Archive for the ‘Democratic Culture of Corruption’ Category

This afternoon, I wrote this post, which I titled “Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?” Hint: The answer is yes, Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment. That’s the good news for Schiff and Pelosi. The bad news for Schiff and Pelosi is that Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment.

This tactic is starting to cause an anti-Democrat backlash, thanks in large part to House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lee Zeldin, (R-NY). This past Sunday, Rep. Zeldin appeared on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 New York” with John Catsimatidis. During the interview, Rep. Zeldin said this:

Something that I find outrageous is the cherry-picked leaks, the withholding of key facts and the lying about other claims that’s misleading the American public. Why are we sitting inside of Adam Schiff’s bunker turning in our cell phones before we come in and being told that nothing here can be told to the American public?

Tonight, Zeldin appeared on Martha McCallum’s show. Here’s that interview:

During tonight’s interview, Rep. Zeldin raised a great question after mentioning that Adam Schiff threw Matt Gaetz out of the hearing. Rep. Zeldin asked “what rule is governing any of this process? What rule of the House is governing this impeachment inquiry?” That’s a pair of rhetorical questions. A 4th-grader would understand that this is a Schiff-for-brains, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Special rule. Whatever rule helps Democrats the most at the moment will be deployed. Whether it’s been used before or whether it’s precedent-setting isn’t relevant. Whatever the Democrats need in the situation is what the rules appear to be.

For now, the process doesn’t matter from a legal standpoint. That won’t last forever. Even Democrats are bright enough to know that these procedures will be challenged in the courts. While Ms. Pelosi is right that there isn’t a set way to impeach a president, she’s foolish if she thinks that several constitutional principles aren’t essential.

For instance, if Ms. Pelosi thinks that having agreed upon a set of rules isn’t important, then she doesn’t understand the importance of due process. Without due process, the Democrats’ witch hunt is a highly-publicized kangaroo court. That won’t fly in court. Further, ignoring the past precedent of letting the president’s counsel sit in on witness testimony can’t be ignored. The impeachment and conviction of a president is a somber event that shouldn’t be acted upon capriciously. It’s wonderfully ironic that Pelosi’s words would get thrown back in her face would be delightful to Republicans.

Watching the entire Zeldin interview is well worth it. Pay special attention to the crosstalk about the 4 Pinocchios part of the interview. I found it quite enjoyable.

This morning, Matt Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to listen to Fiona Hill, allegedly a Schiff-coached witness. Schiff didn’t permit his entry. The Democrats aren’t letting Republicans in even though Gaetz has the proper security clearance. Yesterday, Chairman Schiff told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that “If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away.”

Does Chairman Schiff, one of the nastiest, most dishonest partisan Democrats on Capitol Hill, have proof that any witnesses have provided false testimony? Do Democrats have any proof that any witnesses have thought about providing false testimony? Later, Schiff continued, saying “Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

Schiff has already let one liar into that secure facility. That person’s name is Adam Schiff. Remember this?

He called that a parody. I call it a bald-faced lie. Then there’s this:

That’s when Schiff insisted that he hadn’t talked with the whistleblower. Today, Schiff’s insisting that he “misspoke.” That’s BS. Schiff didn’t misspeak. Schiff lied intentionally.

In other words, the problem restricting liars isn’t keeping Republicans out. Democrats are secretive liars on the inside. Not just that but Democrats are prolific leakers, with Shiffty Schiff being the worst of the worst.

George Mesires, Hunter Biden’s attorney, issued this statement regarding Hunter’s work for Burisma:

Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term.

That’s classic Swampspeak. Hunter’s dad was a Democrat senator before becoming a Democrat vice president. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would’ve had significant influence into ethics and conflict-of-influence laws. It wouldn’t have been difficult for anyone in that position to put in place provisions that would’ve made it difficult to do something illegal.

That’s like asking an arsonist to write laws regarding criminal arson. The principle is the same. Asking corrupt people to write laws that govern themselves is stupid. The chances of corrupt people writing legislation that’s friendly to corrupt people is 100%.

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are birds of corrupt feathering. That they didn’t do anything illegal is just proof that the Swamp protects its own. It isn’t proof that Swamp people are honest. Hunter isn’t too stable, either:

It’s one thing for a corrupt Ukrainian business to shovel $200,000 a month into Hunter’s bank account. It’s another when the Chinese government pays Hunter $450,000 a year for a high-profile person who’s been in-and-out of substance abuse rehabilitation centers more times than I’ve been to a grocery store in the last year. Why should I think that the Chinese would pay him $450,000 a year if not for influence-peddling?

