Judge Amy Coney Barret Does Not Think SCOTUS 5-4 Split Decisions Are A Sign Of Political Partisanship

Federal Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett At Hillsdale College In May 2019

In an interview at Hillsdale College in May 2019, Federal Appeals Court Judge and now Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said she does not think the increasing 5-4 split decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court are a sign of political partisanship. This is a very strange assessment given the fact that much of the public angst against the U.S. Supreme Court can be attributed to the increasing number of these 5-4 split decisions between the 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices, which people have reasonably attributed to partisan political differences.

Judge Barrett’s strange position that Supreme Court 5-4 split decisions are not as a result of partisan political differences will certainly draw the attention of Democratic Senators at her confirmation hearings, which are already expected to be the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings ever.

Bottom line folks, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the U.S. Supreme Court, Americans better get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on ACA, voting rights, DACA, Trump’s tax returns, 2020 election challenges…….. Simply put, get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on steroids!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Amy Coney Barrett Feared “A Very Marked Shift” In SCOTUS Composition If Hillary Clinton Won In 2016

University of Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Coney Barrett giving a presentation at Jacksonville University On November 3, 2016 , five days before the general elections

An interesting presentation then Professor Amy Coney Barrett gave at Jacksonville University in November 2016, five days before the elections, begs for further scrutiny now that President Trump has formally nominated her to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her hour long presentation at Jacksonville University, which reasonable people will agree was highly impressive, Professor Barrett delved into a whole host of issues dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court and its Justices. Of particular relevance today, is the fear Professor Barrett expressed of “a very marked shift” in the Supreme Court to the left, were Hillary Clinton to win the presidency in 2016.(see clip below)

Professor Barrett’s concerns in November 2016 are of particular concern today because the “very marked shift” in the U.S. Supreme Court she feared in 2016 has come to pass. The only difference is that the marked shift in the court has been to the right, with Trump as President. More importantly, the very concerns she had about a future President Clinton replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal, is the exact situation we currently find ourselves in, with President Trump getting ready to replace liberal Justice Ginsburg with her–a staunch conservative. Given her fears in 2016, should Trump have nominated someone more liberal to replace Justice Ginsburg? In other words, is Judge Amy Barrett only worried about the U.S. Supreme Court markedly shifting to the left but okay if the shift is to the right?

Specifically, then Professor Barrett argued in her presentation that whoever won the presidency in 2016, who she assumed like many would be Clinton, would have a chance to replace up to four Supreme Court justices, given their advanced ages. Clinton, she argued, would not only fill the vacant Scalia seat with a reliable liberal, tipping the balance of the court leftward, but would also likely replace Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy with much younger reliable liberals, essentially turning the U.S. Supreme Court into a reliably liberal court. Trump on the other hand, Professor Barrett argued, would fill the vacancies with a “mixed bag” of justices resulting in a somewhat center-right court but definitely not a far right Supreme Court.

Reasonable people will agree that with the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump has already shifted the U.S. Supreme Court to the right. Trump’s nomination of conservative Judge Amy Barrett to replace reliably liberal Justice Ginsburg will therefore lead to the very “marked shift” in the U.S. Supreme Court that then Professor Amy Barrett feared with a Clinton presidency. The question Democratic Senators need to confront Judge Barrett with at her confirmation hearings, is whether she is now comfortable with the marked shift in the Supreme Court to the right. Should Trump have nominated a Supreme Court justice more in the mold of Justice Ginsburg to prevent the marked shift to the right?

It bears pointing out however that Professor Barrett espoused an interpretation of the role of judges generally, and supreme court justices in particular, that many legal scholars will find very refreshing. She stated very clearly that the role of a judge is not to placate to the partisan political camps but rather to follow the law, wherever it leads. She illustrated her point with Justice Scalia, who sided with the liberal justices time and time again on criminal law issues even though as a conservative, Republican voters expected him to be a “law and order” judge, always siding with law enforcement in criminal cases. Professor Barrett said Justice Scalia did so not because he liked criminals, but because that was what the text of the constitution required him to do. This should be a warning shot to Trump Republicans who are fast-tracking her confirmation in the hopes that she will rubber stamp GOP policy positions at the Supreme Court.

