FBI Forwaded Tip Line Complaints About Kavanaugh To White House Counsel Without Investigation

$upport via Cash App

FBI Director Christopher Wray appeared for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 08/04/22. One of the most interesting moments in the hearing, especially for Supreme Court enthusiasts like Yours Truly, came during the questioning by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse(D-RI). Senator Whitehouse’s questions focused on the supplemental background investigation (B.I.), the FBI conducted on then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a topic that has been the subject of much speculation on social media.

Senator Whitehouse has been in a battle with FBI Director Wray since 2019, trying to get to the bottom of whether the FBI thoroughly investigated the numerous tips it received from the public regarding then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

This intro by Senator Whitehouse is important for establishing the context for the ensuing questioning: “As you know, we are now entering the fourth year of a frustrating saga that began with an August 2019 letter from me and Senator Coons, regarding the Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation, and I’d like to try to get that matter wrapped up.”

Senator Whitehouse(video at 0:23): “First, is it true that after [Justice] Kavanaugh-related tips were separated from the regular tip line traffic, they were forwarded to White House counsel without investigation?”

Director Wray(0:47): “When it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have, so when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House.”

At that point Senator Whitehouse interjected, “Without investigation”, to which Director Wray responded, “We reviewed them and then provided them to the White House.”

Sen. Whitehouse:“You reviewed them for the purposes of separating them from the tip line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?”

Director Wray:“Correct.”

Senator Whitehouse: “Is it also true that in that supplemental B.I., the FBI took directions from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?”

Director Wray:“It is true that consistent with the longstanding process that we have had going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration, that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity which in this case, was the White House, as to what follow up they want. That’s the direction we followed, that’s the direction we’ve consistently followed throughout the decades, frankly.”

Director Wray went on to add, “It is true as to the ‘who’, I’m not sure as I sit here, whether it’s also true as to the ‘what questions’, but it is true as to the ‘who’ we interviewed.” In other words Director Wray agreed that in a supplemental B.I., it is true that the White House tells the FBI who to question, he’s just not sure yet, whether the White House also tells the FBI what questions to ask the people they question.

Senator Whitehouse:“By the way, is it true that even today we have not been provided by the FBI, it’s written tip line procedures?”

Director Wray: “Senator, I know that we have provided a lot of information to the committee and to you. I would have to check on that specific item. I know there is some information that you have requested that is not our call to provide, that has to do with interaction, communication with the White House.”

There’s no other way to interpret Director Wray’s responses to Senator Whitehouse’s questions other than (I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course), during the highly contentious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the complaints the FBI received through its tip line regarding Kavanaugh, were not investigated by the FBI, but instead, forwarded to the White House Counsel. The White House Counsel then told the FBI who among the complainants, the FBI was to question, and possibly, even what questions to ask them.

Folks, no reasonable person presented with this information can ever conclude that the supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh was “thorough”, as had been portrayed by Senate Republicans during his confirmation hearings. Director Wray argues that this is the same supplemental B.I. process the FBI has used for decades, but as we all know, none of Kavanaugh’s predecessors faced as many serious complaints about their character, requiring a thorough independent investigation. So, while Director Wray raises a valid point regarding consistent FBI practice, reasonable people will agree that Kavanaugh’s case was markedly different, and called for a thorough investigation by the FBI.

Bottom line folks, we’ll wait for Senator Whitehouse’s final report on this issue. As he indicated to Director Wray, he’ll give the FBI one more month to comply with his information requests, after which he will produce a final report on the Kavanaugh supplemental B.I. saga. One only hopes that if Senator Whitehouse’s investigation reveals that there were serious credible allegations against Kavanaugh that went uninvestigated, then an independent investigation will be launched into them immediately.

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 also Cash App

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

VP Harris Calls Out The Hypocrisy Of “Pro-Lifers” Who Consistently Vote Against Laws Meant to Financially Assist Parents

$upport via Cash App

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris sat down for an extensive interview with CNN’s Dana Bash(06/27/22), where she discussed the bombshell Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v Wade, and other issues confronting the Biden administration as we approach the crucial midterm elections this Fall. One of the major highlights of the interview was when VP Harris called out the “abject obvious hypocrisy” of “pro-life” Republicans in Congress, who talk a big game about “right to life”, yet at every turn vote against measures intended to improve the financial situation of parents. It appears congressional Republicans only care about the life of the baby before they are actually born.

Asked by host Dana Bash whether the federal government will step in and help mothers who will be forced to have babies they can’t financially support, VP Harris responded(video at 0:10):“I’m so glad you raised that point because I’m going to say this, and here’s the abject obvious hypocrisy. Those people who say that they do not want to allow a woman to choose, to make the decision with her priest, with her rabbi, with her pastor, that instead the government is going to interfere and make the decision for her. Those same people are the ones who voted against the extension of the child tax credit, the same ones who voted against a tax cut for families to pay for child care, the same ones who are voting against paid family leave, the same ones who vote against putting resources into public schools. I was doing work on maternal mortality. We are pushing to say that for example, Medicaid should be extended for post-partum care from 2 months to 12 months. These are the same people who reject the notion of expansion of medicaid.”

