Bar Complaint Filed Against Counsel For Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

Judicial Watch has filed a bar complaint against counsel for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The complaint follows the issue raised earlier on this blog on the statement made by Ford that she was never told that the Committee had offered to fly to California. Attorneys Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich deny the allegation and say that Ford was fully informed.  These are very accomplished lawyers and I am inclined to believe them. That however raises serious questions about Ford’s sworn testimony and the attorneys offer a rather tortured explanation of the conflict.

The letter to the Board’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel details Ford’s testimony, particularly “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”  She also stated “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you – had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”

As we previously discussed, bar rules like Rule 1.4(a) state:

A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”

In addition, Rule 1.4(b) states that “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”

In response, Katz, Banks, and Bromwich stated:

We have reviewed the disciplinary complaint filed by Judicial Watch with the DC Court of Appeals. It is a shameful effort to politicize the bar disciplinary process. The claim that we failed to advise Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of the various options available to her in connection with her allegations that Judge — now Justice — Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s is completely false and without merit. Dr. Ford was advised of all of her options and made her decisions based on the information we provided her. We were never told that Senator Grassley was willing personally to fly to California to meet with Dr. Ford, and that is how she understood his ambiguous question at the hearing. The suggestion that we concealed relevant information from her, or manipulated her into doing something that was contrary to her wishes, is utterly false. We will be seeking the equivalent of Rule 11 disciplinary sanctions against Judicial Watch.

The problem is that the question was not about Chairman Grassley flying out. The question concerned “the committee” flying out to California.Here is the exchange:


Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?


BROMWICH: We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford. It’s a privileged conversation…


GRASSLEY: Would — could — could we — could you validate the fact that the offer was made without her saying a word?


GRASSLEY: Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?

FORD: Can I say something to you — do you mind if I say something to you directly?


FORD: I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.

GRASSLEY: OK. Does that take care of your question?

MITCHELL: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Ford’s counsel have said that they fully informed her of the offer to be interviewed in California by the Committee.  If that is true, the answer by Ford is difficult to square. The suggestion that she understood the question to be about Chairman Grassley is pretty forced.

That is still unlikely to amount to a perjury case or a successful bar complaint since it turns on Ford’s understanding of the question.  However, it is now confirmed by counsel that Ford was told of the offer.

231 thoughts on “Bar Complaint Filed Against Counsel For Dr. Christine Blasey Ford”

  1. The three (3) attorneys representing Dr. Ford–Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich–failed to respond to numerous requests to accommodate Dr. Ford. To be precise, on three (3) occasions, Sen. Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Dr. Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing–in no uncertain terms–to come to her.

    · On September 19, Chairman Grassley sent a letter to Dr. Ford’s attorney Katz informing her that committee staff “would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”

    · On September 21, committee staff sent an email to Ms. Katz saying that “[t]he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”

    · On September 22, committee staff again wrote an email to Dr. Ford’s lawyers, reminding them that “committee investigators are available to meet with Dr. Ford, anywhere and anytime, if she would prefer to provide her testimony outside of a hearing setting.”

    And if that were not enough, in a September 21 tweet, Sen. Grassley invited Dr. Ford to share her story, saying, “[c]ome to us or we to [you].”

    However, despite those offers, at the September 27 hearing, Dr. Ford told the committee that she was not aware of the committee’s willingness to meet her anywhere to take her testimony. In particular, Dr. Ford said, “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.” And when Dr. Ford was asked if her attorneys had told her about the committee’s offer to meet her in California, her lawyers objected to her answering the question. Despite attorney-client privilege, Dr. Ford chose to respond anyway, saying “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you—had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not—it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”

    Clearly, there could be no mistaking what Sen. Grassley and the Judiciary Committee were willing to do to accommodate Dr. Ford. Moreover, none of Dr. Ford’s attorneys responded verbally or in writing to Sen. Grassley’s offer. The only plausible conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that Dr. Ford’s attorneys did not tell her specifically what Sen. Grassley’s offer was, including his offer to protect her privacy and to speak to her in her home state of California. Judicial Watch’s bar complaint should succeed on based on all of the facts and circumstances. That said, attorneys Katz, Banks, and Bromwich will suffer no consequences for their ethical violations, given the bar’s flexible application of “ethics.”

