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

Senator Lindsey Graham Labels Liberal SCOTUS Critics “Constitutional Anarchists”

$upport via Cash App

Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appeared on Fox News Sunday(06/26/22) to discuss the bombshell Supreme Court decision striking down the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision which made abortion legal in the United States. Sen Graham lashed out at liberals angered by the high court’s decision, and using it as a basis to call for the high court’s reform/expansion, calling them “constitutional anarchists”.

He said the court’s decision in Roe was a result of 50 years of painstaking work at the ballot box by Republicans, urging Democrats to do the same if they want favorable outcomes from the high court–essentially admitting(whether he realized it, or not), that after 50 years, Republicans have successfully politicized the United States Supreme Court to their advantage.

Sen Graham said(video at 1:25):“This is a huge victory for the pro-life movement. President Trump deserves a lion share of credit here. He fought like a tiger to put three constitutional conservative judges on the court. He stood behind Kavanaugh, and all of us who’ve been working for the last 50 years to get this right, to have a constitutional reset, Friday was a glorious day…When Roe came down[1973], we didn’t burn down the Capitol as conservatives, we didn’t go to liberal justices’ homes and try to intimidate them. The radical left are constitutional anarchists. They are literally trying to change this country from top to bottom. They want to pack the court because they don’t like this decision. they want to abolish the electoral college so California and New York can pick the president in perpetuity…So these constitutional anarchists, here’s my advise to you. Quit trying to burn down America, and work like we did in the fields. Elect people who agree with you at the ballot box…This was worn through the ballot box by conservatives, and we’re not going to let liberals intimidate the rule of law system to take it away from us.”

Asked whether the Roe decision will become the biggest issue in this year’s midterms, Senator Graham disagreed, saying it will be inflation and high gas prices. He then quickly reverted to his constitutional anarchist theme saying(video at 4:42):“For all of you who’ve been working for 50 years to elect members of the House and the Senate and presidents that would put constitutional conservatives on the court, your day finally arrived. And to the left, the way you do this, is to do what we did. You take it to the ballot box, you don’t try to destroy America. These constitutional anarchists like AOC have to be dealt with, and there will be a backlash against this effort to intimidate our judges.”

It bears pointing out that Senator Graham has a history of, for lack of better words, freaking out, every time calls for court reform/expansion come up, so this should not surprise anybody. Evidently the global blowback following the Roe decision has renewed his fears, leading to his constitutional anarchist charge.

Bottom line folks, Sen Graham can cry all he wants about calls for Supreme Court reform by liberals. The fact of the matter is that public confidence in the Roberts Supreme Court is at an all-time low. That in itself, should be grounds for a serious debate into whether the high court is out of touch with the beliefs of a vast majority of Americans. Yours Truly also hopes that given what we witnessed on January 6th 2021, someone in the media, or TeamAOC, would ask Sen Graham exactly what he means when he says, “These constitutional anarchists like AOC have to be dealt with…”

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

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. 

Will Dems Subpoena Justice Kennedy’s Son Over Deutsche Bank?

President Trump with Justice Anthony Kennedy(Retired)

In the days following the June 2018 announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he was retiring from the Supreme Court, there was rampant speculation that his resignation was not entirely voluntary but rather that the Trump administration engineered/even forced him out for fear that the GOP may lose their U.S. Senate majority to the Democrats in the November 2018 elections. In essence, the Trump administration did not want Justice Kennedy to retire at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate because that would make it difficult for any Trump SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.


Speculation that the Trump Admin forced out Justice Kennedy took a whole new turn after the New York Times did a bombshell piece revealing that Justice Kennedy’s son Justin Kennedy had been a longtime financier for Trump. Specifically, that Justin Kennedy was Trump’s financier at the troubled Deutsche Bank which has come under international scrutiny over allegations that it is the bank of choice for Russian money launderers

Justin Kennedy, the son of Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justin Kennedy was apparently the global head of real estate capital markets at Deutsche Bank which leaves absolutely no doubt that he would be the point man at Deutsche Bank for Trump’s vast real estate empire. Part of the bombshell NYT piece read;“During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.” 

