“Horror Has A Face”: Primordial Politics and the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation. It is not that there is no winner and loser as much as both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh are both winners and losers.

It will take time to decide which party will benefit, but there is clearly Brett bump for Republicans going into the midterms.  Yet, the confirmation will also continue to resonate Democratic voters.

“Horror has a face … and you must make a friend of horror.”

When the character Colonel Walter Kurtz spoke those words in the film “Apocalypse Now,” he described the secret to his success, his epiphany that decency and humanity no longer have a place in war. His words could well describe the aftermath of the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. As Kurtz explained, the key is to transcend morality and allow people “to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment, because it is judgment that defeats us.”

Once the “most deliberative body in the world,” the Senate has finally reached its apocalyptic moment of total political war without judgment. Kavanaugh and his chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, are both faces of the horror of a process designed to release people from any consideration of fairness or empathy, to leash the primordial instincts of voters. That, perhaps, will forever change our confirmation process.

For weeks, people enjoyed uninhibited rage on both sides. The original confirmation hearing itself was virtually devoid of substantive discussion of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential views. Citing the Ginsburg rule, Kavanaugh repeated judicial platitudes about respecting precedent while declining, as did prior nominees, to give direct answers. I have long criticized the Ginsburg rule and the modern confirmation process. These hearings, however, began badly and ended as a nightmare.

Republicans hit a new low on the standard of disclosure by allowing the White House to withhold an unprecedented amount of material from Kavanaugh’s record. Democrats then joined the race to the bottom by withholding Ford’s allegation until the last minute. Both sides then tore into each other and the witnesses. Senators in both parties declared that they believed either Ford or Kavanaugh before any testimony was heard. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) maintained that it really no longer mattered if Kavanaugh was innocent or guilty, while Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said that she would weigh Kavanaugh’s views on the Constitution in deciding whether to believe his denials of being a sexual predator. On the other side, Republicans imposed a five minute rule that made the questioning by a female prosecutor into a national joke.

The biggest winners?

First, Judge Kavanaugh. For those who insisted he was fundamentally damaged, it is worth noting that he is now about to become Justice Kavanaugh and will cast one of nine votes on the highest court in the nation. Confirmation is a vindication of sorts but certainly is not an expungement. Yet, it is an opportunity to create a legacy in decades of decisions, and he is likely to move the court to the right and to reverse some of the legacy of Justice Anthony Kennedy. This controversy may be the start but it will not be the end of his Wikipedia page.

Next, Professor Ford. While she came forward reluctantly and did not appear to seek fame or its benefits, famous she is and benefits will come. While Democrats insisted that she has nothing to gain, she could gain considerably as a result of her taking a stand before the Senate. She is now a celebrity and likely will be buried in book and movie deals. She has more than half a million dollars waiting for her on GoFundMe. (I have raised prior concerns over this new element to litigation, as witnesses receive windfalls after promising to testify for or against national figures, as seen in the cases of Michael Cohen and Andrew McCabe.) Ford has gone from a professor at Palo Alto University to a social icon.

The biggest losers?

First, Judge Kavanaugh. He will remain an asterisk justice. He may bury it with a long line of opinions but he will never entirely erase it. Half of the country is likely to remain firm in its view that he assaulted Ford and committed perjury on the allegations. His was the type of bruising fight that leaves a deep lasting injury. After his own confirmation controversy, Judge Robert Bork retired from the courts. Justice Clarence Thomas is widely viewed as adopting silence during oral arguments in the aftermath of his hearing. Confirmations generally are seen as not just the culmination but the celebration of a career leading to the Supreme Court. This one, however, was a concession to raw and ugly politics, ending on a final vote on party lines, with only one defection on either side.

Next, Professor Ford. She has now entered the realm of personified politics, more of an object than a person for both sides in waging this war. She will remain either the hero or the villain in the eyes of millions, an instantly recognizable face with instantly strong emotions for people on each side of the controversy. The minute someone leaked her letter, against her express wishes, she entered that realm of personalities who are treated like public domain as universally owned objects.

The greatest loser, of course, is clearly our confirmation process, which was reduced to the level of decorum and deliberation one would see in an episode of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” Both sides decided to unleash our primordial instincts, and it will be hard to get people to accept prior standards of order or fairness in the process.

Confirmations have now become politics by other means and, as Kurtz said, “perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure” in their savagery. Of course, most partisans in this controversy saw it as a political opportunity. It is now up to the majority of Americans whether this is what we will accept in the future. We can either demand reform of the confirmation process, or we can live with the horrors of primordial politics.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

262 thoughts on ““Horror Has A Face”: Primordial Politics and the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation”

  1. A book will be coming out soon on the comparative merit, education, experience, of female justices as compared to male. As in every other group of professionals it will be apparent that men with far less merit and experience are placed in the same positions as females with far greater demonstration of skills, knowledge, and wisdom.

    1. “As in every other group of professionals it will be apparent that men with far less merit and experience are placed in the same positions as females with far greater demonstration of skills, knowledge, and wisdom.”

      Gosh, that’s wildly sexist.

      1. It’s only sexist if it’s untrue. We have to wait until the book is published and see. I find it difficult to believe, however, that in EVERY profession, more qualified women are passed over in favor of male candidiadates.

        1. It’s not as if there weren’t a body of economic literature on labor markets. That aside, Kitty, seminal work in economics is very seldom published as a monograph. Sociology more likely, but I think that would generally be the theoretical or ethnographic wing of sociology, not the quant wing.

      2. It’s neither ‘sexist’ or non-sexist. It’s just false.

    2. As in every other group of professionals it will be apparent that men with far less merit and experience are placed in the same positions as females with far greater demonstration of skills, knowledge, and wisdom.

      Again, more social fictions. If there were untapped human capital, employers would be hiring women with skill level x willing to work cut rates. If that didn’t obtain, disgruntled female employees would be starting their own businesses.

  2. The confirmation process is obviously flawed. The intention of maintaining a politically unbiased Supreme Court is compromised wholly when one or the other political party confirms the nominee. The root of the problem lies in that another political force nominates the candidate for this political unbiased position.

    The solution lies in extracting the procedure from the political forces. Both parts of the process are designed to appoint a politically biased Supreme Court Judge. At least and ideally both parts should be performed outside of the political power struggle for the Supreme Court to be truly a politically unbiased protector of the Constitution and Laws of the US.

