Unfolding SNAFU
SCOTUS WARS — As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's time
in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee winds down, the Supreme Court air
wars have gone hot. The Republican-aligned Judicial Crisis Network went up with
a $600,000 national cable buy with an ad that features Kavanaugh's testimony. Meanwhile, Democrats
have homed in on 2003 emails leaked to The New York Times , where Kavanaugh wrote that
"I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of
the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its
precedent."
Many of the ads are focused in Maine. The
abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America poured an additional $500,000
into a digital and TV ad by in Maine to try to peel off GOP Sen. Susan
Collins. The ad features a voter who said she might not be able to back
Collins in future elections if she votes for Kavanaugh (liberal activists have
already collected north of $500,000 in pledges on Crowdpac that will go to her 2020
opponent if she votes yes on him). One Nation, the nonprofit group tied to
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has placed at least $204,000 in
advertising in Maine on the Supreme Court for Sept 7-27, according to data from
Advertising Analytics. Advertising Analytics also tracks $241,000 in spending
in the state from the conservative State Government Leadership Foundation from
Sept. 5-18, and the liberal VoteVets released two ads urging Collins to oppose Kavanaugh.POLITICO's Burgess Everett has more on the
pressure Collins and Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski are facing. [POLITICO's Morning Score, September 7, 2018]
A
HINT OR A FAKE?
Through two long days of questioning which began early in the morning and
stretched late into the night, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee voiced two overriding concerns about Kavanaugh.
One, undoubtedly grounded in evidence, focused on ideology. Kavanaugh,
following the advice he once gave
another judicial nominee two decades ago, strove to present himself as near as possible to a blank slate, but his
record makes clear that he has strongly held views about the law.
As Jennifer Haberkorn, David Savage and Sarah Wire wrote, Kavanaugh has a broad view of the
gun-owner rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, a narrow view of the powers of
federal regulatory agencies and skepticism about claims for rights not
specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
Pressed, sometimes intensely, on those positions, the nominee invariably
offered politely deferential, affable answers in which he thanked Democratic
senators for offering their “perspective,” pledged to keep an open mind, but
gave no hint at retreat.
The one exception came on the Supreme Court’s most divisive issue —
abortion. President Trump said in his campaign that
he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that
established abortion rights nationwide.
Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to say how he would rule on the issue. But he
offered hints that overturning Roe may not be in the offing.
The strongest suggestion came as part of an analogy. Kavanaugh noted that the
late Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist, whom he has cited
as one of his judicial heroes, had long criticized the Supreme Court’s Miranda
ruling, which requires police to read suspects their rights before questioning.
But when Congress passed a law to overturn Miranda, Rehnquist wrote the 7-2
decision in 2000 that kept the warnings in place.
Rehnquist “decided that it had been settled too long, had been precedent too
long, and he reaffirmed it,” Kavanaugh told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, volunteering the history of Miranda in response to her question about
Roe.
Was all that an elaborate head fake? Perhaps. As Democrats noted, a hint isn’t
a commitment, and a precedent is only good so long as a majority of the high
court stands by it. Moreover, as abortion-rights supporters also said, a
conservative Supreme Court could significantly restrict the right without
actually overturning Roe.
Still, the goal of the antiabortion movement for 45 years has been to overturn
Roe, not just to narrow it. Sixteen years ago, three Republican Supreme Court
appointees — Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,
Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter — bitterly disappointed that movement when
they joined with Democrat appointees to reaffirm Roe in the case of Planned
Parenthood vs. Casey. Kavanaugh’s hint suggests that might happen again. [LA
TIMES, Essential Politics, September 7. 2018]
NEXT UP FOR KAVANAUGH -- After four days of
confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the next step
is a Senate Judiciary Committee vote. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) plans to
hold the vote Thursday, but Democrats can delay it a week, pushing it back to Sept.
20. Absent united opposition and multiple GOP defections, however, there's
little more they can do. "At that point, Grassley would be expected to
push Kavanaugh's nomination through his panel and onto the Senate floor,
setting the stage for a big political win for President Donald Trump and Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)," Bres writes. Republicans expect
to confirm Kavanaugh by Oct. 1.
