UPDATE-What is McConnell Hiding In His Military Records?

You’ll remember back in 3/31/2019, Yours Truly wrote a blog piece titled “What is McConnell hiding in his military records” that has elicited and continues to elicit a lot of reaction on Twitter and other social media platforms. There is no question that grassroots Democrats really want to know the real reason behind Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell’s military discharge in 1967.

In the blog piece, Yours Truly promised to dig into the real reason behind McConnell’s military discharge, an important election issue that mysteriously remains a mainstream media no-go-zone. Well, after months of pushing and prodding the Army for McConnell’s info via freedom of Information requests(FOIA), and being subjected to countless baits-and-switches by them, we have finally got some information.

FOIA On Mitch McConnell&#39… by Emolclause on Scribd

According to the FOIA response Yours Truly got from the Army on Jan 8 2020, Mitch McConnell served from March 21, 1967 to August 15, 1967(page 2). Virtually all of the personal information fields are populated by “N/A”, which I suspect is due to the Army’s privacy policy of requiring a signature before releasing such information. Specifically, the FOIA letter stipulates in part, “This record contains sensitive personal information which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy to the veteran……..If additional information is needed, the Privacy Act of 1974 requires the written consent (signature) of the individual to whom the record pertains.”(see page 1 of attached document). In essence, one would need McConnell’s written consent before getting details about his salary, source of commission, military education etc, which is pretty understandable especially given the fact that Yours Truly is big on privacy.

The sticky point however is in regards to the “Transcript of Court-Martial Trial” field. As you can see from the FOIA response(page 2), it is not populated by “N/A” like the other fields. The field is instead populated by “Not on File”. This raises a whole host of questions because it does not address the dispositive question Yours Truly set out to address with the FOIA request–whether McConnell’s discharge was due to a Court Martial? Remember, allegations/rumors have been flying around for decades that McConnell’s discharge from the military had something to do with a sexual incident between him and another officer and that this incident was the subject of a court martial. To prove or disprove this rumor one has to ascertain whether McConnell was indeed the subject of a Court Martial. The FOIA response offers no answer whatsoever to this crucial question.

Yours Truly took up this burning question with the FOIA Public Liaison officer listed on page 3 of the document, one Kevin Pratt. Specifically, Yours Truly inquired as to whether the “Not on File” listed on the FOIA response meant a court martial was held but the information has been redacted, or whether there was none with respect to Mitch McConnell?

According to Army’s Kevin Pratt, a FOIA request cannot answer the question as to whether one was court-martialed or not. He instead directed me to file a request in writing to another Army office for such information. I then asked him whether the FOIA Ombudsman’s office listed on the FOIA response (page 3) would have information related to court martials to which he replied that they don’t. It’s not clear whether these complications are McConnell-specific or are the norm when it comes to FOIA requests regarding the military. Reasonable people will agree that it should not be this complicated for the military to either deny or confirm whether Mitch McConnell, one of the most powerful politicians in the country and who’s up for reelection, was ever the subject of a court martial. There can be reasonable disagreements however as to whether the details of such court martial proceedings should be kept private or be made available to the general public.

It cannot be left unsaid that the secrecy surrounding McConnell’s military record is patently unfair to his Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, also a veteran . McGrath’s military record unlike McConnell’s, is an open book which allows McConnell’s campaign to dig for campaign dirt while robbing her campaign of a similar opportunity. This glaring political bias should be enough cause for the Army to forego all the procedural technicalities surrounding information requests for veterans and release McConnell’s full military record in the interest of Kentucky voters.

Bottom line folks, no politician should ever be allowed to serve consecutive terms in the U.S. Congress while hiding crucial information from the public. The circumstances surrounding Mitch McConnell’s military discharge have been a valid campaign ever since he first ran for the U.S. Senate. There is absolutely no excuse why the mainstream media, which readily digs into the backgrounds of Democrats, continues to allow McConnell’s military discharge to be a non-story, even as he runs for his 7th consecutive term in the U.S. Senate.

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

Gillibrand Slams McConnell For Harming SCOTUS “Almost Irreparably”

At a town hall in New Hampshire, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland, McConnell had harmed the U.S. Supreme Court “almost irreparably”

Senator Gillibrand addressed a whole host of issues at the New Hampshire town hall (which Yours Truly strongly recommends that any Democrat watch) most notably her long record in Congress for fighting corruption/getting money out of politics. However it was her answer as to how she would handle the U.S. Supreme Court if elected President that caught Yours Truly’s attention the most.

When asked by the town hall moderator whether she would be in favor of term limits for federal Supreme Court justices, Sen Gillibrand emphatically said “Yes” adding;“I think what has happened by this President[Trump] and Mitch McConnell is the extreme politicization of the court. I’ve never seen it worse than it is today and the fact that Mitch McConnell denied the vote and the hearing on Merrick Garland is outrageous and I don’t think we’ve recovered from it….It was a stolen justice….. I think they[Trump and McConnell] have harmed our courts almost irreparably.”

It cannot be left unsaid that even though Senator Gillibrand came into the 2020 Dem presidential nomination contest as one of the top contenders, her campaign has not lived up to its billing. As a matter of fact most Democrats will agree that she has seriously under-performed especially given the fact that she almost failed to make the cut for the recent debate. There is a divergence of opinions among cable TV pundits as to why Sen Gillibrand’s campaign has not caught fire yet. As for Yours Truly, the answer to that is very simple. For Sen Gillibrand to become a top-tier presidential candidate, her campaign should tone down a little on the uber-feminist message and instead focus on her real and provable congressional record of fighting corruption in Washington. Simply put, if Senator Gillibrand becomes the anti-corruption candidate— going after lobbyists, lamenting the swamp, and even going after Trump’s elusive tax returns–the future is bright for her presidential campaign.