    The confirmation process should, as well, present to the American public absolutely everything pertaining to the nominee. In the case of Kavanaugh, he was nominated by a political animal, much-perhaps the most important information regarding who he is-was not released, he was confirmed by the same political animal that nominated him, and further investigation into his suitability was rigged by this same political animal. Three indisputable reasons why Kavanaugh is not SCOTUS material.

    1. Isaac-
      Thanks for your wise and insightful comments in this pool of mostly superficial uninformed blathering.

      1. Where there is a need, as has been so clearly illustrated, there should be a way or ways until the process goes to more appropriate degrees in the right direction. It all comes down to direction and degrees. At this time the political structure of the US is well beyond flawed. It supports control by the elite few percentile.

        The direction in which to proceed is toward a Representative Democracy of a Republic, not the oligarchy we now have. This is hindered by the fact that there are only two parties both of which are in the pockets of oligarchs and special interests. This perpetuates chaos and limits information on the issues as keeping the two parties at loggerheads is the most practical way to avoid focusing on the real problems. When the country is divided into ‘us and/or them’, realistic solutions are not available. Voters don’t vote on the issues or what will improve the country but on their side, right or wrong. There has yet to be a better illustration of this than the recent circus of Trump and his supporters. One would be hard pressed to get an intelligent response on an issue from anyone at one of Trump’s rallies. One would get boatloads of enthusiasm, unlimited virulent attacks on anyone not wearing the appropriate hat, but nothing on an issue. This is the direction of the mindless reaction to a great degree.

        The Supreme Court is the last, if it still exists at all, check to this nonsense. However, as was just illustrated, it is now controlled by one of the two options and no longer independent. The solution lies in separating the construction of the court from the oligarchy that is our government.

        The nominations for judges to replace those dying or retiring should, simply, not come from the Presidency, the Senate, or the Congress. The confirmation of the nominee ideally should have nothing to do with these other three bogus representatives either. If one or all of these parts are involved it should be in a cursory manner at most. The nominee should come from the judiciary; how that is defined would be a matter to be developed. If political parties and oligarchs control the outcome of the Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency, then the interpreters of the laws and protectors of the Constitution should control the construction of their highest court, one which is an equal part of this unholy trinity. Judges come from the society, are scrutinized as are the other representatives, appointed or elected. There will be, without doubt, some political bias. However, at this point the Supreme Court is a tool or a weapon of, in this case, the Republican Party, as it was of the Democrats in the past. The Supreme Court should be as politically independent as possible. Totally unbiased decisions are impossible but that is the appropriate direction and it should be designed in the strongest way to the greatest degree.

        Perhaps an independent Supreme Court evolved from an independent judiciary, would be able to abolish the financial control of our government and open the way to more parties, exposing their positions of the real issues, to truly represent democratically our future. As it is, the founding fathers would only recognize this mess in their worst nightmare.

  3. “Kavanaugh and his chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, are both faces of the horror of a process designed to release people from any consideration of fairness or empathy, to leash the primordial instincts of voters. That, perhaps, will forever change our confirmation process.”
    This is hyperbole. Neither are the faces of “horror.” Kavanaugh did nothing except to accept the nomination from the President after a distinguished judicial career and then defend himself forcefully against the scurrilous charges. Ford brought her disjointed charges and expected privacy. The monsters here are Feinstein and the rest of the Senate Democrats who seized on this uncoroborared mess to stop a nomination they deplored. You don’t hold important Information until the 11th hour unless you have an ulterior motive. And the motive was revenge over Merritt Garland’s waylaid nomination. It’s business as usual in the Capitol; not some sea change. Politics is a always primordial since it’s a substitute for open warfare. As Newt Gingrich once observed “War and politics are remarkable similar situations.”

    1. Believing that war and politics are similar suggests a lust for violence in any form. War is collective mental dysfunction and politics is an evolving, dynamic, pendulum swinging between wisdom and ignorance.

      1. Gingrich is 75. So far, the people around him are unharmed by his ‘lust for violence’.

      2. “Believing that war and politics are similar suggests a lust for violence in any form. War is collective mental dysfunction and politics is an evolving, dynamic, pendulum swinging between wisdom and ignorance.”

        Sam definitely has a knack for the empty platitude.

        1. I thought you were going for the Klauswitz take on the subject. Paraphrased as “politics is war by other means” or some such thing.

  4. Go before the Senate Comiitee on national TV and start whining and lying under oath. She is a scumbag, an old hag and a friggin nag.

  5. Both sides decided to unleash our primordial instincts, a

    I kinda missed the part where Republican partisans filled up the galleries squawking, missed the part where Democratic senators were doxxed by Capitol Hill staff, and missed the part where a lying skank came out of the woodwork to defame Christine Blasey or anyone on the Democratic side? What’s your objection? That Republicans fight back?

      1. Yes she lied. No, she doesn’t merit deference. Deal with reality.

          1. Many respected jurists and legal scholars opine that it is Kavanaugh who lied.

            1. You didn’t name even one.

            2. Their occupation is a matter of no interest, and isn’t going to help them much evaluating facts.

        1. Tabarrock/Liberty2d: Calling someone a “skank,” a “hag,” and an “old nag” says more about you than her. Emotional sexist personal attacks tell us that you have no legitimate argument.

          1. 1. There is no such thing as ‘sexism’. It has no fixed meaning and is used as a rhetorical incantation to avoid discussion. Only dishonest people use the term.

            2. It’s an insulting term. Me being insulting is not me at my best. Tough. You’re countenancing the gross defamation of a public official and making use of diversions like complaining about insult terms.

            You need an integrity transplant, STAT.

            1. 1. No such thing as sexism? Seriously? And no such thing as racism either?
              2. You’re not using generally insulting terms. You’re using terms specifically aimed at insulting women based on their gender. You can call a woman an idiot or a fool or a clown and it’s just a generic insult that means you don’t like or agree with her. But calling her a skank is like calling Clarence Thomas a n!gger or Ted Cruz a sp!c or John Woo a chink. All terms totally unacceptable by civilized, educated people.
              3. I need an integrity transplant? I think that’s called projecting. Look in the mirror.

