“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
At long last, we may get some answers on one of the biggest scandals of the Barack Obama years in American history. What really happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, and how it is related to what one whistleblower is calling the trophy kill of Osama bin Laden and the demise of SEAL Team 6.
All of it, it seems, is related to gun running through Libya by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was not authorized to do so, and done with the cooperation of Iran, a nation with a regime which is supposedly our adversary.
Well…..
The current torrent of disclosures began, truthfully, with a thread from Millie Weaver’s friend ToRE who begins her contribution with a thread that begins thus:
It turns out, according to ToRE, that Ambassador Chris Stevens was sent on a suicide mission for the cause of keeping war going in the Middle East. He was not happy about that, and what happened in Benghazi was, to be blunt, treason.
But that is not the worst of it.
Seventeen tells us that there are no coincidences, and that being the case, the appearance of two more whistleblowers from different parts of the whole mess really does make it seem like the lid is about to be blown on Benghazi, and by extension, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, a number of former CIA directors, generals, and maybe even a few congress critters.
For convenience sake, I will be collecting all video and audio that surfaces here. Please, feel free to add what you find in the comments and let us all know your thoughts.
Pieces and parts of this video have been appearing here at the Q Tree over the last few days. Here is the full interview. Get comfortable, and be ready to hear the worst.
But that’s not all.
A former military man tells his story of what happened that night in Benghazi, and how no one in Washington was interested in his story.
We all watched the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh. It was a freak show. It looked like the cantina bar scene out of Star Wars. Here’s hoping people have more respect for the #SCOTUS process this time. pic.twitter.com/7s2IQ9X7ls
Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).
And day 2:
The vote to send this nomination will be Thursday. This thread will serve as the live thread for that if people are not commenting on tomorrow’s daily.
And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)
Seventeen has been quiet as of this writing. Between the protests against stupidity and the three ring circus known as the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearings, there’s been a lot of threads. So, please, I beg indulgence and ask for pardon in the absence of elegance in the lack of transition between sections of this post.
What happens when too many people don’t buy what they are selling? What happens when too many people wake up? What happens when they lose control of the digital battlefield? Mr. Russia collusion pusher himself now involved? [knowingly] Q
Question for the peanut gallery: do we want a thread for this hearing?????
And it looks like JP has been quarantined entirely too long.
And from a movie that was a staple in my house.
And now for the obligatory message from our sponsors:
Here at the Q tree we believe in the concept of CIVIL open free speech and the discussion that fleshes out ideas. When commenting and participating in the OPEN discussion on this thread all comments MUST NOT CONTAIN personal threats, baiting, name calling, or other anti-social words fomenting hate, violence or destruction. Our host Wolfm00n has strict rules about that.
Fellow tree dweller Wheatie gave us some good reminders on the basics of civility in political discourse:
No food fights.
No running with scissors.
If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
In addition, it is requested that there be no swinging from the chandeliers, celebratory gunfire, messing around with the nuclear weapons, and, please, everyone wash your hands.
Please remember to remain locked and loaded and ready for trouble should the insurrectionists try to invade your space.
Those who have things to say that do not fit the generally accepted limits of “civil” discussion, Wolf has provided a venue known as the UTree. You’re welcome to visit over there and say hi to anyone hanging out over there.
A few other vital notes:
Please, review these rules that our host Wolfm00n outlined toward the beginning of the growth of the tree itself. it won’t take long.
Ridiculing the other side, on the other hand…well….
42“But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 43Woe to you Pharisees! for you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the market places. 44Woe to you! for you are like graves which are not seen, and men walk over them without knowing it.” 45One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying this you reproach us also.” 46And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
As always, prayers for the fight against that which seeks to enslave us are welcome.
Please include: President Donald Trump, the Q team, our soldiers in the field, special forces, tactical units, members of the Cabinet, first responders and those working behind the scenes.
Now that he’s recovered from the Wuhan Flu, President Trump is going to drive the rest of us ragged in the final push to save the world. Today, he lead the patriots of steel and coal country in Appalachia in a little place called Johnstown, Pennsylvania, known for floods, and being the backdrop of the sports classic “Slap Shot,” the only of the sports insider movies to be embraced by the people who play for being just the way life is in sports.
