This is going on my blog today...
JK


How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Skip to site index Opinion

How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

Oct. 4, 2018

ImageCredit Ryan Garcia

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, as much as any development in the challenging era of Donald Trump, is testing America's politicians and its civic institutions. Few, so far, have met the test.

Not Republican senators, who, after denying one president his legitimate authority to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court, are now rushing their own nominee through, uninterested in the truth, while weeping crocodile tears about
other people's partisanship.

Not Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who tainted the process by bringing forward damaging allegations against Judge Kavanaugh only at the last minute.

Not the F.B.I., which either of its own volition or because of constraints imposed by Republicans failed to interview many of the key witnesses who could speak to the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.

And not President Trump, to absolutely no one's surprise.

In this crucible of power politics, of bullying and posturing and rage, no one has been more severely tested than Judge Kavanaugh. If he believes himself innocent of sexual assault CÇö if he is innocent of sexual assault CÇö the test, to him, can only appear monstrous.

Yet unfair as the test might seem to the judge and his supporters, senators who
want to preserve the credibility of the Supreme Court cannot now look away from
the result: Judge Kavanaugh failed, decisively.

How? First, he gave misleading answers under oath. Judges CÇö particularly Supreme Court justices CÇö must have, and be seen as having, unimpeachable integrity. The knuckleheaded mistakes of a young person CÇö drinking too much,
writing offensive things in a high school yearbook CÇö should not in themselves
be bars to high office. But deliberately misleading senators about them during
a confirmation process has to be. If Judge Kavanaugh will lie about small things, won't he lie about big ones as well?

Indeed he already has: During the course of his confirmation hearings, he claimed, implausibly, that he was not aware that files he received from a Senate staff member, some labeled "highly confidential" or "intel," had been stolen from Democratic computers.

Even the small lies, of course, aren't so small in context, since they relate to drinking or sex and thus prop up his choir-boy-who-indulged-now-and-then defense.

Second, confronted with the accusations against him, Judge Kavanaugh made recourse not to reason and methodical process, but to fury and the rawest partisanship. Judges CÇö particularly Supreme Court justices CÇö must strive to be, and be seen as, above politics. As Judge Kavanaugh said in a 2015 speech, "to be a good judge and a good umpire, it's important to have the proper demeanor." He added: "To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don't be a jerk."

Wise words. He wasn't able to live by them when it mattered. At last week's hearing, Judge Kavanaugh was a jerk. He spun dark visions of a Democratic conspiracy of vengeance against him. He yelled at Democratic senators, interrupted them frequently, refused to answer questions directly and, at one point, confronted Senator Amy Klobuchar, who had asked him whether he had ever blacked out from drinking.

"I don't know," Judge Kavanaugh sneered. "Have you?" This contempt came only moments after Ms. Klobuchar told Judge Kavanaugh about her father's struggles with alcoholism.

Was Judge Kavanaugh truly out of control, in rage and pain, as he appeared, or had he calculated that a partisan attack would rally President Trump and Republican senators to his side, as it did? (We all know he was capable of a more temperate response to the accusations: He'd demonstrated that just a couple of nights earlier, in his interview with Fox News.) For purposes of Senate confirmation, it shouldn't matter. Such a lack of self-control, or such
open and radical partisanship, ought to be unacceptable in a judge.

And indeed, on Thursday, the retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by a Republican president, took the astonishing step of saying that Judge Kavanaugh's performance before the Judiciary Committee should disqualify him from the court. "Senators should really pay attention to it," he said.

Judges are human beings, not ideological blank slates, but the American legal system depends on their being fair and open-minded to all who come before them.
Judge Kavanaugh failed to show that he can do this, or that he even would want
to.

That's a disappointment, but maybe not a surprise to anyone who knew of his life before he joined the bench. He was a fierce Republican warrior in some of
the most politically charged battles of the past two decades CÇö including the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment, in which he sought to expose the most intimate details of Mr. Clinton's affair with Monica
Lewinsky. He also played a role in the most controversial policies of the George W. Bush administration, including the torture of detainees and warrantless wiretapping. (How much of a role we may never learn, since Senate Republicans still refuse to release more than 90 percent of the documents related to Judge Kavanaugh's work in the Bush administration.)

While many of Judge Kavanaugh's defenders leapt to exonerate him of sexual assault or excused his rage-bender as understandable, virtually no one has tried to deny his rank partisanship. Yet after last week's testimony, how could any self-identified Democrat, or leftist, or sexual-assault victim, or anyone who is not identifiable as a Republican, expect to get a fair shake from
a Justice Kavanaugh? If he is confirmed, that will pose a profound problem for
the court.

