PARDON THIS REPEAT WHICH IS AN EXPANDED VERSION OF WHAT I SENT THIS MORNING!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Marx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Put this in your pipe and smoke it: https://www.facebook.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My memos go to a fairly eclectic group of people but I also suspect more look at the cartoons than read the articles.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Jewish New Year has begun, Yom Kippur is over, fasting is behind us and Lynn had sixty plus people at the house for a Break The Fast Buffet and several more who came to say hello and share dessert. This has to be her 35th year of bringing friends together as family.
Soon, another holiday begins that celebrates the Harvest Period -Succot.
Once again, I hope it will be a good and sweet year, one of good health and that our nation begins to heal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
However, I have less confidence the latter will occur. Why? For a variety of reasons:
A) Democrats remain angry and are hell bent on regaining power. They do not know what to do with themselves when they are not in control.
Yesterday, Hillary continued her whining campaign which is why she did not win. She warned Trump is going to fire people who are fragging him and preventing him from accomplishing his legislative agenda. He is destroying our Democracy. WOW! More baseless charges but no evidence. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Meanwhile, Rep.Adam "Shifty" Schiff is very upset with President Trump because he ordered release of previously classified FISA documents. 'Shifty" argues, by doing so, Trump is placing in jeopardy those in national security. When Hillary was using a personal cell phone and computer to convey classified information this same member of Congress was not concerned one bit. In fact he defended her.
B) Also,do not forget, feminists said give us equal status and rights and we will remain trustworthy.
The entire Professor Ford charade seems to be another delay confirmation tactic. Monday, she should have her day in court. Will she appear or demand an FBI investigation as a manipulative excuse to cause further delay and disruption? Tuesday, Kavanaugh should have his day in court. He appears fired up and anxious to appear. Wednesday, the committee should vote and then The Senate shortly thereafter. (See 2 below.)
Have the "Despicables" brought us to the point where any woman can make an accusation against a man and the accused is immediately presumed guilty? That seems to be the case. If so, then the feminists have finally scored their ultimate victory - male castration for all their grievances.
Is our Constitution also a male document ? Have we reached the point where it too can be emasculated on a whim?
What 2 Women Who Actually Clerked for Kavanaugh Really Think of Him | The Daily Signal
How much money has Professor Ford received, if any, and from whom? If she appears these are two questions she should be asked.
I can understand there are always those who will believe whatever they hear and/or want to hear. What I find so sad is these same are incapable of hearing and/or giving any thought to the fact that what they hear, what they want to hear may not be so.
To remember something that, allegedly, took place over 35 years ago and to bring it up at a crucial time is, at the very least, a bit strange.
For it to be the same thing that has been tried before by low life Democrats, under similar circumstances and for the same purpose just adds logs to the fire of doubt.
Third, for the accuser to possibly have been smoked out is even stranger and then for that person not to appear to validate her charge, after being given the opportunity to do so, is just another difficult pill to swallow.
But as of now that is where we are in this contrived and seemingly perpetrated tragedy all because a conservative Justice is more than progressives, radical liberals and "Despicable Democrats" can fathom.
These mealy mouthed Democrats cannot accept the fact that mistaken identity actually happens.
Lamentably, even if Kavanaugh is approved, as he probably should be, Deplorable Democrats can still claim victory because he will sit under a permanent cloud they were able to navigate. Destroying careers is as much their goal as blocking nominations.
And thus it is with the professor Ford episode. Eventually her claim will pass but the stench will remain. It perpetuates a precedence of character assassination and, most likely, deters our best from serving.
If conservatives and Republicans do not turn out in droves and drive the "heathens" from the temple of power shame on them. (See 2a and 2b below.)
C) Is national lunacy winning over objectivity and sanity? If so, this is more likely why we will lose our democracy not because of anything Trump does.
Democrats have truly become the "Despicable Party," bless their sordid souls.
One can only hope their efforts at obstruction, smearing reputations and thwarting Trump at every turn, regardless of the national consequences, will be rejected at the polls. They deserve no less. However, to accomplish this those who see through their shenanigans must turn out in enormous numbers. Mid-year elections do not favor this happening. Putin has to be praying The Obama-ites regain power so he can walk all over us again. As for China, should Obama-ite type Democrats regain power they would remain in a continuing position of stealing our technology while expanding their world influence.