Archaeological evidence shows that the area was inhabited for some 10,000 years.[11] Penn’s Woods saw much Native American activity as well as the Quemahoming area. Three distinct tribes (Shawnee, Delaware and Monogahela) migrated, hunted and fished in the area. Johnstown was called Conemaugh Old Town in the native Algonquin language. Old Town was linked to the outlying areas by the Stoney Creek, Quemahoming Creek and Conemaugh Rivers joining Johnstown to older settlements on the river including New Florence (Squirrel Hill), Quemahoming and Kickenapaulin’s (near Hooversville).
A settlement was established here in 1791 by Joseph Jahns, in whose honour it was named, and the place was soon laid out as a town.[12]
Johnstown was formally platted as Conemaugh Old Town in 1800 by the SwissGerman immigrant Joseph Johns (born Josef Schantz). The settlement was initially known as “Schantzstadt”, but was soon anglicized to Johnstown. The community incorporated as Conemaugh borough January 12, 1831,[13] but renamed Johnstown on April 14, 1834.[14] From 1834 to 1854, the city was a port and key transfer point along the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal. Johnstown was at the head of the canal’s western branch, with canal boats having been transported over the mountains via the Allegheny Portage Railroad and refloated here, to continue the trip by water to Pittsburgh and the Ohio Valley. Perhaps the most famous passenger who traveled via the canal to visit Johnstown briefly was Charles Dickens in 1842. By 1854, canal transport became redundant with the completion of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which now spanned the state. With the coming of the railroads, the city’s growth improved. Johnstown became a stop on the main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad and was connected with the Baltimore & Ohio. The railroads provided large-scale development of the region’s mineral wealth.
Iron, coal, and steel quickly became central to the town of Johnstown. By 1860, the Cambria Iron Company of Johnstown was the leading steel producer in the United States, outproducing steel giants in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Through the second half of the 19th century, Johnstown made much of the nation’s barbed wire. Johnstown prospered from skyrocketing demand in the western United States for barbed wire. Twenty years after its founding, the Cambria Works was a huge enterprise sprawling over 60 acres (24 ha) in Johnstown and employing 7,000. It owned 40,000 acres (160 km2) of valuable mineral lands in a region with a ready supply of iron, coal and limestone.
Floods were almost a yearly event in the valley during the 1880s. On the afternoon of May 30, 1889, following a quiet Memorial Day ceremony and a parade, it began raining in the valley. The next day water filled the streets, and rumors began that a dam holding an artificial lake in the mountains to the northeast might give way. It did, and an estimated 20 million tons of water began spilling into the winding gorge that led to Johnstown some 14 miles (23 km) away. The destruction in Johnstown occurred in only about 10 minutes. What had been a thriving steel town with homes, churches, saloons, a library, a railroad station, electric street lights, a roller rink, and two opera houses was buried under mud and debris. Out of a population of approximately 30,000 at the time, at least 2,209 people are known to have perished in the disaster. An infamous site of a major fire during the flood was the old stone Pennsylvania Railroad bridge located where the Stonycreek and Little Conemaugh rivers join to form the Conemaugh River. The bridge still stands today.[15]
The Johnstown flood of 1889 established the American Red Cross as the pre-eminent emergency relief organization in the United States. Founder Clara Barton, then 67, came to Johnstown with 50 doctors and nurses and set up tent hospitals as well as temporary “hotels” for the homeless, and stayed on for five months to coordinate relief efforts.[16]
The mills were back in operation within a month. The Cambria Works grew, and Johnstown became more prosperous than ever. The disaster had not destroyed the community but strengthened it. Later generations would draw on lessons learned in 1889. After the successful merger of six surrounding boroughs,[citation needed] Johnstown became a city on April 7, 1890.[17]
Sorry about the lack of info here in the body of the thread. I hope you’re here for the comments. I did something dumb when reformatting for Johnstown, PA tonight. With all luck this is now fixed.
