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

Ivana Trump Recruited Schoolgirls For Epstein?

Jeffrey Epstein and Ivana Trump

Whitney Webb, an independent journalist best known for her work trying to expose Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex enterprise, recently made some very explosive allegations in a YouTube interview chief among them, that Trump’s ex wife Ivana trump (Ivanka’s mother) worked with Ghislaine Maxwell to recruit underage school girls in the New York area into Epstein’s child sex operation. This and other explosive allegations in the YouTube interview are based on a phone call Whitney Webb recently had with Maria Farmer, one of Epstein’s victims in the 1990s.

Webb specifically said regarding Ivana Trump(video at 4:40); “When she[Maria Farmer] told the FBI in 1996, she said the Clintons were part of it. She also said Donald Trump was part of it. One of the reasons she said that is because Ivana Trump, she said, was with Ghislaine Maxwell when she would go out to recruit girls for Epstein. It was her[Ghislaine] and Ivana Trump, Trump’s ex wife. They would go out together all the time and pick up these 12 year old girls in school uniforms and braces, exchange information with them and the next day they would be in Epstein’s office. She[Farmer] saw between 5 and 10 different girls every day go into Epstein’s office the whole two years she was there. Every day. This is in the 90s. So much of what we know from the other victims is after 2000. The FBI knew this then and they didn’t act and that’s why all those other victims exist. It’s just disgusting.”

Some of the bombshell allegations Whitney Webb makes in this interview are already fairly well circulated among the general public so Yours Truly will just mention them in passing while focusing more on the “new” and frankly more interesting bombshells (Ivana Trump being one of them). Whitney Webb for example says the Clintons were implicated and that the FBI covered up Epstein’s illicit conduct in the 1990s, claims that have been made repeatedly ever since the Epstein scandal broke.

Another interesting bombshell Whitney Webb dropped on the interview is that Victoria’s Secret’s Leslie Wexner and his wife Abigail were the masterminds behind Epstein’s child sex trafficking operation(see video at 8:00). According to Webb, young school girls would be lured into Epstein’s operation under the guise that they were being groomed to be Victoria’s Secret Models. If true, the billionaire Wexners could face very serious criminal conspiracy charges.

As for Vicky Ward, the journalist much celebrated for her Epstein pieces most notably her 2003 Vanity Fair piece, Whitney Webb says not so fast(see video at 12:00). According to Webb, Maria Farmer gave Vicky Ward details about Epstein’s child sex trafficking operation but Ward left them out of her bombshell Vanity Fair piece. As if that was not enough, Ward who was apparently an acquaintance of Ghislaine Maxwell, told Ghislaine that Maria Farmer talked to the FBI about her—essentially ratted out her source. Vicky Ward endangered Maria Farmer’s life so much that she went into hiding. Farmer apparently referred to Vicky Ward as a “monster”, according to Whitney Webb.

Farmer also told Whitney Webb that she fears some of the children involved in Epstein’s Florida operation may have been killed because out of some 500 children only about 30 of them came forward and the rest cannot be found(video at 21:30). She added that some of these children were really young(pre-teen). Importantly, Farmer said that Epstein’s legal team which included Alan Dershowitz, knew all the names of the missing children .

Whitney Webb also talked about a January 2001 article on the Evening Standard (U.K) that has since been scrapped from the internet, which said Epstein’s money came from his business links to three people–Leslie Wexner, Donald Trump and Bill Gates. Webb argues that nobody pushed back on this article(by one Nigel Russert) because back then(2001), Epstein was not a controversial figure(see video at 35:30). Webb also slammed as a total lie New York Times’ recent reporting that Bill Gates first met Epstein in 2011.

Farmer also told Webb that Epstein and people in his circle were extreme White Supremacists and she regularly overheard them speaking about other races, especially Blacks, in the most disgusting way(see video at 37:25). She said Epstein and his pals refused to go anywhere they thought there would be too many people of African descent.

