAINST MY RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, I DON’T LIKE THEM. WHEN THEY DO STEP UP TO THE PLATE TO CHAMPION GOOD OVER EVIL, I AM PROUD TO BE BORN IN THE TRADITION. I USED TO LOVE THE HYMN, “ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS” AND I THINK WE ARE AT ONE OF THOSE PLACES AGAIN. IF DEMOCRACY ISN’T PARTICIPATORY, IT WEAKENS AND DIES. LET’S NOT LET THAT HAPPEN NOW. AMERICA IS TOO GREAT FOR US TO LOSE IT TO THAT SUBSTITUTE FOR VIRTUE, PASSIVITY.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to
National Council of Churches calls for Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn
BY AVERY ANAPOL - 10/03/18 05:32 PM EDT

VIDEO – YOU’LL NEVER GET ME TO QUIT

The nation’s largest coalition of Christian churches on Wednesday called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court.

The National Council of Churches, which has membership from more than 40 denominations including most major Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations in the U.S., wrote in a statement on their website that they believe Kavanaugh has “disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately.”

The statement cited a number of reasons for the demand, including Kavanaugh’s behavior during his recent testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on sexual assault allegations against him.

“Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation,” the statement read.

The National Council of Churches alleged that Kavanaugh’s testimony included “several misstatements and some outright falsehoods,” including some related to Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a high school party in the 1980s.

The group also pointed to what they called Kavanaugh’s “troubling” judicial and political record on some civil rights issues.

“Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial and political record is troubling with regard to issues of voting rights, racial and gender justice, health care, the rights of people with disabilities, and environmental protections,” they wrote. “This leads us to believe that he cannot be an impartial justice in cases that are sure to come before him at the Court.”

The group later added to their statement, saying they are "deeply disturbed" by the assault allegations against Kavanaugh and calling for "a full and unhindered investigation of these accusations," according to Religion News Service.

The statement comes as the future of Kavanaugh’s confirmation is called into question amid the firestorm surrounding Ford’s allegation.

Republican senators said they soon expect to receive the results of the FBI’s reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh, though a number of witnesses, including Ford herself, say they have yet to be contacted for an interview. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation, as well as a number of other misconduct allegations that have surfaced since Ford came forward.

Updated: 6:10 p.m.


THESE ARE TEXT MESSAGES ABOUT A POSSIBLY DAMAGING PHOTOGRAPH PROVING THAT KAVANAUGH WAS AT A WEDDING IN 1990 WITH DEBORAH RAMIREZ, WHICH HE HAD TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS UNSURE ABOUT. THEY WERE BOTH IN THE WEDDING PARTY, HOWEVER, SO HE COULD BE EXPECTED TO REMEMBER IT. HE WAS ASKING A FRIEND ABOUT THE WEDDING PICTURE BEFORE IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE SENATE HEARING. IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS UNDER SCRUTINY IN REGARD TO HER, AND THAT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH RAMIREZ WAS KNOWN.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
A former classmate of the Supreme Court nominee has reached out to the FBI but hasn't received a response.
by Heidi Przybyla and Leigh Ann Caldwell / Oct.01.2018 / 5:39 PM EDT / Updated Oct.02.2018 / 7:31 AM EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- From left, Deborah Ramirez, Kerry E. Berchem, Doug Millet, Karen Yarasavage, Kevin Genda, Brett Kavanaugh and David White pose for a photo at the rehearsal dinner before the wedding of Yarasavage and Genda in 1997.Photo obtained by NBC News

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

VIDEO -- EXCLUSIVE: Mutual friend of Ramirez and Kavanaugh anxious to come forward with evidence
OCT.01.201806:02

In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.

On Monday, a senior U.S. official confirmed that the White House has authorized the FBI to expand its initially limited investigation by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week. The New York Times first reported the change in scope.

VIDEO -- White House authorizes FBI to expand Kavanaugh investigation
OCT.02.201803:24

NBC News reached out to Berchem for comment after obtaining a copy of a memo she wrote about the text messages. In a statement to NBC News, Berchem, a partner in the law firm Akin Gump, said: “I understand that President Trump and the U.S. Senate have ordered an FBI investigation into certain allegations of sexual misconduct by the nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I have no direct or indirect knowledge about any of the allegations against him. However, I am in receipt of text messages from a mutual friend of both Debbie and mine that raise questions related to the allegations. I have not drawn any conclusions as to what the texts may mean or may not mean but I do believe they merit investigation by the FBI and the Senate."

On Sunday, Berchem emailed FBI agent J.C. McDonough her memo. After getting no response, she resent the summary on Monday morning along with screenshots of certain texts that she thinks raise questions that should be investigated. “I’m sure he’s really busy and expect that he’ll get back to me,” said Berchem.

