Government Corruption

GOP-doxxing suspect arrested; worked or interned for Feinstein, Jackson Lee, other Dems

A Democratic congressional intern was arrested Wednesday and accused of posting the personal information of at least one Republican senator during last week’s hearing about sexual assault claims against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, authorities said. U.S. Capitol Police said 27-year-old Jackson Cosko was charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry. Police added that the investigation was continuing and more charges could be filed. Senior congressional sources tell Fox News that Cosko most recently worked as an unpaid intern for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. He previously worked with Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and former Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. He also worked or interned with the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as with at least one other unnamed lawmaker. A LinkedIn page with Cosko’s name on it describes him as a “Democratic Political Professional & Cybersecurity Graduate Student.” Jackson Lee’s office told Fox News that Cosko had only worked there for a couple of months, but has now been terminated. “It’s unfortunate,” Glenn Rushing, Jackson Lee’s chief of staff, told Fox News. Rushing added that the congresswoman’s office is “cooperating with law enforcement.” Hassan’s office has had two substantial personnel issues in recent months. Earlier this year, an intern for the senator shouted “Mr. President, f— you!” across the Capitol Rotunda at President Trump as he was being escorted into the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Hassan’s office declined to comment on Cosko’s arrest. Personal information of Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch was posted on their respective Wikipedia pages Thursday as the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Kavanaugh over allegations that he assaulted Christine Blasey Ford at a high school party in the early 1980s. All three have professed their belief that Kavanaugh is innocent of the claims brought against him by Ford, with Graham telling the federal judge “you’ve got nothing to apologize for” amid a fiery rant denouncing Democrats’ handling of the allegations. The intentional publication of the information was first caught by a Twitter bot that automatically tracks any changes made to Wikipedia entries from anyone located in the U.S. Congress and publicizes them on the social media site. The bot account later deleted the tweets because the edits contained personal information. According to the bot, whoever posted the information did so from a computer in the House of Representatives. The home addresses of the senators appeared to be correct, though the phone numbers didn’t appear to be entirely accurate. A “home” phone number listed for Graham appeared to direct callers to the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group. Sources tell Fox News that authorities are looking into the possibility that at least two other senators were doxxed. Fox News has also learned that Cosko was discovered by aides Tuesday night working on a computer in a Capitol Hill office that did not belong to Jackson Lee. He was arrested at his Washington home the following day. Capitol Hill security officials plan to scrub the computers in question.

Glad they caught this punk..  Crazy..

Sen. Cory Booker’s 1992 column detailing ‘groping’ of high school friend resurfaces

A 1992 column by now-Sen. Cory Booker detailing his “groping” of a high school friend has resurfaced as he pushes to delay Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings over a sexual assault allegation. In the 1992 column for The Stanford Daily, then-Stanford University grad student Mr. Booker wrote about the New Year’s Eve incident in 1984 that he will “never forget.” In the column, titled, “So much for stealing second,” Mr. Booker said he was 15 when he fondled an intoxicated female friend. “With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast,” he wrote. “After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark.’ Our groping ended soon and while no ‘relationship’ ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn’t really know what she was doing.” Mr. Booker said he was conditioned to believe that sex was “a game,” and that hooking up was best achieved through “luck, guile, strategy or coercion,” and lots of alcohol. He wrote about how his attitude toward sex dramatically changed after just a couple years at Stanford, and how his work as a peer counselor listening to the “raw truth from men and women discussing rape” was a real “wake-up call” for the future senator. “I now see the crowds, no, not the spectators, but the thousands, the millions who are rarely seen or heard,” he said of sexual assault victims. Mr. Booker, who said this week that it would be “irresponsible” for him to not consider a 2020 presidential run, has been recently ridiculed by conservatives after he appeared to dub himself “Spartacus” by revealing confidential records during the Judge Kavanaugh hearing. The senator now wants the FBI to investigate a claim by a woman who accused Judge Kavanaugh of trying to rape her more than 35 years ago before the hearings continue.

Wow..  Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is a breathtaking hypocrite!  This is a story you will NOT see on MSNBC or CNN.  The nerve of this self-righteous, sanctimonious blow-hard is unreal!

 

French: Do Democrats Really Believe Christine Blasey Ford Doesn’t Have to Prove Her Claims?