Webb concluded by tying the entire Epstein scandal into a global intelligence operation involving Israel which Yours Truly will deliberately ignore because we will never get to the bottom of it(managing expectations). There are however some bombshell allegations that we could easily get answers to for example, whether Ivana Trump really helped Ghislaine Maxwell recruit young girls for Epstein, the missing 500 children who Dershowitz allegedly knows about, whether Vicky Ward(now at CNN) really ratted out Maria Farmer to Ghislaine Maxwell, whether Bill Gates knew Epstein in 2001 as opposed to 2011, whether Trump financed Epstein(another excuse for his tax returns), the Wexners’ involvement with Epstein, why the mainstream media refuses to act on stories by Maria Farmer and others, just to mention but a few.

Bottom line folks, as Yours Truly has repeatedly stated regarding Epstein’s stories, sunlight is the best disinfectant. It appears the more efforts are made to cover up Epstein’s child sex trafficking operation, the more bombshell revelations come up, the latest clearly being Ivana Trump. It will be interesting to hear what Ivana Trump says regarding these troubling allegations, assuming the mainstream media will be courageous enough to ask her. What will CNN do with Vicky Ward given the troubling revelations about her? Hmm–as Trump famously says, “We’ll see what happens.”

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

Why Are You Still Running?Bernie Asked

In case you missed it Sen Bernie Sanders appeared on ABC’s popular daytime show The View where one of the co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg confronted him about the rationale for his still active presidential campaign.

Whoopi Goldberg was simply echoing the sentiment by many Democrats that as the race currently stands, Sen Sanders has an extremely narrow path to victory and his campaign at this juncture is only hurting the eventual Dem nominee (presumably Biden) in much the same way it hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Whoopi Goldberg dove right into it :“I have to ask you this question now because I’ve been watching to see what you’re going to do and I’m told that you intend to stay in this race for president because you believe there’s a path to victory. I want to know what that path is because this feels a little bit like it did when you didn’t come out when Hillary Clinton was clearly the person folks were going for.”

Sen Sanders pushed back on Whoopi’s characterization, pointing out that he worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 to which Whoopi interjected, “Bernie just so we’re clear, you worked for Hillary but it took you a very very long time to hop in and your people also, it took a very long time for them to hop in.”

Sen Sanders then addressed the question as to why he’s still in the presidential race saying, “Last I heard, people in a democracy have a right to vote and they have a right to vote for the agenda that they think can work for America especially in this very very difficult moment [coronavirus]. We are assessing our campaign as a matter of fact, whether we want to go forward. But people in a democracy do have a right to vote.”

Sen Sanders then appeared to suggest that questions brought about by the current coronavirus pandemic justified his presidential campaign–that voters needed to decide which candidate provided the best solutions to the current crisis. Whoopi Goldberg correctly shot down this argument saying Sen Sanders can still work on coronavirus solutions in the senate even if he ended his presidential campaign.

It cannot also be left unsaid that Sen Sanders campaign is unnecessarily burdening beloved Democrats Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Sen Elizabeth Warren, who have clearly seen the writing on the wall but are reluctant to urge Bernie to step aside. Sen Sanders should do both AOC and Sen Warren a favor by ending his campaign thereby freeing them to throw their weight behind Biden without being villified by progressives.

Bottom line Democrats, we have to be careful not to repeat in 2020 our “sin” in 2016 and that is, engaging in an unnecessarily protracted presidential primary that ultimately helps only one person–Trump. The results of the recent presidential primary elections show very clearly that Dems have settled on Biden and that Bernie has an extremely narrow path to victory. There is absolutely no valid reason why Bernie should still be prolonging the Democratic presidential primary, especially now that the coronavirus pandemic is complicating efforts by the states to conduct primaries.

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 Says Ignoring Congressional Subpoenas Is Criminal

CNN’s OutFront with Erin Burnett yesterday aired a video clip of then presidential candidate Trump railing about the potential consequences of Hillary Clinton ignoring Congressional subpoenas. Trump is apparently on record saying, “You know when you delete something or when you don’t provide the documents requested after you get a subpoena from the United States Congress, that’s a criminal act.” This is shockingly the same conduct President Trump’s administration is currently engaged in, with seemingly not enough outrage from congressional Democrats and the mainstream media.

Bottom line House Democrats need to counter much harder Trump administration’s stone-walling or even outright rejection of congressional subpoenas and this eye-opening video from OutFront CNN showing Trump saying such conduct is criminal should feature prominently in the Dem counter message.