It is quite a tribute to Christine Blasey Ford that she has presented the one image of dignity and calm in this howling maelstrom. Dr. Blasey testified last week that a drunken Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a 1982 party
while they were in high school. Her testimony was credible, and the F.B.I. inquiry was too cursory to substantiate or discredit it. Judge Kavanaugh denies the accusations, and in a court of law CÇö and, we hope, in his life as an American citizen CÇö he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

He is not, however, entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. Republican senators have repeatedly said they respected Dr. Blasey and were sympathetic to her; but to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh now is to declare that her accusations mean nothing.

Presidents have the prerogative to name Supreme Court justices who reflect their values and views of the Constitution. President Trump has no shortage of
highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice.

Some Republicans have warned that if Judge Kavanaugh's nomination fails, no decent person will ever want to be put up for the Supreme Court again. This, like so much nonsense in recent weeks, is political hysteria. For starters, consider these seven names: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts Jr., Samuel Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. All were
seated on the court since 1991, the last time a Supreme Court nominee faced credible allegations of sexual misconduct. In that case, Clarence Thomas got the job, even in a Democratic-controlled Senate. Since then, not a single nominee has faced allegations of the sort leveled at Judge Kavanaugh.

The only failed nominations since 1991 both came at the hands of Republicans: President George W. Bush's choice of Harriet Miers, who Republicans said was unqualified; and President Barack Obama's pick of Merrick Garland, a respected federal judge whose only disqualification was being named by a Democrat. Republicans refused to even grant Judge Garland a hearing. Meanwhile, if Judge
Kavanaugh is confirmed, 15 of the last 19 Supreme Court justices will have been
chosen by Republican presidents, and the court has had a Republican-appointed majority for nearly half a century.

The Supreme Court, coequal with Congress and the White House, takes up the most
important issues facing the country. Its rulings are often decided by a single
vote, and they can affect the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Yet the source of the court's power is not tangible. It holds neither the sword nor the purse, to paraphrase Alexander Hamilton. The court's legitimacy is founded instead in an act of national faith, of confidence in the integrity and
fairness of the justices. It is that confidence that ratifies the court's decisions as the final word on American law.

That confidence has already been shaken. The court's party-line vote in Bush v.
Gore, which effectively decided the 2000 presidential election, led many Americans to wonder if the justices were nothing but politicians in robes. Sixteen years later, Republicans made the balance of the court more clearly a political prize by blocking Judge Garland.

This confirmation battle has been awful for everyone. It has exposed to the country a depth of partisan grievance and connivance within the Senate that should embarrass and worry every American. It is a terrible reality that, at this point, either confirmation or rejection of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination by
a narrow and overwhelmingly partisan margin will dismay and anger millions of Americans. But only by voting no, by asking Mr. Trump to send someone else for it to consider, can the Senate pass its test of institutional character and
meet its obligation to safeguard the credibility of the Supreme Court.

NewYorkTimes, October 5 2018

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 10-05-18, JANIS KRACHT said to ALL:

This is going on my blog today...
JK

How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh was confirmed and is now a Justice of the Supreme Court.


Despite the lies, distortions, false accusations and violent protests staged
by the professional trouble-makers in the gallery and on the streets, the
right thing was done and kavanaugh only awaits swearing in.


The democrat scum-ball liars and their falsehoods did not stop Donald Trump putting two decent justices on the Supreme Court.


Put THAT on your `blog'!


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

Am 09 Oct 18 22:59:28 schrob Lee Lofaso an Janis Kracht zum Thema
<Kav-ing>

And do be honest, as this is the type of question no woman can
lie about.

Lying requires knowledge about the truth. But something that happened 36 years ago? If you ask people who just witnessed a car accident, they don't even remember the color of the vehicles just ten minutes later.
And of course, she could lie about it. Maybe she agreed to having sex, but she got pregnant at the age of 15 and the only way of getting an abortion was to pretend she got raped?

Are you going to forget who did this to you?

Yes, that happens. The brain is loosing details over time and making up plausible theories of what happened and you don't realize this process. Get ten
witnesses from a car crash and ask them what color the car had, most of them will be absolutely certain to remember it, but you're lucky if two of them name
the same color.

The FBI did not interview the assailant.
The FBI did not inverview the victim.
Why not?

Because it doesn't make any sense to ask anyone about a party in 1982. They might not even have had any memory of it the next day.

