New Biden Accuser Comes Forward To Allege Inappropriate Touching At Fundraiser

By

A woman is accusing former Vice President Joe Biden of touching her inappropriately at a 2009 fundraiser in Greenwich, Connecticut.

“It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head. He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth,” Amy Lappos told the Hartford Courant after first posting the allegation on a Connecticut women’s political Facebook group.

This marks the second accusation against Biden in recent days, following Lucy Flores’ claim that Biden kissed the back of her head and sniffed her hair backstage at a political rally in Nevada with Eva Longoria.

Biden agreed to “listen respectfully” to Flores.

“In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort. And not once – never – did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention,” Biden said.

Biden is under fire for working with his daughter-in-law Kathleen’s DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, which covered up sexual misconduct in the DC Superior Court bathroom.

Big League Politics reported: 

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Joe Biden’s daughter-in-law Kathleen Biden operates a group called the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, which provides court-appointed legal counsel to children in divorce cases. Kathleen Biden is listed as a co-chair of the group in some materials and as director of strategic partnerships on the group’s website. Kathleen Biden’s lifelong friend founded the group, and Kathleen Biden has been involved with the group since its inception.

Kathleen Biden was married to Biden’s son Hunter Biden until 2017, and was married to him at the time of this incident. Joe Biden raises money for the group.

A lawyer for The DC Volunteer Lawyers Project was caught propositioning a male teenager in the bathroom of DC Superior Court, and the founder of the group covered it up before acknowledging wrongdoing and quietly terminating the man when forced to by a Washington newspaper editor who never ran the story.

Big League Politics has exclusively obtained court documents and emails showing both the incident and the cover-up. A witness speaks on the record with Big League Politics: her six-year old daughter was being represented by the man who committed the act in the courthouse bathroom.

Multiple eyewitnesses including the boy’s mother notified the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project. The group’s officials expressed that “they didn’t care” about it, according to the eyewitness account.

Time went by. After the local opinion editor for the Washington Examiner asked the group about it, a top official with the group stated that they were aware of the incident and they were dismissing the man for “inappropriate” conduct. The Washington Examiner never went to print on the story, but we have the never-before-seen emails.

The DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, the Biden Foundation, and the alleged perpetrator have all been sought for comment, and have had ample time to respond. The perpetrator now lives in Ohio, where he has been stripped of his law license for a separate incident.

The witness says she has faced retaliation for knowing that “this group had a bunch of perverts working in it.”

Biden delivered his famous 2013 “rape” speech, in which he said that women fear getting “raped again by the system” and referenced the movie “Deliverance,” at a fundraiser for the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, which has also hosted presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand.

Here is Vice President Biden speaking alongside his daughter Kathleen at a DC Volunteer Lawyers Project event in 2015:

Here is the witness statement

“There is a group called the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, which Kathleen Biden runs. They are supposedly volunteer attorneys but they hang out all over the courthouses.

They were appointed in my case — if you have a child in a custody battle, sometimes they appoint a “legal guardian,” which is really just somebody who milks you for all the money you have. It’s a big court scam and they do it for the elderly as well, so they can seize people’s property and money.

In June 2011, my ex-husband wanted to take homeschooling away from me, so we were having a hearing at DC Superior Court and James Marion Broadstone was one of the appointees for my child in the divorce. These people from the Volunteer Lawyers Project were just unbelievable.

My friend Victoria’s teenage son Jefferson was going to testify because he was homeschooled. While we were waiting outside of the court, James Marion Broadstone kept talking to Jefferson, who I think was 19 years old at the time, sort of flirting with him. The next thing we know, he followed Jefferson into the men’s room.

Broadstone said Jefferson was very good-looking and he could help him make good money from his looks, and he liked the “cut of his jib.”

He invited him to a party at his house in Annapolis and then uninvited him after he was fired. I think he was discussing being a prostitute.

Jefferson came out and told his mother Victoria what had happened. Then he went into the court to testify.

My friend Victoria was very upset. Jefferson was very upset. And we reported it to the company, the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, who are not volunteers. They are hiding millions of dollars in their IRS 990 forms and pretending to be volunteers.

We told Jenny Brody, who kept coming in and out of the case, and then Olivia C. Baker who was the other GAL on the case, and she wasn’t even a practicing attorney. They just didn’t care, they’re a sleazy group.