Bottom line folks, as things currently stand, Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court is all but certain. There’s literally nothing Democrats can do procedurally or otherwise, to stop her confirmation to the high court. One only hopes that during her confirmation hearings, Democratic Senators will confront her with tough questions, among them, her fears in 2016 of a “marked shift” in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, Democratic Senators should ask Judge Barrett why she feared a marked shift of the high court to the left but is now seemingly comfortable with a marked shift to the right, thanks to her confirmation.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Three Indiana Judges Shot At After Drunken Brawl

A shocking NBC News piece says three Indiana state judges have been suspended without pay after they went on a drinking spree that resulted in a brawl and them getting shot at. Luckily, no one was killed in this incident which happened on May 1 after the judges attended a Judicial conference in Indianapolis and decided on a night of drinking afterwards.

The judges apparently left the judicial conference where they had been drinking, went to a bar for some more drinks and then decided to visit a local strip club after 3am. (Yeah, Judges go to strip clubs? Who knew?) Because the strip club was closed, they settled for a White Castle Restaurant.

It is at the parking lot of the White Castle restaurant that one of the judges, Sabrina Bell flipped off some motorists, who then got out of their car and got in a verbal altercation with the judges which resulted in a brawl and them getting shot at. According to the NBC News piece judge Sabrina Bell was so drunk that night that when she spoke to investigators she could not even remember flipping off the motorists–the very thing that caused the fight.

Lately there has been a lot of talk about judicial misconduct and specifically whether judges should be allowed to continue policing themselves. This topic came to a head after the contentious confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was the subject of a lot of complaints while he was a federal appeals judge, including some that he lied to Congress (a felony).

The public was concerned that complaints against Kavanaugh were not being fully addressed because judges basically police themselves and more often than not, just give each other a pass when complaints are filed against them. The other issue with Kavanaugh was this defense that because he was now a Supreme Court justice, the rules that applied to his tenure as a federal appeals judge were no longer applicable. There is no judicial complaint mechanism for U.S. Supreme Court justices so the complaints against Kavanaugh basically vanished.

This troubling incident in Indiana will certainly lead to more calls for some stricter accountability measures against judges, beyond the judicial complaint system which most legal analysts agree is toothless. Should judges be subject to an outside independent disciplinary body? Would this be too disruptive to the judicial process, especially if it is left to politicians? These are some of the weighty questions that need to be addressed in light of this troubling Indiana incident.

As it currently stands, these three judges are on suspension without pay but all indications are that they will be allowed to resume their duties after a few weeks. Is it possible for the public to ever respect these judges if they are put back on the bench after this incident? In my humble opinion, any judge who goes out on a drinking spree, then ends up looking for a strip club after 3 am, then gets into a brawl with a member of the public where shots are fired, is for all intents and purposes disqualified from ever serving as a judge in the United States.

Anybody who allows these characters to resume their judicial duties will be doing so to the detriment of the entire Indiana judiciary. As a matter of fact there needs to be a thorough investigation into their conduct as judges because troubling incidents like these are often symptoms of much bigger, unaddressed issues.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Faces Behind Dark Money Group Buying Judges

There’s been a lot of concern in recent years about the increasing politicization of our judiciary both at the state and the federal level. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Brennan Center and a battery of little known “court watcher” groups like Justice at Stake have been in the forefront of this war for years. This issue was even addressed by an esteemed panel of state and federal judges at an event that was televised on CSPAN. Simply put, state high courts and federal courts have become too politicized, and there is a lot of dark money dictating which judges end up in these highly influential courts.

It is however the 2018 highly contentious Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation process that elevated the court politicization debate to a national stage and audience. The reverberations from the 2018 Kavanaugh confirmation process are still heard to this day and with them, mounting questions as to who/what are the powers behind the judges that end up being confirmed to the nation’s highest courts. Well, one name came up in the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation process–The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)

We now know that JCN spent a staggering $22 million dollars just to ensure that Kavanaugh got confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and that $17 million dollars of that came from one mysterious donor. A reasonable argument can be made that this mysterious donor essentially bought Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court seat.