There is something extremely curious about the course of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy thus far. At least based on the evidence and her conduct through today, Christine Blasey Ford seems to be making minimal effort to prove her case. In fact, with a strong assist from her Democratic allies, she seems to be making every effort not to prove her case. Absent an FBI investigation that’s not forthcoming and not necessary, she’s refusing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in essence asking that a single, unsworn letter be allowed to stand as the heart and soul of a claim that could alter history and destroy a man’s reputation. Democrats are only too happy to play along. At the foundation of our system of justice is the notion that accusers don’t just have to state a case against the accused, they have to prove their case. The burden of proof varies depending on the situation. At one end is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal trial. At the other is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of civil court. But in virtually any court, when a person first states their case against an accused, that is just the beginning of the process of proof. Thus, when you hire an attorney as a plaintiff, it is to go on offense, to build your case, to substantiate your claims. What you cannot do — under any circumstances, in any competent court — is file your complaint, refuse to submit to questioning, fail to produce additional evidence or witnesses, and hope to prevail. In such circumstances, your case will be dismissed as a matter of law, tossed out of court for legal insufficiency — especially if, as in Ford’s case, not even the initial claim is submitted under oath. Yet from the beginning, Ford’s team — including her attorney, who is known to be aggressive in the service of her clients — has behaved as if she doesn’t have to prove her case, and as if the very request that she do so is itself fundamentally oppressive. She’s submitted her unsworn claim and then immediately gone into a defensive crouch, with allies such as New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand even claiming that having her testify at a Senate hearing would somehow “silence” her. The consistent demand for an FBI investigation — even when the FBI lacks jurisdiction over the alleged incident — is not by itself problematic. But conditioning her own testimony — the centerpiece of her case — on such an investigation is not what a person intent on proving her allegations would do. Kavanaugh, by contrast, has submitted to a formal interview, meaning he can be convicted of a felony if he lied. He’s stated that he’s willing to testify at an open hearing. Two other individuals have come forward to rebut Ford’s claims, including Mark Judge, the other man alleged to have been in the room during the attack. Their statements were also offered under penalty of legal sanction for lying. At present they and Kavanaugh are the only people on the record and at criminal risk if they lied. Unless Ford changes that fact — after being given ample opportunity to testify in public or private, in the Senate or at her home — Kavanaugh should be confirmed, and her claims against him shouldn’t be considered. They should be treated in the same way we treat claims that can’t survive a motion for summary judgment, claims not supported by any evidence in the record. Those are the stakes. By conditioning testimony on an FBI investigation, Ford and her Democratic allies are attempting to bring the worst possible form of campus “justice” to the national stage. As of this moment, they are actually seeking to derail a Supreme Court nomination and impugn the nominee’s character without a single piece of sworn evidence. Indeed, all the legally binding statements on the matter contradict the accuser. This cannot stand. Ford’s team has to either reverse course or drop its complaint. Yes, of course, testifying before the committee would be “partisan.” No, the members of the committee are not “neutral.” But that’s not just the reality of the Senate, it’s the fundamental reality of the justice system itself. It is an adversarial system. If you seek to prove your claim under any standard, you have to expose yourself to the most partisan possible scrutiny — cross-examination by a lawyer trained to find flaws in your testimony and paid to work relentlessly until he discredits your case. If Ford testifies, she’ll face a heightened version of the reality every plaintiff must confront. She’ll have adversaries, and she’ll have allies. It will be difficult, but it is necessary. Now, some caveats. It’s entirely possible that the instant we publish this piece, the next shoe drops, and it turns out that the defensive crouch was a delaying tactic, that Ford and the Democrats were busy investigating all along, and corroboration and substantiation are just around the corner. Or it’s possible that Ford was simply trying to apply as much pressure as she could, to achieve the most favorable circumstances for an interview possible before finally agreeing to testify under oath. But even if that’s true, it doesn’t change the fact that those now saying her testimony isn’t necessary — those claiming Kavanaugh should be rejected on the basis of her unsworn claim, a claim completely lacking in contemporary corroboration and contradicted by substantial evidence — are wholly and completely wrong. And it’s dangerous to our very system of justice to create or impose a standard that permits accusers to make accusations and then stand aside as suspicion alone is used to destroy reputations and ruin careers. Instead, those who make serious allegations — just like those who make claims in court — must be forced to support those claims. They must endeavor to substantiate their case, even under the lowest burden of proof. As of today, the energies of the Democrats are directed at denying that fundamental requirement of American justice. They cannot be allowed to prevail.