Berchem’s memo outlining her correspondence with Yarasavage shows there’s a circle of Kavanaugh friends who may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry who may not be interviewed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already set in motion a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination on the Senate floor for later this week.

VIDEO -- How will Kavanaugh controversy impact midterm elections?
OCT.02.201803:20

Kavanaugh has strongly denied the allegation by Ramirez as well as accusations by Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually assaulted her when the two were in high school and by Julie Swetnick that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s.

Berchem, 51, a graduate of Yale and a Connecticut resident, reached out to Sen. Richard Blumenthal's office last week. Blumenthal, a Democrat, sits on the Judiciary Committee.

“We heard from Kerry late on Thursday and submitted her summary to the Judiciary Committee early Friday,” a spokeswoman for Blumenthal said in a statement to NBC News. “After we were made to jump through several hoops that delayed our moving forward, it became clear that the majority Committee staff had not turned this summary over to the FBI and, in fact, had no intention of turning it over to the FBI. With our assistance, Kerry submitted her summary to the FBI herself.”

George Hartmann, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that “the texts from Ms. Berchem do not appear relevant or contradictory to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony."

"This appears to be another last-ditch effort to derail the nomination with baseless innuendo by Democrats who have already decided to vote no," Hartmann said.

VIDEO -- New concerns over whether Brett Kavanaugh lied to Senate panel
OCT.01.201813:00

Berchem's texts with Yarasavage shed light on Kavanaugh’s personal contact with friends, including that he obtained a copy of a photograph of a small group of friends from Yale at a 1997 wedding in order to show himself smiling alongside Ramirez 10 years after they graduated. Both were in the wedding party: Kavanaugh was a groomsman and Ramirez a bridesmaid at the wedding.

On Sept, 22nd, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo with “Brett’s team.”

But when Kavanaugh was asked about the wedding during a committee interview on Sept. 25th, he said he was “probably” at a wedding with Ramirez. Asked if he interacted with her at the wedding, Kavanaugh replied, “I am sure I saw her because it wasn’t a huge wedding,” but added that he “doesn’t have a specific recollection.” Lying to Congress is a felony whether testimony is taken under oath or not.

Recommended: Dozens of potential sources of information have not been contacted by the FBI in Kavanaugh investigation

Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments

Berchem hired a lawyer on Sunday to help her get her information into the right hands. She has twice sent her memo to the FBI and has yet to hear a response, according to her lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He flagged two texts in particular.

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, said: "It would be surprising, and it would certainly be highly imprudent, if at any point Judge Kavanaugh directly contacted an individual believed to have information about allegations like this. A nominee would normally have been counseled to leave to his legal and nominations team the job of following up on any questions arising from press reports or otherwise, and doing so appropriately."

Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

VIDEO -- Kavanaugh accuser 'has the highest integrity,' former boss says
SEP.25.201801:29

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”

A Sept. 24 text shows Yarasavage clarifying that she did not refute Ramirez’s claims to the New Yorker. Republicans and Kavanaugh have said that his former classmates, who gave an anonymous statement to the New Yorker, have refuted Ramirez’s claim.

“I didn’t say I would have known. … I said she never told me, I never heard a word of this ever happening and never saw it. The media surmised (that I was saying she is lying),” said Yarasavage.

Yarasavage declined to speak to NBC News as did other classmates named in Berchem’s memo who may have information pertinent to the investigation.

Finally, Berchem is concerned about what she witnessed at the 1997 wedding where Ramirez and Kavanaugh were both in the wedding party.

According to the information Berchem provided, Ramirez tried to avoid Kavanaugh at that wedding of their two friends, Yarasavage and Kevin Genda.

Ramirez, “clung to me” at the wedding, Berchem wrote to Yarasavage in a Sept. 24th text message. “She never went near them,” a reference to Kavanaugh and his friends. Even in the group photo, Berchem wrote, Ramirez was trying to keep away from Kavanaugh.

ContributorsPeter Alexander, Polly DeFrank

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ON SEPT 25, 2018 -- https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf


THIS ARTICLE FROM COMMON DREAMS CONTAINS AN IMPORTANT LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO DON MCGAHN AND CHRIS WRAY.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/01/trump-broadens-scope-kavanaugh-probe-calls-fbi-follow-leads-have-been-ignored
Published on
Monday, October 01, 2018
byCommon Dreams
As Trump Broadens Scope of Kavanaugh Probe, Calls for FBI to Follow Leads That Have Been Ignored
The president said Monday that investigators "should do what they have to do to get to the answer"—a shift from the White House's position just days ago
byJulia Conley, staff writer

PHOTOGRAPH -- Protests across the country resulted in the Senate calling for an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh—but until Monday the probe was expected to be very limited in scope. (Photo: @EmilyAReports/Twitter)

Supporters of the women who have accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault hoped on Monday that President Donald Trump's latest directive regarding an FBI probe into the allegations would result in a more effective investigation than had been expected earlier, following a press conference in which the president said the FBI should interview whomever it deemed necessary.