N Korea and Iran would also be cheering, knowing Trump's actions at thwarting their nuclear ambitions would be crippled.
Trump's efforts at regaining America's momentum will be crushed and prospects of a market collapse would rise.
D) When I try to look dispassionately at the efforts of Democrats to smear Trump, to engage in any and every tactic to undercut him, his ability to serve as president and how they and their sympathizers have engaged in a variety of illegal activities to defeat him and after his election to besmirch him and his family, I cannot help but become, discouraged and pessimistic?
Politics has always been a rough and tumble enterprise but it has truly reached a new and depressing low. All I can say is bless the sordid souls of those who have chosen to be a part.
A miscarriage is what the "Deplorables" wanted to accomplish because no matter the results there will be enough doubt to allow the debate, doubt and questions to continue. (See 3 and 3a below.)
Yes, I would like to think we will eventually return to our senses and the current political vitriol will subside before recurring. The problem is, a degree of significant residue is always left that shapes the future in a most inglorious and dangerous way.
When and if cooler heads and keener objectivity/reasoning prevail we will conclude what Trump did and any business man would, ie. we could no longer afford to support policies that were outdated and did not serve our national interests. The "Despicables" railed against Trump's nationalism, closing open borders, stopping the flow of illegals, ending bad trade deals and disengaging from Obama policies and red tape that handcuffed us and strengthened radical Islamists.
Because of Trump's quirky personality, shady past Playboy Life style and "Deplorables" success at perpetuating their fraudulent behaviour through senior Obama officials who engaged in skulduggery we are going through a significant period of resistance which could end with Radical Democrats recapturing the reigns of government, ending the investigations of corruption, impeaching Trump and setting us back decades.
If that is where the unwashed who believe everything the mass media spews in their faces then we deserve everything we get and it will be a self-imposed painful period.
Because I care about my country, because I believe capitalism has produced untold riches shared by more than any other system would produce, and because I treasure our Constitution I care about the upcoming mid year election and the embrace of socialism and thus Kavanaugh's selection to The Supreme Court. He is our Horatio and not the fake Spartacus.
E) No, I do not want to see the Alinksy/Obama/Soros gamblers win but they have prepared the batter better than those whom they seek to entrap, so the odds favor them. They have filled our higher education departments with radicals, they have paid the sign carrying protesters, they have stirred the voices of fascists who want to see blood in the street, smashed windows and stolen goods as a consequence of riots protesting fake acts of injustice in order to justify their assaults on democracy.
This is what I see and believe is happening and is their goal. In essence they hate America and want to destroy it because it stands in the way of their ultimate sense of what world order should be like.
F) My views do not accord with progressives, liberals, Democrats who believe they know better because they bleed for the downtrodden, believe money is the root of all evil when in the hands of the rich but solves all the world's problems, poverty, a better education and you name it, when in their hands.
These are the same people who want to rid us of the protective power of our constitution because a people who are armed can protect their freedoms. These are the same people who protect a woman's right to abort, at any stage in a pregnancy, because feminists want to break ceilings. Yes, these are the same people who believe they are righteous simply because they pronounce that they are and because they drink their own bathwater.
These are the book ends of our nation who set our mores and believe anything goes as long as it makes you feel good because there really is no right or wrong, since everything is relative and national symbols, belief in God, the sanctity of a strong family unit are unworthy traditions that encourage racists views.
There comes a time when out with the old and in with the new makes sense, could be overdue and only time will tell.
Yes, appears I am in the growing minority and off my rocker but then I had the opportunity of chatting with a dear friend, fellow memo reader and former CIA member who is very hard nosed conservative last evening. I was surprised when he volunteered he was quite encouraged with what was beginning to unfold in N Korea. He realizes we could be played but believes Trump will not relent.
That said, Trump racking up successes that will never be noticed/acknowledged by The anti-Trump haters.