With Special Counsel Mueller increasingly zeroing in on Trump’s business ties to Russia and news that German authorities recently raided the troubled Deutsche Bank, the question now being raised is whether with their new found majority in the House, Democrats will subpoena Trump-related Deutsche Bank records and specifically whether they will call Justin Kennedy to testify about his financial dealings with Trump. Justin Kennedy’s testimony in Congress could also lay to rest the lingering speculation as to whether his dad was forced by the Trump administration to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court before the November 2018 elections.

Bottom line given the serious questions being raised about Deutsche Bank’s ties to President Trump and its troubling history as a conduit for Russian money laundering, it would be Congressional malpractice if House Democrats did not call Justin Kennedy to testify about his role at the troubled bank and specifically, find out what criteria Deutsche Bank used to justify loaning Trump so much money when other “mainstream” banks declined to do so. Was Russia the source of these loans to Trump?. Grassroots Democrats would also like to know whether Kavanaugh played any part in Justice Kennedy’s retirement–essentially engineering his own ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme 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 reach the author directly via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Kavanaugh’s Alma Mater Yale Law Wants FBI Involved

Some 50 Yale Law students and faculty have made a formal request in the form of a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the Senators to have the FBI look into the serious allegations raised by Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh attended Yale Law so it is a very big deal that his own Alma Mater wants the FBI to look into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations. Here are some of the excerpts from the Yale Law letter:

“As the Senate Judiciary Committee debates Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, we write as faculty members of Yale Law School, from which Judge Kavanaugh graduated, to urge that the Senate conduct a fair and deliberate confirmation process,”

“With so much at stake for the Supreme Court and the nation, we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court.”



Bottom line folks its one thing when Senate Democrats or even #TheResistance libs clamor for an immediate pause to Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a result of Ms Ford’s serious allegations. However when Kavanaugh’s own alma mater, the highly prestigious Yale Law is calling for the same thing, there is no choice but to pause Kavanaugh’s confirmation process until such a time as the FBI has probed Ms Ford’s serious allegations. As the Yale Law students and faculty correctly put it, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process “must always be conducted, and appointments made, in a manner that gives Americans reason to trust the court.” What Sen Chuck Grassley and his fellow GOP Senators are doing in regards to Kavanaugh only makes Americans mistruct the U.S. Supreme Court–a sad state of affairs indeed.

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




Kavanaugh Admits Secrecy Culture At Georgetown High School


Brett Kavanaugh & Mark Judge

After Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford came forward with explosive allegations of attempted rape while the two were in high school, the debate has predictably boiled down to who is to be believed, with the GOP largely siding with Kavanaugh and Democrats with Christine Blasey Ford.




Turns out however that it is Kavanaugh’s own words that may/should sink his nomination.
Yours Truly just stumbled into a newly released video of Kavanaugh in which he revelled in the fact that “what happens at Georgetown Prep (his high school)stays at Georgetown Prep.”


This is the smoking gun of smoking gun evidence and Dems must nail him with it.

Bottom line, while it is hard to ascertain definitively what happened decades ago, the fact that Kavanaugh himself openly admits in this video that there was a culture of secrecy at his high school, for which he takes pride in, should be enough for any reasonable person to believe Christine Blasey Ford’s account of the events and sink Kavanaugh’s nomination.

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




Why Sen Murkowski Is Highly Likely A NO On Kavanaugh



While mainstream media political pundits have been busy trying to figure out how Sen Susan Collins(R-ME) will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, very little has been discussed about the fact that out of all GOP Senators, it is Sen Lisa Murkowski(R-AL) and not Sen Susan Collins who is most likely to vote NO on Kavanaugh. This point appears lost to all the beltway political pundits.


Luckily it turns out the Lisa Murkowski angle is not lost to one Jennifer Bendery of the Huffington Post who penned a brilliant piece on this subject–an absolute must read folks. Bendery’s article clearly illustrates that contrary to popular belief, Sen Murkowski is under significantly more pressure than Sen Susan Collins when it comes to the Kavanaugh confirmation issue. As a matter of fact, based on Bendery’s reporting, Lisa is almost certainly a NO on Kavanugh at this juncture.