Asked what the Biden administration can do in the form of executive action, VP Harris said that this is a democracy, and therefore Congress is the proper venue for effectively addressing issues related to the reproductive health of women. She said as it currently stands, “the numbers are not there” and so the filibuster remains an obstacle, even though Democrats control the White House, the Senate and the House. VP Harris said codifying Roe v Wade will become a reality if Democrats pick up more seats during the upcoming midterms–a tall order which I suspect will not sit well with already frustrated Dem voters.

Asked to weigh in on whether Supreme Court Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings, VP Harris responded:“I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. That’s why I voted against them.” She added, “It was clear to me when I was sitting in that chair as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that they were very likely to do what they just did. That was my perspective, that was my opinion, and that’s why I voted like I did.”

As about what the Biden administration is doing to assist working families drowning under high inflation and gas prices, VP Harris pointed out that a lot of this has to do with Putin’s war in Ukraine, and that the Biden administration is working closely with our allies around the world to rectify the situation. She also pointed out the things the Biden administration is doing locally to ease the financial burden on working families, namely, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and child care.

Asked about the January 6th investigation, and whether given her background as a prosecutor, she would bring criminal charges against former President Trump, VP Harris cleverly dodged the question, saying jokingly, “As a former prosecutor, I never comment on another prosecutor’s case.”

Importantly, VP Harris finally settled the lingering rumors that keep popping up in various sections of the mainstream media about President Biden possibly opting out of 2024, or picking a different running mate. She gave host Dana Bash a plain an simple answer to that question: “Joe Biden is running for reelection, and I will be his ticket mate. Full stop.”

Hopefully this will put an end to the annoying MSM rumors about a broken Biden-Harris 2024 ticket. Seriously MSM, there are much more pressing issues to focus on–in 2022!!

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 also Cash App

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

Did Ginni Thomas Collude With Her Supreme Court Husband In Effort To Overturn Election Results?

$upport via Cash App

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas with her husband, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes delved into a Washington Post piece by Emma Brown, which dropped the bombshell that Ginni Thomas’ role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results was much more than has been reported thus far. Specifically, Emma Brown’s piece included two new emails which show Ginni Thomas pressuring Arizona lawmakers to send in fake electors for Trump, even though Joe Biden had won the state. One of the lawmakers Ginni emailed is Arizona State Representative Shawnna Bolick, She is the wife of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Bolick is a longtime close friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the two worked together before Thomas joined the high court.

The two justices are apparently so close, that Thomas is a godfather to one of Bolick’s sons. Crucially, State Rep Shawnna Bolick is currently running to be Arizona’s Secretary of State, a position that would give her power to do exactly what Ginni Thomas was asking her to do with the 2020 election results. As host Chris Hayes correctly points out, this naturally raises questions as to whether Ginni and Clarence Thomas were working in tandem/colluding to help Trump overturn the 2020 election results. The answer to this question is crucial in determining Justice Thomas’ continued fitness for the high court

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes(video at 0:47): “The latest revelation about what Ginni Thomas did in the wake of the 2020 election shows a level of tactical sophistication that was clearly absent from those absolutely crazy texts, and crucially, these actions were connected to her husband, the longest sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a way that makes it harder for him and his defenders to fall back on the claim that they keep their work and personal lives separate. The Washington Post reports that Ginni Thomas emailed two Arizona Republican lawmakers pressuring them to help reverse the[2020]election results. The first of the two emails came days after Joe Biden was declared the winner…Thomas sent that message to Russell “Rusty” Bowers, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives…The other recipient was State Representative Shawnna Bolick, wife of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Bolick is a longtime close friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. They worked together before Thomas was appointed to the court and Thomas is even the godfather to one of his sons. Shawnna Bolick responded to Ginni Thomas right away…She went on to give Ginni Thomas guidance on how to submit complaints about any of her experiences with voter fraud in Arizona. Sure enough, just a couple of months later, Bolick introduced a bill that would give the Arizona legislature the power to throw out election results, just as Ginni Thomas wanted them to do. Luckily, that bill never made it out of committee, but Shawnna Bolick is now running for Secretary of State in Arizona, a role where she would oversee elections.”