Here is a list of people who were notified of the incident:

Jenny Brody, founder of the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project and 2015 “Washingtonian of the Year”

Olivia C. Baker

Judge Jeanette Clark

Victoria Rose and Jefferson Rose

Dr. Harry Wachs and his wife Ruth

My former lawyer who is a real scumbag”

Witness statement ends

Here is the party invite that James Marion Broadstone gave to the teenage witness:

Here are the emails between the Washington Examiner and the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project

Several weeks later, a reporter for the Washington Examiner asked the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project about the boy’s experience. The DC Lawyers Project acknowledged wrongdoing on the part of the perpetrator.

Here is the definitive email, from Jenny Ann Brody on June 17, 2011 to Washington Examiner local opinion editor Barbara Hollingsworth, who never ran a story on the matter:

Dear Ms. Hollingsworth,

“I’m writing to follow up on our conversation yesterday morning concerning James Broadstone, an attorney serving as a pro bono (volunteer) Guardian Ad Litem for a child who is the subject of a contested custody case in DC Superior Court.

I have spoken with Mr. Broadstone as well as with another attorney who is co-Guardian Ad Litem and was with Mr. Broadstone in court on the day in question. (It is the policy of the DCVLP to always assign two attorneys to every case.) It is my understanding that Mr. Broadstone had several conversations with Victoria Rose, a witness for, and employee of, the mother in the case, and with Ms. Rose’s son, a recent high school graduate. My understanding is that Mr. Broadstone, Ms. Rose, and her son had discussions of a social nature, including about Ms. Rose’s son’s college plans. At the end of the hearing, Mr. Broadstone invited both Ms. Rose and her son to a social event he is planning.

It is the view of the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project (DCVLP) that, while Mr. Broadstone’s conduct was not a violation of any ethical rule, he nonetheless showed poor judgment as a GAL for proposing social contacts with a witness. For this reason, we have accepted Mr. Broadstone’s offer to resign as Guardian Ad Litem in this case, and will be filing appropriate documents to inform the court and parties of this fact. In addition, I note that Mr. Broadstone is not currently serving, and will not serve, as a volunteer on any other DCVLP cases. We are disappointed in this lapse in judgment, since, in the past, Mr. Broadstone has achieved excellent results on behalf of domestic violence survivors in other cases he has handled with our organization.

If you have any further questions about the incident concerning Mr. Broadstone, or about the DCVLP, please do not hesitate to contact me. You also may wish to review our website (www.dcvlp.org) to get a larger picture of our organization and its mission, which is to provide free legal services to low income clients in family law cases. The overwhelming majority of parties in family law cases in DC Superior Court lack legal representation, even though these cases affect important family relationships. The DCVLP recruits and trains volunteer attorneys to represent these clients. Our largest area of practice is representing domestic violence survivors in cases to obtain protection orders , and, in some cases, to obtain custody of their children. Our volunteers also serve as Guardians Ad Litem for children who are the subject of disputed custody cases. Our volunteer attorneys receive no payment for their services. Their work has helped to ensure the safety and stability of over three hundred women and children. In some cases, our volunteers have protected women and children who were in danger of serious injury or even death. We hold our attorneys to the highest standards of excellence, and I believe that the results of our work show that they achieve this standard.

One final point. We are very puzzled that Ms. Rose chose to contact a newspaper reporter to express her concerns in this case, rather than contacting the DCVLP directly. I note that Ms. Rose is employed by a party in this case. I also note that it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Responsibility for an attorney to make, or cause anyone else to make, statements to the media which may influence an ongoing case.

Thank you for bring this situation to our attention. Again, if you have any further questions, please call me, 301 379 1788.

Yours truly,

Jenny Brody,

 

Jenny Brody, Co-Executive Director
> DC Volunteer Lawyers Project
> 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
> Washington, DC 20015…
>
> The DCVLP (CFC#34927, EIN #26-1089584) thanks Federal Government employees for giving generously during the 2010 campaign.
>
> DCVLP programs are made possible through the generous support of
> This message is from the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project and may contain information that is confidential or otherwise privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you, and then delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.”

A tortious negligence complaint was filed in Superior Court of the District of Columbia and a judge crossed four courts to dismiss it.

Here is Joe Biden’s famous rape speech, which has been mostly scrubbed from the Internet, which he delivered at a May 2013 fundraiser for the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project.