              1. No, I’m insulting a particular woman who did something dishonest and generally ignoble. I have no reason to insult Thomas, or Cruz or Yoo nor to make ethnic references in so doing.

                You’re in the business of changing the subject when the subject is Christine Blasey’s bad behavior, complaining stupidly that it’s wrong to call an unpleasant woman a ‘skank’. You’re doing that because you’re a deceitful poseur. The problem isn’t me, it’s her.

              2. Sexism, feminism, etc. It is not the words themselves that become problematic rather one’s interpretation or use of the word. These words are often misused and misunderstood. For clarity:

                    1. “No, both words are useful only for rhetorical games.”

                      DSS, you are backtracking. From no ability to correctly use the words to useful only in rhetorical games. Tomorrow you will backtrack some more.

                    2. I’m not backtracking at all. They do not refer to bodies of thought with discernible meanings more elaborate than an upraised middle finger.

                    3. DSS of course you are back tracking even though you will never admit it. That is OK becaue I know what you mean. You could have made your statment in a better fashion than encasing yourself within dictionaries with nowhere to go.

                  1. Chief Justice John Robert’s wife is an attorney at a big law firm in D.C., and is a member of the group, “Feminists for Life.” I suppose Pillory has some derogatory name for her as well; skank, hag, whore? It’s obvious from reading his posts that Pillory is an angry, bitter misogynist who blames women for his failures in life.

                    1. ten bucks says Pillory is a she

                      racist is a term coined by Lev Bronstein aka Trotsky in 1930, but the term racism and racialism were already in use

                      it’s use as a propagandist tool of enmity was very much Trotsky’s innovation

                    2. Actually, I think she works at a legal recruiting firm. The use of ‘feminist’ in ‘Feminists for Life’ is also a rhetorical exercise.

                      I suppose Pillory has some derogatory name for her as well;

                      No, I don’t have any objections to Mrs. Roberts.

                      It’s obvious from reading his posts that Pillory is an angry, bitter misogynist who blames women for his failures in life

                      TIN, you advance inane arguments, I answer you back. Get over it.

              3. Kevin Finnerty – the late great Bill Buckley always said there was the right word for the right situation. Sometimes, you have to get the mules attention with the two-by-four between the eyes before it will get moving. That is the way with listeners. If you want to move them to action, you need to get to their emotions, not their intellect.

                Why do you think those women (I am using the word loosely here) cornered Jeff Flake in the elevator and assaulted him? Did they use intellectual words? No. They used emotional words. And they had him trapped so he couldn’t escaped from the verbal bullying he was getting. BTW, the girl doing the beat down, makes $150k/year for a Soros-funded organization.

                1. those women who bullied wussy Flake, were no more skanks than a honeypot spy is a whore. They are political operatives executing a mission that took a certain amount of acting to accomplish. Take them seriously.

                  They are partisans and like partisan spies, one day they may face a drumhead court. Do they accept the possibility? I doubt it but they may grow into things. Today’s “activists” may be something else in ten years.

  6. The entire process reminded me of the Salem Witch Trials & the American public came out the loser. Silly protesters in the aftermath are especially stupid as they seemed to forget this supposed incident took place 36 years ago in their youth. If it had happened to their family members, they’d be screaming ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Americans, however, are asleep at the wheel when it comes to protesting such events as the loss of their personal privacy & liberties with the passage of the un-Patriot Act-things of that nature never seems to bother the masses.

    1. Because, the masses respond to mass media stimuli. And the media bosses and their money men aka financial oligarchs like Soros don’t mind erosion of privacy and liberty. They are in the business of social atomization. Reduced social cohesion due to endless identity politics quarreling, means less possible resistance to their particular plans. As “we” degenerates into “me” the power of the masses to resist fades.

      Why would a billionaire capitalist finances leftist causes? That’s why now and it was why when Kuhn and Loeb sent the money off to Lenin too, I suspect. They saw big potential in Russia, whether that of markets or labor or natural resources, and weren’t going to be able to tap it unless a different group of autocrats took power, which they did. They help finance the soviets. Oh, there’s other examples of this too. ironic but you can find them if you want. I just look down at my pencil, and think of Armand Hammer, for example.

  7. You’ve made a number of silly assertions. No one ‘enjoyed’ this. You’re also in the business of pretending the White House was not forthcoming when it provided hundreds-of-thousands of pages of documentation and then pretend that that’s the equivalent of running a hideous defamation campaign against the nominee. Christine Blasey was lying. The people who profess to believe are a collection of fools and frauds.

    And you’ve entirely missed the significance of this: the Democrats are in a lunatic rage about the composition of the Court because the Court has been their tool for over 60 years for obtaining policy goals to which legislatures have given short shrift. Courts in general are a tool for harassing the political opposition, a toolkit to which the Obama Administration recently added abuse by administrative agencies like the IRS.

      1. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 163 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 126 were confirmed (7 declined to serve). [The remaining 30 nominations were either withdrawn, rejected, or no action was taken.]

  8. This whole Kavanaugh affair was like an after-midnight drunken sloppy unprotected bar hook-up where hopefully both sides (Dems & Reps) wake up the next day full of shame, do their walks of shame, take showers with lava soap, go to confession etc.,and vow to do better. Senator Collins had a good comment about Senate hopefully having hit rock bottom with this ugly chapter of its history.

    1. Why should the Republicans be ‘full of shame’? The Republican caucus didn’s slander anyone. Lying Blasey was treated with kid gloves. It would be extremely surprising were she prosecuted for perjury.

      1. How do you know that Blasey was lying and not Kavanaugh? Or even both ? Why wasn’t there a press to have Kavanaugh take a lie detector test, and for Blasey to re-take hers?

        1. Do we really know that Ford took one? After all, her lawyers refused to provide the results to the Committee.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        It [The Constitution] made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

        The existence of a separate federal judiciary had been controversial during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists had denounced the judicial power as a potential instrument of national tyranny. Indeed, of the ten amendments that eventually became the Bill of Rights, five (the fourth through the eighth) dealt primarily with judicial proceedings. Even after ratification, some opponents of a strong judiciary urged that the federal court system be limited to a Supreme Court and perhaps local admiralty judges. The Congress, however, decided to establish a system of federal trial courts with broader jurisdiction, thereby creating an arm for enforcement of national laws within each state.