"The first three
days of Kavanaugh hearings were by marked by intense partisan
warfare, leaked documents, and dozens of arrests of anti-Kavanaugh
protesters," Bres recalls. "Friday's session was much calmer. With
Kavanaugh not in attendance, the fourth and final session was largely
anti-climactic, although there were some bizarrely fascinating moments, such as
the appearance of John Dean, one of the key players from the Watergate scandal
45 years ago." Other witnesses included Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and
former Solicitor Generals Ted Olson and Paul Clement. More: https://politi.co/2x0pwvG
Related: "Kavanaugh
gives no ground on abortion," via Adam Cancryn: https://politi.co/2Qf3ONn;
and "Liberal groups urge Dems to seek perjury probe of Kavanaugh," by
Elana: https://politi.co/2x0ut7J
[POLITICO Huddle, September 10, 2018]
LABOR LOBBIES AGAINST KAVANAUGH:
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka travelled Friday to Yale Law School, alma
mater to Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to forecast workers'
future after Janus and to
urge the Senate not to confirm Kavanaugh.
"The threat to
the rights of working people posed by the nomination
of Judge Kavanaugh cannot be overstated," Trumka said. "His
confirmation would potentially lock in the pro-corporate tilt of the court for
a generation.... [Kavanaugh's] opinions drip with contempt for OSHA and other
agencies ... substituting his own ideology for their expertise." Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
scheduled a committee vote for Sept. 13. More on that from POLITICO's John
Bresnahan here . Read
Trumka's full remarks here. [POLITICO's Morning Shift, September 10, 2018]
BRETT KAVANAUGH APPEARS ON TRACK TO CONFIRMATION — The
Supreme Court nominee tiptoed carefully around sensitive topics like an
Obamacare court challenge and his position on Roe v. Wade during
three days of testimony last week.
While some Democrats raised concerns that Kavanaugh lied under
oath, Republicans this weekend signaled that they were happy with his
performance — and if the GOP sticks together, they've got enough votes to see
Kavanaugh through to confirmation without any need for defections.
— Kavanaugh gave no ground on
abortion. The nominee managed to brush aside questions about his closely
guarded views on abortion and emerged unscathed from the release of a leaked
email that showed him arguing abortion rights weren't settled law.
In the end, Democrats never scored the soundbite they probably
needed to flip the two Republican senators who support abortion rights,
POLITICO's Adam Cancryn writes. More for Pros. [POLITICO Pulse, September 10, 2018]
HEALTH CARE ACTIVISTS' LAST STAND AGAINST KAVANAUGH-Liberal
health care groups are going all out to to flip the two Republican votes needed
to kill Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, pushing hefty sums into
campaigns aimed at pressuring individual senators.
Take the crowdfunding effort targeting
potential swing vote Susan Collins - the campaign's cash haul has now hit seven
figures, with more than 37,000 people collectively ponying up more than $1
million. The effort, backed in part by health care activist Ady Barkan, is
based on an all-or-nothing proposal: If Collins votes in favor of Kavanaugh, the
money raised will go toward her eventual Democratic challenger in 2020. If she
votes against Kavanaugh, nothing will go to her opponent and all of the money
will be returned.
The campaign began back in August, but gained steam amid
Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, blowing past the original $500,000 goal last
week.
Abortion rights groups are also going
up with new ad buys ahead of
Kavanaugh's confirmation vote later this month. Planned Parenthood Action Fund
is airing anti-Kavanaugh ads in Collins' home state of Maine while NARAL
Pro-Choice America targets vulnerable Nevada Sen. Dean Heller. Planned Parenthood
is touting the results of a focus group with
eight Maine women - seven of whom are independents and seven of whom voted for
Collins in 2014 - who all urged her to vote against Kavanaugh. [POLITICO Pulse, September 11, 2018]
SCOTUS WATCH -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, referred a sensitive
letter about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Justice Department
after facing private pressure from Senate Democrats on the unreleased document.
In a statement, Feinstein said the person who gave her the letter
"strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the
matter further, and I have honored that decision." "The mysterious
letter is the latest twist in a charged partisan fight over the nominee's
background and documents regarding his history that have not been
released," Burgess and Edward-Isaac Dovere report.
Democratic aides say
no other Judiciary Democrats have seen the letter. But
Democrats met privately Wednesday night to discuss what to do with it. White
House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec framed the letter as Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer's (D-N.Y.) "11th hour attempt to delay" Kavanaugh's
confirmation, though a Schumer aide said the New York Democrat hasn't had
access to the letter but believes the panel "is handling it
appropriately." Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) added that it
"smacks of desperation." Kavanaugh is expected to be approved by the
committee on Thursday and receive a full floor vote before the end of the
month. More: https://politi.co/2p62YpF
Related reads: "Bitter
Senate fight to confirm Kavanaugh plunges deeper into chaos over letter,"
per The Washington Post's Seung Min Kim and Elise Viebeck: https://wapo.st/2Nav41n;
and Kavanaugh: I didn't recognize Parkland dad seeking handshake," via The
Associated Press: https://politi.co/2NfGcud
[POLITICO Huddle,
September 14, 2018]
KAVANAUGH DEFLECTS ON EDUCATION QUESTIONS: Members
of the Senate Judiciary Committee peppered Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh with a range of education-related questions on issues including
affirmative action, school choice and religion in schools. But he offered
little insight into his personal views in his written responses.
