There has been a sensational twist in the Brett Kavanaugh case: yesterday Daily Telegraph business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard revealed clear and strong evidence of illegal dirty tricks while investigating the Clintons when Slick Willy was President. Why is the US anti-Trump media set ignoring AEP’s astonishing piece? The Slog looks behind the news to offer a good reason.
I am astonished to find, in this early European evening, that Ambrose Evans Pritchard’s piece about Brett Kavanaugh’s disgraceful behaviour during the Clinton era of the 1990s has not gone viral on the internet and ruined once and for all the Trump nomination for the vacant Supreme Court chair.
I posted a strongly-worded piece last weekend on the subject of the risible nature of sexual abuse charges against Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. In that article, I had this to say:
‘Brett Kavanaugh may well be a dangerous sex pest who will use his judicial vote in future to approve legislation freeing every rapist in America and insisting on the inclusion in the US Constitution, as a new Freedom amendment, the droit de seigneur of every American male to take any woman he fancies by force. But the evidence against this likelihood is, for any sane observer, damn near conclusive.’
I still believe that. But yesterday’s piece by AEP in the Telegraph unveils a far more convincing -and to my mind, infinitely more civically cancerous – flaw in Kavanaugh’s personality.
My first reaction on reading the Telegraph article was to think, ‘how typical of the Democrats, who have so lost their way that they prefer hysterical smears to digging out hard evidence’.
But then the former First Lady intervened to make my nose twitch.
A quick rewind: during the 1990s, Kavanaugh was an Assistant counsel for the Starr investigation, then probing Bill and Hillary Clinton about the death of Vincent Foster, the White House aide and ex-law partner of Hillary Clinton….the bigger goal being to impeach President Clinton. One key crime scene witness was Patrick Knowlton: AEP (who had seen a copy of his witness statement to the FBI) showed it to Knowlton (who hadn’t). It had been changed to suggest the opposite of what he had said.
Yesterday afternoon EST, Hillary Clinton told the news media that Brett Kavanaugh’s claim (“these nomination smears are all part of the Clintons revenge”) was “laughable”. I know the way this woman works; with no other intervention, she would’ve ignored the Kavanaugh claim. By the time she was talking about it, it is clear that she had almost certainly seen the AEP article.
This is the part of it that will worry Kavanaugh and his supporters:
‘The Starr probe had never spoken to [Knowlton], even though he had been the first person at the Fort Marcy death location and had highly-relevant information….Before [eventually] testifying [to the Grand Jury] he suffered two days of what appeared to be systematic intimidation by a large surveillance team….When Mr Knowlton appeared at the grand jury he was subjected to two and a half hours of character assassination by Mr Kavanaugh. There was little attempt to find out what he knew about the Foster death scene.’
And this is the part of it that will concern Democrat activists in general and the Clintons in particular:
‘Miquel Rodriguez (a Kavanaugh colleague) had resigned earlier from the Starr investigation after a bitter dispute.His resignation letter – later leaked – said he was prevented from pursuing investigative leads, that FBI witness statements did not reflect what witnesses had said, that the suicide verdict was premature, and that his grand jury probe was shut down just as he was beginning to uncover evidence….The nub of the dispute was over compelling evidence of a wound in Foster’s neck, which contradicted the official version that Foster shot himself in the mouth and had essentially been suppressed…..[the FBI then ‘lost’ the photos]….I interviewed the first rescue worker on the scene and when I asked him about the mouth wound, he grabbed me, and said with frightening intensity: “listen to me buddy, Foster was shot right here,” jabbing his finger into my neck. He said the FBI had pressured him too into changing his story, and the official narrative was a pack of lies.’
OK, in a nutshell here is the conundrum for everyone involved in this mess. It seems clear that both sides in the Starr inquiry – the Republican accusers and the Democrat defendants – were guilty of witness intimidation, statement tampering, withholding and destroying evidence, okey-pokey penny a lick and every other imaginable illegality.
The motives involved are not what you’d call opaque: Kavanaugh was a ruthless lawyer with a strong political affiliation on the way up, and the Clintons wanted evidence of a crime to which they were uncomfortably close covered up. The dark hilarity of all this is that, effectively, Brett Kavanagh appears to have been trying to frame person or persons unknown for a murder they may well have committed.
Kavanaugh could have saved his colleague and taken the high moral road by backing up Rodriquez’s allegations. By doing so, he might well have nailed the Clinton Gang, and changed the course of American history for the better. But his own guilt and ambition stopped him from doing so. This man put his own career before the American People. And this is why AEP concludes,
‘What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.’
I would make broader points.
Either the Democrats simply chose sexual abuse as the default mode when rubbishing an opponent, or they didn’t want the Starr report dug up again because it revealed their former Good Ol’ Boy may well have been an accomplice to murder.
Both at the time and now, Mr Evans-Pritchard was and is a brave and principled journalist. He was the Sunday Telegraph Washington bureau Chief at the time. He has no axe to grind. If his article is given the attention it deserves, Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court will be as dead as Mrs May’s Chequers Plan for Brexit.
Further to the point I made last Saturday, the constitutional/legal process for approving Presidential judicial appointments is now so politicised as to be useless. Indeed, there is a strong case for taking SCJ appointments away from Washington entirely, and for a much clearer separation of powers.
It is crystal clear that political connivance with Alt State power in America is out of control, and has been for many years more than most citizens realise. Reading AEP’s compelling evidence, I had the spine-chilling experience of reliving elements of the Kennedy assassination.
This is another test for justice in America, and for Trump in particular. He has already placed a cloud of extreme doubt over the FBI – and with good reason. Despite the fact that Trump is himself surrounded by shady colleagues and advisers, the Mueller Inquiry has now been “closing in” on the President for sixteen months, and we have yet to see any firm evidence whatsoever of any collusion with Russian “interference” in the 2016 election. James Comey – the FBI director he fired – gave an unintentionally amusing interview earlier this week in which he said, “The way you normally do investigations is you work from the bottom up, and so they’re getting pretty high I believe, but I couldn’t really say because its secret, but I think they’re in the final quarter”. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
The bottom line is this: if Trump is not Alt State, he should demonstrate some wisdom and withdraw his nomination of Kavanaugh – who pretty obviously is. But at the same time, he should read the AEP piece, and reopen the Foster case….for the man was murdered, it was covered up, and now it is necessary to ask, “Cui bono?”
After all, Trump promised us full revelation of the JFK killing. It did not come to pass. That suggests that the Alt State is still very much in control. Donald Trump is fond of saying, “America First”. Now he needs to show which America he is talking about.