I’ll add live links to this post during the late afternoon as they become available.
What do senators with sense think about this whole process and the entire grandstanding affair that really isn’t necessary according the president.
We all watched the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh. It was a freak show. It looked like the cantina bar scene out of Star Wars. Here’s hoping people have more respect for the #SCOTUS process this time. pic.twitter.com/7s2IQ9X7ls
On Sunday, the opening statement Mrs. Barrett read yesterday was published at Fox News.
Monday, October 12, 2020
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.
I thank Senator Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.
I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.
As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.
My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.
Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.
My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.
My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.
I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.
My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.
Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now. I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.
Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.
That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.
In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.
When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed—requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.
I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.
If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.
As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.
And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)
Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).
Cover image: Theodore Robinson, American, A French Hamlet , (1892) Brooklyn Museum.
This about says it when it comes to this year’s presidential contest.
If you think a presidential candidate, who can't draw 50 people to an event, is up 14 points … pull my finger and I'll fart 24 karat gold dust out my butt.
Who says zoom meetings have to boring and uncolorful?
And a reminder to take the pledge:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
And now for the nitty gritty of the Q Tree 5 minute, stand up, Tuesday morning meeting version of the Daily Thread.
The discourse on this site is to be CIVIL – no name calling, baiting, or threatening others here is allowed. Those who are so inclined may visit Wolf’s other sanctuary, the U-Tree, to slog it out with anyone who happens to still be hanging out there.
This site is a celebration of the natural rights endowed to humans by our Creator as well as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights adopted in the founding documents of the United States of America. Within the limits of law, how we exercise these rights is part of the freedom of our discussion.
Fellow tree dweller Wheatie gave us some good reminders on the basics of civility in political discourse:
No food fights.
No running with scissors.
If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
And please, if you see something has not been posted, do us all a favor, and post it.
37While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. 38The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. 39And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. 40You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? 41But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.
As always, prayers for the fight against that which seeks to enslave us are welcome. Via con Dios.
Okay, so, today begins the revetting of the vetting of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.
I thank Senator Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.
I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.
As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.
My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.
Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.
My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.
My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.
I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.
My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.
Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now. I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.
Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.
That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.
In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.
When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed—requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.
I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.
If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.
As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.
And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)
Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).
On Sunday morning, I helped out at my home parish which has become a hotbed of social justice warrioring and people steeped in the culture of fear which is feeding the quarantine mentality of the day. (That’s quite a change from when I was a kid.) It was announced from the pulpit that at a certain time, three parishioners had volunteered to notarize mail-in ballots on the lawn of the church.
That was certainly nice of those people given that notary publics can be hard to find, but the reality is that my state, Missouri, requires notarized live signatures on mail in ballots.
That is interesting, as across the nation, that is not always the case, and in some states, mail in ballot scams and finding mail in ballots on the side of the road seems to be the order of the day.
Well, now that is interesting. If it wasn’t for voter fraud, no Democrat could be elected in the People’s Republic of California where the Democrats have been in control for the better part of four decades.
Interesting.
And given some background information and empirical evidence, most likely completely true.
In 1965, in the midst of all the civil rights uproar, a landmark piece of legislation was passed known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The act itself was supposed to ensure equal rights for voting nation wide, especially in the South where it was said that some demographic groups were discriminated against.
The bill contained several special provisions that targeted certain state and local governments: a “coverage formula” that determined which jurisdictions were subject to the act’s other special provisions (“covered jurisdictions”); a “preclearance” requirement that prohibited covered jurisdictions from implementing changes to their voting procedures without first receiving approval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the changes were not discriminatory; and the suspension of “tests or devices”, such as literacy tests, in covered jurisdictions. The bill also authorized the assignment of federal examiners to register voters, and of federal observers to monitor elections, to covered jurisdictions that were found to have engaged in egregious discrimination. The bill set these special provisions to expire after five years
Fifty-five years later, with twenty one challenges to the act and/or its provisions in the Supreme Court, and the darn thing is still with us.
So, what were the special provisions? After all poll taxes had been outlawed the year before.