Remember this oldie-but-goodie?

Biden insists that China is a nothing compared to the US. Right. Then we find out that his son is getting rich working for the Chinese. But, hey, everything’s on the up-and-up, Creepy Joe insists. R-I-I-I-G-H-T! What could possibly go wrong?

Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching President Trump, even if it means ignoring what the key witness said. This morning in Ukraine, President Zelenskiy told the AP “We didn’t speak about this. There was no blackmail.” Further, in responding “to questions from The Associated Press, Zelenskiy said he only learned after their July 25 phone call that the U.S. had blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.”

I’m predicting right now that this exculpatory information won’t matter to Schiff and Pelosi. This won’t break their stride. As Newt Gingrich writes in this article, “This coup attempt, which is exactly what it is, has nothing to do with evidence or any single accusation. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said when asked what she would do if the whistleblower accusation involving Ukraine collapsed, ‘We have many other, shall we say, candidates for impeachable offense in terms of the Constitution of the United States, but this one is the most understandable by the public.'”

Pelosi and Schiff aren’t interested in releasing the testimony transcripts because those transcripts will show that the Democrats’ impeachment attempt is a purely partisan activity. Democrats have started with this coup attempt literally the morning after Election Day, 2016:

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, a left-wing group announced emergency protests against Donald Trump in six cities that day. Within 24 hours of Trump being declared president, left-wing activists were gathering in Chicago, Los Angeles, Sacramento, New York City, San Francisco, and Albuquerque. As the organizers at Act Now to Stop and End Racism (ANSWER) announced:

In a shock result, Donald Trump has been elected president – but the people can rise up and defeat his bigoted, extreme right-wing agenda! The ANSWER Coalition is mobilizing across the country to organize and take part in emergency actions.

Democrats don’t just hate President Trump. Democrats hate him so thoroughly that they’re willing to throw the rules of evidence aside if that’s what’s required to get rid of President Trump. This isn’t a goal with Democrats. It’s an obsession with Democrats.

This video was shot on Nov. 9, 2016, the night of Trump’s election. That means that Democrats have literally been trying to impeach President Trump since he got elected. For Democrats, this isn’t about just removing President Trump from office. For Democrats, it’s about telling President Trump’s supporters that they made a major mistake and that they’d better repent immediately.

Anyone that thinks that the so-called whistleblower isn’t a Deep State operative hasn’t read this article. The article starts by saying “CBS News has learned the full contents of what appears to be a memo written by the whistleblower one day after President Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call.”

Those opening words instill legitimacy, thanks in large part to a pair of unnamed people talking about a classified call. Why wouldn’t the people immediately trust the ensuing document? Speaking of the document, it starts like this:

The president’s call with Zelensky was held on the morning of July 25. The whistleblower wrote the memo the next day after speaking with the official in the afternoon. The whistleblower wrote that he or she spoke with the White House official for “a few minutes,” and summarized their conversation.

According to the memo, the White House official described the contents of the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The whistleblower said the official was “visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call.”

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that an unnamed White House official was frightened to the point of spilling their guts to the unnamed Deep State snitch. We’re being asked to trust the people who insisted that they have proof that was “more than circumstantial” W-A-A-Y back in March of 2017. That’s the proof that we still haven’t seen. Sign me up. I’ll trust Shiffty Schiff. Later in the document:

The official described the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The official asserted that the President used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official’s view, the President had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020.

I’ve read the transcript of the phone call. There’s nothing in that transcript that I’d call crazy or frightening. What I’d find frightening, though, is a snitch whose identity is being protected by corrupt politicians like Adam Schiff.

The point that needs to be made constantly is that this snitch/whistleblower/Democrat operative can’t be trusted. This document doesn’t match up with the transcript whatsoever. Since it isn’t difficult to find out who did the transcription but it’s virtually impossible to find out who these snitches are, it isn’t difficult to decide that Deep State snitches shouldn’t be trusted.

Appearing on The Story last night, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel directly delivered a message to Nancy Pelosi. McDaniel said “What I’m going to say to Nancy Pelosi is we’re coming for these Democrats in districts where President Trump won.”