  9. Turley wrote, “Once the ‘most deliberative body in the world,’ the Senate has finally reached its apocalyptic moment of total political war without judgment.”

    Total Political Warfare Without Judgment? The chance that the next nominee for the Supreme Court will face allegations of sexual assault or worse is very nearly zero. The chance that the next nominee for the Supreme Court will have an extensive record of executive branch service that needs to be suppressed for the sake of “national security” is very nearly zero. The chance that the next nominee for the Supreme Court will have served in an Independent, or Special, Counsel’s Office investigating a POTUS is very nearly zero. The chance that Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society is going to allow The POTUS, Trump, to add another candidate of Trump’s choosing to The Federalist Society’s short list is . . . Well, actually, that one might be closer to a coin toss.

    In any case, the donnybrook over the Kavanaugh nomination is more likely to prove anomalous than ominous with respect to the future of the “nomination process”. Turley surely needs to get a grip. Or not. It’s still Turley’s sandbox and he can cry havoc if he wants to. The blawg-dogs of blawg-war are going to run themselves ragged no matter what.

    1. they made stuff up. it’s horrific if it’s you who is accused of something which would be a serious crime, according to how it is alleged, from 35 years prior which you think didn’t happen and neither do the socalled witnesses. that’s scary as hell actually

      1. You’re overstating your case. Failure to corroborate an allegation does not demonstrate the allegation to be false. Trump is now badly overplaying that hand at campaign rallies across the country. The backlash that Trump’s trying to egg-on may very well backfire on The Republicans. You’ll need to keep at least forty percent of women voters on your side of the upcoming fight. You’ll need properly to distinguish between accusations, per se, versus false accusations in order to keep at least forty percent of women voters on your side of the upcoming fight. Your zeal to make enemies out of all women is seriously self-defeating.

        1. “Failure to corroborate an allegation does not demonstrate the allegation to be false. ”

          Diane, that is true, but in this case it makes the claim weaker and more unlikely to have happened. That means the counterclaim is much more likely and is truthful.

          You talk about backlash and Trump overplaying his hand. The chatter that I and many others have been hearing is that there would be a blue wave almost certainly taking the House by significant numbers with a good chance of taking the Senate as well. Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker of the House. Just look at your own comments on this issue.

          Who knows what will happen in the future. If the Republicans retain either the House or the Senate that would indicate that Trump faced the blue wave and prevented it from becoming a totaly sweep.That would demonstrate that another of your predictions was wrong. If the House is lost by the Republicans that would be considered expected. If the Senate is lost by the Republicans then the claim is based on the number of losses. If it is a large loss then perhaps you can state Trump overplayed his hand.

          Diane, I have noted how almost all of your claims have been proven wrong or are in the process of being proven wrong. This claim of yours today will have to wait for the election. I am am sure if you turn out to be correct you will let everyone know even if you have to stretch the facts to make your claim appear correct, but we have to recognize that in the past you didn’t let everyone know when your many claims turned out wrong.

          1. Rothenberg / Gonzales’ race-by-race projections suggest a 25 seat gain for the Democrats in the House and a 1-2 seat loss in the Senate. Their most recent assessment was completed before the hearings. There are enough races rated ‘toss-up’ that you cannot make any secure statements, but one’s singe best guess is that the Democrats may have the kind of plurality the Republicans had in 1999-2000, i.e. not much of one.

            1. The predictions have been all over the map, but Diane is constantly adding her predictions as if they were settled conclusions throughout the blog. Mostly Diane has been wrong. I set some parameters in my reply. They do not represent any single individual’s opinion.

              I believe the Republicans will maintain the Senate and are more likely to increase a vote than decrease one. I think because of Trump they may not lose the House. The left is so vociferous and violent that those supporting Trump or “Trump candidates” are reluctant to surface so that how they are going to vote is unknown. I see that everywhere I have been. Even in NYC I have noted a bit of a change in how people are evaluating things. That doesn’t mean a change in their votes but it might. I have a very diverse group of friends and aquaintances. The accusations made by Ford were not a problem. Guilt by association was. Linking Kavanaugh to all sorts of crazy legal issues wasn’t a problem. Guilt by association was.

              Take Diane whose opinions are quite radical and judgement questionable. She will definitely vote Democratic but I recall she has a son who may be married and have children. Is her daughter in law, should she have children, more or less likely to vote Republican out of love for her children because at this point in time the Democrats have gone crazy in their accusations based on gender?

              1. Allan – I saw where they were attacking Avenatti for losing them the Kavanaugh fight. 😉

                1. ” I saw where they were attacking Avenatti for losing them the Kavanaugh fight. ”

                  So did I.

                  In that case Diane will change her claims. Should there be no blue wave she will say Trump didn’t cause the failure of the blue wave. It was Avanatti’s fault. Thus with Diane we see an ever changing target so that she can claim victory asserting a new target whenever necessary.

                  1. Allan – the Democrats keep moving the goalposts. Who knows where they will be by 2020.

                    1. What we are seeing from the Democrats is more like war and a rush to the guillotine while many on the right are thinking in terms 2 honest oponents facing one another in a chess match.

        2. Failure to corroborate an allegation does not demonstrate the allegation to be false.

          She didn’t just ‘fail to corroborate the allegation’. She failed to produce evidence that she was at all acquainted with him or with Mark Judge in 1982. (While getting caught in several lies about ancillary matters).

  10. Squeaky, in the state that I live in, marijuana was finally legalized. It took 3 referendum ballot questions. We finally got it “right” on the 3 red try.

      1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after nineteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you really want to become the grammar police? You can barely write a coherent sentence.

  11. Now for something real:

    Climate Report: Scientists urge deep rapid change to limit warming
    Matt McGrath
    2018 Oct 08
    BBC news

    Water is already over the steps of the reflecting pool …

    1. climate change is real. cause is almost irrelevant at this point. it’s irreversible already according to a lot of them. stupid tax schemes that divert resources from ADAPTATION and MITIGATION are as foolish as ignoring the problem. perhaps even more harmful.

      1. Why not David? What critical engagement have you ever had with his body of work?

  12. Jonathan Turley, I don’t view this as “horror” but rather as a tragedy, in close to the classical Greek meaning.

    Whatever, it besmirches the Senate and rubs off over at the Supreme Court Building.