Prior to Kavanaugh, JCN pumped a lot of money into Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation and according to media reports, they also played a very active role in blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland. So while a lot of the vitriol is directed at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for blocking Garland’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is very important to remember that McConnell was largely playing to the tunes of the JCN who by all accounts appear to be literally buying judgeships both at the state and federal level.

As your trusted grassroots reporter doing what the mainstream media is afraid to do, Yours Truly is therefore forced to dig into the JCN and expose the faces of those seemingly purchasing our judiciary and turning our courts away from their original mission of impartial administration of justice, into partial instruments for the satisfaction of JCN’s political interests–a total travesty!!

Here are the faces behind JCN

According to this 2015 Daily Beast piece titled “The JCN Story: Building a Secretive GOP Judicial Machine”, Carrie Serevino who is JCN’s Chief Counsel, essentially runs this secretive outfit. She however enjoys the support and funding from high powered conservatives like lawyer Ann Corkery, real estate magnate Robin Arkley II, and Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo. The Federalist Society as you know handpicked Kavanaugh and has a list of other Supreme Court nominees ready for Trump in case another Supreme Court vacancy arises. Lawyer Ann Corkery is tied to the Wellspring Committee which funds JCN and has deep ties to the Koch Brothers.

Bottom line folks, it is no secret that our judiciary which the founding fathers hoped would strive for the impartial administration of justice, has fallen prey to Carrie Serevino’s JCN and other Conservative dark money groups. No reasonable person can ever conclude that Carrie Serevino’s JCN, a Conservative political outfit, is pouring all this money to ensure that judges they pick end up in influential state and federal courts, without the expectation that the said handpicked judges will decide cases in JCN’s favor. Simply put folks, Carrie Serevino’s JCN has purchased our judiciary and turned it into what our founding fathers would roundly rebuke–a partial, bought judiciary. Its about time Democrats and the mainstream media took Carrie’s JCN and its shadowy funders to task!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Trump And McConnell “Whitening” Federal Courts

OutfrontCNN recently did a segment about a sitting federal judge in mississippi rebuking Trump’s attacks on the federal judges, especially judges of color, and likening such attacks to racial attacks by the Ku Klux KLan. The judge raised several issues of concern but the one that caught Yours Truly’s attention was his assertion that a staggering 90% of Trump’s judicial picks are White. This is a shocking statistic that we rarely hear from the mainstream media and should certainly be explored further especially as Trump’s enforcer in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, continues to bend the rules to push through Trump’s judicial picks. The full OutFrontCNN segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

There are already a lot of complaints about how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is bending U.S. Senate rules to pack federal courts with right wing judges. This troubling revelation that Sen McConnell and Trump are essentially “Whitening” the federal courts instead of making them more reflective the country’s current racial makeup should concern everybody. As Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson, the guest in the OutFrontCNN segment correctly pointed out, “We need a federal judiciary that looks like the populace.”

Bottom line, Mitch McConnell bending Senate rules to pack the federal courts with right wing judges is in itself, very detrimental to the judiciary’s image because people lose respect for a court that is viewed to be rigged/biased. With this new revelation that there’s a racial element to Trump/MitchMcConnell’s court-packing, everyone should be calling for an immediate pause to the judicial selection process until such a time as a respectable bipartisan mechanism for filling judicial vacancies can be put in place. Simply put, McConnell and Trump packing the courts with 90% White right wing damages is doing irreparable damage to the federal judiciary and must be stopped for the court’s sake. This is not a partisan issue

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Can A Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Be Indicted?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections heats up and more and more evidence continues to pop up indicating that then presidential candidate Trump was either fully aware of or an active participant in the interference, legal eagles are grappling with the question as to whether a sitting U.S. President can be indicted.

As it currently stands, according to many of the legal eagle pundits on cable TV, the answer to that question is no. There is apparently a Department of Justice(DOJ) policy that advises against indicting a sitting president. The pundits are quick to point out however that this is only a directive that can be changed at any time(not set in stone). Respected legal scholars like Harvard University’s Lawrence Tribe have argued against this DOJ directive saying nothing in the U.S. constitution prohibits a sitting president from being indicted if he is found to have committed crimes.