There’s no other way to interpret Chris Hayes’ commentary other than, Ginni Thomas, in her efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, sought out the Bolicks because she knew they were close to her Supreme Court husband. She wasn’t just some unhinged spouse sending out crazy texts/emails about overturning the elections, as her Republican defenders would have you believe. This strongly suggests that Ginni was colluding with her husband in these efforts, and as host Chris Hayes correctly points out, we at the very minimum, deserve an investigation into any such collusion to clear up the air. As it currently stands, this appearance of impropriety casts a dark shadow on the high court.

Bottom line folks, as Yours Truly has repeated stated, Democrats are horrible at messaging. This Ginni Thomas saga is a real scandal that they could have/still can capitalize on, as we approach the midterm elections. There’s already great liberal apprehension about the Supreme Court following the recent leak of a majority opinion, and Democrats can make a compelling case that a vote for them is a vote to save the high court.

But don’t take Yours Truly’s word for it, here’s what another MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan said regarding Ginni and Justice Thomas, “OK, fine you[congressional Dems] don’t want to try and impeach him? Why not call for him to resign? Why not hold hearings? Make a big deal of this. What do you think Republicans would be doing if the situation was reversed, and this was a liberal Justice?” We know what would happen, Mehdi. Republicans would have booted the liberal Justice out of the high court by now, whether or not they could prove spousal collusion. That’s the difference, and it’s sad.

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 also Cash App

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

Elie Mystal: The “Chief Architect” Of The Assault On Voting Rights Is Chief Justice John Roberts

$upport via Cash App

The Nation’s Justice Correspondent, Elie Mystal, dropped a major bombshell on MSNBC’s American Voices (01/16/22), when he slammed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as the “chief architect” of the assault on voting rights. Unlike many mainstream media pundits who engage in incendiary rhetoric just for ratings, Elie Mystal backed up his bombshell assertion with very good examples that would make any reasonable person either agree with him, or at the very least, find his assertion quite plausible. The fact that Elie Mystal’s bombshell claims pass the plausibility test, should compel Chief Justice Roberts to address them, for the sake of the Supreme Court’s integrity.

Elie Mystal specifically said: “The chief architect of this assault on our voting rights is not Mitch McConnell, it’s not ot David Duke, it’s not whatever boogey man you think is hiding under the closet. The chief architect is Chief Justice John Roberts. It is he who has been an enemy of voting rights and racial equality from his very first job out of law school, which was to oppose the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. It is John Roberts who authored Shelby County v Holder in 2013 which eviscerated section 5 of Voting Rights Act which is basically why we are here right now, it is John Roberts who authored Rucho in 2020 which swung wide the doors towards gerrymandering, and it is John Roberts who provided the crucial 5th vote in last year’s Brnovich decision which eviscerated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is all being done by Federalist Society conservatives that have been put on the Supreme Court, and until we stop them, until we do something about the court–you want to pass your Freedom to Vote Act, I think that’s a great bill, we should pass it, I think we should have passed HR1, but always remember that John Roberts and his conservative cronies are waiting at the Supreme Court level to strike down whatever laws we put forward. As long as you let Republicans control the Supreme Court, you cannot have a fair and equal just society.”

It’s worth pointing out here too, that Elie Mystal is not only decrying Chief Justice Roberts’ questionable history on voting rights, but crucially, also making the point that minorities are doomed going forward, with him at the helm of the Supreme Court. This naturally raises the question as to whether Chief Justice Roberts is the right person to lead the high court.

Bottom line folks, these are questions that the mainstream media needs to take up with Chief Justice Roberts. At a time when voting rights are a red hot topic, and minorities are increasingly concerned about Republicans infringing upon their right to vote, the public deserves to know whether the Roberts Supreme Court will be a neutral arbiter in the fight for voting rights, as it should be.

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 also Cash App

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

Sen Cassidy Says SCOTUS Decision Gutting Voting Rights Act Justifies Restrictive State Election Laws

$upport via Cash App

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) appeared on CNN’s State of The Union show (01/16/22) to put forward the Republican position on the push for a federal voting rights legislation(John Lewis Voting Rights Act), and also discuss the related question as to whether the U.S. Senate should change its filibuster rules to allow for the passage of the said voting rights law via a simple majority vote. When asked by host Jake Tapper why Republicans are now opposed to keeping key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act(VRA) intact, when as recently as a decade ago they were all for it, Sen Cassidy gave a strange response which appeared to suggest that because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted key provisions of the VRA in Shelby County v Holder(2013), there is no need to be concerned about discriminatory state election laws–that this is not 1965 anymore, things have changed.

Yours Truly, and I suspect a lot of other viewers too, found Senator Cassidy’s Response quite strange because while liberals agree that this is not 1965, and that progress has been made on the civil rights front, we need to restore key aspects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Trump’s GOP is taking us back to 1965. In other words, Senator Cassidy, and by extension the Roberts Supreme Court, are totally wrong in their assessment that simply because this is not 1965, Republican states are no longer capable of crafting discriminatory election laws. The facts on the ground clearly show that after the 2020 election, relying on former President Trump’s “big lie“, many Republican-controlled states have hurriedly enacted election laws that reasonable people agree, disenfranchise voters of color.