      1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – it is called the protagonist or “first actor.” That would, of course, be Kavanaugh. However, this was more like a cheap 19th century melodrama than a Greek tragedy. However, the protagonist in this play, still wins out.

        1. According to Aristotle, The Goat-Singer must die. Otherwise, The Tragedy is not A Goat Song. Apollo demands blood (See: Tragus).

          1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Don’t even start on The Poetics. I took a whole graduate course on The Poetics. I have a M.A. in Theatre for god’s sake. Mastering Aristotle is a requirement. And don’t forget, I read every Greek extant tragedy and comedy, and the one satyr play (acted in that, as well). There was a time when I could name every part of the Greek theatre, Roman theatre, Medieval theatre, Renaissance theatre, etc. as well as the stage equipment used for each.

            You really do not want to cross swords with me on this issue. 😉

            1. What makes you think I’m trying to cross swords with you? This is tiddlywinks. There are no degree programs in tiddlywinks . . . yet.

              1. JAY – My resume is not an argument, you are correct, however it lays the groundwork if she wishes to continue her silly argument. It is NOT Greek tragedy. 😉

                1. What makes you think that I said that this is Greek tragedy?

                  Are you really sure that you’ve properly laid the groundwork for an argument more substantial than tiddlywinks?

    1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eightteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – if this is a Greek tragedy, which of the characters plucks out their eyes? Or kills their children and rides off in a chariot? Or???

      1. Dr. Benson was juxtaposing hamartia to phrice. Aidos and Eleos are still in the game. Do not despair:


        A comprehensive guide to the daemones or spirit personifications of Greek mythology … AEDOS (Aidos) Reverence, Respect, Shame, Self-Respect, Modesty (Latin Pudicitia) … ELEUS (Eleos) Pity, Mercy, Compassion (Latin Misericordia, Clemencia) …. HORROR Horror, Shivering Fear, Trembling Fear ( Greek Phrice).

        1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – as someone who has read quite a few Greek dramas (actually all extant) this is not a Greek tragedy.

          1. The Personifications at issue in the donnybrook were as follows:

            MACHAE (Makhai) (plural) Battle, Combat; METHE Drunkenness, Inebriety; and MNEMOSYNE Memory (Latin Moneta).

            Both agonists battled with memory in the present. One agonist battled with drunkenness in the past. The Chorus (Senate) merely battled as always. The Goat Lives To Sing another day.

          2. PCS

            It’s time for your whining about other posters to stop. We’ve all read many Arizona dramas – from the country’s most buffoonish sheriff to the fake war hero who ditched his family, cheated on his first wife, married the daughter of a mobbed up beer baron and did his best to help a financial fraudster escape justice.

            1. It’s time for every whine about other posters to stop. One can constructively agree or disagree without personal attacks.

              1. You’ve already told one grotesque lie in these threads, you fraud.

                1. Is there no limit to your heavy handed megalomania, Tabarrok? Sam, I agree with you completely, and the label of “fraud” belongs to people like Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter the “Rockefeller” con man, and Donald Trump, who pretends to know how to be POTUS.

                  I am a pacifist, but I am willing to bet either Tabarrok hides behind his narcissistic mask in public, or he has been punched in the face at least once.

                  1. The term ‘megalomania’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

                    1. I think it suits you just fine, with particularly emphasis on your delusions of grandeur, need to control, and self-aggrandizement of the relative value of your opinions, which you erroneously present as facts:

                      obsession with the exercise of power, especially in the domination of others.
                      synonyms: delusions of grandeur, folie de grandeur, thirst/lust for power; More
                      delusion about one’s own power or importance (typically as a symptom of manic or paranoid disorder).

                    2. You say inane things, exasperated people respond to you. Get over it.

                    3. Tab, you are a typical bully, and the world wishes that you had even an ounce of self awareness and humility. No one should pay a bit of attention to your acerbic commentary and constant bids for negative attention. I certainly give you no credence whatsoever.

                    4. You intervened in a discussion you weren’t part of, you intervened on behalf of a poster whose remarks are invariably obnoxious and worthless in every thread he enters, and you’ve offered repeated random insults. (“Megalomania” bla bla). But I’m the bully. Sister, no one can help you.

                    5. Oh, wait. When you are insulting you are merely using “descriptors” but when I make negative judgments regarding your commentary, I am being insulting. You sound a bit think skinned, Tabbie.

                      Also, you are aware that you and Sam were not having a private chat, right? I am very sorry that (and the world is quite weary of) people like you did not learn how to respectfully disagree with others in Kindergarten like the other kiddos.

                      I am generally a very respectful person, but I am not going to sit back passively while you behave abusively toward me or other people. Grow up, for God’s sake, and just act like a decent human being.

                  2. Stark, unemployment 3.7, GDP climbing and will be around 4.7 next quarter, no recent missile firings from N. Korea without paying billions of dollars, Russian borders haven’t advanced an inch, Iran not being able to use Europe as a counterbalance to US policy, an improved balance of power in the middle east that may reduce the likelihood of larger wars, tax reforms, Nafta etc.

                    We got all of that and more from Trump “who pretends to know how to be POTUS.”. Now approaching the end of his second year he no longer has to pretend (to use your words). It is quite clear he knows what he is doing and what he has done has greatly helped America and the world though the Stalinists feel compelled to state their silly opinions.

                  3. Lari:

                    “I am a pacifist, but I am willing to bet either Tabarrok hides behind his narcissistic mask in public, or he has been punched in the face at least once.”

                    You’re in a gunfight with a pop gun. Save your venom for more game appropriate to your abilities. Say, maybe Dr. Benson.

                    PS: You’ll get shot less if you use facts more. Calling someone a “bully” on a comment board is … well… pretty dumb. No intimidation can be had if you’re miles away. None at all.

                    1. You don’t scare me, and neither does Tabby. I do think that part of his abusive strategy is aimed at keeping those who disagree with him, and generally do not find him to be the brilliant mind he believes himself to be, away. It is a control issue, as it is with most narcissists. Mommy issues, most likely, are to blame.

                      This is supposed to be a law blog, but the law as it currently stands is discussed quite sparsely. Anonymous people discussing their takes on politics is actually not all that interesting, but I will still comment as I please. Thanks for the advice, though.