Section 4(b) contains a “coverage formula” that determines which states and local governments may be subjected to the act’s other special provisions (except for the Section 203(c) bilingual election requirements, which fall under a different formula). Congress intended for the coverage formula to encompass the most pervasively discriminatory jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is covered by the formula if:
As of November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972, the jurisdiction used a “test or device” to restrict the opportunity to register and vote; and
Less than half of the jurisdiction’s eligible citizens were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972; or less than half of eligible citizens voted in the presidential election of November 1964, 1968, or 1972.
As originally enacted, the coverage formula contained only November 1964 triggering dates; subsequent revisions to the law supplemented it with the additional triggering dates of November 1968 and November 1972, which brought more jurisdictions into coverage.[40] For purposes of the coverage formula, the term “test or device” includes the same four devices prohibited nationally by Section 201—literacy tests, educational or knowledge requirements, proof of good moral character, and requirements that a person be vouched for when voting—and one further device defined in Section 4(f)(3): in jurisdictions where more than five percent of the citizen voting age population are members of a single language minority group, any practice or requirement by which registration or election materials are provided only in English. The types of jurisdictions that the coverage formula applies to include states and “political subdivisions” of states.[42]:207–208 Section 14(c)(2) defines “political subdivision” to mean any county, parish, or “other subdivision of a State which conducts registration for voting.”[95]
As Congress added new triggering dates to the coverage formula, new jurisdictions were brought into coverage. The 1965 coverage formula included the whole of Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia; and some subdivisions (mostly counties) in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina.[40] The 1968 coverage resulted in the partial coverage of Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming filed successful “bailout” lawsuits, as also provided by section 4.[40] The 1972 coverage covered the whole of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.[40]…
Section 5[98] requires that covered jurisdictions receive federal approval, known as “preclearance”, before implementing changes to their election laws. A covered jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race or language minority status; if the jurisdiction fails to meet this burden, the federal government will deny preclearance and the jurisdiction’s change will not go into effect. The Supreme Court broadly interpreted Section 5’s scope in Allen v. State Board of Election (1969),[99] holding that any change in a jurisdiction’s voting practices, even if minor, must be submitted for preclearance.[100] The court also held that if a jurisdiction fails to have its voting change precleared, private plaintiffs may sue the jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s local district court before a three-judge panel.[e] In these Section 5 “enforcement actions”, a court considers whether the jurisdiction made a covered voting change, and if so, whether the change had been precleared. If the jurisdiction improperly failed to obtain preclearance, the court will order the jurisdiction to obtain preclearance before implementing the change. However, the court may not consider the merits of whether the change should be approved.
Note that California, the Golden State, and in 1972 the place where a lot of people were moving, was ADDED to the states needing to prove non-discrimination in voting practices. (Also note the number of now “swing states” listed as having to prove they don’t discriminate. There are also states with HUGE numbers of electoral votes in comparison to the states not even mentioned.)
Fast forward a bit to 1982, and the Ronald Reagan administration. Reagan, as it turns out, was not supposed to win. He was most assuredly not the choice of the powers that wannabe, The Big Club that most of us are not a part of. Given that at the top of the food chain there really is no difference between the parties, somehow it was agreed that Republicans, the party presenting the more pro-American messaging in word if not in deed, would acquiesce to Democrats, and whenever a question of voter fraud would arise, it simply would not be prosecuted.
As I explained in my post of November 15, 2012, “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud,” in 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the Republican National Committee (RNC), the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance.…
To put it bluntly, the Consent Decree in effect gave a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined….
Since 1982, the Consent Decree had been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, who, even after he retired, returned every year for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year. Debevoise died in August 2015.
The 1982 Consent Decree died in January 2018 thanks to being handled by a different judge who did not agree that Republicans had violated said decree, and not a moment too soon.
The problem by then, though, was that voter fraud was more or less institutionalized and had been denied for so long, even undercover Project Veritas videos were denied as being what they clearly proported to be: evidence of voter fraud.
Simply, the Republicans could not fight back, nor were efforts to institute voter ID universally successful. The Supreme Court would inevitably tell the various states that having to spend money on state identification was “disenfranchising.”