So you say, “@Emolclause you full of it. Why would you make such a gigantic leap of faith on Murkowski?” Here’s why. There is a case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Sturgeon v Frost, in which the court will have to decide who controls Alaska’s waters–the state or the federal government.  As it currently stands, Alaska has federally protected waters where native Alaskan tribes survive on subsistence fishing. Sturgeon’s argument(the plaintiff) is that the state of Alaska should control its own waters not the feds. A win for Sturgeon at the the U.S. Supreme Court would therefore threaten the way of life (subsistence fishing) of the native Alaskan tribes, who played a major role in Sen Murkowski’s election victory. Kavanaugh’s previous decisions at the DC Circuit Court apparently line up with Sturgeon’s argument for state over federal control of Alaskan waters and the locals are making it crystal clear to Sen Murkowski that she must vote NO on Kavanaugh.

Therefore unlike Sen Collins who is pressured by Mainers mostly over Roe v Wade questions, here you have Sen Murkowski who is getting flooded by calls from native Alaskan fishermen who put her in the U.S. Senate, telling her a vote for kavanaugh would literally upend their way of life. This is why Yours Truly argues that Sen Murkowski is under more significant pressure than Sen Collins and is at this juncture an almost definite NO on Kavanaugh. It cannot also be left unsaid that other factors like Kavanaugh’s controversial “vetting” process(hiding documents) and the fact that he is one of the least popular Supreme Court nominees ever, also support Yours Truly’s conclusion that she is less likely to jeopardize the livelihoods of her native Alaskan fishing communities(her voting block) for a Supreme Court nominee as flawed as Kavanaugh–one who there is already talk of impeaching even before he is seated on the high court. Voting for Kavanaugh despite desperate pleas from Alaskan fishing communities, her loyal voting block, would literally make Sen Murkowski the hands down winner of the world’s “most deplorable person” contest.

Bottom line Alaskans, like Mainers must continue putting pressure on Sen Murkowski. There’s a very good chance she will vote NO on Kavanaugh as a result of desperate pleas from Alaskan fishing communities.

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




Kavanaugh Unconvincingly Denies Talking To TrumpRussia Lawyer


Sen Kamala Harris(D-CA) questioning Kavanaugh at his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s AM Joy show looked into Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh’s troubling ties to the ongoing TrumpRussia investigation.


It is well known that one of the major hang ups Democrats have with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and possible confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is the appearance that Trump wants him on the high court to shield himself from the ongoing threat of the Mueller probe(TrumpRussia investigation). Dems therefore paid very close attention to Kavanaugh’s answers to pointed TrumpRussia questions from Sen Kamala Harris(D-CA). Kavanaugh initially denied knowing Marc Kasowitz, a prominent lawyer for Trump in the TrumpRussia investigation. Because Kasowitz is such a high profile lawyer known to many in the DC legal circles, many considered Kavanaugh’s denial an outright lie. The full AM Joy segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

On the next day of questioning, the dilligent Sen Kamala Harris brought back the Kasowitz question to see if Kavanaugh would give a more convincing answer this time. Interestingly, Kavanaugh’s response changed a little bit from his previous response. He testified this time that he never talked to anybody at Kasowitz’s law firm about TrumpRussia, but notably he didn’t deny knowing Kasowitz this time as he had done the previous day.

As was correctly pointed out in MSNBC’s AM Joy show, it is totally understandable why Kavanaugh would want to steer clear from a TrumpRussia lawyer during his confirmation hearing to the U.S. Supreme Court. That however does not absolve him from answering truthfully serious questions posed to him at his confirmation hearings.

Bottom line there are many unanswered questions regarding Kavanaugh and the ongoing Mueller probe. If the purpose of the confirmation hearings was to allay fears that Trump wants him on the Supreme Court to shield himself against the threat of the Mueller probe, they certainly did not allay any fears. As a matter of fact Kavanaugh’s evasiveness on this crucial TrumpRussia question only added to the fears and will inevitable negatively impact the credibility of the Roberts Supreme Court.