Also on Monday, the RNC announced a new counter-impeachment offensive called “Stop the Madness.” Last night, Ronna McDaniel told Fox News “Democrats promised to reach across the aisle and work with President Trump and Republicans to serve the American people, but instead are now pushing their hyper-partisan impeachment agenda. Enough is enough; Americans are sick and tired of these witch hunts. We are going to hold Democrats accountable for their ridiculous charade and remind voters that their Democrat representative turned their back on them.”

Democrats are championship promise-breakers. Last year, I knew that Democrats weren’t interested in working across the aisle. The Resist Movement would’ve knee-capped them if Democrats had worked in a bipartisan fashion. The Resist Movement sustains the Democratic Party. If Resist says ‘Jump’, Democrats ask ‘Off what?’

As an activist, I love seeing the RNC going on the offensive. Democrats are used to going on the offensive, then watching Republicans shrivel up into the fetal position. Those days are history, at least while Trump is president and McDaniel is RNC Chair. Brit Hume goes on the offensive in this interview:

Republicans need to start acting on principles. They need to develop a spine, too. The republic hangs in the balance. This isn’t a time for timidity. It’s a time for clear thinking and courage. Unfortunately for Republicans, they’ve been infiltrated by corrupt people like Vin Weber, who put more emphasis on making money (even if that requires breaking bread with Corruptocrats like the Podesta brothers.) than they put on pushing the right public policies.

Draining the Swamp requires taking on swamp creatures like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi but it requires getting rid of swamp creatures like Vin Weber and Paul Manafort, too.

According to Sean Davis’ article, the snitch’s complaint (my word, not Sean’s) put together by the snitch’s legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean’s article, he highlights the fact that Steele’s dossier didn’t use people’s names:

Steele hadn’t gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. “Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Steele wrote. “Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.

Let’s compare this with the snitch’s complaint:

“I was told that a State Department official” did this or that. “I heard from multiple US officials” that such and such. “Officials have informed me. …” And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump’s guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn’t even in the same room.

Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn’t rely on their own observations? That isn’t a whistleblower. That’s a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele’s discredited dossier and this snitch’s questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn’t have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won’t run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.

The snitch’s story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:

The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.

Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn’t known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.

I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy. There’s no question that President Trump brought up Biden’s son late in the conversation. I still don’t see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn’t one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump’s priorities.

The other thing that’s noteworthy is what wasn’t said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn’t there, not even in a dog whistle.

Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats’ impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven’t passed anything that’s improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.

Anyone that thinks that Brett Kavanaugh’s family went through a living hell are right. It’s indisputable that the Kavanaugh family went through hell and then some. What’s frightening is that it’s likely that what they went through is nothing compared to what will happen if President Trump or President Pence picks someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsberg, especially if that Republican has a Republican Senate.

What Republicans need to understand is that this isn’t a confirmation process. To Democrats, confirming a Supreme Court justice that would tip the balance of the Court to a pro-Constitution majority is political bloodsport. It isn’t hyperbole to say that this is an existential threat to the Democratic Party. The biggest victories in the Democrats’ history weren’t won in the political branches, aka the legislative and executive branches. They were won through the judicial branch.

A judicial branch that isn’t heavily tilted in the Democrats’ direction is a frightening thought to Democrat demagogues. A solid originalist majority on the Supreme Court is the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

The lengths that hardline progressives will go to undermine originalist justices is disturbing. This weekend, the NYTimes ran an article that attempted to take another shot at Justice Kavanaugh that was, putting it charitably, thinly sourced. The ensuing firestorm has been telling:

Democrats couldn’t stop Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation but that isn’t stopping them from attempting to take a second bite at the proverbial apple. A story that was peddled last year that the NYTimes and the Washington Post rejected at the time is being peddled this year as a new story. The thing about this new story is that it’s being pushed by a Clinton operative who’s refused to be interviewed and whose alleged victim can’t recall the incident. Nonetheless, everyone is hyping the article. That includes the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and various other propagandist websites and networks.

Ancient hatemongers like Nan Aron will be out in force when the next nominee is named. Youthful hatemongers like Pete Buttigieg will criticize Republicans by preaching the liberal theology of taking the Bible out of context. Fictional stories, otherwise known as filthy lies, will be published claiming that the nominee is a combination of being meaner than Hitler, more bloodthirsty than Stalin and more ruthless than Ebenezer Scrooge.

