Kavanaugh’s Accuser Max Stier Is Former Clinton Lawyer, Obama Donor
5:42
Max Stier, the man behind a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was not only a former classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale but also a foe during the Bill Clinton impeachment trial.
Stier, 53, served on the team defending Clinton, while Kavanaugh served on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s team that was investigating Clinton. As Yale Daily News put it:
In 1994, Kavanaugh joined the legal team, led by Kenneth Starr, that was looking into President Bill Clinton’s real estate dealings as part of the Whitewater investigation. Later that decade, Kavanaugh co-wrote the Starr Report, which established broad grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.Those proceedings pitted Kavanaugh against a former Yale classmate, Max Stier ’87, a fellow member of Stiles College who was one of several attorneys representing Clinton during the investigation.
The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway noted in a piece that during those proceedings Stier had “worked closely with David Kendall,” who would later defend Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information.
Stier once worked for a Republican congressman decades ago — Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) in 1982, but he would later donate to Democrats. He donated $250 to the Democratic National Committee in 2000 while he worked at Housing and Urban Development, and then donated about $1,000 to former President Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008, according to the Federal Election Commission website.
In 2004, Stier, then divorced, married then-assistant U.S. attorney Florence Yu Pan, according to a New York Times wedding announcement. The wedding took place in Washington, D.C.
That same year, a person by the name of “Florence Pan” in Washington, D.C., donated $500 to John Kerry’s campaign for president.
Pan was later nominated by President Obama to be a federal judge for the Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court in April 2016, but the nomination expired before the Senate could vote on it. She is currently an associate judge on the D.C. Superior Court.
Stier currently is the CEO and president of the Parternship for Public Service, a non-partisan organization that advocates for federal employees. He has been frequently interviewed by national news outlets on the issue of government service.
Since President Trump’s tenure, Stier has been careful not to criticize Trump, although he has in several interviews disparaged the notion of the “Deep State” and defended federal employees as hardworking public servants.
Stier’s allegation against Kavanaugh became public in a New York Times piece that ran on Saturday, as an adaptation of a newly-published book on the now-Supreme Court justice. The piece said:
A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly.
The Times later added to its piece: “We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier; the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.”
Former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said Monday during a floor speech that Stier never told his committee, which was overseeing Kavanaugh’s confirmation and handling the investigation into him, about his allegation, according to the Hill.
“That person, Mr. Stier, didn’t reach out or provide information to the committee majority. … My office never received anything from Mr. Stier or his unnamed friends,” Grassley said.
“Had my staff received substantive allegations or had he approached me or my staff, we would have attempted to take a statement and interview him,” he added.
Stier reportedly had contacted a Democrat senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) — with his allegation. Coons later would reportedly send a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray asking that he follow up with Stier, copying Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
Grassley slammed the New York Times during his speech, asking, “Who will watch the watchmen?”
“This week’s report includes some embarrassing, irresponsible missteps,” he added. “This is not an allegation. It’s barely a third-hand rumor.”
One of the authors of the book and the Times piece said Stier did not speak to them for the book. Asked why, co-author Robin Pogrebin said, “My sense is that he feels as if he did his duty, which was he brought the information that he had to the Senate — to senators and to the FBI.
“He made them all very aware that he had this experience that he had witnessed firsthand in a dorm room during his freshman year at Yale. What they did with that information was up to them. It never materialized and became part of the process. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed and he was done. His work had been done. He had done his part. And he had no interest in revisiting it.”
Since coming under scrutiny, Democrats and Never Trumpers have rushed to defend Stier.
Never Trump Jennifer Rubin, a Times columnist, tweeted Sunday: “I know Max Stier. He is scrupulously honest and nonpartisan.”
Former Obama chief strategist David Axelrod also vouched for Stier in a tweet on Monday: “Max Stier is a very credible and highly respected person.”
We really need to know why the FBI didn’t investigate this allegation? Were they restrained by the White House? The Judiciary Committee itself?
Max Stier is a very credible and highly respected person.axios.com/brett-kavanaug…
Follow Kristina Wong at @Kristina_Wong.
The judge found these releases, together with the
publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she
pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public
concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of
one of the two major political parties in the United States during a
presidential election.”