Agreed!  And well said, David.  David French is an attorney and Army Reserve officer (Major) who received the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  Dr. Ford needs to either testify under oath Monday, or the Senate should move forward with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.  It’s that simple.  Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who head’s up the Senate Judiciary Committee has been more than accommodating to Dr. Ford and has offered her and her attorney’s multiple venues (both private and public) to testify under oath about this alleged incident 4 decades ago.  It’s time to move forward and confirm this extremely qualified federal judge and be done with this nonsense.

Analysis: Kavanaugh confirmation craziness: Just when you think the left can’t sink any lower, THIS happens

Just when you think those on the left can’t possibly sink any lower into the gutter with attacks filled with vitriol and desperation, they surprise you again. This time the target of liberal anger is moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine – who is being threatened if she dares vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In the latest example of bullying by the left, a crowdfunding site has been set up to raise money to defeat Collins, should she run for re-election in 2020, if she casts her vote in coming weeks to seat the extraordinarily qualified Kavanaugh on the nation’s highest court. Kavanaugh has served for the past 12 years on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The liberal organizations Mainers for Accountable Leadership and the Maine People’s Alliance are using the crowdfunding site in an effort to strong-arm Collins into voting “no” on Judge Kavanaugh. Under terms of the fundraising deal, donors pledge money with a credit card. If Collins votes “yes” on Kavanaugh’s nomination, the cards will be charged and all donations will go to Collins’ opponent in 2020 – whoever that may be. However, if Collins votes “no” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation the cards won’t be charged and no donations will be given to her opponent. No harm, no foul. Collins said of these scheme: “It’s offensive. It’s of questionable legality. And it is extraordinary to me that people would want to participate in trying to essentially buy a Senator’s vote.” To date the crowdfunding site has raised more than $1.2 million from more than 45,000 pledges. Not only is it extraordinary that so many people are willing to essentially try to buy a vote. It is remarkable that people are willing to give money to a Democratic candidate not even selected two years before the 2020 election. What will the unknown candidate’s positions be on issues of concern to Maine voters? What qualifications will he or she have? Will the mystery candidate have something in his or her past that will trouble voters? No one ones this – yet thousands of people are willing to give this person more than $1 million. This is where Trump Derangement Syndrome has led us. If you think this whole “fundraising” campaign sounds shady, you’re not alone. While Collins stressed that this won’t influence her vote, she wasted no time calling out this effort, saying: “I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh.” The law could be on her side, though she hasn’t decided if she is going to pursue any legal action. “I have had three attorneys tell me that they think it is a clear violation of the federal law on bribery,” Collins said. “Actually, two told me that; one told me it’s extortion.” The left-wing rage is also being unleashed on the senator’s personal office. She’s received vulgar harassment calls, as well as a rape threat against one of her staffers, which has been reported to law enforcement. Collins has worked alongside both Democrats and Republicans and she can hardly be considered partisan, yet her colleagues on the left are sitting in stone-cold silence. Not a single Democrat has come out and condemned these tactics. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, blasted his Democratic colleagues for not calling out such abhorrent behavior against Collins and her staff, tweeting: “Every Democrat should be condemning these antics in Maine – attempting to bribe Senator Collins to vote against Judge Kavanaugh and threatening sexual violence against staffers if she votes for him is absolutely disgusting.” One would think blatantly attempting to swing a senator’s vote and threatening sexual violence against another person would be something all decent human beings could be united against. Apparently not. Opponents of Kavanaugh’s nomination are clearly looking to test Collins and see how far they can push her, because they’re desperate and need her vote if they have any hope of sinking Kavanaugh’s nomination. The senator should do her best to tune out the blatant bullying from the activist liberals and the silent bullying from Democrats condoning this shameful behavior by refusing to condemn it. Collins has yet to say how she will vote, but she had pretty strong words for those trying to see if they could own her vote. Collins voted for Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – nominated by President Obama – because she believed they were well qualified. She should do the same for Kavanaugh for the same reason.