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

Mitch McConnell’s Disgusting Hypocrisy On Obstruction Of Justice

A stunning video from Now This News shows Mitch McConnell some 20 years ago severely criticizing the Clinton administration for what he considered obstruction of the Ken Starr investigation into the president. Shockingly, some of the same obstructive tactics Mitch McConnell lamented 20 years ago, he now fully supports under current Republican President Trump–disgusting hypocrisy.

Mitch McConnell said this on the floor of the U.S. Senate 20 years ago regarding obstruction of justice; “Mr President I rise today to call attention to a serious and deeply troubling crisis in our country. This is a crisis of confidence, of credibility, and of integrity. Our nation is indeed at a crossroads. Will we pursue the search for truth, or will we dodge, weave and evade the truth? I am of course referring to the investigation into serious allegations of illegal conduct by the President of the United States. That the President has engaged in a persistent pattern and practice of obstruction of justice. The allegations are grave, the investigation is legitimate, and ascertaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the unqualified, unevasive truth is absolutely critical. The search for truth is being led by a highly capable former Solicitor General of the United States and a former judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Kenneth Starr. Mr President, I am deeply troubled today because judge Starr’s pursuit of the truth is being undermined every step of the way, every single day in the press by those whose sole mission is to attack and impune the court-appointed independent prosecutor and the congressionally-created process. And these attackers are not the journalists or the broadcasters. Mr President what troubles me the most here is that these reckless attacks, these ruthless onslaughts, are being carried out by the closest advisers to the President of the United States. The smear campaign is being orchestrated by the White House.”

Think about that folks, 20 years after his speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell now fully supports all the smear campaigns and obstruction of congress orchestrated by the Trump White House.

Bottom line folks, America has had it’s fair share of despicable politicians. Reasonable people will agree however that Senator Mitch McConnell is the most despicable U.S. politician ever and the video above is Exhibit A.

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

Hillary Clinton’s Dire Russia Warning For 2020

In an interesting segment on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show, 2016 Dem presidential candidate Hillary Clinton issued a dire warning for Democrats as they head into 2020—all your policy proposals mean nothing unless you get to the bottom of the Russia problem. In essence, Clinton warned Democrats that the level of Russian election interference may have become so sophisticated that in 2020 they may actually be able to alter election results.

https://youtu.be/i1DAH4qS5wo

Specifically, Clinton said, “I’ve met with the candidates[Democrats] who are running this time, and answered their questions. I always tell them you can run the best campaign, you can be the person who gets the nomination, but unless we know how to protect our election from what happened before and what could happen again because there is greater sophistication about it, you could lose. And I don’t mean it to scare anybody, but I do want every candidate to understand that this remains a threat.” Maddow then interjected, “that they[Democrats] could lose at the hands of a foreign power, not that they could lose fair and square” to which Clinton responded, “That’s right.”

Bottom line, the argument that Democrats should worry more about the Russian threat to our elections is a common refrain from election integrity activists chief among them, the venerable Jennifer Cohn. Yours Truly has repeatedly lamented the lack of mainstream media coverage of the efforts by Jennifer Cohn and others. Now that a Dem heavyweight Hillary Clinton is raising similar concerns, hopefully the DNC and the mainstream media will take this issue seriously. Simply put, Russia altering our election results is not(never has been) a conspiracy theory.

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

Lindsey Graham’s Impeachment Hypocrisy

CNN’s Inside Politics has uncovered a 1999 video showing then Rep Lindsey Graham arguing for then President Clinton’s impeachment because as chief law enforcement officer, he had not only lied, but also encouraged others to lie for him. Essentially then Rep Graham was saying that by encouraging others to lie for him, Clinton(a Democrat) had obstructed justice and thus needed to be impeached. You will notice that President Trump(a Republican) is currently facing the exact, if not worse accusations, yet Sen Lindsey Graham is now against impeaching Trump.

https://youtu.be/GaBBsvuCbU4

Then Rep Graham specifically said, “He[Clinton] is the chief law enforcement officer in the land. He encouraged people to lie for him. He lied. I think he obstructed justice and I think there’s a compelling case that he has in fact engaged in conduct that would be better for him to leave office than to stay in office.”