Trump's comment opened up the possibility that leads that have thus far been ignored by authorities would now be followed.

Senate Democrats on Monday sent White House counsel Don McGahn and the FBI a list of two dozen people who they believe investigators should speak with, including Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser; the examiner who gave her a polygraph; friends of Ford; and others.


FROM KYLE GRIFFIN, LETTER FROM DEMOCRATIC SENATORS GIVING 24 WITNESSES TO INTERVIEW. ONE IN PARTICULAR IS CHAD LUDINGTON A CLASSMATE OF KAVANAUGH’S AT YALE, WHO GIVES A NEGATIVE REPORT ABOUT HIS DRINKING. BE SURE TO LOOK AT THE VIDEO ALSO. THE COMMENT ON MCCONNELL’S FROZEN FACE AS HE MARCHES PAST TWO WOMEN WHO ARE TRYING TO TALK TO HIM IS GREAT. "HOW MANY STORIES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE DO YOU NEED TO HEAR IN ORDER TO BELIEVE WOMEN?" ASKED ONE OF THE WOMEN.”

“Nine Senate Judiciary Democrats have sent a letter to Don McGahn and Chris Wray with a list of 24 people and entities that they believe the FBI should speak with as part of the Kavanaugh investigation. The list includes the Potomac Village Safeway. https://bit.ly/2DL638G”

REFERENCED ALSO: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654054108/poll-more-believe-ford-than-kavanaugh-a-cultural-shift-from-1991

Kyle GriffinVerified account
@kylegriffin1
Producer. MSNBC's @TheLastWord. Opinions mine. Do not congratulate.

Manhattan, NY
instagram.com/griffinkyle/
Joined April 2009


Asking investigators to thoroughly examine the allegations of all three women who have accused Kavanaugh, the lawmakers demanded that the FBI "perform all logical steps related to these allegations, including interviewing other individuals who might have relevant information."

In his press conference, Trump told reporters that all three of the accusers—Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick—could be interviewed by the FBI, as well as Kavanaugh himself.

"The FBI should do what they have to do to get to the answer," the president said.

Over the weekend, the White House had sent conflicting messages regarding how much freedom the FBI would be given to examine the allegations of Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick.

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shared a statement from Trump on Friday that explicitly called for a probe that would be "limited in scope and completed in less than one week," only to have Trump say a day later that he wanted the FBI "to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion."

The president's statement on Monday, and a call from White House General Counsel Don McGahn to the FBI, made the latter directive official.

The change in direction came after numerous reports indicated the FBI was declining to talk to witnesses who could corroborate the women's claims, after being given a list of only four people that it could interview—Mark Judge, who Ford says was in the room during her alleged assault; Leland Keyser and P.J. Smyth, who were present at the party where it took place; and Deborah Ramirez, who has alleged a separate assault in college.

Chad Ludington, a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale University, where his alleged assault on Ramirez reportedly took place, released a statement to the press Sunday about the judge's drinking habits as a student.

"In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale," Ludington said. "I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences."

After the scope of the investigation was broadened, Ludington was scheduled to talk to the FBI on Monday.

Another anonymous classmate offered to corroborate Ramirez's story over the weekend, but said Monday that the FBI was not responding to calls about the matter.

Just after Trump's press conference, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared on the Senate floor to denounce the FBI investigation as a "character assassination" and preemptively accuse Democrats of deeming the probe insufficient once it is completed at the end of the week.

Democrats, McConnell said, "are committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nominee with everything they've got. They just want to delay this matter until after the election."


The Leadership Conference
✔
@civilrightsorg
Another breathtaking statement from the man (@SenateMajLdr) who held Scalia's #SCOTUS seat open for a year: Democrats "are committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nominee with everything they’ve got. They just want to delay this matter until after the election." pic.twitter.com/8VjrnqGQFF

3:58 PM - Oct 1, 2018


CPD Action
@CPDAction
WATCH: “@senatemajldr why do women have to bare their whole soul to you and share their stories & you won’t listen?” @traceyecorder caught Majority Leader McConnell & he fails to listen to her. #cancelkavanaugh #BelieveSurviors #stopkavanaugh

2:30 PM - Oct 1, 2018


McConnell offered a visual of his position on whether a judge who is up for a lifetime appointment in one of the most powerful positions in U.S. government should be subjected to an FBI investigation in light of numerous assault allegations, when he ignored two women who attempted to speak to him in Washington, D.C. on Monday.

"How many stories of sexual violence do you need to hear in order to believe women?" asked one of the women.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License