Strangely missing from the “to indict or not to indict” debate however is the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice can be indicted. We are of course talking about recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who as you will remember was the subject of numerous serious judicial complaints. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred the judicial complaints to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution.

A judicial council at the 10th Circuit Court recently dismissed all the complaints against Kavanaugh concluding that even though the allegations were serious, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because Kavanaugh was no longer a federal appeals judge and thus not subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that deals with disciplining federal district court judges, magistrates and circuit appellate justices. Essentially, because Kavanaugh had been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act no longer applied to him.

It is very important to point out that among the serious accusations against Kavanaugh was that he lied multiple times to congress while under oath. Lying to congress as you know is a serious felony, especially in Kavanaugh’s case given the fact that (1) he did that as a federal judge who should know better and (2) he lied to congress on multiple occasions.

An excerpt from 12/18/2018 USA Today article

The logical question then becomes if Kavanaugh can be proven to have lied to congress under oath, a felony, can he be indicted? Is it possible to indict a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice or are they for all intents and purposes, above the law? Is there any case law that precludes such an eventuality? All these are serious questions that one would think the mainstream media would have posed to the myriad TV legal eagle pundits by now. Instead as it has now become customary, it is left to Yours Truly to ask the serious questions the mainstream media won’t ask, for which the public is desperately seeking answers to.

Bottom line with all the attention focused on whether Trump can be indicted, it is about time the mainstream media also started asking the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in this case Kavanaugh, can be indicted.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

GOP Set To Reward Gerrymandering Mastermind With Federal Judgeship

Thomas Alvin Farr–Nominee for Federal Judge for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina

In case you missed it earlier this week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported on a plan by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY) and his fellow GOP Senators to reward a North Carolina Republican lawyer, Thomas Alvin Farr, with a lifetime federal judgeship. According to Maddow, the Senate vote is scheduled for Monday after Thanksgiving(Nov 26). The full Maddow segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

As Maddow correctly pointed out, Thomas Farr is the author of the racially gerrymandered North Carolina electoral map that a federal appeals court struck down for “targeting African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Thomas Farr’s racially gerrymandered electoral map was struck down by a federal appeals court

It is because of Thomas Farr’s racially gerrymandered maps that electoral travesties like the one below are commonplace in North Carolina. In other words, no matter how well Democrats perform in elections, the GOP is assured control of the North Carolina legislature.

The effects of Thomas Farr’s gerrymandering in North Carolina

So while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is out there preaching bipartisanship now that the Democrats have taken over the House, behind the scenes and away from the limelight he is sticking true to form, packing the federal courts with radical right-wing judges with total disregard to the wishes of Senate Democrats.

Bottom line now that Democrats control the House, Senate Democrats must force concessions on some of these judicial nominees. Senate Democrats must make it absolutely clear to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans that rewarding Thomas farr with a lifetime federal judgeship despite his well-chronicled history of racial gerrymandering will make it impossible for bipartisan cooperation on other issues of importance. Simply put, Senate Dems must confront Sen Mitch McConnell on his phony call for bipartisanship right after the November elections.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with C.J. John Roberts

In a rare public address Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the recent contentious Kavanaugh confirmation process and reiterated how important it is that the public views the High Court as independent. C.J. Roberts said regarding judicial independence, “Our role[Supreme Court] is very clear. We are to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them. That job obviously requires independence from the political branches.”

The problem with that is the person at the center of the public’s disaffection with the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also recently spoken about the Roberts Court. Sen McConnell and by extension his GOP’s view of the Roberts Supreme Court is in stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts says. Specifically, there is no question that according to Sen McConnell and his GOP, they have fought hard to pack the Roberts Supreme Court with conservative judges for the express purpose of getting favorable decisions from the court..

Sen McConnell recently said at a press conference following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If you want to have a long term impact, and obviously all of us would like to do that, the single most significant way to do it is judicial appointments and my party has not been in this position all that long. You can go back 100 years and only 20 of the last 100 years have Republicans had the Presidency, the House and Senate the same time, and so these opportunities have not come along that often for us and I do think it is the most consequential thing that I’ve been involved in in my time as leader.”