“You’ll often hear men say, why don’t they just leave? I ask them, how many of them have seen the movie ‘Deliverance’? And every man will raise his hand. And I’ll say, what’s one scene you remember in ‘Deliverance’? And every man here knows exactly the scene I’m thinking of. After those guys tied that one guy to the tree and raped him, men raped him in the film, why didn’t that guy go to the sheriff?”

“Why wouldn’t you go the sheriff? The reason why is, they’re ashamed, embarrassed. Why do you think who get raped, so many don’t report it? They don’t want to get raped again by the system.”

Chait bait? NY Mag’s ‘collusion’ pusher mocked for doubling down on his Russiagate conspiracy theory

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.47.21 AM

A writer for New York Magazine has rehashed his most outlandish theory that US President Donald Trump could have been a Russian asset since the 1980s — and has been mercilessly mocked on Twitter for his efforts.

Proving that Russiagate is the conspiracy that just won’t die — even in light of the Mueller report which found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait has revisited a piece he published in July 2018 in order to see how well it holds up today.

The article in question — which made the magazine’s front cover — extravagantly contended that Trump could have been compromised by Moscow as far back as 1987. That claim holds up “extremely well” today according to Chait, who doubled down on Twitter on Tuesday, insisting that Russia holds “secret leverage” over Trump.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.49.56 AM

But Chait must have read a different summary of the Mueller report than everyone else. In his new piece, he asserts that rather than his “collusion” theories being debunked by the report, his “most important predictions and claims”were actually “vindicated.” Indeed, the clairvoyant Chait claims that he was in fact “ahead of the interpretive curve”last summer and everyone else was just catching up.

Unsurprisingly, Chait was instantly ridiculed on Twitter. Journalist Glenn Greenwald joked that he should “make room for the Pulitzer,” while Russiagate critic Aaron Mate wondered if the Mueller report had made any use of his “damning evidence” against Trump.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.53.25 AM

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.54.10 AM

When NY Mag tweeted out the piece, it faced an onslaught of mocking responses. One Twitter user suggested that Chait’s latest rant was probably ready to publish on Monday, but the editors held off “because it would cause too much April Fool’s confusion.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.55.51 AM

One commenter dubbed Chait “the Alex Jones of NY Mag” while another urged the magazine to fire him, given that he has “no familiarity with facts or burden of proof.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.56.52 AM

Chait also insists in his new piece that journalists skeptical of Russiagate have not managed to debunk his “major conclusions” from last summer — but then again, it’s difficult to debunk crazy theories that exist only in the minds of their hosts, as another Twitter user pointed out.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.58.00 AM

DEMS SUBPOENA MUELLER REPORT WHAT IS BARR HIDING?

By Emily Tillett

The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report  on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The resolution passed Wednesday morning 24-17 in a party line vote. The committee will now also move to subpoena all underlying documents related to Mueller’s findings.

Before Wednesday’s vote, Republicans largely blasted the Democratic-led effort as violating the law, claiming the public release of the full Mueller report would present national security issues as much of the report is expected to contain redacted materials pertaining to grand jury information.

Republican members on the committee also claimed the resolution was a continuing effort to undermine the Trump presidency, with some claiming Democrats were pursuing the subpoenas as an attack on the president.

“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.

Meanwhile, as Democrats continue to push for transparency, President Trump pushed back, calling out committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for opposing the release of independent counsel Ken Starr’s report on the investigation of former President Clinton.

“With the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM!” tweeted Mr. Trump on Tuesday.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.09.14 AM

Committee spokesman Daniel Schwarz said in a statement on Tuesday that the debate in 1998 “was not about Congress receiving evidence” but rather about “what type of material from the underlying evidence in the Starr report should be made public.”

“Our expectation is that Attorney General Barr will be as forthcoming now as Mr. Starr was in 1998,” added Schwarz, saying Barr “should provide the full Mueller report to Congress, with the underlying materials, at which point we will be in a better position to understand what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered during his investigation.” 

The House already overwhelmingly voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution to release the full Mueller report, but Sen. Lindsey Graham blocked a vote on the resolution in the Senate.

As a result of the resolution, Nadler’s committee will also issue subpoenas for a variety of Trump associates. They include former White House Counsel Donald McGahn, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former White House Counsel Chief of Staff Ann Donaldson.

They are being subpoenaed as part of the Judiciary Committee’s separate investigation into possible threats to the rule of law by the president.