— His message remained
largely the same: "As I explained during the hearing, principles of
judicial independence prevent me from providing hints, forecasts, or previews
on issues that may come before me," Kavanaugh wrote.
— Asked whether he
supports "an argument that only race-neutral programs can be used to try
to achieve racial diversity on campus,"Kavanaugh wrote that
"it would be improper for me as a sitting judge and a nominee to comment
on cases or issues that might come before me. Litigants in future cases are
entitled to a fair and impartial judge who has an open mind and has not
committed to rule on their cases in a particular way."
— Kavanaugh worked on
briefs for the George W. Bush White House that argued the University of
Michigan's use of race in admissions was unconstitutional. He
wrote in his responses, however, that "I will note that my views 15 years
ago as a White House attorney do not dictate my views now as a judge."
— The tune was the
same on school choice questions. Asked whether he believes
"taxpayer dollars should be given to private parochial schools, whereby
taxpayer dollars could be used to promote religious messages," he wrote:
"This question calls upon me to offer my views as to a matter of public
policy. As a sitting judge and nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to
provide an answer." Asked if he believes "institutions that receive
federal education dollars should be required to follow the same civil rights
protections as public schools," he referred back to the previous response.
— "Are charter
schools fundamentally public schools that must uphold all federal education and
civil rights laws as well as state sunshine laws?" No
answer there either. "It is my understanding that this issue is currently
the subject of litigation in federal courts," he wrote. "It would be
improper for me as a sitting judge and a nominee to comment on cases or issues
that might come before me."
— Kavanaugh did,
however, explain that apparent snub of the father of a Parkland victim from his
confirmation hearing. Footage of the encounter went viral. In
it, Kavanaugh appears to snub Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter,
Jaime, was among 17 people killed on Feb. 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in Florida.
— But Kavanaugh said
he didn't recognize Guttenberg and thought he might have been a
protester. "It had been a chaotic morning with a large number of
protestors in the hearing room. ... I assumed he was a protestor," he
wrote in response to a question from panel Chairman Chuck Grassley(R-Iowa).
— "In a split
second, my security detail intervened and ushered me out of the hearing
room. In that split second, I unfortunately did not realize that the
man was the father of a shooting victim from Parkland, Florida. Mr. Guttenberg
has suffered an incalculable loss," Kavanaugh continued. "If I had
known who he was, I would have shaken his hand, talked to him, and expressed my
sympathy. And I would have listened to him." Benjamin Wermund has the full story.
NEW ... THE HUMAN
RIGHTS CAMPAIGN is running full-page newspaper ads in Maine and Alaska,
urging Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to oppose BRETT KAVANAUGH's nomination
to the Supreme Court. Anchorage Daily News ... Bangor Daily News ... Maine Sunday Telegram
ELANA SCHOR, BURGESS EVERETT and ELIANA JOHNSON on
the KAVANAUGH BOMBSHELL: "The
decades-old sexual misconduct charge detonated at the most critical juncture of
Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation battle — sending Republicans into damage control
mode and leaving Democrats unsure how or whether to capitalize. ...
"But
after a tense 24 hours of speculation and partisan tusslingover
what one top Republican called 'wholly unverifiable' allegations, Kavanaugh
remained exactly where he started: neither closer to nor farther away from the
50 votes needed to give President Donald Trump a second high court justice in
two years. The two swing-vote GOP senators who hold Kavanaugh's fate in their
hands, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, made no comment
Friday on an anonymous woman's charge. ...
"Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) plans to press
ahead with a Thursday committee vote on Kavanaugh, and GOP sources said
that nothing short of public skepticism from Collins or Murkowski would upend
the party's plans for a final Supreme Court confirmation vote this month on the
full Senate floor." [POLITICO Playbook,
September 15, 2018]
What's
next: The politics of Kavanaugh's crisis
|
What was
previously an allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh by an
unidentified person — without a lot of details or evidence — is now backed by a name,
a specific allegation and therapist's notes. A senior Republican official
involved in Kavanaugh's confirmation privately admitted to me that they felt
queasy when they read The Washington Post story.