“Clinton also
failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his
presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON
Leaked Julian Assange
Message:
Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected,
Sadistic, Sociopath’
’
"But what
the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to
every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia
McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List
Of Suspicious ‘Charities’
"But what
the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every
person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy
- AMERICANTHINKER.com
Media silent on dismissal of DNC
suit against Julian Assange
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was
a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the
WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy
theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence
agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded”
with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed
claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was
“illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear
newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the
entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from
the New York Times (which
buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to
“alternative” outlets such as the Intercept,
the television evening news programs and the publications of the
pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of
the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the
unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war
crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New
York Times, the Washington
Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared
Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy
hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the
presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and
exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of
radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour
of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall
coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists
and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump
administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of
his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Timeseditorial page
editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other
intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that
will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the
military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and
information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling
presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led
millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of
which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and
dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks
could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political,
financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them
‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.”
This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of
the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and
WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the
Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie
Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of
Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be
their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They
“allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two
major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the
DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain
the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents
were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
The ruling demonstrated the flagrant illegality of the US
vendetta against Assange. The slander that he was operating as a “Russian
agent” to “interfere” in US politics was used by the American government and
its intelligence agencies to pressure the Ecuadorian regime to sever Assange’s
internet access in 2016, and again in 2018. It served as a central pretext for
its illegal termination in April of his political asylum in the embassy
building.
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of
the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the
Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on
18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of
175 years’ imprisonment.
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming
that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from
Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other
documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous
whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic
principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if
they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity,
illegally.
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak
US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’
publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016
leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump
administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,”
undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to
Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and
prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In
its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as
an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture
operations conducted by the CIA.
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the
entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally,
demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to
the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded
the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.
All of them are using the persecution of Assange as a test case
for the imposition of ever-more authoritarian measures, aimed at suppressing
mounting popular hostility to war, social inequality and an assault on
democratic rights.
What is required is the development of a mass movement from
below, to mobilise the immense social and political power of the working class
internationally to secure Assange’s liberty and to defend all democratic
rights.
GEORGE
SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
*
NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an
organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by
billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court
fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist,
unnecessary wall.”
*
*
“Obama would declare himself president for life with S
oros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
*
“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it
were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have
let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became
disabled?”
THE PHONY
CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund
*
*
“There is
no controlling Bill Clinton. He does
whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,”
states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.
“Bill Clinton
mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many
people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does
not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.
CLINTON
MAFIA AND THEIR BANKSTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS
WHO IS
TIGHTER WITH THE PLUNDERING BANKSTERS? CLINTON, OBAMA or TRUMP?
The Clinton White House famously
abolished the Glass–Steagall legislation, which separated commercial and
investment banking. The move was a boon for Wall Street firms and led to major
bank mergers that
some analysts say helped
contribute to the
2008 financial crisis.
Bill and Hillary Clinton raked in
massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, with CNN documenting a
total of at least $7.7 million in paid speeches to big financial firms,
including Goldman Sachs and UBS. Hillary Clinton made $675,000 from speeches to
Goldman Sachs specifically, and her husband secured more than
$1,550,000 from Goldman speeches. In 2005 alone, Bill Clinton collected over
$500,000 from three Goldman Sachs events.
Hillary Clinton is simply the epitome of the rabid self – a whirlpool of selfishness, greed, and malignance.
It may well
be true that Donald Trump has made his greatest contribution to the nation
before even taking office: the political destruction of
Hillary Clinton and her infinitely corrupt machine. J.R. Dunn
"Hillary will do anything to distract
you from her reckless record and the damage to the Democratic Party and the
America she and The Obama's have created."
THE FINAL DAYS OF HILLARY CLINTON:
MISTRESS of the SWAMP, GLOBAL BRIBES SUCKER and LOOTER OF THE POOR
“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel
and unusual punishment, the sentence I would like
to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same
8-by-12 cell.” ROBERT ARVAY – AMERICAN THINKER
com
The Clinton Looting of the Poor
of Haiti
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly
spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
IT WAS BILL
CLINTON WHO UNLEASHED WALL STREET’S BIGGEST CRIMINAL BANKSTERS…. And haven’t
they sucked up the banksters’ gratuities since?
Only Barack
Obama has serviced banksters more than Hillary and Billary!