Isn't there a statue of limitation to not waste time on prosecuting stuff from the last millenium?





Tschoe mit Oe
Gerhard
---
* Origin: (2:240/2188.575)

Hello Gerhard,

And do be honest, as this is the type of question no woman can
lie about.

Lying requires knowledge about the truth. But something that happened 36
years ago? If you ask people who just witnessed a car accident, they don't even remember the color of the vehicles just ten minutes later. And of course, she could lie about it. Maybe she agreed to having sex, but she got pregnant at the age of 15 and the only way of getting an abortion was to pretend she got raped?

During her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Ford
explained (in answer to Sen. Diane Feinstein) that in cases such as
sexual assault, the "trauma-related experience is locked" for the
brain, whereas "other details kind of drift."

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a clinical psychologist and a university professor, having two Masters degrees and on PhD. She does know what
she is talking about, and has several certificates to prove it.

The "mistaken identity" theory was first brought up by Kavanaugh
supporter Ed Whelan, a former clerk for the late Justice Antonin
Scalia who now serves as president of the Ethics and Public Policy
Center. He put forth his outlandish idea in a series of tweets,
which sparked an immense backlash online.

Here is one of Whelan's tweets, showing that this was clearly a
hit job, most likely orchestrated by President Trump himself.
In this tweet, Whelan insinuates that one of his former classmates
may have been the guy who done it rather than Kavanaugh, with
his intended target confusing his former classmate for Kavanaugh -

"To be clear, I have no idea what, if anything did or did not
happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs, and I therefore
do not state, imply or [Kavanaugh's classmate] or anyone else
committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges." ~Ed Whelan

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford answered Ed Whelan's tweets in a
statement, as reported by the Washinton Post -

"There is zero chance that I would confuse them." ~Dr. Ford

During her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, after
being asked by Sen. Dick Durban how sure she was her assailant
was Kavanaugh, this was her answer -

"100 percent." ~Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

This whole of attack on the credibility of Dr. Ford was planned
and orchestrated. Here is part of what Wikipedia had to say about
the "mistaken identity" theory -

The SODDI Defense ("Some Other Dude Did It" or "Some Other Dude Done
It") is often used when there is no question that a crime occurred,
such as in murder or assault cases, where the defendant is not
asserting self-defense. The SODDI defense in a murder, rape or assault
case is often accompanied by a mistaken identity defense and/or an
alibi defense. Another common scenario where the SODDI defense is
available is where the police find contraband in a car or residence
containing multiple people. In this scenario, each person present
could assert that one of the other people possessed the contraband.

The defense does carry a risk: It may be legal in some jurisdictions
to falsely assert ones innocence while it is illegal to falsely blame
another person for the crime.

In Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731,
164 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a South Carolina
statute that prohibited putting on a SODDI defense when the state's
case was "strong" violated the Sixth Amendment right to put on a
defense.[3]

Another example of SODDI defense was the case of Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
who was indicted for obstructing justice and making false statements
to a government agent and a grand jury.[4]

One variation of the SODDI defense is the Trojan horse defense in
cybercrime cases. The main argument is that a virus or malware is
responsible for the defendant's actions.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistaken_Identity

Are you going to forget who did this to you?

Yes, that happens.

The "trauma-related experience is locked." Not just according
to Dr. Ford, who is a clinical pyschologist by profession, but
also by every psychologist worth his/her salt.

Other details "kind of drift", as such details are minor when
compared to the "trauma-related experience" the individual had.

The brain is loosing details over time and making up plausible theories of
what happened and you don't realize this process.

Dr. Ford said she is "100 percent" sure it was Kavanaugh who
sexually assaulted her. Absolutely no doubt.

There is no other "plausible theory". Either Kavanaugh did
what she claimes, or he did not.

She says she is "100 percent" sure.
Kavanaugh says he didn't do it.

One of them is lying.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford knows who is lying.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh knows who is lying.
At least one other student who was at the party knows who is lying.

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut President Donald J. Trump knows
who is lying. I'll also bet you another dollar to a donut he will
never tell you the truth as to who is lying.

Get ten witnesses from a car crash and ask them what color the car had, most
of them will be absolutely certain to remember it, but you're lucky if two
of them name the same color.

If I had ten witnesses from a car crash and every single one of them
told the same exact story, getting all the details correct, I would
believe they are all in on a conspiracy to help exonerate the guilty
party who caused the accident.

How could every single Republican believe Kavanaugh's story,
knowing Dr. Ford told the truth during her testimony to the Senate
Judiciary Committee? Remember, one of them was lying. And we all
know who.