  2. i think this is a bad complaint, because Judicial Watch has no standing in the attorney client relationship. I think third parties should stay out of the “ethical complaint” business and the state ethics overlords should not allow the process to be weaponized

    Today it may gore this side’s ox, but next time it will be the other sides. There are serious matters for ethics regulators to attend to and playing politcal football will distract them overmuch

    that said I am totally pro Kavanaugh and do not believe Ford and feel the whole thing was contrived

    1. What makes you think one can’t make a bar complaint whether or not the complaintant has legal standing?

      1. can is not the issue. SHOULD is the issue. and can may be an issue depending on the body of law that’s involved

        SHOULD it be an issue, yes, otherwise, every lawyer who represents a client that gets a result that someone else doesn’t like, but who has a happy client; may yet face an expensive challenge to his license. it would be an untenable system to manage.

        please keep in mind that in many if not most lawsuits there is a LOSER in one form or another, and the loser may always turn vindictive and look for a cheap shot to take after the loss. it should not be encouraged or you can just watch the whole adversarial system of justice begin to fracture. that is a lot bigger issue than did Ford’s lawyers cheat her or not.,
        probably they did but Ford was starstruck. or maybe they didn’t serve her well, but then again, why go after their licenses, instead, go after the honchos in the Senate that set her up.

        also: barratry and champertry have long been legalized by the ethics overlords. if they want to make that unethical again, i would be all for it. but if it’s ok then its ok. its up to the state supreme courts to decide those rules and administer them

        1. A bar complaint goes to the bar. The bar doesn’t have to persue a complaint without merit so I am not sure what your point is.

          One (depending on state laws) can file suit on an attorney or anyone at any time. We see that as a weapon to prevent an attorney from filing a suit without reasonable grounds.

          1. Two different things. First the courts. Anybody can file anything. But only a person with standing can sue a lawyer with a cognizable claim. That means either the client or an interested party alleging something pertaining to their interests which relates in a specific way to that lawyer.

            Secondly, license ethics complaints. Different system. When you move from courts to the lawyer license disciplinary venues, the rules may be different based on prior cases and the whims of the current justices, who are the direct overlords of all the state licensing ethics administrators.

            But again, anyone can file anything. tomorrow, a thousand different people could file disciplinary complaints against Michael Avenatti for violating the rules on publicity concerning pending matters. he has surely broken those laws in various jurisdictions, so far with impunity. Avenatti would get a copy of every single complaint and have to consider whether to try and actively defend himself.

            But only a person with some kind of standing, that is to say, a dog in the fight, would have a viable complaint that the authorities would pursue. Like his own client or a party adversary or let’s say someone he has defamed. That’s a lot of people. But less than anyone.

            1. So what im saying is, who the hell is judicial watch? just anyone like you or me, who doesn’t like what Ford’s lawyers did, and want to attack them, But you or me would not do this. it’s a special pressure tactic, a stunt, a deplorable sort of nonsense that usually only a leftist fringe group would even consider. a self appointed watchdog group. i loathe all these watchdog groups including the right wingers. i think judicial watch has some good FOIA projects but this was a lame idea.

              1. Since I am not sure of JW’s rationale I can’t make a judgement. This may permit an opening to see if the lawyers were conspiring with our legislators who were withholding important evidence. Neither of us really know so I don’t think either of us can draw a firm conclusion at this time.

                No matter what I will still support Judicial Watch like many others on this blog

            2. “Two different things”

              That is right and that is why they were placed in two different paragraphs.

              ” Anybody can file anything”

              That sort of makes moot much of what you said earlier.

              “When you move from courts to the lawyer license disciplinary venues, the rules may be different”

              Of course the rules are different.

              One doesn’t need to have standing to file a bar complaint.

              A felony does not require a civilian complaint for the police to arrest and bring those breaking the law to court.

              Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. However, that might place the person in legal jeopardy if the claim has no rationale.

  3. Can we go to the very beginning? This is all about blocking a Trump appointee. The left tried to destroy a good and honest man and hurt his family in the process. I wonder if Justices Karan and Sodamayor ever consumed alcohol in college. Or what kind of social behavior did they have while in college. The fact is I really don’t care. While I don’t share some of their political or judicial beliefs, as older adults they appear to be decent people.

    1. Honest? Certainly prevaricated at the hearing.

      Of course the hearings have already degenerated into mere ritual.

      1. “Honest? Certainly prevaricated at the hearing.”

        David, what of substance did Kavanaugh lie about? If you can’t answer the question then even you have to admit that your remark was very stupid.