F) One further observation. Russians have VODKA to take their minds off Communism's misery
In America, radicals have convinced us we are miserable because of Capitalism, income disparity, the wealthy have it all, racist police kill at random etc. so now we have the widespread use of CANNABIS to take our minds off our contrived misery. You can add this to the list of items that will eventually weaken America distort our ability to reason, increase our dependence on more powerful drugs and bring us to our knees like misguided millionaire NFL players.
Time will tell. You decide.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Chaos or not, Trump is racking up a record of foreign policy success
In his new book “Fear,” Bob Woodward recounts that in April 2017, after President Trump saw images of dead Syrian children with their mouths foaming from a sarin attack, he called Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and issued an order: Get me a plan for a military strike to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“Let’s f---ing kill him!” Trump told Mattis, according to the book. “Let’s go in. Let’s kill the f---ing lot of them.” Mattis, Woodward writes, assured the president that “he would get right on it.” But as soon as Mattis hung up the phone, he told a senior aide: “We’re not going to do any of that.” Instead, Woodward says, the defense secretary gave Trump options for more-limited strikes.
Today, as Assad menaces 3 million civilians in the last rebel stronghold, the Idlib province, it’s clear that Trump’s instinct was right. We should have taken out the Syrian dictator last year.
When Trump was elected in 2016, many worried that he would usher in a new age of American isolationism and withdrawal. That hasn’t happened. Trump has pursued a foreign policy that is not only not isolationist but also a significant improvement over his predecessor’s.
In Syria, while Trump did not eliminate Assad, he did enforce President Barack Obama’s red line against the use of chemical weapons, punishing violations not once but twice — and restoring America’s credibility on the world stage. Last week, Trump launched the U.S.-led coalition’s assault on the Islamic State’s last stronghold on the Syrian-Iraqi border, which will eliminate its physical caliphate. And unlike Obama, Trump is not taking America’s boot off the terrorists’ necks. The Post reports that the president has approved a new strategy that “indefinitely extends the military effort” in Syria until a government acceptable to all Syrians is established and all Iranian military and proxy forces are driven out. Conservative columnist Patrick Buchanan, a die-hard isolationist, recently asked: “Is Trump Going Neocon in Syria?”
In Israel, Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which he recognized as the country’s capital — something three of his predecessors promised, but failed, to do. He also withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and refocused U.S. efforts in the Middle East on shoring up relations with allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia instead of courting Iran.
In Afghanistan, after a careful deliberative process in which Trump (correctly) pressed his generals for answers to tough questions, the president reversed his campaign position favoring a troop pullout and sent additional forces, with no timetable for withdrawal.
In Turkey, Trump is taking a hard line with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s regime, imposing tariffs as the Turkish lira has gone into free fall. Trump’s move was intended to punish Erdogan for his continued detention of an American pastor, Andrew Brunson, and followed his threats against U.S. forces in Syria and his plans to buy an S-400 advanced air-defense system from Moscow.
Trump has also taken a surprisingly tough line with Russia. He approved a massive arms and aid package for Ukraine, expelled 60 Russian diplomats and authorized new sanctions against Moscow at least four times for: (1) interfering in U.S. elections, (2) violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, (3) launching a chemical-weapon attack against a Russian national in Britain and (4) violating North Korea sanctions. And the Trump administration recently warned Russia that it would face “total economic isolation” if Moscow backed the Assad regime’s assault in Idlib. Trump’s policies more than make up for his disastrous Helsinki news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in July.
On North Korea, Trump issued credible threats of military action, which brought Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table. The chances of successful denuclearization are slim, but every other approach by Trump’s predecessors has failed. And there is reason for hope that Trump will not sign a bad deal, because he set a very high bar for a good deal when he withdrew from Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.
The list of good foreign-policy moves goes on. Trump has taken a strong stand against the narco-dictatorship in Venezuela, and his administration even considered supporting coup plotters seeking to remove the Maduro regime. He strengthened NATO by getting allies to kick in billions more toward the alliance’s collective security. He declared war on the International Criminal Court, which purports to have jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers and citizens even though America is not a signatory to the treaty creating the ICC.