And there
was one sign tonight that these
allegations could actually derail Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme
Court — which was previously a sure thing. Jeff Flake told the WashPost's Sean Sullivan that
the Senate Judiciary Committee should wait to hear more from Kavanaugh's
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford: "For me, we can’t vote until we hear
more."
Since the
story broke, I've spoken to
four sources close to the Kavanaugh confirmation process. All were defiant
and sought to raise doubts about the accuser's credibility and the holes in
her story — though none were willing to do so on the record. They signaled
potential lines of attack: the accuser's Democratic political background,
lapses in her memory and the accounts of the 65 women who've known Kavanaugh
since high school who've vouched for his character.
|
"WHY SUFFER THROUGH THE ANNIHILATION if
it's not going to matter?" Christine Blasey Ford reasoned in August after
deciding not to come forward with an allegation of sexual assault against Brett
Kavanaugh from when the two were in high school. But as a "bare-bones
version of her story became public" last week "without her name or
her consent," writes the
Washington Post's Emma Brown, Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University,
decided to speak out.
- The Post first
learned of Ford's accusation in early July. Ford contacted the
paper through a tip line when Kavanaugh's name appeared on the Supreme Court shortlist,
according to Brown, who also described Ford's reluctance to make the claim on
the record as she "grappled with concerns about what going public would
mean for her and her family." Ford also approached her congresswoman,
Democrat Anna Eshoo, in July with the allegation, according to the Post report.
Ford later sent a letter through Eshoo's office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
- The Intercept
reported last week on the letter to
Feinstein, and news organizations began following up on the
allegation, which Kavanaugh denies. Recently, Brown writes, "Ford had
begun to fear she would be exposed, particularly after a BuzzFeed reporter
visited her at her home and tried to speak to her as she was leaving a
classroom where she teaches graduate students."
- The erosion of
privacy, along with what Ford considered to be inaccuracies in the
coverage, prompted her to come forward, according to the Post story.
"These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid," Ford said.
"Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and
terror about retaliation." [Morning Media,
September 17, 2018]
SENATE DEMS DEMAND DELAY -- Senate
Democrats are urging Republicans to delay Thursday's planned Judiciary
Committee vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court in the wake
of Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford's decision to reveal
her identity Sunday as the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault more than
three decades ago. Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said he's
uncomfortable voting "yes" on Kavanaugh if Senate Republicans
"push forward without any attempt with hearing what she's had to
say." "We need to hear from her," he added. "And I don't
think I'm alone in this."
Sen. Bob Corker
(R-Tenn.) similarly said the committee should delay
Thursday's planned vote. "I think that would be best for all involved,
including the nominee," he said. "I think that might be something
they might have to consider," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told CNN.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told the network that Kavanaugh emphatically
denied the allegation in a phone call Friday. And the White House said it
stands by Kavanaugh's earlier statement in which he "categorically and
unequivocally" denied the charge. Three people close to the White House
say they expect President Donald Trump to go after Ford, and a lawyer close to
the White House says the nomination won't be withdrawn.
Republicans have an
11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee and 51-49 majority in the Senate.
With Flake's opposition, a motion to send Kavanaugh's nomination to the floor
with a favorable recommendation would likely fail, though GOP leaders could
still try to bring the nomination to the Senate floor. A spokesman for Chairman
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he "is actively working to set up ...
follow-up calls with" Kavanaugh and Ford. Ranking member Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.), however, said through a spokesman, "Staff calls aren't the
appropriate way to handle this." More: https://politi.co/2paD4Bg
Related: "Flake's
revenge? Trump antagonist holds power over Supreme Court pick," by
Elana: https://politi.co/2QBRCGw
FORD'S ALLEGATION
-- Ford contacted The Washington Post through its tip line in July,
when Kavanaugh was on the shortlist to replace the late Justice Anthony
Kennedy. She had also contacted her congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.),
around the same time. Through Eshoo's office, Ford sent a letter to Feinstein
in late July. She said the incident occurred in the 1980s when both were in
high school. Ford recalled a "stumbling drunk" Kavanaugh and a friend
corralling her into a bedroom.
"While his friend
watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and
groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily
attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore
over it," The Washington Post's Emma Brown reports. "When she tried
to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth." "I thought he
might inadvertently kill me," Ford said. "He was trying to attack me
and remove my clothing." Ford said she escaped when Kavanaugh's friend,
Mark Judge, jumped on them. She locked herself in a bathroom and eventually ran
out of the house.