        1. “Honest? Certainly prevaricated at the hearing”

          “Prevaricated” is a weasel word one uses when one would like to call someone a liar, but is prevented either for reasons of tact or, like here, in one of Benson’s typically moronic remarks, because one can’t think of an actual falsehood to pin on them.

          1. Jay, everything you say is correct except I don’t think Benson knows the difference between prevaricate and lie. That is why I asked him for his substantive complaints. I think, despite calling Davids remarks moronic, you still give David too much credit. 🙂

  4. Her lawyers prepped her to lie in such a way that it is difficult to charge her with perjuring herself in that answer. However, she says it “wasn’t clear to me” meaning her lawyers did not follow bar regulations.

    1. There is ZERO doubt that something improper occured.

      What is not certain is whether Ford lied under oath to the SJC or whether her lawyers failed to follow the rules of professional ethics.

      1. dhlii – Senator Grassley has sent a criminal referral for Avenatti and Swetnick.

  5. Ford attempted to obfuscate by playing subject-verb agreement games in which she clearly seeks to shift the matter from what she thinks is a broken into plural committee to an individual singular when speaking to Grassley.

    To do this, Ford asked to address her remark to Grassley as to “you directly”. However, committee is only plural if the people are not thought of as a singular body or if one member is highlighted out. That, IMO, is the purpose of Ford’s avoidance of “committee”.

    So, with “you directly” having broken apart the committee as a singular, Ford then hones in on Grassley and rests her slender claim to ignorance on him. She didn’t know that HE wanted to come out. HE didn’t. The COMMITTEE did. With that scanty cover, Ford thinks to evade perjury.

    The attorneys told her. Ford lied about them not telling her and expected to get away with it. Now she and they are seeking to cover her lies.

    Blasey Ford thus adds one more lie to her pack of lies. Not surprised.

    1. Well Ford outsmarted herself as Grassley is part of the committee and if the committee is going to California then Grassley is going as part of the committee. If she was told by her lawyers that the committee was coming and she understood then she understood that Grassley was coming. Ergo perjury. Lock her up.

  6. I don’t think the committee had any obligation to take leave of Senate duties for a trip to California. Furthermore, I don’t understand why Judicial Watch seems to involve itself in every contentious issue. ‘Who’ is actually funding them??

      1. Paul, I just learned Judicial Watch is primarily funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Said foundation was set up by Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to Pittsburgh’s Mellon banking fortune. Scaife was best-known as a Clinton foe and major player in Paula Jone’s lawsuit against Bill.

        Scaife endowed a number of conservative non-profits including the Federalist Society which grooms conservative judges. Kavanaugh himself was a product of that society. Though interestingly, Scaife had been a major funder of Planned Parenthood until the early 70’s.

        1. Why does it matter so much to you who funded a group ?

          Can we disregard inconvenient information if the work to acquire it was funded by Sorros, or Steyer or the Koch
          s or whatever your favorite boogey man left or right ??

          JW file the FOIA requiest that exposed that Clinton was runnign a private email server for her government work.

          Do you think that was not a worthwhile discovery – or do you think that Trump and cronies should be able to thwart any oversite by running the executive branch on private email servers ?

          1. “Why does it matter so much to you who funded a group ?”

            Just on this small group of responders a good number have admitted to supporting Judicial Watch with their own money.

            I think that demonstrates wide support among interested people.

          2. that was a good one, JW has done some really good ones, I am not with them on this stunt however

    1. “‘Who’ is actually funding them?”

      People that are interested in the fair application of the law.

      1. Byrd, you mean ‘narrow interpretations of law’ as ruled by Federalist Society judges.

        1. The “narrow interpretation of the law” is a basic principle. It is a requirement for the rule of law. It is a legal principle over centuries, millenia.
          It is not unique to the federalist society.

          You can not have the rule of law if those subject to the law do not and can not know what the law is.

          Interpreting law narrowly means interpreting it in the way that would be clear to everyone.

          Any other mean of reading law, means that all of us are subject to the whim of some of us.
          We are not merely bound to obey laws that we did not support, but that we are bound to obey not the letter of the law, not its spirit, but the aspirations that a few have for it.

          Finaly the more broadly you interpret law, the more conflicts you will have with other laws, with the constitution, with individuals rights.

          Broad legal interpretation ensures constant conflict and confusion.