                    2. It would be brainless to be scared of a few nut jobs behind keyboards. You may want to consider getting outside for some fresh air, Mespo.

                    3. I do think that part of his abusive strategy is aimed at keeping those who disagree with him, and generally do not find him to be the brilliant mind he believes himself to be, away. It is a control issue, as it is with most narcissists. Mommy issues, most likely, are to blame.

                      I think LJ Stark is telling us she was a psych major ca. 1971.

                    4. wth is ageist? never heard of it. i must be too old for that one. has that got something to do with Zeus’ shield?

            2. bill mcwilliams – that sheriff was a highly decorated federal officer before he ran for sheriff and he replaced a lawn mower repairman who was the current sheriff. Yes, I typed that correctly, lawn mower repairman. His problem was that he enforced the law, which made the powers to be very very unhappy. Especially, after he took down Danny’s Car Washes, which were all over the Valley. Businesses could see that if they were avoiding e-Verify, they were going to jail, like Danny and several of his managers did. So, the powers to be decided to “get him.” There were continual hit pieces in the press, which were incorrect. The funniest was the East Valley Tribune who recorded their interview and you could listen to it. If you listened to the interview, the reporters clearly did not go to the same interview they reported. They were eventually able to bring him to trial just before his re-election which was enough to tip the scale in favor of his opponent. The judge was an Obama lackey.

      2. Yes, when it comes to making stuff up, Benson is definitely the King. But, much as I hate to admit it his comparison of the Kavanaugh nomination to Greek tragedy is merely a rhetorical device for which I think he could be forgiven, without the rest of us being subjected to an amateur’s seminar in ancient drama. Not every Greek tragedy had a character plucking out their eyes, like Oedipus, or killing their kids, like Medea. Some of them don’t even have unhappy endings (Oresteia, Alcestis). That being said, and at the risk of opening up another scholarly pissing match, I’d have to say this Kavanaugh fiasco, with its evil Democratic villains, is much more in the Elizabethan vein (Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy, the White Devil, Titus Andronicus, Hamlet), than the Attic, where the conflict is generally not between a hero and a villain, so much as between the hero and his own hamartia.

        1. JAY – the key to a Spanish Tragedy is that there must be bodies littering the stage at the end of the play. How many dead are there on stage at the end of Hamlet? How many are dead off-stage?

          1. Paul:

            ” How many dead are there on stage at the end of Hamlet? How many are dead off-stage?”

            How many die and come back as ghosts?
            “Oh my prophetic soul!” (I. V. 40.)

        2. Repubs need to channel the spirit of brave Odysseus. the clever one. don’t be like the rest of them, just him

    2. Maybe Turley is reading our comments. Many times in the past couple weeks before this article, I have included this clip and screenplay text. Or maybe he just saw it the same way I did! Great minds think alike. (grins)

    1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eightteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – nup, she is a public figure now and we can libel the hell out of her.

  13. The Roman Senate had reduced itself to such incompetence to govern that Julius Gaius Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon.

    1. “The Roman Senate had reduced itself to such incompetence to govern that Julius Gaius Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon.”
      Yeah, Cicero, Cassius Dio, Cato the Younger, Augustus and Mark Anthony were quite the “incompetents.” Do you know any history?

  14. For now, I agree. But I think in the coming months, mysteries will start to unravel. People who didn’t want to talk, or some with information a little too remote or insignificant to be anything relevant in the legal sense, will piece together clearer pictures of the accuser and the accused. So – sit tight – maybe the best is yet to come.

    1. A possibility is that a future House of Representatives impeaches and the Senate convicts if Kavanaugh does not resign first.


      1. That is more likely something that will happen to people like Diane Feinstein. She and her cohorts are not without a great deal of tar and feathers being collected. If nothing else than continued violation of their Oath of Office including taking it to begin with . .

          1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eightteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – when is the last time you read the Constitution? ‘Fess up.

      2. It’s also a ‘possibility’ that David Benson is Marie of Roumania.

        1. I personally consider that a very strong possibility. The similarities are too striking to ignore as mere chance.

          1. TTP/FFS:
            “It’s also a ‘possibility’ that David Benson is Marie of Roumania.”

            To quote AUSA James J. Wells (Wilford Brimley) in the penultimate scene from Sydney Pollack’s classic, “Absence of Malice”:

            “Oh it’s more than possible Ms. Carter. It’s damned likely.”

    2. Discover the Networks. I bet David Laufer has the answers to some unanswered questions, and there is a residue of people in the various Divisions at the Department of Justice and in the FBI who would prefer that those answers not be known.

      1. I bet Kavanaugh, Ed Whelan, Leonard Leo and the swift-boat crew over at Creative Response Concepts know secrets that could cost Chris Garrett his job as a school teacher. I further bet that Kavanaugh knows the name of every last unnamed person in “God and Man at Georgetown Prep” by Mark Judge.

  15. The problem is that Chrissy perjured herself on several occasions. Will the Senate go after her? Her name is Mudd on the right. BTW, she is up around $1 million in funds. That is a nice payout for testifying.

    1. 1. Is it taxable
      2. Is it taxable before any of it is used to pay the lawyers?
      3. Do the lawyers and Ford split this income?
      4. Who pays for all those extras they provided?
      5. Is Ford going to to sue the lawyers?
      6. Is Ford going to sue Feinstein? Regardless of what she did nor didn’t do she was careless with that letter and therefore responsible.
      7. It isn’t over yet… except for Feinstein and the principle violators of their oath of office. Will the DNC protect them?

      1. Lawyers stated that they are working Pro Bono.

        In general, all income, revenue less expenses, is taxable.

      2. This is not over yet for a number of reasons, but I can answer one question for you, via the IRS website:

        Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income as income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.”

        Therefore, yes, the Go Fund Me account is taxable. The extent of the deductions that can plausibly be wrangled from this mess would best be answered by Trump’s (lovely and intelligent) tax attorneys at Morgan Lewis. They seem to be doing a fine job of propping up his tax minimization schemes to date, but a conflicts check (and the relative size of Dr. Blasey Ford’s purse) would likely keep them out of the game.