So what is a regular American looking at Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks about judicial independence and Senator McConnell’s partisan political remarks about judicial appointments supposed to think? Why would Sen McConnell and his GOP block President Obama’s rightful nominee Garland and then ram through Kavanaugh if the end result was to have an independent Supreme Court? Reasonable people would agree that if the Supreme Court was truly independent as Chief Justice Roberts argues, there would be more consensus in the senate confirmation process. In other words the fact that the senate confirmation fights have become so bitter is in itself proof of a partisan Roberts Supreme Court.


Bottom line as Yours Truly said in an earlier post, the Roberts Supreme Court has a serious credibility problem. It is sad to say it but most Americans are more inclined to believe Sen McConnell’s narrative over that of C.J. Roberts–that Republicans have made the Roberts Supreme Court a conservative court with the express intention of using the High Court to advance their Republican agenda–a partisan political court. Simply put, there is no way any reasonable person looking at the way Sen McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee Garland, rammed Kavanaugh through, and then gave a press conference bragging about his legacy of steering the court to the right, can ever conclude that the Roberts Supreme Court is somehow an independent court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Roberts Supreme Court Helping GOP Disenfranchise Minority Voters

Conservatives on the Roberts Supreme Court

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has for a long time covered stories about the GOP’s various efforts at minority voter suppression, the latest one being the effort by North Dakota Republicans to suppress the vote of Native Americans in the state who were key to Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp‘s win in 2012. According to Maddow, right after Sen Heitkamp’s win in 2012, North Dakota state GOP officials embarked on a scheme to suppress the vote of her key Native American voting base.

The GOP suppression scheme of choice was to require all Native Americans to present an ID with a street address in order to vote, something they knew many tribal IDs don’t have because they live in reservations. According to O.J. Semans, Executive Director of Four Directions, a Native American advocacy group, “The street addresses is very common maybe in cities but on reservations, street addresses literally do not exist.”

So you ask, “Well @Emolclause if Maddow has covered a lot of GOP voter suppression stories why is this North Dakota case special?” Here’s why. According to Maddow, a very troubling pattern is developing. Unlike in previous cases where such blatant GOP voter suppression tactics were being easily struck down in federal court, now it appears that the conservatives at the Roberts Supreme Court are increasingly affirming these shocking GOP voter suppression tactics–yeah you heard that right–the conservatives in the Roberts Supreme Court are helping the GOP cheat in elections.The conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court knows full well that imposing the street address requirement on Native American voters in North Dakota will suppress their vote but they still affirmed the challenged GOP state law–the height of injustice.


Sadly the injustice by the conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t end there. Maddow recently did a story about how Texas GOP officials are trying to suppress the vote of students at the predominantly Black Prairie View A & M University which is located in predominantly White Whaler County(you’ll probably remember Whaler County due to Sandra Bland). At issue here is whether the Black PVAMU students should vote in Whaler county simply because they attend school there. According to Maddow a decades old Supreme Court precedent already settled this issue in the Black students’ favor but now Texas @GOP officials are bringing the issue back because of a recent Roberts Supreme Court decision.

Maddow’s guest Mike Siegel a Dem congressional candidate said, “This very late change to the voting status of the students is something that would not have been allowed under the previous version of the Voting Rights Act. Texas used to be in pre-clearance and this is something that because its an impediment to voting wouldn’t have been allowed but for that recent Supreme Court[Roberts] decision that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act.”

Bottom line one is left wondering what the founding fathers would think of the Roberts Supreme Court which is now literally helping a major political party disenfranchise voters of color? It is already very hard for Americans to respect the Roberts Supreme Court which now features Kavanaugh given his very shady confirmation process. Now that on top of that the court is literally helping GOP to disenfranchise minority voters, only God knows what the future holds for the once hallowed High Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




How Senators Collins & Flake Perpetrated The “No Corroboration” Fraud On Americans

U.S. Senators Jeff Flake(AZ) & Susan Collins(ME)

While most of the mainstream media was preoccupied with Senator Susan Collins’ decision to vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, NBC News Heidi Przybyla (one of Yours Truly’s MSM faves) went on All in with Chris Hayes and dropped a major bombshell that may prove disastrous to Kavanaugh, and indeed Senator Collins, even after he is seated at the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Heidi Przybyla, there are text messages that have been obtained by NBC news which suggest that Kavanaugh himself may have played a part in covering up evidence from his classmates who may have corroborated Debbie Ramirez’s claims against him.Specifically, one of the texts show a witness freaking out because she doesn’t want the media/public to know that Kavanaugh reached out to her.