        2. Why would anyone want to interpret the law broadly unless they were trying to get around the law or the constitution.

          1. criminal laws must be interpreted narrowly for the threat to the liberty of us all that is, being locked up without consistently narrow interpretation

            social legislation is often intentionally written broadly so that regulators can go study a thing and try to precisely figure out what the hell to do since Congress is just “empowering” them

            the ship sailed on non-delegation of powers to make law (rulemaking) in the 1930s and no modern state will function without it. the world is complex. don’t make the simple too complex and don’t reduce complexities beyond their necessary detail. sometimes conservatives do that second thing habitually and by taste

      1. mtkennedy, currently Republicans are lying through their teeth! They have every intention of repealing Obamacare. But they’re trying to keep that secret before the midterm elections. Because even Fox News polls reveal the public’s desire to keep Obamacare (or most of its provisions).

        1. Obamacare started dying the day it was passed. It’s a lousy bill and rapidly the public is learning how lousy it is.Note how you say the public wants to keep “Obamacare (or most of its provisions).” One of the provisions they don’t want to keep is the financial bill that has to be paid. Democrats can only cry free money for a limited time before the public learns that money doesn’t grow on trees.

          1. The problem is the structure. It’s going to settle in one of two equilibria depending on the state: (1) household medical insurance is wretchedly expensive and has high deductibles or (2) companies simply do not offer such insurance to anyone. Megan McArdle has been on this story for years. The Republicans haven’t produced a sound plan to replace it because they were just talking to Buncombe. That’s not Trump. That’s the Capitol Hill establishment dweebs like David French assure us are the True Conservatives (TM).

            1. DSS, think out the problem. Private insurance is more expensive for a variety of reasons that mostly are due to selection caused by our tax structure.

              Those getting the tax deduction through their employer are healthier. and should they get very sick while on the employer insurance they frequently lose their job along with their insurance and end up in the private insurnace market.That alone drastically increases the costs of private insurance.

              We should not have two systems and we need not have it. Whatever tax benefits there are for insurance, if any, should stay with the individual not the employer. Employer sponsored health insurance has been a cause of increasing health care costs.

              Our politicians have no backbone and represent themselves, not the American public. A freer marketplace in healthcare can lead to much lower prices without any change in quality or access. It is not a difficult concept.

              1. Problems may be ameliorated with ‘a freer marketplace’, but that’s a secondary consideration. You have the following tasks:

                1. Organizing viable actuarial pools

                2. Restoring something resembling a price system as a resource allocator, which is going to have to include prices transparent to the customer.

                3. Allocating cross subsidies so as to avoid perverse incentives vis a vis people’s activities in the labor market and so as to avoid damage to the viability of the actuarial pool.

                1. DSS,

                  1) ” viable actuarial pools”

                  If one is pooled based on risk then the pool is actuarial adequate and need not have huge numbers. Employees as a group are actuarial pools of healthier individuals where many automatically lose insurance should they be faced with a severe illness. One can pool in many ways and Obamacare demonstrated that pooling via employers is not the only way to pool.

                  2) “Restoring something resembling a price system”

                  We have a poor price system today which in great part is due to employer pooling so this argument demonstrates the need for the individual to carry any tax benefit rather than the employer.

                  3) ” Allocating cross subsidies” This was poorly defined so I am not sure exactly what your major concern is. I will state the major problem for any health insurance program, those already ill and without enough funds to cover the costs of insurance or the illness.

                  That group, the known ill, needs to be cared for seperately from the bulk of the population. The numbers in that group are much lower than the unknown ill that are insured where the insurance covers the illness. Thus if done appropriately the number of known ill that are uninsured will rapidly fall.

                  One has to create a system that satisfies the vast bulk of the population and deal with the outliers in slightly different manner. Obamacare attempted to do the reverse which didn’t cause costs to fall, quality and access to increase. It destroyed value systems though it did show that there are other mechanisms to cover people without the use of employer pools.

            2. It is your equilibria argument that is bunk.

              Every assertion you make about the price of health insurance is predicated on 50 plus years in which we have not had free markets in health insurance.

              Health Insurance and education are the poster children for the failure of price controls.

              I would suggest reviewing the scholarship from half a century ago on the “economic calculation problem” or why socialism in all forms fails.
              The mess that we have in education and healthcare are because those have devolved from free markets to quasi socialist ones,.
              The explosion in costs are the natural consequence.

              All this should be obvious to anyone with a whit of sense because the behaviour of the healthcare and education markets are so strongly deviant of any others.
              And because in those small niches where there is a free or freer market in healthcare or education these problems do not exist.

