Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen said Friday that the upcoming midterm vote would be “the most secure election we’ve ever had.”

“As of today we do not have any indication that a foreign government has a sustained effort to hack our election infrastructure,” Nielsen said Friday at the Council on Foreign Relations.

She did not detail how the administration was more prepared for the 2018 midterms than past elections.

 

What?...

Are you claiming that those that are eligible to cast a vote, are not able to cast a vote?

Is that your heart felt concern?

 

'No evidence' to back Kavanaugh accusers' claims, Senate panel's report on FBI probe finds
By Louis Casiano | Fox News

Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Fox News)

An investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by multiple women found that no witnesses could provide evidence to substantiate their claims, a letter to Senate Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Friday.



According to the 414-page report released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, investigators interviewed more than 40 people, monitored social media and news reports and reviewed evidence provided by the judge and his accusers.


“Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh,” the report states.

“Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh.”

— Report by Senate Judiciary Committee
The sexual misconduct allegations came during the committee's hearings to decide whether Kavanaugh, whom President Trump nominated in July to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, would be confirmed. Kavanaugh's nomination set off a battle between Republicans, most of whom defended the judge, and Democrats, who pushed for a large-scale investigation into the women's allegations.


Among those questioned, the report said, were Mark Judge, PJ Smyth, and Leland Keyser, the three individuals whom accuser Christine Blasey Ford claimed were present in the house when Kavanaugh allegedly threw her on a bed and sexually assaulted her sometime in the 1980s.

Grassley last month requested that the FBI investigate accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, who also represents porn star Stormy Daniels in her allegations against President Trump. Swetnick’s credibility was questioned after an ex-boyfriend told Fox News that "she exaggerated everything" and threatened to kill his unborn child.



Investigators found no evidence to support either woman’s claims. Swetnick also made several contradictory statements about her claims during television interviews and refused to speak with committee investigators, the letter said.

“Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.”

“Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.”

— Chairman Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee

Other alleged incidents involving Kavanaugh, said to have occurred in three states, were found not to be credible.

Grassley also requested an investigation into Judy Munro-Leighton, who anonymously claimed Kavanaugh slapped her and forced her to perform oral sex on him.


Munro-Leighton contacted the committee in October claiming she wrote an anonymous letter accusing the judge of sexual misconduct. Grassley said she later recanted authorship and admitted to not knowing Kavanaugh under questioning from the committee.

“She later admitted that she was not the author of it and merely used it as a “ploy” to “get attention” and had never met Justice Kavanaugh,” according to the letter.


In September, President Trump ordered a limited FBI probe into allegations by Ford and accuser Deborah Ramirez.

The investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing on Kavanaugh’s part.

 

It's simple.

The left is on the war path, attempting to destroy anything that is in their path.

Their ideal utopia is not in the cards, and they are pissed, they have no control now.

No control over Senate

No control over the House of Representatives.

And most of all....NO control over SCOTUS.

 

Good questions, Greg!

 

Some Trump supporters made a big deal saying that people would vote against the Democrats for opposing Kavanaugh. Well the election is over and I challenge them to show me any exit polls where voters said Kavanaugh had an impact on who they voted for.\

Come on Trump supporters put up or shut up.

 

Hm, read this and weep, stumbles:

• Every Democratic senator who voted against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the nation's highest court lost in their competitive reelection bids.

• The Democratic senators who voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation then lost their seats during Tuesday's midterm elections included Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Bill Nelson of Florida.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dem...kavanaugh-lost-close-reelection-races-2018-11

 

Wait for it.....

 

Nope. Every Democrat except Joe Manchin voted against Kavanaugh and admittedly voting for Kavanaugh might have helped him a little bit. But everyone else who lost were already incredibly vulnerable long before Kavanaugh came along being Democrats in Red states that voted overwhelming for Trump. And if Kavanaugh was a factor it would have shown up in the exit polls and it didn't. So the correlation of vulnerable Democrats losing in deep red states can't really be traced to causation of voting against Kavanaugh.

Tester voted against Kavanaugh and he won.

And the Kavanaugh hearings sure didn't show up anywhere else. In fact if anything it helped win the House for the Democrats and sent a record number of women to Congress in what were Republican districts before last night.

 

And there it is

 

The Democrats had to defend 10 Senate seats in states Trump won in 2016 and so far only lost three with Florida headed for a recount. So if voting against Kavanaugh was a factor in the election it would have shown up in states like Pennsylvanian, Wisconsin. Michigan, Ohio and Minnesota where Democrats won. And in Nevada where Heller voted for Kaganaugh and lost to the Democrat Jackie Rosen.

 

Well CNN disagrees with you big time.