Bottom line, Sen Lindsey Graham is up for reelection in 2020 and all indications are that he will cruise to victory. However if Democrats proceed with impeachment proceedings against Trump and expose Trump to have engaged in the same conduct Lindsey Graham wanted Clinton impeached for, the shameful hypocrisy might create an opening for Graham’s 2020 Dem challenger.

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

McConnell, Graham Impeachment Hypocrisy

In case you missed it, CNN recently dug up video footage(1999) of GOP Senators Mitch McConnell(KY), Lindsey Graham(SC), and Chuck Grassley(IA) explaining their reasons for supporting President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Listening to the explanations given by Senators McConnell, Graham and Grassley in support of Clinton’s impeachment in 1999 and considering the fact that all of them are now staunch defenders, even abetters of President Trump who is accused of doing far worse, it is hard to avoid the shocking hypocrisy displayed by these three senior U.S. Senators.

Senator Mitch McConnell for example said on February 10, 1999, “The problem is lying under oath and obstructing justice. The subject matter[Monica Lewinsky] is not what is significant here. It is lying under oath and obstructing justice.”

Senator Lindsey Graham said on January 16, 1999, “The point I’m trying to make is you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. Impeachment is not about punishment, impeachment is about cleansing the office.”

Senator Chuck Grassley said on January 9, 1999, “We are miraculously transformed from politicians to people who leave their Republican and Democrat labels at the door. We’re there to seek the truth and to find out whether the president is guilty or not guilty, and no stone should be left unturned to make that determination.”

From what we have seen so far, I think it is fair to conclude that Mitch McConnell will never vote to impeach Trump even if evidence was produced proving that Trump obstructed and is still obstructing justice. It is also fair to conclude that Senator Graham will never vote to impeach Trump without a conviction in an effort to “cleanse the office” even if a mountain of evidence was presented showing Trump has defiled/is still defiling the office. As for Senator Grassley, it is likewise fair to conclude that he will never shed his Republican label and vote to impeach Trump even if a determination was made that he was guilty of a crime.

Bottom line, it is not uncommon for politicians from both sides of the aisle to be caught in hypocritical stances. The Trump presidency however has brought political hypocrisy to a whole new alarming level. Simply put, no self-respecting individual who took issue with President Clinton’s lying and obstruction of justice would ever fervently defend Trump, a far worse and serial offender, as Senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley have. It is such sickening hypocrisy that turns a lot of young impressionable people away from politics–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. 

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

Hillary Clinton Removed From Texas History Curriculum

A troubling report first appearing in the Dallas Morning News says that the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) voted to remove Hillary Clinton from the History curriculum that is taught in Texas schools. According to Barbara Cargill, a Republican member of the SBOE, the decision to yank Clinton from the History curriculum was made by some “working group” and that all the GOP-controlled board did was just vote on the recommendation from the “work group”–in other words, don’t blame us, it’s the “work group” that did it.


The fact of the matter however is that the 15-member SBOE did vote on the issue and agreed that it was appropriate to yank Hillary Clinton, the first woman ever to win the presidential nomination from a major political party and win the popular vote in a U.S. presidential election, from the Texas History curriculum. It is also important to note that after SBOE’s decision to yank Hillary Clinton from the Texas History curriculum, a prominent Christian advocacy group, Texas Values, praised them for the move, which clearly suggests that there were other factors (political/religious) that affected SBOE’s decision. The Christian advocacy group reportedly said, “In Texas, you don’t mess with the Alamo and you don’t mess with our Christian heritage. We applaud the majority of the State Board of Education for doing the right thing by restoring our foundational rights and history.”

Bottom line there is good reason to suspect that the decision to yank Hillary Clinton from the Texas History curriculum was a political hit job by the Texas GOP. Because Hillary Clinton is a Dem stalwart, whose entire political career has been geared towards the advancement of women and women issues, Yours Truly is forced to do a “HANDY LIST” of the shameful Republicans in the Texas State Board of Education who appear hell bent on denying Texas students, especially young girls, the opportunity to learn about Hillary Clinton, one of the most accomplished women in U.S. political history. Here are the GOP members of the Texas SBOE.(the 5 Democrats on the board are not listed).

Bottom line folks we have to go to bat for Hillary Clinton. The GOP working in conjunction with Putin’s Russia already robbed her of the presidency. We cannot stand idly by as the same GOP now tries to yank her from her rightful place in U.S. history.

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