              I would further note that markets – prices are NEVER in static equibria.
              Markets are dynamic. Normal market forces drive the cost of things relentlessly down – ALWAYS.

              I would suggest a review of the Ehrlich-Simon wager.

              Or more simply – find ANYTHING that is in a relatively free market, that has not decreased in real cost over the past 50 years.

              To elimate having to find inflation adjusted prices – which is difficult, and often in error because inflation itself is not constant accross the market, and inflation is “always and everywhere a monetary phenomena” i.e. a consequence of government monetary policy.

              You can most easily calculate prices over time by expressing them as hours of work necessary to obtain the same good or service.

              You can use Minimum Wage hours or media wage hours, but the results will be the same.

              Everything that is not in some significant way price controlled by government is cheaper today than 50 years ago,

              This is also close to an economic tautology.

              Rising standard of living is by definition producing more value with less human effort.

              Unless you beleive that Health Care and Health insurance are at peak efficiency.
              Unless you beleive that the masssive regulatory morras that PPACa and other healthcare regulation impose has no cost,

              Then your obsrrvations are inherently false.

              1. Dili, you make a lot of overly broad statements. the prices of gold and various other natural resources which fluctuate in very free markets has gone up over decades. indeed the gold bugs among liberterians say that it should be going up even more if only the banksters were not suppressing it. i tend to agree with them but that’s like saying money would be cheaper to borrow if banks would not charge interest on it. well dont hold your breath

        2. “They have every intention of repealing Obamacare. ”
          Absolutely. Republicans make no secret of that.

          ObamaCare is an expensive and disasterous boondoogle.

          The only question is what will be done AFTER ObamaCare is repealed.
          There is no consensus – not amount republicans, not among the population.

          But like it or not – today as always there is a consensus for repealing ObamaCare.

          Even its most popular features do not have even plurality support if people have to pay for them.

          “But they’re trying to keep that secret before the midterm elections.”
          Most republicans I am aware of continue to run against PPACA.

          Absolutely the public wants to keep some of PPACA’s provisions – so long as they do not cost anything.

    2. Furthermore, I don’t understand why Judicial Watch seems to involve itself in every contentious issue.

      What you routinely fail to understand is many, many people, unlike you, really don’t like government run amok. We take citizenship seriously, so we support JW to do the work to uncover the corruption.

      You’re welcome! 😁

      1. Olly, Republicans have been largely running government for the past 20 years. If you don’t like ‘government run amok’, Republicans are largely to blame.

        1. If you look at the FOIA requests that are being responded to one can rapidly see how corrupt the Obama administration was. Look at all these people on this blog that support Judicial Watch financially. Peter Shill, you don’t like transparency and honesty.

          1. Olly, ‘government run amok’ can mean ‘too much influence by crony capitalists’. Like For-Profit Schools and For Profit Prisons. Is Judicial Watch doing anything to rein-in those enterprises?

            1. Why is “for-profit schools” and “for-profit prisons” capitalized? And is profit bad? Should we have only non-profit food, clothing, housing, and transportation?

              That’s how it was in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the other communist idiocracies. How’d that work out?

              1. Anonymous, there shouldn’t be any profit in prisons. We don’t want incentives to lock people up! Furthermore, For-Profit Colleges have a terrible record with regards to graduations, job placements and student debt. Yet Republicans want to keep these failures afloat to show their commitment to free-enterprise. And though that makes no sense, it doesn’t have for people like you.

                1. Peter Hill – I just want to point out that Harvard, Yale, Brown, USC and Stanford are private educational institutions.

                  1. Paul, Harvard has an endowment of over $36 Billion dollars and still receives money from the federal government. Had that money been taxed instead of been left to Harvard the federal treasury would have had about $9-$18 Billion dollars more in taxes (just on the $36 Billion over the years the tax bill would have been a lot higher).

                2. Then you should love Hillsdale College. They do not accept any government funding and are doing just fine.

                  1. Peter Shill, Hillsdale has courses by video for free that you can take to learn about the world. They are for the most part not political but help the brain think. A thinking brain quickly recognizes that your comments lack a sophisticated brain.

                3. “Anonymous, there shouldn’t be any profit in prisons. We don’t want incentives to lock people up!”

                  Society through its laws determines who gets locked up and society pays whether prisons are for profit or not. Therefore your point is WRONG. There is no direct profit to society for locking a person up. No wonder your conclusions are so messed up Peter Shill. You don’t understand what it is you are talking about.