Liberals might not like any of these developments, but long-standing policy goals of conservative internationalists are being achieved. There may be chaos in the Trump White House, but so far at least the chaos is producing pretty good results.
The present continuance of institutions such as the EU, NATO, UN, and others suggests that the world goes on exactly as before. In fact, these alphabet organizations are becoming shadows of their former selves, more trouble to end than to allow to grow irrelevant. The conditions that created them after the end of World War II, and subsequently sustained them even after the fall of the Berlin Wall, no longer really exist.
The once grand bipartisan visions of American diplomats such as Dean Acheson, George Kennan, George Marshall and others long ago more than fulfilled their enlightened promises. The U.S. in 1945, unlike in 1918, rightly stayed engaged in Europe after another world war. America helped to rebuild what the old Axis powers had destroyed in Asia and Europe.
At great cost, and at times in both folly and wisdom, the U.S. and its allies faced down 300 Soviet and Warsaw Pact divisions. America contained communist aggression through messy surrogate wars, avoided a nuclear exchange, bankrupted an evil communist empire, and gave Eastern Europe and much of Asia the opportunity for self-determination. New postwar protocols enforced by the U.S. Navy made the idea of global free trade, commerce, travel, and communications a reality in a way never seen since the early Roman Empire.
The original postwar order was recalibrated after 1989, as the Soviet Union vanished and the United States became the world’s sole superpower. On the eve of the First Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush, in a September 11, 1990 address to Congress introduced “the new world order” (the 9/11 date would prove eerie). The Bush administration’s ideal was an American-led, global, and ecumenical community founded on shared devotion to perpetual peace, and pledged to democratic nation-building.
The 1990s were certainly heady times. A year after the fall of the wall, Germany was reunited. A UN-sanctioned global coalition in 1991 forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Francis Fukuyama published The End of History in 1992, suggesting that all the ancient political, economics and military controversies of the past were coalescing into a Western, and mostly American, consensus that was sweeping the globe.
The ensuing world confluence might well make war and other age-old calamities obsolete. The transformation of the once loosely organized and pragmatic European Common Market into a utopian European Union was institutionalized by the Maastricht Treaty of 1993.
Fossilized European notions such as borders and nationalism would supposedly give way to a continental-wide shared currency, citizenship, and identity.
For a while these utopian ambitions seemed attainable. America, under the guise of NATO multilateral action, bombed Slobadan Milosevic out of power in 2000. Calm seemed to return to the Balkans at the price of less than 10 American combat deaths. The UN grandly declared no-fly zones in Iraq to stymie a resurgent Saddam Hussein.
President Bill Clinton ushered in a supposedly lasting Middle East peace with the allegedly re-invented old terrorist Yasser Arafat in 1993 at Oslo. Palestinians and Israelis would live side-by-side in adjoining independent nations. Wars would soon give way to economic prosperity that in turn would render their ancient differences obsolete.
Boris Yeltsin’s post-Soviet Russia seemed on the preordained pathway to Western-style consumer capitalism and constitutional government. Hosts of Western intellectuals, academics, and “investors” swarmed into Russia to help speed the inevitable process along.
The former Warsaw Pact nations went from Russian satellites to NATO partners as magnanimous Western statesmen talked glibly of welcoming in Russia to the alliance as well. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 were considered only a temporary setback for Chinese democracy. Certainly, the commercial arc of retiring reformist Chinese strongman Deng Xiaoping would ultimately bend toward the moral embrace of American ideas like constitutional government and unfettered expression. Everyone just knew that democracy followed capitalism, as day did night.
Western intellectuals bragged of “soft power”. They went so far as to suggest that the moral superiority of Europe’s democratic socialism and its economic clout, fueled by state-aided industries, had overshadowed calcified American ideas of unfettered free enterprise, carrier battle groups, and the resort to military force.
In short, never had the Western world seemed so self-satisfied. The brief calm from 1989 to 2001 was often compared to the legendary 96 years of the so-called “Five Good Emperors” of imperial Rome, the Nerva–Antonine dynasty that the historian Edward Gibbon had canonized as “the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous”. In the absence of a cold war, and global chaos, the only crisis that the West seemed to be worried about was “Y2K”, a fanciful notion of a worldwide, computer shutdown at the start of the new millennium.