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




Emails Prove Kavanaugh Lied To Congress Under Oath Several Times



Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had a tense time on the confirmation hot seat taking questions from Senator Patrick Leahy and other Dems as to whether he lied to Congress under oath during his confirmation hearings for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, courtesy of a Daily Beast article, we can definitively identify multiple instances where Kavanaugh lied to Congress under oath.

Kavanaugh lie #1—In 2006, under questioning by the late Dem Senator Ted Kennedy, Kavanaugh said he wasn’t involved in the selection and vetting process of controversial conservative judge William Pryor. Turns out there are now emails proving Kavanaugh was intricately involved in Judge Pryor’s vetting.

Kavanaugh lie #2—During his 2006 confirmation hearings for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, under questioning by Dem Senator Patrick Leahy, Kavanaugh outrightly denied ever receiving stolen Dem documents from Republican operative Manuel Miranda. Now during his confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court, after being confronted with emails between him and Miranda, he finally admitted to Senator Leahy that he did indeed receive the stolen Dem documents. He now contends however that he didn’t know they were stolen. A cursory look at the emails in question leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that Miranda did not get the Dem documents through legitimate channels making Kavanaugh’s assertion that he didn’t know Miranda acquired the Dem documents illegitimately an outright lie.

Kavanaugh lie #3—-Kavanaugh also lied about George W. Bush administration’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program”. Kavanaugh initially testified under oath that he found out about the program through a 2005 New York Times article. Well, turns out there is a 2001 email in which Kavanaugh is asking a DOJ lawyer: “Any results yet on the 4A implications of random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence?”. This again proves that Kavanaugh knew about the terrorist surveillance program way back in 2001 but decided to lie to congress about it under oath

It is well known that lying to congress under oath is a felony. Any reasonable person would therefore conclude that repeatedly lying to congress under oath is so serious, it should preclude anybody from assuming any judgeship, especially a judgeship at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line Dems and the mainstream media must continue shedding light on Kavanaugh’s troubling conduct which clearly precludes him from being a Supreme Court Justice.

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




The Russians Hacked Kavanaugh’s Emails


Dem Senators have made a very compelling case in the ongoing Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as to why he is not fit for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.


However there is a bombshell revelation out there that is yet to make the mainstream media rounds suggesting that a server containing Kavanaugh’s emails related to the U.S. Attorney scandal during George W. Bush’s administration was hacked by the Russians(see Jennifer Cohn’s thread below)


This has profound implications because in addition to the compelling case Senate Dems have already made against Kavanaugh’s confirmation, it now appears that he is also TrumpRussia-compromised–Russians have Kompromat on him.

It is no secret that the ongoing Mueller probe will likely raise legal issues (eg Trump subpoena) that the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly with Kavanaugh on the bench, will have to settle. One of the biggest complaints raised by Senate Dems against Kavanaugh is that there is an appearance that President Trump nominated him to the highest court for the express purpose of shielding the President in case the Mueller probe turns up evidence implicating him(Trump) in some criminal conduct—the so-called “Booker Theory” named after Senator Corey Booker(D-NJ). In other words, the conflict of interest envisioned by the Booker Theory relates to Kavanaugh protecting Trump as a return favor for his nomination.

The new bombshell revelation however that Kavanaugh’s own emails are in the hands of the Russians takes the conflict of interest questions to a whole new level. Because Russians are in possession of his emails, which may contain some damaging/compromising details, Kavanaugh may be inclined to quash the Mueller investigation not just for Trump’s sake but for himself too–a slam-dunk disqualifier for any Judge, let alone one about to be accorded a lifetime tenure at the nation’s highest court.

Bottom line given these new revelations that Kavanaugh’s emails are in the hands of the Russians, Dems must insist that he must recuse himself from any TrumpRussia issues or at least move to halt the confirmation hearings until the email issue is sorted out. How this bombshell revelation about Kavanaugh’s emails has not caught the attention of the mainstream media, Yours Truly will never understand. Hapless MSM folks, hapless indeed!!

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