My passport renewal was expensive, yes, but a valid state identification card is not.
In addition to Republicans being hamstrung regarding suing Democrats over voter fraud, the states were, shall we say, lax in being sure the voter rolls are accurate. In an attempt to clean that up, the Trump Administration did actually form an election integrity commission, but abandoned it when it was clear the states themselves would not cooperate.
“Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and he has asked the Department of Homeland Security to review its initial findings and determine next courses of action,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.
The commission, led by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, had asked all 50 states and the District of Columbia to hand over reams of personal voter data, including voters’ names, voting histories and party affiliations.
Multiple states — including Virginia, Kentucky, and California — as well as D.C. declined to comply with the commission’s requests.
Now why would that be if elections were honest, and the voter rolls were in pristine, up to date condition.
Plain and simply, they wouldn’t be, and in one of many states being watched, where current representatives always seem to win by razor thin margins, and the total number of voters always seems to be higher than the number of people living in the district…there seems to be the odor of dead fish.
As reported by the National Review’s Deroy Murdock, who did some numbers-crunching of his own, “some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud.”
Murdock counted Judicial Watch’s state-by-state tally and found that 462 U.S. counties had a registration rate exceeding 100% of all eligible voters. That’s 3.552 million people, who Murdock calls “ghost voters.” And how many people is that? There are 21 states that don’t have that many people.
Nor are these tiny, rural counties or places that don’t have the wherewithal to police their voter rolls.
California, for instance, has 11 counties with more registered voters than actual voters. Perhaps not surprisingly — it is deep-Blue State California, after all — 10 of those counties voted heavily for Hillary Clinton.
Los Angeles County, whose more than 10 million people make it the nation’s most populous county, had 12% more registered voters than live ones, some 707,475 votes. That’s a huge number of possible votes in an election.
But, Murdock notes, “California’s San Diego County earns the enchilada grande. Its 138% registration translates into 810,966 ghost voters.”
Well, that might explain a lot, especially when all those voters “vote.”
Just imagine if that happens not just in California, but in a whole lot of other states, like, say, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Florida…places with transient populations….
And the states are not cooperating when it comes to cleaning up the voter rolls both of those who have passed on to their rewards, and those who moved and registered to vote in another state.
And then there’s this year’s boondoggle: mail in voting.
A woman in South Los Angeles told local media that she found voter ballots on the ground at a Bank of America drive-thru. https://t.co/ucDiO4RLOW
It is true that a handful of states have had mail in voting for a while now, and wouldn’t you know it, all of them consistently sport Democrat “leadership.” (See Oregon for how that works out.) But now, in states that are known to swing, like Ohio, there is a push for no holds barred mail in voting using the fear stoked over COVID-19 as the reason why it should be accepted.
Nearly 50,000 voters received an incorrect ballot in Franklin County, Ohio, board election officials announced Friday afternoon. https://t.co/dOHu7B4o5G
And the usual suspects are trying to be sure that all ballots are counted even if the signatures on them don’t match.
On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Ohio, Lawyers’ Committee and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP announced they filed a motion in Cincinnati federal court for a preliminary injunction against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.
The legal action is on the behalf of plaintiffs League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and several impacted Ohio voters, according to an ACLU news release.
They call Ohio’s system “flawed,” particularly in light of the unprecedented numbers of voters statewide likely to vote by mail this November.
The motion asks the court “to ensure voters have sufficient notice of purportedly mismatched signatures and the opportunity to fix those mismatches when boards of elections mistakenly reject their ballots and ballot applications on the basis of signature mismatches.”
Is this REALLY about election integrity, or is there an organized, concerted effort to subvert the 2020 election of any and all offices using any and every method of cheating that has ever worked?
Some might call that a coup.
What it really is is an attempt to keep the will of the people from being realized, which we are all now coming to understand has been in motion for decades including the move away from paper ballots and toward electronic voting machines that just happen to be sold by a company financed by America hater George Soros.
This thread is about putting stories and evidence of election shenanigans in one spot. Please, put any personal accounts, posts from other forums, video, etc., in the comments below.
