Liberal Agenda



At Thursday’s confirmation hearing, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified that she was not aware that Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley, THREE TIMES, offered to fly Senate investigators to California, where she works and resides, to interview her.  Grassley had made this offer because one of her attorneys, Debra Katz, had advised him, in writing, that Dr. Ford was afraid of flying.  [This turned out to be a lie, but we will get to that later.]

An attorney, any attorney, who is representing a client, is legally and ethically required to turn over to that client any and all offers from the other side.  It doesn’t matter of the client has turned down similar offers 100 times before.  It doesn’t matter that the attorney thinks the offer is worthless.  It doesn’t matter that the attorney is being paid by someone else.  The attorney MUST turn over ANY offer promptly to the client so SHE can make the decision whether to accept or reject it.  Period.


An attorney cannot have two masters.  The master is ALWAYS the client.  Yes, Dianne Feinstein found the lawyers for Dr. Ford and, yes, these attorneys are long-time Democrat operatives, but neither Feinstein nor anyone else can ETHICALLY be these attorneys’ masters.  Indeed, did Dr. Ford even KNOW these attorneys’ backgrounds?  If Dr. Ford’s attorneys wanted to pursue ANY OTHER AGENDA than representing HER interests to their very best ability, they were legally & ethically bound to NOT accept Dr. Ford as a client.

 Kavanaugh, Ford, confirmation, disbar, Democrats

Michael Bromwich sat next to his client, Dr. Ford, as she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Such behavior on the part of any attorney is a classic conflict of interest that can and should get Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich disbarred.  Attorneys are duty bound to advise the potential client about the conflict of interest.  If the client STILL wants the conflicted attorneys to represent her, she must sign a waiver of that conflict of interest.  This attorney would love to read it, if it exists.



Following Dr. Ford’s testimony on Thursday, U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), famous for being the lowest IQ member of the House, walked up to Michael Bromwich, one of Ford’s attorneys.  Lee shook his hand and handed him a white envelope that was stuffed with something.  It doesn’t matter if the envelope had money in it (he told the committee that he was representing Ford for free) or if it had additional marching orders for him, THIS ATTORNEY CANNOT HAVE TWO MASTERS.

Only if the envelope was stuffed full of personal notes and discussion of grandkids, would Bromwich’s acceptance of the envelope NOT be an ethical violation.  Lee and Bromwich exchanged the envelope in full view of TV cameras.  What does this tell you about their confidence in being able to pull off this sham & scam on the American people without repercussions?


Ford’s attorney claimed her client was afraid to fly and could not fly from California to the Washington DC area to be interviewed by Senate investigators.  On the contrary, Dr. Ford testified that she flies frequently for business, both nationally and internationally.  Since most of her family lives on the East Coast where she grew up, it appears that she spends every August (during summer vacation from her teaching duties) on the East Coast.

Indeed, based upon her testimony, Dr. Ford spent most of the weeks between the time she wrote the letter and the time she appeared before the Senate committee, ON THE EAST COAST: the DC area, Delaware & New Hampshire.  Dr. Ford really put the lie to her attorney’s claim.  She even testified that she took her two-question polygraph test in a hotel in the DC area in August shortly after she attended her grandmother’s funeral nearby.

Who was looking out for Dr. Ford’s best interests?  Certainly her attorneys were not looking out for her!

Diane L. Gruber

Mortified Attorney


  1. Sally J Becker

    September 29, 2018 at 4:15 pm

    It’s not this envelope video but they SHOULD be investigated according to Greg Jarrett. He said an attorney is suppose to act in the best interest of their client. THEY DID NOT when they didn’t tell her the committee was willing to come to California. IMHO they wanted this SHOW-BOATING ACT to proceed.

    • Thomas J Faddis

      September 29, 2018 at 4:29 pm

      So if we all have the same opinion, what does the Bar Association have to say about it?!

      • Charles Murphy

        September 30, 2018 at 6:20 pm

        Who’s going to persue the lawyers? The republicans sure won’t, they won’t persue a roll of toilet paper if they had to drop a load.I am outraged at both parties in that hearing. A good man was defamed and possibly ruined and a woman is part of a democrat conspericy and she will walk away. Discusting.

  2. Thomas J Faddis

    September 29, 2018 at 4:31 pm

    So if we all have the same opinion, what does the Bar Association have to say about it?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.