Agreed!  And well said, Lauren.  Lauren DeBellis Appell, a freelance writer in Fairfax, Virginia, was deputy press secretary for then-Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in his successful 2000 re-election campaign, as well as assistant communications director for the Senate Republican Policy Committee (2001-2003).

Jason Chaffetz: President Obama tries to re-write history on Benghazi

In a brazen attempt to re-write history, President Barack Obama in a speech on Friday blamed “the politics of resentment and paranoia,” which he said had found a home in the Republican Party, for “wild conspiracy theories – like those surrounding Benghazi.” What a reprehensible way to frame an event that killed four Americans while they waited for rescue and protection they deserved from people Barack Obama never sent. Of course, you only heard about Obama’s characterization of Benghazi if you pay attention to conservative media. By and large the mainstream press excluded references to Benghazi from their reporting of the speech. Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the heroes who watched his friends die that night in Benghazi, called Obama’s comments “disgusting,” tweeting: “Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent.” He’s right to be offended. The real conspiracy of Benghazi was the false narrative that the whole thing was the result of an offensive video – an objectively proven lie born from the resentment and paranoia within Obama’s own administration. They didn’t think the truth was compatible with getting Barack Obama re-elected six weeks after the attack. In reality, Obama himself contradicted this conspiracy narrative before he even left office. Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked him in April 2016 to identify the worst mistake of his presidency. “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.” At least he got one thing right: Benghazi (or what he euphemistically refers to as the aftermath of his war in Libya) WAS a terrible mistake. What it was not is a conspiracy theory. With President Trump methodically erasing the Obama legacy, this bizarre attempt to reframe the narratives around Obama’s greatest failures should fool no one. Barack Obama took us to war with Libya. His State Department refused multiple requests to meet minimum security standards at the Benghazi consulate. President Obama never sent anyone to rescue or protect our ambassador or our own people during the 13 hours they were under attack. Four brave men died as a result and many other heroes had their lives forever altered. That is not a conspiracy. That is fact – no matter how inconvenient Democrats may find it. This is one part of the Obama legacy that Trump should not erase. We all need to remember the lessons learned from Obama’s worst mistake.

Agreed!  Obama’s lies about his, and Hillary’s, epic failure with respect to Benghazi are unconscionable.  It shows just how much of a coward he is.  At best (and this is being WAY too generous), his and Hillary showed a spectacular lack of judgement and decision making when that horrific event happened.  If you’re an honest Democrat, that is the ONLY defense you can possible muster.  At worst, and this is FAR more accurate..there were a series of bad decisions, followed by a cover-up, and then when it was realized..Susan Rice was sent out to all of the major networks to lie about what they knew.  That is exactly how it all went down.  And, then.. When four brave Americans died as a result of this, Obama has the nerve in hindsight with the facts and videos out there to back it up…with his self-righteous, arrogant, metro-sexual manner to go out and suggest that the whole thing was a “Republican conspiracy?”  Seriously?!?  What a disgusting, nauseating tool…  Shame on you Obama…and shame on the media for not calling him out, to his face…on camera.  Thanks to former Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, who was the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, for setting the record straight.

Opinion/Analysis: Mr. Rosenstein, What Is the Crime?