        1. Those “tax minimization schemes” as you call them are legal. If people have a problem with the US Tax Code they can write a letter to Congress.
          How many of those whining about Trump’s taxes are forgoing their own tax minimization schemes like:

          Out-of-pocket charitable contributions

          Moving expense to take first job

          Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit

          Earned Income Tax Credit 

          Mortgage Interest, Points, and Insurance

          Medical and Dental Expenses

          Home Equity Loans

          Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes

          State/Local Taxes

          Not many I’m sure.

          1. Some are legal, some are not. The deductions that you mention are allowable, if claimed honestly and appropriately. I was trying to be diplomatic and use a phrase other than “tax avoidance,” but there it is. Tax fraud is quite common, and Trump will soon be put to the test.

            1. L.J., Tax avoidance is quite legal. It is the use of the laws written by congress to minimize taxes. Tax fraud is quite different. It is avoiding taxes by illegal means.

                1. Stark, pushing the envelope is not criminality, rather checking how far the law extends. That involves a fine or settlement where settlements are frequently made not because one believes themselves to be wrong rather it is the easier path. Hiding income is criminality. The IRS has had Trumps tax forms for every year of his adult life. The only thing he hasn’t done is shown you his IRS forms and because of that you are angry and jealous.

            2. ” if claimed honestly and appropriately.”

              What does that mean? Appropriately needs to be defined in the law but that has not always been satisfactory leading to battles between the IRS and an individual’s tax lawyers. People like you extend those legitimate battles into the realm of criminality and then defame people that are charged even when those people are not convicted.

              That is the type of racket Democratic supporters like to use against their eneimies and you are no exception.

                1. Apparently you didn’t understand what was said.

                  I’ll make it easier for you.

                  The words honest and appropriate lead to vague laws that may need to be adjudicated in tax court. That is the type of claim where the person pays a fine, pays nothing or settles because government can be abusive.

                  Not declaring taxes is criminal.

                  What you call frivilous is merely your inability to understand the difference between the two points above.

                  What you should call frivolous is the Ford spectacle that should have first occurred in private with an investigation to spare Ford and the nation. In private she could have had a new polygraph that was complete instead of useless. She could have had an impartial investigation of all her claims and all the people involved or thought to be involved. Even the police could have done an investigation locally. None of this should have appeared until after all these things were done. Then if she wanted she could have made a public claim as could any Senator.

                  The most frivilous thing I have seen on this blog is you.

                2. they could have had it but apparently the IRS was not interested. Nor DoJ.

                  whatever the NYT has it’s not new to the IRS.

          1. Gifts are taxable to the donor, not to the recipient. But every taxpayer has a yearly exemption, allowing him to make gifts tax free up to around $13,000 the last time I checked. It may be a bit higher now, but the exemption allows people to make routine gifts for Christmas, birthdays, Go Fund Me appeals, etc. without having to bother with tax reporting.

            1. TIN, I think the number i $14,000 but that can only go to family members. I don’t think that gift tax can go outside the family. However, if someone outside of family has tuition bills, medical bills and possibly a few other things then you can pay those bills to members outside the family but it must be paid directly to the medical facility, educational facility etc.

      3. Michael Aarethun – assuming Chrissy gets her hands on the money, it is tax free, it is a gift (I think, but then she might need tax advice). The lawyers are working pro bono so they don’t get any of the money. All of her expenses were paid by either the SJC or her lawyers. And according to what I have heard, Chuckie Schumer released the letter from his office, this is according to the FBI report (remember before they wanted the report released the Democrats did not want the report released?).

    2. That you only see the possibility of Dr. Blasey Ford having perjured herself (which has not been conclusively proven, btw) is a symptom of the great partisan divide in our nation.

      Objectively, both of the major players in this fiasco could have been lying under oath. If there had been a true FBI investigation, we might be closer to an accurate answer on that score. All we are left with is partisan bickering.

      1. Be specific here. What exactly would a “true” FBI investigation of a high school party sometime in the 80’s look like??? Jesus H. Christ, they interviewed all the alleged witnesses. What more are they supposed to do???

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Asha Rangappa, a former FBI Agent, indicates that a full investigation would have included interviewing both Kavanaugh and Blasey-Ford, as well as any other potential complaining witnesses. She also says this was all politically motivated, and due to the curtailed parameters of the investigation, seemed intended to be inconclusive.

          This way Flake could pay lip service to the tearful women who encountered him at the elevator and their fellow survivors of sexual assault. In short, it was a sham from start to finish. I would think that a “reporter” would have been able to see where the “investigation” fell short, but those partisan blinders are hard to see around.

          1. Then guess what, you don’t play the gotcha card in the last hour. If the dems really gave a crap about the truth, they would have blown this out months ago and you know this.

            1. I have no idea how the 11th hour disclosure came to pass, but it seems it was either politically motivated, or just incompetent. Certainly, it could/should have been handled better and with greater discretion.

              That said, if you say you will undertake an investigation, allow the FBI to do its job unhindered.

              1. DiFI lacked the nerve to burn Ford, and then they decided she could be sent on her mission, however badly it turned out for her personally, it was with it for Dems. then Di FI had the nerve, all of a sudden. that’s all.

                1. Mr Kurtz – my understanding is, according to the FBI report, Chuck Schumer and his office burned Chrissy.

                  1. Paul wrote: “…my understanding is, according to the FBI report, Chuck Schumer and his office burned Chrissy.”

                    We’ll need a link, Paul.

                    Proof of your claim?

                    1. Anonymous – various rumors from non-Lame Stream Media sites. Actually, I binged so much stuff over the last couple of days I honestly could not even tell you where to start to look. I do know it came up on two reports. The problem, of course, is that none of the report is supposed to be released. Remember Schumer and DiFi did not want the report released before the wanted the report released. My guess is that if they decide to release it, the Democrats will fight to either redact part of it, or not release it at all. Judicial Watch may have already filed a FOIA to get it.

          2. He’s been investigated by the FBI seven times and there is simply no evidence that Chrissy claims refer to anything physically real.

            1. A complete FBI investigation on this particular allegation, and similar allegations made after Dr. Ford came forward would have included another interview with Kavanaugh and Ford. More than one FBI agent has stated as much, but if Tab disagrees, well then, I am sure we all stand corrected.

              1. The investigation was complete, and he’s been investigated seven times. The investigations just didn’t give you the answers you wanted. Poor little diddums.