                  1. I think it’s Autumn who’s obsessed with private-sector prisons. IIRC, these subcontractors are responsible for about 5% of the incarcerated population. Left politics is largely an exercise in status games and symbol manipulation

                    1. Are you saying Anonymous in this case is Autumn? I don’t think so but it doesn’t matter. Stupid is stupid no matter what the alias.

                4. Yet Republicans want to keep these failures afloat to show their commitment to free-enterprise.

                  Actually, the University of Phoenix has been an innovator and should be emulated in many respects.

                  As for keeping failures afloat (through public subsidies without end), I suggest you have a gander at the graduation rates of some of our public colleges.

                5. i regret to say that I agree that for profit prison management is undesirable and in practice it has been bad for prisoners and bad for the public.

                  that said, you can’t seriously expect to run prisons without people getting paid, from the hacks to the clinics to the food service contractors to the building contractors and tradesman and so forth. contract bidding can reduce costs and sustain greater efficiencies in various areas without harming the obligation of the general welfare of the incarcerated persons.

                  it’s a complicated thing and not much good is served by doctrinaire positions on the subject, in my opinion

            2. Peter Hill – JW has their hands full just fighting with the Federal Government. They are still trying to get stuff from Fast and Furious.

            3. Don’t be such a lazy twit. Go to their website and learn something on your own for once. And by learn, I mean crack open that thick skull of yours and allow yourself to read objectively so that you can possibly get it.

              The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

              1. Here is a list of the most recent articles: One can go to and hypertext to the articles and whatever documents were received or requested.

                OCTOBER 18, 2018 |
                Maryland Implies Judicial Watch Has Ties to Russian Agents in Shameful Effort to Hide Voter Rolls Mess

                TSA Punishes Whistleblowers for Reporting Rampant Misconduct Among Managers

                JW Gets Records That Show State’s Unique Bail System Releases Violent Criminals

                Berkeley Teacher’s Case to Block JW from Getting Antifa Activism Records “Entirely Frivolous”

                Domestic Violence Law Renewal Full of Leftist Statutory Devices, Restricts Gun Rights

                Fed Audit Exposes Corruption in Illegal VA Land Sharing Deals at LA Facility

                MIT-Yale Study of Govt. Data Finds 22.1 Mil Illegal Immigrants in U.S.

            4. Judicial watch basically sues the government in order to force them to release information to the public that the public should have had to begin with. It only indirectly affects costs by making government more transparent.

              At the present the most prominent actions of Judicial Watch have been to keep public officials, former public officials and future public officials honest. The released FOIA requests provide information that is not seen in the mainstream news and that is just one reason you are so ignorant of what is happening in the world around you.

              The words do not come from Judicial Watch. They come from people like Hillary Clinton who wrote things about public affairs that were not intended for public viewing. She explained those affairs to the public, but her explanations to the public were quite different than what she wrote in private. That is why Judicial Watch plays such an important part in maintaining an honest system of government.

        2. JW has gone after Republicans too.

          For the past 20 years Democrats have controlled the house, the senate or the presidency nearly all of that time.

    3. Why is JW involved ?

      Because this is precisely what they do – pry information from government that government does not wish to share.
      Provide private oversight of government.

      Would you prefer that we just trust politicians ?

  7. Imagine if you will, and submitting for your approval a place of smoke and mirrors in the world of a bubble of their own making.You’re moving into a land of where the sky is green, and the grass is blue, where only right turns are used and obeyed so they move only to the place where they have been before. Where truth and facts are not wanted or needed, Where moral compasses are not used, as to have their ignorance justified in their own minds. Where indefensible, morally complicit behavior is rejoiced and cheered. You are entering a world of alternate universe and reality that pulls a person into a void of pathological lies and deceit………you are now entering the Trump Zone.

    1. “Orange man bad!” FishWings = NPC……………..beyond that: boy, you really hit the subject of this article right on the head………..NOT! Is your real user name “ObfuscateFishWings?”

    2. She lied her tuchus off and her attorney’s are skeevy lawfare artists. Get over it.

      1. “Skeevy lawfare artists?” Actually, Katz, Marshall and Banks is one of the highest rated employment law firms in Washington, D.C. They make the Washingtonian Magazine’s list of top lawyers (selected by other lawyers), every year. If you’re in a legal mess and pick a lawyer based on his politics, you’re not too bright. I would retain a lawyer based on his/her success in the courtroom.