We’re in for the fight of our lives with this election. We all need to be able to spot fraud when we see it.
REVEALED: Left-wing activist groups, politicians, and anti-Trumpers have recruited over 600,000 “healthy, low-risk and diverse poll workers.” https://t.co/JFIXU4lcD0
Threats, bribes & blackmail being deployed @ unseen levels? Dirty laundry [blackmail] controls DC? Why are they protected? Threats, bribes & blackmail or sharing of ‘like-beliefs’? Dark Secrets. “Let’s see what happens.” Q
WHAT HAPPENS IF BIDEN BECAME POTUS KNOWING HE [THROUGH HUNTER + 2] TOOK MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BRIBES TO CHANGE [LOOK THE OTHER WAY] US POLICY TOWARDS CHINA [IN FAVOR OF CHINA]? WOULD CHINA OWN AND CONTROL THE WHITE HOUSE? Q
WHAT HAPPENS IF BIDEN BECAME POTUS KNOWING HE [THROUGH HUNTER + 1] TOOK MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BRIBES TO CHANGE [LOOK THE OTHER WAY] US POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE [IN FAVOR OF UKRAINE]? WOULD UKRAINE OWN AND CONTROL THE WHITE HOUSE? Q
ONLY THE ILLUSION OF DEMOCRACY. ONLY THE ILLUSION OF FOR THE PEOPLE. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME OUR POTUS STANDS WITH AND FOR THE PEOPLE. ALL ASSETS DEPLOYED. Q
Love this movie. Still remember sitting in the back of the theater with people from work on a Friday evening watching this on one of the biggest screens in town at the time.
So, what weapon did President Trump turn into to make it useless?
Do you remember when the media had wall-to-wall [live in fear] coverage re: NK? Do you remember when Hawaii ‘accidentally’ sounded the incoming missile alarm? What happened? NK no longer a nuclear threat? Mountain collapse? China seeking NK commitment to fire short[long]-range ballistic missile(s) pre_election? Q
How much was McCain [>McCaine Institute] paid to peddle the Steele dossier? What is the going rate for a UNITED STATES SENATOR to [knowingly] push false unverified intel to the FBI [lend credibility]? Q
Why did Paul Ryan refuse [block] all subpoena requests by R committee chairs? What is the going rate for THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE to obstruct Congressional investigations for the purposes of delaying and/or eliminating its findings? [protect] Why did Paul Ryan initially refuse to be Speaker? What was coming? Why did Paul Ryan retire at such a young age? Q
4832
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: 3b43aa No.10975689 NEWSHADOW PRESIDENT. SHADOW GOVERNMENT. INFORMATION WARFARE. IRREGULAR WARFARE. COLOR REVOLUTION. INSURGENCY. Q
When it’s all over, this presidency is going to be legendary.
Not the American way of doing things, but for now patience is the order of the day.
Since we were talking about this one the other day…..
_______________________________________________
As usual, this is the daily thread, the place to put all information that needs to be out there – Q drops, Q drop decodes, riot information, rumors about MAGA rallies starting up again, news flashes, Chy-na flu updates, fashionable mask photos, satire, memes, and of course cute animal videos.
In the meantime, the short and sweet version of “THE RULES” is here borrowed from Tuesday:
The discourse on this site is to be CIVIL – no name calling, baiting, or threatening others here is allowed. Those who are so inclined may visit Wolf’s other sanctuary, the U-Tree, to slog it out.
This site is a celebration of the natural rights endowed to humans by our Creator as well as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights adopted in the founding documents of the United States of America. Within the limits of law, how we exercise these rights is part of the freedom of our discussion.
Fellow tree dweller Wheatie gave us some good reminders on the basics of civility in political discourse:
No food fights.
No running with scissors.
If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
Since it is almost the weekend, the reminders are in place to not swing from the chandeliers, wash your hands and face, and be nice to the liberals whether they deserve it or not. Making your bed, OTOH, is optional.
5And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, `Friend, lend me three loaves; 6for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7and he will answer from within, `Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything’? 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him whatever he needs. 9And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