          3. If they did not interview Christine, then I agree that was a mistake on the FBI’s part. The problem is, that you are still dealing with allegations from the 80’s over a high school party, and without a time machine, or little thingies like actual witnesses, what can anyone do?

            IF, the FBI had interviewed both parties, which I agree they should have done, at least as a matter of good form, what are you going to get except she said-he said? The way around that is WITNESSES.

            Substantively, what would the FBI tell us about say, Christine’s alleged fear of flying, that we don’t already know? That it was a crock of sh*t? We already know that. The “two doors” thing? We have already learned that was also a crock of sh*t.

            So, while I think they should have done it, what difference would it make? Would even one of the Democratic Senators have changed their vote? Nope. Would any Democratic Party pundit have changed their mind? Nope.

            IMHO, the best way to cut thru all the circus to the truth, is simply to look at the facts. A die-hard Democrat made allegations that were fuzzy at best, and ludicrous at worst, and all the supposed witnesses denied it ever happened. Christine’s story has numerous holes in it, and her ex-boyfriend shot down her BS flying story and door story. Christine apparently openly lied about her experience with polygraphs, and as was pointed out here earlier, it was a very strange polygraph that she took. There is nothing credible in her story at all. Not one single thing.

            Brett and Christine were both questioned under oath in the hearings. At this point, if anyone still has a serious doubts that Christine is nothing but a liar, then even a FBI interrogation would not convince them otherwise.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. An FBI polygraph of both of them would have convinced me. The one she took previously, although administered by a former FBI agent, was not in accord with professional standards. Of course, there are people on the fringes who are not going to believe either side no matter what, but objective people are open to whatever evidence is produced. Sworn testimony is evidence, and it gives people the opportunity to observe demeanor and assess credibility. An ex-boyfriend coming out of the woodwork doesn’t mean much, without the opportunity to assess his background and motivations and credibility. I believe she was assaulted; I’m just not sure it was by Kavanaugh. She did recognize Mark Judge when she saw him working that summer in the Safeway supermarket, so clearly she knew him. If Judge were polygraphed, maybe we would learn who the assailant was. He’s not going to agree to that, which suggests he’s covering for somebody.

              1. An FBI polygraph of both of them would have convinced me.

                Buy my bridge.

                She did recognize Mark Judge when she saw him working that summer in the Safeway supermarket, so clearly she knew him.

                She mentioned Safeway repeatedly in her testimony. His employment there is referred to in his memoirs.

                1. Wrong! In his memoirs, Mark Judge wrote that he worked “at a supermarket.” He didn’t indicate which one. There are two supermarkets in Potomac, across the street from one another. One is Safeway, the other is Giant. How did Ford know which store he was employed at if she didn’t see him there?

                    1. DSS – I thought the reference to Judge at Safeway was from Chrissy’s testimony.

                    2. Yes it was. If he didn’t indicate in cold print (in his memoir or in his affidavits) precisely where he worked, how is CB’s reference to ‘Safeway’ an ‘identification’ of him?

                      As we speak, Safeway v. Giant is a common choice in greater DC. (Can’t recall what it was in 1982, though I had family living in the area). Were there both a Safeway and a Giant in Potomac, Md in 1982, she’d get it right half the time if she just guessed. Mixing up one with the other would be understandable at this juncture, so that wouldn’t be a landmine for her.

                      (In any case, Chrissy-boosters are fazed by nothing, even the blatant cock-and-bull over her home renovations and air travel).

                      (There were two grocery stores in my neighborhood in Baltimore in 1982. For the life of me I cannot recall what the larger one was called; the smaller was a Wawa).

                  1. Or, rather, if he didn’t indicate in affidavits not shown to CB that he worked at Safeway, how would her identification of Safeway as his place of employment indicate she knew him?

              2. TIN – it appears that Safeway did not open for another couple of summers. So, for Chrissy to wave to Judge in the Safeway would put it back on the original timeline and Kavanaugh is off the hook.

                1. Paul – As stated by T.I.N., it seems fairly certain that Mark Judge was involved, but he’s not going to name the other person. Either he’s covering for a friend, or he doesn’t want to admit his own involvement. Or both.

                  1. it seems fairly certain that Mark Judge was involved,

                    You need to get to first base, which is a witness who attests that that there was an incident in which to be involved. You don’t have that.

                2. Not precisely off the hook, but it does make the tale less plausible inasmuch as BK was in Connecticut 60-100% of the time after 1983. (Mark Judge attended school locally, however).

    3. and the right needs to stabilize its alternative media platforms and reclaim a space for whatever alternative there is to patreon. i won’t get into the details. the right is constantly out-organized by the left. one day that may be a mistake that is paid with the blood of naive fools who can’t see where this is all going.

      1. Mr Kurtz – there was a panel at Mythcon this week talking about coming up with an alternative to paymasters currently used and abused on YouTube.

        1. here is a list of alternatives from 10 months ago


          there was a thing called “Hatreon” and then visa suspended it

          anybody can crowdfund the old fashioned way by “taking a collection,” and even using the internet websites or forums lets say as advertising and coordination, but you need an escrow agent, and it’s a lot more efficient if a service like patreon can handle it

          1. Mr Kurtz – the problem has been that major news organizations have been brigading the alt channels and then getting them demonetized. Many have moved to alternative platforms like Bit Chute, etc. It is really a coordinated effort.

            1. yes, these are logistical financing operations and information warfare battles in the incipient civil war. breitbart is the guy who understands this, him and DJT. i hope DJT rather.

    4. Nobody’s going after her. The last thing the Repub’s want to do is alienate more educated, female voters.

      1. They may just vote more Republican than ever.

        With the heat of tribalism, the defensive instincts of women may take over from ideology. Circle the wagons. We’ll see; I can’t predict the future.

        The left is in a quandry because it can only attack “white men.” They went offscript with Thomas, but it was worth it to them. Today, regardless of the manifest whiteness of privileged DOCTOR BLASEY – FORD, they are repeating that mantra of “white men” as group enemy with tremendous force and intention.

        At some juncture, “white women” may begin to wonder, how they will fare if “white men” are all burnt at the stake. Will liberal generals and paymasters defend them from the troops, hungry for “booty,” as it were?

Comments are closed.