“Clinton also failed to mention how
he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential
tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S
ROAD TO REVOLUTION
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/bill-and-hillary-clintons-global.html
Transcripts
released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street
bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010
Simpson- Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for
sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the
elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’
Judicial Watch: Only Crimes in Russia Scandal Are from ‘Obama
Gang’
Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's
Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon
FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER SABOTAGED HOMELAND
SECURITY TO EASE MORE MEXICANS OVER OUR BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS AND VOTING
BOOTHS.
OBAMA NEEDED THESE ILLEGALS TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, WHAT WAS LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS' PLUNDER.
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered
documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with
the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the
American dole.” Washington Times
THE
MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR
Barack
Obama’s Russia Connection
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/barack-obamas-russian-connection-who.html
If
Obama was a fully recruited agent of Moscow, tasked with giving Russia a
significant military advantage over the United States, and economically
weakening and socially dividing the nation, how would he have conducted his
presidency (or his post-presidency) any differently? TREVOR LOUDON
*
We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia –
President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair
election process.
Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their
Party Across the Nation
“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described
as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney
general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has
aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama
campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct
action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for
example, features lectures by former campaign executive
Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
*
“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively
researched the
Chicago communists whose
progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett,
and
Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly
Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and
you have
many of the key players who put Obama into
power.”
*
We
are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s
voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.
Kavanaugh Accuser Flew on Private Plane of Tech Boss Linked to Disinformation Campaign
Kavanaugh Accuser Flew on Private Plane of Tech Boss Linked to Disinformation Campaign
Remember how Christine Blasey Ford couldn't fly, until it turned out that she could fly? Just to spare her the indignities of commercial air travel, she was flown on a private plane courtesy of two very unpleasant and wealthy Silicon Valley characters.
Among those who assisted Ford in the summer of 2018 were Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, game company Zynga founder Mark Pincus, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, according to The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, written by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly and on shelves Tuesday.Pincus and Hoffman, meanwhile, lent Ford and her friends their private plane and hired a flight attendant when they traveled to Washington, D.C., for the high-stakes Sept. 27 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which Ford and Kavanaugh both testified.
You gotta have your own flight attendant when you're trying to bring down a Supreme Court justice.
Who are Pincus and Hoffman?
If you remember Zynga, a slime stain of a company even by social media standards, that's Mark Pincus.
Pincus made no apologies for his behavior. Taking a cocky stance in interviews, he noted proudly the multiple times his belligerent attitude got him fired from previous jobs. Internal reports from Zynga’s current and former employees painted a picture of an ethically bankrupt organization where the unofficial motto was “Do Evil” (the inverse of Google’s “Don’t Be Evil”), and the basic MO was to straight-out steal other companies’ game ideas and focus on lead generation analytics. On the outside, there seemed to be no limit to Zynga’s growing power to not only steal more effectively from competitors and manipulate its users,but also leverage the law to its advantage. They had cash, and cash talked.
And yes, evil.
Zynga's motto is 'Do Evil.' I would venture to say it is one of the most evil places I've run into, from a culture perspective and in its business approach. I've tried my best to make sure that friends don't let friends work at Zynga.
Evil. Ethically bankrupt. And Christine Blasey Ford. It's a perfect combo.
Meanwhile Reid Hoffman was linked to even uglier stuff targeting Republicans.
Democratic operatives, backed by a liberal billionaire and facilitated by a former Obama official, created thousands of fake Russian accounts to give an impression the Russian government was supporting Alabama Republican Roy Moore in last year’s election against now-Sen. Doug Jones.The secret project, which had a budget of just $100,000 and was carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was revealed after the New York Times obtained an internal report detailing the efforts.One participant in the project reportedly was Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a firm that wrote a report – released by the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this week – about Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election and its efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.The Alabama project was funded by liberal billionaire and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman who gave $100,000 to the cause, according to the Times. Hoffman is one of Silicon Valley’s top donors to the Democrats, donating $7 million to various groups and campaigns in the last election cycle.
Flying out Ford to D.C. fits perfectly with the disinformation campaigns. And of course it wouldn't be a 2019 Dem story without a Jeffrey Epstein angle.
Former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito is not the only person tied to the organization that's facing scrutiny because of the lab's secret ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The Lab's powerful sponsors — including LinkedIn founder and executive chairman Reid Hoffman — have become implicated in the cover-up.
Just remember, the real victim is Christina Blasey Ford, not the girls raped by Jeffrey Epstein.
No comments:
Post a Comment