The FBI did not interview the assailant.
The FBI did not inverview the victim.
Why not?

Because it doesn't make any sense to ask anyone about a party in 1982.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense.

The US has a president who is a self-admitted sexual predator,
having nominated a rapist to be on the highest court in the land.
Although he was never charged or convicted, he is still a rapist.
This is what we call "justice for all" ...

They might not even have had any memory of it the next day.

The "trauma-related experience is locked" in the brain, forgotten
only when the person leaves this earth for what lies beyond.

Isn't there a statue of limitation to not waste time on prosecuting stuff
from the last millenium?

The Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal court. As such,
it was not holding criminal proceedings. That means Brett Kavanaugh
was free to tell the committee whatever lies he wanted, without ever
having to worry about being charged with perjury.

Dr. Ford took a lie detector test. She passed. The results
were not allowed to be entered into the record by the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

Brett Kavanaugh refused to take a lie detector test. No reason
for the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask for results that were
non-existent.

Had the FBI chosen to interview Brett Kavanaugh, any and all
lies could have been used as evidence against him. President
Trump made sure the FBI did not interview Brett Kavanaugh.

Had the FBi chosen to interview Dr. Christine Blasey Ford,
the FBI would have had to report her answers, and would be
used as evidence.

President Trump limited the FBI, in order to get the results
he wanted. IOW, the FBI supplemental was a whitewash. The
Senate Judiciary Committee a kangaroo court. The US Senate,
controlled by Republicans, feckless and nothing more than
a rubber stamp for President Trump.

The US is a one-party state, with no checks and balances.
Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress,
and the Supreme Court. Where is the check?

--Lee

--
We Put Big Loads In Tight Places

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

On 10-10-18, GERHARD STRANGAR said to LEE LOFASO:

Am 09 Oct 18 22:59:28 schrob Lee Lofaso an Janis Kracht zum Thema GS><Kav-ing>

And do be honest, as this is the type of question no woman can
lie about.

Lying requires knowledge about the truth. But something that happened 36 GS>years ago? If you ask people who just witnessed a car accident, they don't GS>even remember the color of the vehicles just ten minutes later.
And of course, she could lie about it. Maybe she agreed to having sex, but GS>she got pregnant at the age of 15 and the only way of getting an abortion GS>was to pretend she got raped?

There is a reason why she refuses to allow her `therapists' notes to be released.

Are you going to forget who did this to you?

Also there is a reason she will not allow the release of the so-called `polygraph' results.

Yes, that happens. The brain is loosing details over time and making up GS>plausible theories of what happened and you don't realize this process. GS>Get ten witnesses from a car crash and ask them what color the car had, GS>most of them will be absolutely certain to remember it, but you're lucky GS>if two of them name the same color.

The FBI did not interview the assailant.
The FBI did not inverview the victim.
Why not?

Because it doesn't make any sense to ask anyone about a party in 1982. GS>They might not even have had any memory of it the next day.

Isn't there a statue of limitation to not waste time on prosecuting stuff GS>from the last millenium?

The FBI was investigating the wrong one. They should have been investigating Ford....as well as Feinstein over this `sudden revelation'!






---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

On 10-11-18, LEE LOFASO said to GERHARD STRANGAR:

During her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Ford LL>explained (in answer to Sen. Diane Feinstein) that in cases such as LL>sexual assault, the "trauma-related experience is locked" for the
brain, whereas "other details kind of drift."

Yeah....like the polygraph test method and result `drifted'....

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a clinical psychologist and a university LL>professor, having two Masters degrees and on PhD. She does know what
she is talking about, and has several certificates to prove it.

Ford....leftist democrat....liar....and cheat....


I watched her as she testified....she maintained a `teary' sound to her voice ....but I saw no actual tears!


If she was being truthful...she would have had a keen interest in the notes of her `therapist' being public along with her testimony.


If she was being honest she would have no objection to the polygraph test and results being made public.


It also comes out she aided some people in `decieving' polygraph tests.


I don't think Ford would stand a deep investigation. She'd surely be exposed
as a partisan liar!


---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

Am 11 Oct 18 02:18:23 schrob Lee Lofaso an Gerhard Strangar zum Thema <Kav-ing>

Although he was never charged or convicted, he is still a rapist.
This is what we call "justice for all" ...

In most parts of this planet he's not, it's what we call "noone is guilty unless proven otherwise".

Dr. Ford took a lie detector test.

LOL. Do U.S. courts also accept results of using ouija boards?