Senator Cassidy specifically said on CNNSOTU(video @ 2:20 onwards): “The Supreme Court decided[paused for effect], the Supreme Court decided that the conditions in 1965 are different than the conditions now. Imagine that. We’ve had an African-American elected President of the United States, we’ve had an African-American elected to the Vice Presidency, an African-American elected to the[U.S.]Senate in South Carolina. Now, if anyone can’t see that circumstances have changed, they’re just not believing their lying eye…There’s more to do, absolutely, we need safeguards, but to argue we are still the same as we were in 1965 is to deny facts that are clearly before us.”

There’s no other way any reasonable person presented with Senator Cassidy’s response(including his pause for effect), would arrive at any other conclusion other than, because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 citing changed conditions, the voter suppression laws currently popping up in red states are justified. Think about that, the new Republican rationale for voter suppression, as articulated by Senator Cassidy, is that it’s not a big deal because if it was, the Roberts Supreme Court would never have gutted key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act–a sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, Dems must use every tool at their disposal to get holdout Senators Kyrsten Sinema(D-AZ) and Joe Manchin(D-WV) to agree to a filibuster carveout for a federal voting rights legislation before the 2022 midterms because if they don’t, all the gains we’ve witnessed thus far as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act will be lost, and the Roberts Supreme Court will not lift a finger to assist. Simply put, it’s now or never for a federal voting rights law that restores key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

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 also Cash App

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

Ingraham-Ted Cruz SCOTUS Ultimatum: Strike Down Roe v Wade Or Face Limited Jurisdiction

$upport via Cash App

Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle show (12/1/21) to discuss the Mississippi abortion law currently playing out at the United States Supreme Court. Conservatives consider this Mississippi law their best shot at dealing a fatal blow to the 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalized abortion, given the fact that they now enjoy a 6-3 advantage on the high court. What caught Yours Truly’s attention from the interview however, was the very direct way(not subtle any more) both Senator Cruz and host Laura Ingraham, a very influential Republican in her own right, expect, even demand that the conservative Supreme Court justices toe the conservative ideological line. As a matter of fact, Ingraham and Senator Cruz went as far as laying an ultimatum to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Strike down Roe v Wade or suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction court.

During the interview, as Senator Cruz was going on and on about why he thought the conservative Supreme Court would uphold the Mississippi abortion law, host Laura Ingraham interjected: “Senator if we have six Republican appointees on this court, after all the money that’s been raised, the Federalist Society, all these big fat cat dinners, I’m sorry, I’m pissed about this. If this court, with six justices cannot do the right thing here, the constitutional thing, then I think it’s time to do what Robert Bork said we should do, which is to circumscribe the jurisdiction of this court, and they want to blow it up, then that’s the way to change things finally because this can’t stand. This is insane.”

A concurring Senator Cruz responded: “I would do that in a heartbeat. As you know, the constitution gives Congress the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the court, I think we should do that…”

There’s no other way any reasonable person would interpret Senator Cruz’s interaction with Fox News host Laura Ingraham other than Republicans have for decades, organized and raised large sums of money through the Federalist Society and others, to put like-minded justices on the United States Supreme Court, for the express purpose of overturning Roe v Wade, and for the high court to generally act as a rubber stamp for other Republican Party/conservative ideals. What Senator Cruz and Ingraham are expressly conveying to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clear, and that is, they better toe the Republican Party line by striking down Roe v Wade, or else suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction Supreme Court–have their powers reduced.

This direct threat Senator Cruz and Ingraham leveled at the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court confirms what liberals have argued all along, and that is, the U.S. Supreme Court as is currently constituted, six conservatives and three liberals, is for all intents and purposes, a political court. This is especially so when one considers the egregious conduct of then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY), who robbed President Obama of an opportunity to fill the late Justice Scalia’s seat using the bogus “election year” rationale. Sen McConnell then turned around and abandoned his “election year” rationale in late 2020, to rush through the confirmation of Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ginsburg. Simply put, the conservative Roberts Supreme Court has become a political body, whether or not the justices want to acknowledge that fact.

Bottom line folks, this ultimatum by Senator Cruz and Ingraham should put to rest this myth that the 6-3 Roberts Supreme Court is some apolitical body, only interested in deciding cases on their legal merits. Republicans have fought for decades, and have succeeded in installing justices they are sure, will tow the GOP line. Now they expect/are demanding results, beginning with Roe v Wade. The only question remaining should be how we free the U.S. Supreme Court from it’s GOP captors, and revert it back to it’s proper realm, as the premier legal institution in America. One possible solution would be to expand the court.

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 also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@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.