Globalization had delivered 2 billion people out of poverty.
Then the mirage blew away on September 11, 2001, with terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, followed by messy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the spread of radical Islamic terrorism, the 2008 global financial meltdown and decade-long anemic recovery, institutionalized near-zero interest rates and stagnant economic growth, and massive waves of illegal immigration across the Mediterranean into Europe and freely across the U.S. southern border. There were more wars in the Middle East between Israel and a coalition of Hamas, Hezbollah and radical Islamists.
Russia made a mockery of the Obama administration reset-button outreach. It annexed the Crimea, absorbed Eastern Ukraine, and in 2012 went back into the Middle East to adjudicate events after a hiatus of nearly 40 years. North Korea ended up with nuclear missiles pointed at Portland and San Francisco.
The United States increasingly found itself isolated and unable to control much of anything. The Obama administration had declared its lethargy a preplanned “lead from behind” new strategy, and contextualized American indifference through the so-called apology tour and the postmodern Cairo Speech of 2009. Certainly, all the old postwar referents were now either impotent or irrelevant.
An increasingly anti-democratic and anti-American European Union started to resemble a neo-Napoleonic “Continental System,” with Germany now playing the imperious role of 19th-century France.
Indeed, the EU was soon drawn and quartered. Southern nations resented what they saw as a Prussian financial diktat. Eastern European nations of the EU balked at Berlin’s orders to open their borders to illegal immigrants arriving from the Middle East. The United Kingdom fought Germany over the conditions of Brexit. Its elites soon learned why the people of England wanted free from the German-controlled league.
But it was in the United States that the erosion of the costly postwar order of adjudicating commerce and keeping the peace proved most controversial. An increasing number of Americans no longer bought into the accepted wisdom that an omnipotent, omnipresent U.S., could always easily afford, for the supposed greater good, to underwrite free, but not fair, global trade, police the world, and subsidize the trajectories of new nations into the world democratic community.
In truth, globalization had hollowed out the American interior and created two nations, one of elite coastal corridors where enormous profits accrued from global markets, outsourcing, and offshoring, juxtaposed with a red-state, deindustrialized interior where any muscular job that could be xeroxed abroad more cheaply, eventually was.
Wars were fought at great cost in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, but not won—and often waged at the expense of those Americans often dubbed “losers”. Most NATO members followed Germany’s lead and reneged on their defense spending commitments, despite their greater proximity to the dangers of a resurgent Russia and radical Islam.
Germany itself ran up a $65-billion trade surplus with the U.S. It warped global trade with the world’s largest account surplus, insisted on asymmetrical tariffs in its trade with the US and usually polled the most anti-American nation in Europe—all in the era when the century-old, proverbial “German problem” of Europe was supposedly a long-distant nightmare.
In sum, by 2016 Americans saw the postwar order as a sort of a naked global emperor, about whom all were ordered to lie that he was splendidly clothed.
Then came along the abrasive Donald Trump, who screamed that it was all pretense. What was the worth to America of a postwar order with a $20 trillion national debt, huge trade deficits, and soldiers deployed expensively all over the world—especially when Detroit of 2016 looked like Hiroshima in 1945, and the Hiroshima of today like the Detroit of 1945.
Without regard to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, or Ivy League government departments, Trump abruptly pulled out of the multilateral Iran Deal. He quit the Paris Climate Accord, bragging that U.S. natural gas did far more in reducing global emissions than the redistributive dreams of Davos grandees. He took up Sarah Palin’s reductive call to “drill, baby, drill,” as the U.S., now the world largest producer of natural gas and oil, made OPEC seem irrelevant.
Trump jawboned NATO members to pony up their long promised, but even longer delinquent, dues—or else. He renegotiated NAFTA and asked why Mexico City had sent 11 to 20 million of its poorest citizens illegally across the border, ran up a $71 billion trade surplus, and garnered $30 billion in remittances from the U.S.
Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, declared the Palestinians no longer refugees after 70 years and thus no more in need of U.S. largess. Likewise, he dissolved US participation with the International Criminal Court, and questioned why the U.S. subsidized a UN that so often derided America.
Both the U.S. and global establishments screamed that Trump had destroyed an ossified postwar order. In its place, Trump’s advisors talked of “principled realism”, a sort of don’t-tread-on-me Jacksonism that did not seek wars, but, if forced, would win them. In a world of multilateral bureaucracies, Trump adopted the of spirit of the Roman general Sulla: allies would find in the U.S. “no better friend”, as enemies learned there was “no worse enemy”. Both trade and war would be now adjudicated through bilateral relations, not international organizations.
In sum, the late 20-century global order of grand illusions had long ago gone comatose, but only now has been taken off life support.
What is next?
Perhaps in the 21st century we are returning to the old 19th-century notions of balance of power, reciprocal trade, bilateral alliances, and military deterrence in keeping the peace rather than soft power and UN resolutions.
Trump is blamed for ending the postwar order. But all he did was bury its corpse—very loudly and bigly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Democrats Are Starting to Realize Their Kavanaugh Ploy Is Collapsing
By
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Democrats Are Starting to Realize Their Kavanaugh Ploy Is Collapsing
By
Erick Erickson |
Ford cannot testify under oath without lying so the Democrats must double down on their talking points.
The Democrats first demanded that everyone hear Professor Ford's accusations. But now they are stridently opposed to her being put under oath in the United States Senate. Brett Kavanaugh is perfectly willing to be put under oath and be subjected to Kamala Harris and Spartacus's questions. But Ford does not want to answer Ben Sasse's questions.
The only reason Democrats could go from insisting we all hear Ford, who was glad to testify before the Senate just a few short days ago, to demanding this all be put off even longer so she does not have to be put under oath is because they are increasingly convinced she would commit perjury.
Concurrent to insisting Professor Ford not be put under oath, the Democrats are equally adamant that she could in no way have mistaken someone else's identity. They want us to believe that Ford could forget the year, the location, and the number of people present, but they are insistent there is no way should could confuse her assailant for someone else. They are convinced is absolutely has to be Kavanaugh.
If they were not so emotionally invested in stopping Kavanaugh, the Democrats would realize memory is flawed and it is possible for a victim to both be a victim and also mistake the identity of her assailant. It has happened numerous times.
The only reason Democrats would double down on Ford's refusal to testify while also insisting she is not mistaken in her identity is because Democrats are actually increasingly confident she named the wrong guy. They cannot admit it, but they cannot afford to put her under oath either.
Their accusation is falling apart. Look for them to move quickly to ask Maryland to start an investigation since the FBI won't.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2a) Franklin Graham: Kavanaugh 'Smear' Is 'Not Relevant'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2a) Franklin Graham: Kavanaugh 'Smear' Is 'Not Relevant'
By Eric Mack
Franklin Graham ripped the 11th-hour accusations hurled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a mere Democratic "smear" attempt, because the allegations are "not relevant" to his Supreme Court credentials as they happened so long ago when he was just a teenager.
"It's just a shame that a person like Judge Kavanaugh —who has a stellar record — that somebody can bring something up that he did as a teenager close to 40 years ago; that's not relevant," the evangelist told CBN News on Tuesday.
"We've got to look at a person's life and what they've done as an adult and are they qualified for this position. So, this is just an attempt to smear him."
The allegations brought by Christine Blasey Ford have been denied by Judge Kavanaugh, but Graham told CBN he does not consider what occurred to be a crime as much as a mere teenage mistake or lapse in judgment.
"This is a tactic by the left to try to keep conservatives off the bench," Graham said. "And it's unfortunate that's working. People are up in arms over this, like this is such a disaster. You're talking about two teenagers. That was 40 years ago.
"It has nothing to do about what we're talking about today about this man being a judge on the Supreme Court."
A Senate star chamber full of grandstanding senators on both sides
will not elucidate what happened four decades ago, when all people
involved were minors, and the accuser
is unclear on the details.
No comments:
Post a Comment