Republicans' midterms secret weapon? Brett Kavanaugh.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/brett-kavanaugh-midterms/index.html





Washington (CNN)Republicans lost dozens of House seats and the majority in that chamber Tuesday, while simultaneously expanding their control of the Senate.

At least one factor in those countervailing results is Brett Kavanaugh.
While now-Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, like Trump, was not popular in the country as a whole -- 43% approved of his Supreme Court nomination, according to CNN's national exit polls-- it's also true that majorities of voters in those key states where Democrats lost Senate races said his nomination was a factor in their decision

• Just one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted for Kavanaugh's confirmation. And while more than half of voters said Manchin's vote for Kavanaugh was not important to them, 60% said it was a factor in their decision. Manchin won those voters 56%-39%.

Just 29% said Manchin's vote was an important factor, and Manchin won those voters. In states where Democratic incumbents lost decisively -- Missouri (39%), Indiana (40%), and North Dakota (34%) -- larger portions of voters said the Kavanaugh vote was an important fa
In North Dakota, conversely, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp had made a show of her deliberations and ultimate rejection of Kavanaugh, 64% of voters similarly said her vote against Kavanaugh was a factor in their decision, and Heitkamp lost those voters 40%-60%.
It's a similar story in Missouri, where Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill lost her bid for re-election. She opposed Kavanaugh, and 68% of Missouri voters said her vote was a factor in their decision. She lost those voters 46%-53%. And in Indiana, where Sen. Joe Donnelly lost to Mike Braun, the Kavanaugh vote was a factor for 69% of voters and Donnelly lost them.

Sen. Jon Tester won his bid for re-election in Montana, but he narrowly lost the 69% of voters who said the Kavanaugh vote was a factor.

 

This was a warm up. Look for Ginsburg to retire very soon after falling yesterday and we'll be doing this all over again. Oh boy.......

 

Christine Blasey Ford says she'll donate remainder of more than $600,000 in GoFundMe money to trauma survivors

https://www.chicagotribune.com/life...blasey-ford-donating-gofundme-1127-story.html

 

The 83 Ethics Complaints Against Brett Kavanaugh Were Automatically Dropped Now That He's a Supreme Court Justice

This Tuesday, the ethics complaints made against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination process were dismissed—all 83 of them. A panel of judges decided that the complaints are no longer covered by their disciplinary process, Buzzfeed reports.

These complaints included allegations that Kavanaugh lied during his Senate confirmation hearings—which centered on sexual harassment allegations against him—and that his conduct during the process showed a lack of judicial temperament.

“The allegations contained in the complaints are serious, but the Judicial Council is obligated to adhere to the [Judicial Conduct and Disability] Act,” the panel wrote. That act doesn’t explicitly refer to Supreme Court justices as under their jurisdiction.

The the Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit said in its order today that they had “greatly liberalized” the complaint process during Kavanaugh’s nomination, accepting communications including postcards.

The complainants can now appeal the decision.

Kavanaugh’s case highlights loopholes within the disciplinary system for judges. On the Supreme Court level, the only people responsible for keeping the justices in line are the justices themselves.

From Buzzfeed:


Supreme Court justices are not bound by the federal judiciary’s code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, and the high court does not have its own formal internal disciplinary system. Justices have to follow federal laws that require them to recuse if a case presents a conflict of interest, but each justice handles the decision about whether to step aside from a case on their own.

The complaints against Kavanaugh were made in his previous court, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and moved to the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts in October. This was done, apparently, to avoid another conflict-of-interest:


DC Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson and the DC Circuit Judicial Council — Chief Judge Merrick Garland recused himself — had asked Roberts to transfer the complaints against Kavanaugh to another circuit.

However, it seems that the 10th Circuit, who reviewed the complaints, may have presented other conflict-of-interest issues. They released a second order today regarding Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich and his connections to Kavanaugh. A complaint asked that the judge recuse himself from handling the complaints against Kavanaugh, because Kavanaugh allegedly recommended Tymkovich’s nomination to the 10th Circuit in 2003, when Kavanaugh was working for President Bush.

In the order, Tymkovich wrote that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that connection. Both Tymkovich and Kavanaugh were on Donald Trump’s short list for Supreme Court nominees.

 

Isn’t this horse dead enough?

 

Naw, not when it can be used to attack anything remotely associated with trump.

 

this is standard operating procedure for any new member of SCOTUS, regardless of political affiliation. Don't believe the hype, ideologues! If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own.

 

Actually court observers said this was the real reason Chief Justice John Roberts sat on the complaints until after Kavanaugh was confirmed. He knew that some of the complaints were serious enough to get referrals and if he waited until after Kavanaugh was confirmed it would be a moot point.