Don’t think that these Democrat activists won’t attempt to subtly intimidate the nominees’ families. Remember that, to these Democrats, this is an existential threat. They won’t stop at throwing the kitchen sink at this nominee. If you think that I’m overreacting, remember what Democrats did to state legislative candidates last fall:

A candidate for Minnesota House in District 15B, Shane Mekeland, said he suffered a concussion when he was attacked while campaigning Friday at a restaurant in St. George Township. Benton County Sheriff Troy Heck said his office is investigating the alleged assault.

In another case, Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, says a man punched her in the arm after she confronted him about kicking some of her yard signs Sunday.

If people think that Democrats won’t come after the next Supreme Court nominee that a Republican makes, they haven’t learned from recent history. If Democrats won’t hesitate in attacking state legislators, why wouldn’t they attack a potential Supreme Court justice?

Republicans better prepare for the next confirmation battle. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be a test of wills. It’ll be a preview of Armageddon.

This weekend’s hit piece on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the NYTimes is a new low for the former Paper of Record. The NYTimes isn’t anything except the Democrats’ version of Pravda. Still, it’s worth noting that a pattern is emerging from this article. It’s apparent that Democrats will do anything to stop the Republicans’ Supreme Court nominees unless they’re named Merrick Garland.

Smearing an innocent man and his family has become the Democrats’ new normal. Protecting Roe v. Wade has become an ends-justify-the-means fight in the Democrats’ minds. First, Democrats vilified Justice Kavanaugh with one smear after another, starting with Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, then with Julie Swetnick (she’s the one that said Justice Kavanaugh was at a series of house parties where young women were gang-raped.) That’s why it isn’t surprising that they’d attempt to smear Justice Kavanaugh with allegations of sexual misconduct involving Deborah Ramirez and an unnamed co-ed at Yale.

It’s frightening to think that Democrats would sink so low that they’d ruin an entire family’s life just to protect their political agenda. Still, that’s what’s happening. I’m old enough to remember Ted Kennedy’s attack of Judge Robert Bork, where Sen. Kennedy said of Judge Bork “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

At the time of Kennedy’s full frontal assault on Judge Bork, this was unheard of. Kennedy’s vicious, unsubstantiated attack would be considered mild by today’s standards. That isn’t the frightening part. Today’s attacks on Justice Kavanaugh will be considered temperate compared to what Democrats will do if there’s a healthy-sized GOP majority in the Senate and President Trump gets to nominate the person who replaces Justice Ginsburg.

Democrats will launch the longest-lasting, nastiest smear campaigns in the history of this nation. They’ll accuse that nominee of being the worst human since the Romans paid Judas Iscariot thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus.

I take issue with the speech that Sen. McConnell gave on the Senate floor Monday. First, here’s the video of Sen. McConnell’s speech:

It isn’t that I disagree with what Sen. McConnell said. Sen. McConnell’s information is more accurate than the NYTimes’ article that started this high-voltage firestorm. To repeat a phrase coined by the late, great Charles Krauthammer, “Sen. McConnell, you aren’t cynical enough.” The Democrats’ intentions are apparent and two-fold. First, Democrats intend to destroy the families of Republican Supreme Court nominees. If they have to make things up, that’s what they’ll do without hesitation. If they need to start a smear campaign based totally on unsubstantiated allegations from 25 years in the past, that’s what Democrats will do without hesitation.

Republicans need to understand that, to Democrats, the fight for the Supreme Court is an existential threat. Without the Supreme Court, Democrats lose too many fights for the Democrats’ liking. Democrats are hyperventilating at the thought of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not being heavily tilted in their direction. The thought of the Ninth being balanced equally between Republican and Democrat appointees frightens Democrats greatly. This should frighten the American people:

“Six of the Democrat presidential candidates, plus one who has now quit to run for the Senate, have publicly flirted with packing the Supreme Court. Court-packing. Today’s bold new Democrat idea is a failed power grab from the 1930s. Just a few weeks ago, some Senate Democrats nakedly threatened the Supreme Court justices in writing. Our colleagues sent the Court an outlandish brief, gravely intoning that ‘the Supreme Court is not well.’ Here was the punchline: Either issue rulings we like or we’ll pack the court. This is not normal political behavior. These are the actions of a political party whose agenda is so alien to the Constitution that they feel threatened by fair and faithful judges.

The best way to win these confirmation fights is to re-elect President Trump and strengthen Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority.

That’s the best way to thwart the Democrats’ attempt to impose a new normal on the courts.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.