She stayed quiet until
2012, when she shared her story during couples therapy with her
husband. The Post reviewed portions of the therapist's notes, which did not
include Kavanaugh's name. The Post also reviewed the results of a polygraph
test Ford took in August that was administered by a former FBI agent. The
results showed her statement summarizing her allegations was accurate. Ford is
"[a] registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political
organizations," Brown writes. "By late August, Ford had decided not
to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably
would not affect Kavanaugh's confirmation." But her calculation changed
after her story leaked last week. Much more:https://wapo.st/2NMZAho
Related read: "'I
do not know this woman': Trump allies rally to Kavanaugh's defense," from
Josh Gerstein, Andrew Restuccia and Daniel Lippman: https://politi.co/2NMZNkG
THE LETTER -- In
the redacted version of a letter read to CNN, Ford tells Feinstein she has
"information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme
Court." She adds that she expects Feinstein will "maintain this as
confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." "Brett
Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early
1980's," she writes, noting that he had assistance from someone, whose
name is redacted. "Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was
headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked
the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for
help."
"Kavanaugh was on
top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto
Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly
inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may
inadvertently kill me," she continues. "On July 6 I notified my local
government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this
information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions,
yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying
anything." The full letter: https://cnn.it/2xoFKPf
WHAT'S NEXT? -- For
now, at least, the committee vote will go as planned. Republicans contacted
Democrats on Sunday to try to set up separate calls with Kavanaugh and Ford.
But Democrats weren't on board, and Feinstein has asked that the FBI reopen its
background investigation of the nominee. "The allegation injects
uncertainty into the prospects for Trump's second nominee for the court, roils
the midterm elections -- which have seen a record number of women seek elected
office -- and carries high-stakes implications for the court," The
Washington Post's Sean Sullivan, Seung Min Kim and Felicia Sonmez report.
If the White House
pulled the nomination or Kavanaugh withdrew from consideration,
the Supreme Court would have to begin its next court session on Oct. 1 with
eight justices. "Any new nominee may have to wait until after the midterm
elections, with increasing signs that Democrats could capture the Senate
majority," they note. "Senate Republicans had argued that the
position of red-state Democrats on Kavanaugh would be a factor in their
reelection -- an issue that would be moot if the nomination is scuttled."
Earlier Sunday, Republicans had appeared poise to confirm Kavanaugh.
"It's disturbing
that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years
ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after
Democrats sat on them since July," a committee spokesman said. "If
... Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it
to the full Committee's attention much earlier." Sen. Lindsey Graham
(R-S.C.) said he agrees with the committee's concerns "about the substance
and process regarding the allegations." Graham said he would "gladly
listen" if Ford wants to talk to the panel. But "it should be done
immediately so the process can continue as scheduled." More: https://wapo.st/2NNWRUN [POLITICO
Huddle, September 17, 2018]
Last week we witnessed a travesty of justice. Senate
Republicans — including wildlife haters Mike Lee, Jeff Flake,
John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley — railroaded through Judge
Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh refused
to answer a single substantive question, but his record speaks for itself. If
he's confirmed, 40 years of environmental progress will be swept away so that
polluters can make a few more bucks.
While a circuit-court judge, Kavanaugh voted against the
interests of wildlife 96 percent of the time. He gutted
requirements for endangered species recovery and overturned efforts to protect
critical habitat. He's consistently tried to undermine EPA safeguards to
protect the air we breathe, and he doesn't care about climate change. Thousands
of people will die prematurely, year after year, from air pollution alone
because of what he'll do.
This is the wrong direction for our country. Call your senators
right now and tell them to vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation.
You may phone the United
States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will
connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
Here's a sample call script.
Hi, my name is ______, and I'm from _____. I'm deeply concerned
by the rushed hearings to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The
facts show that he will overrule long-standing precedents and strip
environmental protections for our air, water and wildlife. And he'll put
special interests above the common good and roll back decades of social
progress.
His nomination is illegitimate, and I strongly urge you to vote
no — especially at this time when the president is under investigation for
colluding with a foreign government to undermine our elections, and when
hundreds of thousands of telling documents about Kavanaugh are being hidden
from the public. Thank you.
[Center for Biological Diversity, September 10, 2018]
NOTE: I have no official connection to any organization from which information is shared.. Occasionally, I post informational material and/or an opportunity to donate or join as a "community service" announcement. These again are shared for their varying perspectives.
Any commercial or business interest information shared is purely informational, not an endorsement. I have no connection with any such commercial or business interest.
Any books listed are random or topic-related to something else in the post. Think of these as a "library bookshelf" to browse. They are shared for informational or entertainment value only, not as being recommended.
Comments
Post a Comment