        1. TIN – for labor law Katz is one of the best firms, however for supporting some like Chrissy, their are out of their field.

        2. Feinstein was referred to Katz because Katz takes on skeevy political cases. I don’t care if she gardens in her free time.

        3. However successful the law firm is, it has members that are Far Left activists and advocates. Would they do untoward things in support of their political convictions? Obviously, the answer is yes, based upon recorded public behavior … self-righteousness is one of the hallmarks of both the Far Left and the Far Right, both of whom feel that since God is on their side, bending of the rules and testimony is allowed.

        4. a lot of really good law firms take really crappy socalled pro bono cases. you could write a book on it but who would care really. its almost always just for 3 things. 1– get their name out there with some ‘earned ink” instead of paid advertising 2– use the underemployed female associates to do it and thus keep them busy while the men lawyers go out and make rain and bill to keep the lights on….. sorry ladies i had to say it and it’s true and 3. prove the point that the firm is powerful and will kick some powerful person’s butt and thus to make future defendants intimidated. a very, very useful thing to do when you are a lawyer

          what cases they pick like this is mostly just up to some committee, it doesnt really matter, the opportunities abound

    3. The thoroughly corrupt Democrats make Trump look like a saint in comparison. I’m looking forward to all of it being exposed.

  8. Ford was clearly lying under oath. I could tell by her answer and body language. She was trying to drag out Kavanaugh’s vote by delaying and hedging. First she said she couldn’t fly.
    That was a blatant lie. Then she said she didn’t know they’d come to see her? Everyone knew. It was all over the news. Unless she lived under a rock as well as her lawyers, she was blatantly lying again. What took so long to call her out on this? She should be charged for lying under oath and making false accusations on a good man. Lock her up.

  9. Looks like she clearly lied under oath and now the attorneys are trying to doctor up the lie. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Now we understand.

    1. Correct. We can’t believe the rest of her testimony. Remember she also lied about when she took her polygraph. First it was the day of her grandmother’s funeral then when they questioned why she’d take it after such a sad event, she changed it to “maybe it was the next day. I can’t remember.” She has an ax to grind but it isn’t against Kavanaugh. It was clearly to resist Trump’s pick and delay it. The truth always prevails.

    2. False in one, false in all, is a logical fallacy. It is entirely possible that you can lie about one thing and tell the truth about another. What does matter is that if you tell a lie and get caught, it generates a lack of trust in anything else you said that was true. In this case I think I think Ford and attorneys lied a lot, but it would take a rigorous investigation to get to the bottom of it. I’d like to see that.

      1. I know it won’t happen, but I so wish that Justice Kavanaugh would sue her for defamation. Not just for himself and his family, but to teach a lesson to all of those “accusers” who allow themselves to be used for political assassination, figuring that after it blows over they can just go back to their book clubs and spend their gofundme money.

      2. False in one false in all is not a logical proposition.

        It is an assertion about probability.

        Most (not all) logical fallacies are reasonable guides to inference where logic alone can not answer a question.

        When we can not prove a claim true or false – it is reasonable to weigh the views of authorities on the matter heavily – as an example.

        Most logical fallacies are about the probability that something is true not the certainty that it is.

    3. thank God we have rules of evidence to prevent the old maxim of Roman law from applying, or nobody could ever testify. LOL

    1. Hardly, Wally. JW has been around a long time taking shots at both parties. They have several matters underway that are rather vexing to Republicans, and particularly of the current Administration.

    2. Much of what JW does is force transparency from the federal government on matters that end up exposing corruption within the various bureaucracies. Either you’re opposed to transparency, or you’re opposed to the exposed corruption being heavily weighted towards one political party.

      You have options other than disparaging JW; push for JW to find more corruption with the other political party, push for another JW-like organization to go after the other political party, or resign yourself to the fact the corruption they uncover is what it is.

    3. Oh, you are so funny. NOT. JW has done more for transparent freedom than you could ever imagine. I give them $250 per month. Keep on keeping on, JW.

      1. “Cindy Bragg says: October 21, 2018 at 12:15 PM

        Wally…… are misinformed, sir.”

        This from the woman who believes this:

        Cindy Bragg says: October 19, 2018 at 3:08 PM

        Yeah, something like that….except you probably don’t know much about the historical animus between Hispanics and blacks.

        Also, bad cops are always punished, unlike pc racists like Maya Little who get a free pass and praise.

        (Read all of the comments to get the full gist.)