“Because we may have to go to court to obtain the complete text of the Special Counsel’s report, and because the President may attempt to invoke executive privilege to withhold that evidence from us, it is imperative that the Committee take possession of these documents, and others, without delay,” explained Nadler.

Highlights from the Judiciary Committee vote below:

Nadler pushes for report release

Speaking before Wednesday’s vote, Nadler said in opening remarks that on multiple occasions, he asked Barr “to work with us to go to the court and obtain access to materials.” Nadler claimed however that Barr has “so far refused.”

“I will give him time to change his mind.  But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials. And if the Department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge—not the President or his political appointee—to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the Committee to review the complete record,” said Nadler.

Republicans blast committee probe

Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, meanwhile slammed the committee’s ongoing probe of the president and investigation, saying time would best be spent on issues like the crisis on the Southern border. Collins said the asks for further documents was “reckless, irresponsible and disingenuous.”

“What’s the rush? Spring break probably, we don’t want to wait until May,” Collins suggested of Nadler’s calls for subpoenas as Barr has vowed to testify before lawmakers in early May. He claimed Democrats were simply calling for the subpoenas of documents to make headlines after Mueller didn’t make a determination as to whether Mr. Trump committed obstruction of justice.

“This is great political theater,” he added, arguing that asking Barr to release any grand jury materials was illegal, citing potential national security issues.

Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado echoed Collins, saying the public release could “comprise intelligence sources and methods” that Barr previously expressed concerns about this to the committee.

“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.

Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas meanwhile urged a subpoena of Robert Mueller himself, saying the committee should let Mueller speak about “whether or not he thinks the report he created should be disclosed without considerations of redactions of classified information.”

Fellow Texan Louie Gohmert blasted Democrats claiming they were the ones who colluded with the Russian government. He called the ongoing probe an “outrageous assault on the office of the president even after the truth has come out.”

“It’s time to go back and clean up the mess that’s been made,” added Gohmert.

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida agreed with Gohmert, saying Democrats are in denial over Muller’s report, saying the report’s initial release is the the “death rattle of the Democrats’ Russian collusion lie.” He said they’re going through the “stages of grief” in real time over Mueller’s less-than-fruitful findings into obstruction of justice and collusion.


CBS News’ Rebecca Kaplan contributed to this report.

Kirsten Gillibrand Wants To Abolish Electoral College To ‘Restore’ A Fundamental American Principle. There’s Just One Problem.

By Ashe Schow

Maybe it was an April Fool’s Day joke, because that would be the kindest explanation for presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) tweet on Monday claiming we need to “abolish the Electoral College” in order to “restore” the principle of “one person, one vote.”

She put out the tweet and included a link to a Daily Beast article about Democrat senators introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College (because their supporters live in big, populous cities and a popular vote will ensure they’re elected).

“Our democracy is built on the principle of one person, one vote. It can’t function until we restore that principle. It’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” Gillibrand tweeted.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.57.06 PM

The problem with the tweet, as Mark Hemingway and others pointed out, is that there is no “principle” to “restore” by eliminating the Electoral College. It’s in the constitution. It is a principle on which our “democracy” (constitutional republic) was built.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.59.33 PM

The Electoral College is described in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In 1804, the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment, which supersedes the paragraph after the one quoted above. Originally, the person with the most electoral votes would be president, and the person with the second highest would be vice-president.

The Twelfth Amendment changed that by making president and vice-president two separate elections.

The national popular vote was never an American principle, or at least not the way Democrats want it to be now. The Electoral College results from a popular vote – in each state and the District of Columbia. It is 51 separate popular votes, although two states award proportional electoral votes.

Democrats don’t like the way elections are currently done because their party lost in 2016 and 2000 due to electoral votes when they won the popular vote. So, naturally, because the system didn’t work for them, they want to abolish it.

Republicans run using the Electoral College. Then-candidate Donald Trump visited states he thought he could win to increase his electoral votes. Hillary Clinton visited some states she knew she wouldn’t win in order to increase her vote totals so she would not only be the first female president, but also the president with the most votes ever.

This strategy, of course, did not work out in her favor. She ignored states she assumed would give her their electoral votes (like Wisconsin), assuming the Electoral College was a lock for her. She was wrong.

Now Democrats are upset that their strategy to win the election didn’t work, and they think that because Clinton won the national popular votes, that a national popular vote would result in total Democrat control.

Republicans don’t run on the national popular vote. If they did, maybe they would win it. It’s a chance Democrats seem willing to take.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