Think about that folks. There is electronic evidence that Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh himself, not his surrogate, was reaching out to potential witnesses/corroborators (his former Yale classmates) trying to conjure up a counter narrative to the Debbie Ramirez allegations. Even more troubling, Heidi Przybyla says some of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates reached out to the FBI in an effort to provide more information but were turned away. Simply put, no reasonable person presented with this information would ever have concluded, as Senators Collins & Flake did, that there were no corroborators to the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh or that the FBI background investigation was “thorough”, or “comprehensive”.

The full All In With Chris Hayes Segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

So you say, “But @Emolclause, what does that have to do with Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake?” Here’s why. The FBI supplemental background investigation was ordered by President Trump in large part to address the lingering sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh that had been brought by Dr Christine Blasey Ford, Debbie Ramirez and others. Both Sen Flake and Collins later based their decision to vote for Kavanaugh on the fact that the FBI investigation never corroborated the sexual assault allegations against him.

In essence, both Flake and Collins had already decided to vote YES on Kavanaugh. They just could not do it given the cloud of the sexual assault allegations against him, hence the Trump’s FBI supplemental investigation. Put another way, Trump’s FBI supplemental background probe was a sham from the beginning specifically designed to give cover to Sen Collins and Sen Flake’s predetermined YES vote on Kavanaugh. It was never meant to gather any corroborating information on the sexual assault allegations.


Therefore when both Sen Collins and Sen Flake came out in support of Kavanaugh because there was “no corroborating” information they literally perpetrated one of the biggest and most consequential frauds on the American public ever–the aforementioned “no corroboration” fraud. Luckily some serious journalists like NBC News’ Heidi Przybyla are digging around and hopefully soon will get to the bottom of this “no corroboration” fraud.

The entire Sen Collins Speech on Kavanaugh is available here but the relevant “corroboration” speech is below.

Yours Truly alluded to this “no corroboration” fraud in an earlier Tweet.

To be clear, Senator Collins offered more than the “no corroboration” argument to support her YES vote on Kavanaugh in her 3PM nationally televised speech. She did not make any forceful arguments in her 3 PM speech and you need not take Yours Truly’s word for it. Just look at how MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell tore apart the key arguments in Sen Collins’speech, specifically her presumption of innocence argument.

Lawrence O’ Donnell correctly pointed out that when sexual impropriety allegations were made against former Dem Senator Al Franken, Senator Collins was quick to call for his resignation, even before an investigation was launched. O’Donnell also tore up Sen Collins’ totally frivolous, even laughable argument that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge should be believed because they denied the sexual assault allegations under penalty of perjury. Yeah, Senator Collins literally said in her speech that she believed Kavanaugh because he denied the allegations under oath–how ridiculous is that?

The entire Last Word segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

Bottom line Collins’ biggest argument that there were no corroboration is a big fat lie. The truth, as Heidi Przybyla reports, is that the FBI never reached out to people who might have corroborated both Dr Ford and Ramirez’s stories and both Senators Collins and Flake knew that. Even more troubling, there are text messages showing that Kavanaugh himself was reaching out to his former Yale classmates trying to create a counter narrative for Ramirez’s allegations, which by itself should disqualify him from Judgeship in any court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court. They may succeed in getting Kavanaugh into the U.S. Supreme Court in the short run for their partisan political interests, but in the long run as the truth about Kavanaugh will inevitably continue to trickle out, the fraud Collins & Flake have perpetrated on Americans must be exposed and should forever form their legacies–the two U.S. Senators who perpetrated one of the biggest and most consequential frauds on the American public–one that rewarded an undeserving nominee with a lifetime Supreme Court appointment. History will be very harsh to both Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake, and deservedly so.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out