        1. The empty headed one opens her mouth again flinging empty words. Face it anonymous, you wlll never grow a brain.

    4. Wally: “Orange man bad!,” “Deep State good!” = NPC.

      Really? How many legal cases has Breitbart won v. the government? JW has won many such cases.

    5. There is no similarity between the two and there is nothing wrong with Breitbart. Judicial Watch does a lot of FOIA requests when government tries to hide things that should be in the public domain.

      Maybe you don’t like the fact that Judicial Watch has revealed criminal actions by federal agencies including the FBI.

      1. About Judicial Watch:

        Just an excerpt:

        A factual search reveals a horrible track record with fact checking. Below is a small sample of their failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers

        DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing ‘Vanloads’ of ‘Illegal Aliens’ Away from Border – FALSE
        Has Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 on food, booze and “partying” during her air travel? – FALSE
        Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico–near El Paso – FALSE
        ‘Islamic Refugee’ with Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County – FALSE
        Did the IRS ‘Fast Track’ Tax-Exempt Status for ‘After School Satan’ Clubs? – FALSE
        Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/23/2018)

        1. You are full of it. Why not quote the exact words from judicial watch and then provide your empty headed BS? Instead you rely on spinmeisters that are looking to fill up those brainless empty heads.

          The basic job of Judicial Watch is FOIA requests. They go to court and get them. They then provide the data obtained from government agencies and departments as provided. That is how we found out a lot about Hillary Clinton’s emails. That is how we found out about a lot of the illegalities going on in Obama’s IRS and in the FBI.

          You could argue with their interpretation of events if you had a brain but you can’t argue with the facts and that is something you and the rest of the left find quite embarrassing.

          1. The “fact check” is obvious bunk because it pretends that JW is something that it is not.

            JW does not “make claims”, at most it investigates them – primarily through FOIA requests.

            Further some of the “fact checks” are just ludicrously stupid.

            The federal government has no role int he approval of school clubs.
            They can not “fast track” anything. JW is comprised of skilled lawyers.
            They are not going to make a claim that is logically and constitutionally impossible.

            All the poster has done is discredit his “fact check” source, and himself.

            1. You are absolutely correct dhlii. When JW talks about things other than FOIA requests they provide what their sources were so one can assess the facts for themselves. Frequently those comments are tied into the FOIA requests.

              The fact checkers are BS for the most part. They look at any claim based on conclusions already drawn by those that pay them. Then they try and provide evidence to promote their desired conclusions. I have had a discussion with one of the fact checkers on a study that she obviously didn’t understand. They frequenty have little if any understanding of the subject matter they are reporting on. Her responses made that even more obvious and she could only point to the data in the article apparently lacking any understanding of data complilation, statistics, etc.

              Factcheckers have more to do with opinion than the facts and those opinions represent those that pay them.

        2. Anonymous – spoken like a true NPC. JW has everything backed up at their site. You don’t even have a name.

          1. Paul, Anonymous is an empty head that pundits like to fill with garbage that she dumps on this blog.

        3. Your fact check is full of crap for the simple reason that JW is not an advocacy group, nor are they a news organization.
          Their purpose is NOT to put forth claims.

          They pry information out of the government, and they intervene when government acts unconstitutionally.

          Unless you beleive that FOIA requests are a bad thing. That govenrment should be permitted to hide what they do, then you would support JW.

          Many JW FOIA requests do not result int he discovery of anything interesting. Any government malfeasance or misconduct.
          We would hope that JW FOIA requests would NEVER reveal something interesting.

          However JW FOIA requests often provide information that is not available anywhere else that exposes government misconduct.

          JW is responsible for uncovering through FOIA requests that Clinton was using a private Email server for her government communications.

        4. that snopes guy’s wife was a hot sex worker so let’s not harp on snopes too badly. he’s gotta keep her paid for some how or she might go back to work.
          oh wait that wasnt snopes. sorry i mentioned it

      2. Allan – JW broke the Clinton email scandal when they were trying to get emails on Benghazi and none were coming through for Hillary.

        1. Yes, Paul. Judicial Watch has been a necessity to figure out what has been going on in government. People like Peter Shill don’t like Judicial Watch because the words of Hillary Clinton and others like her are contradicted in their private emails even though those emails are public property. That is why Hillary and others try to wipe clean whatever is written or said in private.

  10. When time tells us who the “real” Christine B Ford is/was all questions will be answered.

Comments are closed.