Bottom line, even though she gets very little credit from grassroots Democrats (especially post-Al Franken), Sen Gillibrand has been a Dem stalwart with a stellar congressional record to prove it. Yours Truly strongly believes that in the coming months, especially if she keeps touting her anti-corruption record, she will become a top-tier presidential candidate. And while you are at it Sen Gillibrand, keep slamming Mitch McConnell over his Supreme Court chicanery. McConnell bashing is an absolute win win among grassroots Democrats.

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. 

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

Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




Roberts Supreme Court Helping GOP Disenfranchise Minority Voters

Conservatives on the Roberts Supreme Court

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

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

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


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

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

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

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




Sen Susan Collins’ Insult To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

Fresh from perpetrating her “No Corroboration” fraud on Americans to get Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sen Susan Collins(R-ME) showed up on CNN’s State of The Union to explain her highly suspicious YES vote. In her interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Senator Collins essentially repeated the fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory she had previously laid out in her 45 minute nationally televised speech Friday. The CNN State of The Union segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

She however brought up a new concept in her interview with Dana Bash which Yours Truly considers a total insult to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and that is, that Dr. Ford was assaulted by “someone else”, not by Kavanaugh. So you ask. “But @Emolclause, how is that an insult to Dr. Ford?” Here’s why. We all remember very well that during her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Dr. Ford said very clearly that she was 100% certain that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her. More importantly when asked by Senator Patrick Leahy(D-VT) what her strongest memory was of the decades old incident, Dr Ford responded that it was the “uproarious” laughter by Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge that still torments her to this date—Yours Truly talked about this in a previous post.

To believe Sen Collins’ new stance that “someone else” attacked Dr Ford, you also have to believe that the “uproarious” laughter Dr Ford tearfully testified torments her to this day either never happened or Mark Judge was laughing with “someone else”—a total insult. Think about that folks, in order to justify her fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory, Sen Collins now says Dr. Ford is being delusional when she talks about the “uproarious” laughter that still torments her to this day.

You don’t have to take Yours Truly’s word for it regarding Sen Collins’ insult to Dr. Ford. Dem Senator Mazie Hirono said the same thing when she appeared on the same show with Dana Bash.


Its also very important to point out that Dana Bash strangely never asked Senator Collins about Kavanaugh’s other accusers. Surely CNN’s Dana Bash knows that Dr Ford was not Kavanaugh’s only accuser. If Sen Collins thought there was “No Corroboration” re Dr. Ford , what does she think about Debbie Ramirez’s allegations? One would think MSM’s Dana Bash would challenge Sen Collins’ “No Corroboration” theory with questions about Ramirez and other accusers for example, Were they questioned by the FBI? If not, how can she credibly characterize the FBI investigation as “thorough” or “comprehensive”? and so on….

A lot of people waking up to watch Sen Collins’ first TV interview after the highly controversial Supreme Court confirmation expected these kinds of questions from MSM’s Dana Bash but predictably, it turned out be yet another terrible disappointment by the hapless MSM, which essentially gave Sen Collins a platform to justify her fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory.

Bottom line Sen Collins’ new stance that ” someone else” attacked Dr Ford is an insult to Dr Ford and indeed all other women survivors of sexual assault across the nation. It would be helpful if on her next interview someone in the MSM asks her about Ramirez and other Kavanaugh accusers and whether the supplemental FBI probe included them. More importantly the MSM should ask Sen Collins how she concluded that the FBI inquiry was “thorough” and “comprehensive” when it clearly left out a lot of willing witnesses—the aforementioned “No Corroboration” fraud.

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




The Seriousness Of Trump’s Attack On Dr Christine Blasey Ford

Yours Truly recently wrote about how the modern GOP has officially become the anti-woman party. Little did we know however that just a few days after that, President Trump would cement this GOP anti-woman legacy into history with his shameful attack on Dr Christine Blasey Ford, a sexual assault survivor, at one of his political rallies. Never would anyone have imagined that a sitting President of the United States would use the presidential podium to lobby verbal attacks at a sexual assault victim, whether they believed the allegations or not.

So you say, “But @Emolclause, Trump is an equal opportunity verbal attacker. It is very convenient how you are singling out the ‘seriousness’ of his verbal attack on Dr. Ford.” Well here’s why Trump’s attack on Dr.Ford is not only very serious, but also differs significantly from his verbal attacks on others. When Dr Ford appeared before the senate judiciary committee, she was asked by Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT) what still hurts her the most about the decades old incident. Dr Ford responded that what she still remembers to this day is Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing “at her expense”. Specifically Dr Ford said:
“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [Kavanaugh & Mark Judge], and their having fun at my expense.”

Well, Trump and his adoring fans at the Southaven, Mississippi rally did exactly that. Trump basically called Dr Ford a liar to “uproarious” applause from his fans, essentially punishing Dr Ford all over again. This is totally unacceptable and reprehensible behavior by anybody let alone a sitting President of the United States. Even in the hyper partisan political times we find ourselves in, all reasonable people will agree that there is absolutely no excuse for mocking a sexual assault survivor from the presidential podium.


Bottom line women voters you have a choice this November. A lot of this anti-woman madness we are witnessing from the GOP can be cured by multitudes of women registering to vote and then “neutering” the anti-woman GOP in November by voting in Democrats both at the federal and state levels. Simply put there is a very viable solution to this GOP anti-woman madness–The Vote!!

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