Tschoe mit Oe
Gerhard
---
* Origin: (2:240/2188.575)

Hello Tim,

This is going on my blog today...

How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh was confirmed and is now a Justice of the Supreme Court.

A rapist on the US Supreme Court.
Nominated by an admitted sexual predator.
Talk about "justice for all".

One-third of the justices on the USSC being sexual predators,
all of them nominated by Republican presidents.

Twenty years ago you left wingers were (successfully) defending a serial rapist - and there was physical evidence, not just unsupported
accusations and innuendo
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

On Oct 05, 2018 02:33pm, JANIS KRACHT wrote to ALL:

This is going on my blog today...
JK
How Brett Kavanaugh Failed
And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

Were you one of those protestors beating on the door?

The NEW DNC Democrats are Demon Rats. We're gonna Kick Em!

No America is NOT letting the DNC set us back to the dark days!

... Still Here Since 1991 BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG Web or Telnet
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

The NEW DNC Democrats are Demon Rats. We're gonna Kick Em!

Feel better now, Ed? :)

No America is NOT letting the DNC set us back to the dark days!

I guess we'll see :) I just read today that the house and senate are going to return to the democractic party control :)

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On Oct 14, 2018 07:22pm, JANIS KRACHT wrote to ED KOON:

The NEW DNC Democrats are Demon Rats. We're gonna Kick Em!

Feel better now, Ed? :)

Yep.. Sure are.. MAGA KAG2018.. :)

No America is NOT letting the DNC set us back to the dark days!

I guess we'll see :) I just read today that the house and senate are
going to return to the democractic party control :)

You must be a CNN or MSNBC Fan.. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HORKcaDNG7g

... Still Here Since 1991 BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG Web or Telnet
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

Hello Tim,

This is going on my blog today...

How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh was confirmed and is now a Justice of the Supreme Court.

A rapist on the US Supreme Court.
Nominated by an admitted sexual predator.
Talk about "justice for all".

One-third of the justices on the USSC being sexual predators,
all of them nominated by Republican presidents.

Makes me want to puke.

--Lee

--
Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

Hello Janis,

This is going on my blog today...
JK

How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

How Brett Kavanaugh Succeeded

Had his president come up with the most audacious lie,
with his fellow partisan senators repeating the lie,
thus making his confirmation a done deal before any vote
was taken.

The woman who accused him a doing what he did had a case
of mistaken identity. She had no idea of who that boy was.
Or even if it really happened.

And why the Senate should vote to keep him off the Supreme Court.

We have a one-party state. The same party controls all three
branches of government. There are no checks and balances.
The fix was in from the get-go.

You are a woman.

I am going to ask you a direct question.

And do be honest, as this is the type of question no woman can
lie about.

You are 15 years old. You and another girl (classmate from school)
arrive at a party after having spent the day swimming. There are
four other classmates at the party, two boys and two girls. You
know all of them by name, and they also know you. Everybody knows
everybody, being classmates.

One boy tries to rape you, with help from the other boy.
The boy who tries to rape you holds his hand over your mouth
so that you are not able to scream. The boy is on top of you,
trying to rip your clothes off, but is not able get his dick
inside your pussy because you have a swimsuit on underneath.

Are you going to forget who did this to you? Or misidentify
the assailant? Remember, this is a boy you went to school with.

The FBI did not interview the assailant.
The FBI did not inverview the victim.

Why not? The president did not allow them to do their jobs.

IOW, it was a whitewash.

And this FBI supplemental gave the Republicans all the excuse
they needed to get the president's flunky on the court.

Another victim, the one who claimed she was gang-raped, was
also not interviewed the FBI. She did give sworn testimony
in a deposition. If she lied, she can be put in jail.

This was a kangaroo court. It made absolutely no difference
who testified, or what they said. Their boy could say whatever
the hell he wanted, and get a free pass.

I have no respect for the current resident in the White House.
I have no respect for any Republican in the US Senate.

I understand Joe Manchin's vote, as he was blackmailed into
voting for confirmation, being in a tight contest for re-election
in West Virginia. The Republican machine had spent gazillions
in advertising for their boy in West Virginia, making sure
Joe Manchin had no choice.

It would have made no difference in the outcome had Joe Manchin
voted against confirmation. The Republicans had a vote in hand,
one Senator who decided to abstain once Manchin cast his vote.

There are no checks any more. We have a president who rules
by decree. Fascism with a smile. Don't you love it?

Don't forget to salute, and click you heels.

--Lee

--
Erections, That's Our Game

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)