For precisely what federal crimes is the president of the United States under investigation by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department? It is intolerable that, after more than two years of digging — the 16-month Mueller probe having been preceded by the blatantly suspect labors of the Obama Justice Department and FBI — we still do not have an answer to that simple question. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein owes us an answer. To my mind, he has owed us an answer from the beginning, meaning when he appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017. The regulations under which he made the appointment require (a) a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation or prosecution has been committed; (b) a conflict of interest so significant that the Justice Department is unable to investigate this suspected crime in the normal course; and (c) an articulation of the factual basis for the criminal investigation — i.e., the investigation of specified federal crimes — which shapes the boundaries of the special counsel’s jurisdiction. This last provision is designed to prevent a special counsel’s investigation from becoming a fishing expedition — or what President Trump calls a “witch hunt,” what DAG Rosenstein more diplomatically disclaims as an “unguided missile,” and what Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, invoking Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret-police chief, pans as the warped dictum, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” In our country, the crime triggers the assignment of a prosecutor, not the other way around. Sound reasons undergird the regulations. If a Democrat were in the White House, we would know them by heart at this point. Republicans once knew them well, too. That was before Donald Trump’s character flaws had them shrugging their shoulders, resigned that he deserves to be investigated whether he committed a crime or not. Yet, the rationale for the regulations relates to the presidency, not to the man or woman who happens to occupy the office at a particular time. It is too debilitating to the governance of the United States, to the pursuit of America’s interests in the world, for us to permit imposing on the presidency the heavy burdens of defending against a criminal investigation unless there is significant evidence that the president has committed a serious crime. As illustrated by this week’s hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats are too Trump-deranged in this moment to recognize their interest in avoiding a prosecutor’s cloud over future Democratic administrations. (Of course, they probably calculate that no Democratic attorney general would appoint a special counsel, no matter the evidence, and that the media would compliantly play along.) It is therefore up to Republicans to respond to the damage being done to the office. This can be hard to do. If policy were all that mattered, the Trump presidency would be a rousing success. The economy is humming. The yokes of tax and regulation have been eased to the extent that, despite tariff hijinks, unemployment has plummeted and employers have trouble filling positions. Meanwhile, the federal courts are being stocked with exemplary jurists who, for decades, will be faithful stewards of the Constitution. Alas, there’s a lot more to it than policy. You want to slough off as unreliable the latest ABC/Washington Post poll that has Trump’s job approval at just 38 percent (with 60 percent disapproving)? Okay . . . but since he seems hell-bent on personalizing the midterms as a referendum on him, it is less easy to ignore that the so-called generic ballot is swinging the Democrats’ way: by nearly 10 points according to FiveThirtyEight, while even more Trump-friendly Rasmussen reflects a recent Democratic surge to a four-point lead. As the Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger observes, the president’s loyal base, consisting of roughly a third of the voting public, is going to be with him and, presumably, with Republicans. Still, if a Democratic takeover of the House is to be avoided, the GOP desperately needs the voters who reluctantly pulled the lever for Trump only because he was not Hillary Clinton. You may notice that Mrs. Clinton is not on the ballot this time.

Thank God..  For more on this piece by attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, click on the text above.  Andrew does a great job at really delving into the central question…  “What EXACTLY is Pres. Trump, and his administration/campaign, being investigated for?”  If you ask an average American, regardless of political party affiliation, what the answer to that questions is, they don’t have a clue.  As Andrew quite rightly notes..  Normally, in America, a crime has been committed FIRST.  THEN, an investigation is done to determine who committed it.  In this case, a Special Counsel, along with a very partisan staff, has been hired for over 16 months…at enormous expense to we-the-taxpayers…to see if the President or his campaign may have committed a crime.  That’s Stalinist fascism at its worst; the kind of thing we’d expect to see in North Korea or China….but not here in the United States.  DAG Rosenstein owes us an answer now!

‘You Really Should Resign’: Perino Calls Out WH Official Who Authored NYT Op-Ed Against Trump

Dana Perino called out the unnamed White House official Wednesday on The Five who penned a New York Times opinion piece blasting President Trump. The piece, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” is written by an anonymous senior official who said other top White House officials are “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [President Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations.” Perino, who served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, called the author of the op-ed “extremely self-indulgent.” “You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post.” President Trump addressed the piece during a meeting with sheriffs from across the country at the White House, calling it “gutless.” “If I weren’t here, I believe the New York Times probably wouldn’t exist,” he said. Perino said that something about the release of the op-ed is suspicious, given that it was published just a day after excerpts of veteran journalist Bob Woodward’s book on Trump’s White House were published by The Washington Post. “If you are this person, you really should resign tonight,” she said. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted a statement regarding the story Wednesday evening, agreeing with Perino’s sentiment. “This coward should do the right thing and resign,” Sanders wrote.

Agreed…  Dana Perino is spot on here.  So, kudos to her for calling out whoever the heck this is.  The whole idea of a treasonous almost shadow-like entity within the White House trying to undermine the President, who was duly elected by the people, should be terrifying to everyone regardless of political party affiliation or persuasion.  Hopefully this loser is found and fired soon…and IF he is guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, also charged for those crimes.  Newsflash to whoever this is..  You don’t work for Trump.  You work for US; we-the-people.  We pay your salary.  Like Dana said..  If this person really exists, and thinks all of this, then he/she should resign immediately.  For more, or to watch this segment from The Five, click on the text above.