HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » vlyons » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29 Next »

vlyons

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Texas
Member since: Mon Aug 1, 2011, 07:53 AM
Number of posts: 7,813

About Me

Truth Matters!

Journal Archives

How to question Judge Barrett -- it's brilliant

This appeared on my FB feed --

"Don’t know who this came from, but it’s bloody brilliant! (Reported to have come from Bill Svelmoe on FB.)
If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion. Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

“Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?” Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. “Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?”

Then turn to the Hatch Act. “Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?”
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.

Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
“Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?”

Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. “Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a ‘perfect phone call’? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?”

“Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion.” [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.
Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. “Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.”

And finally: "Judge, why did you bring your seven unmasked children to a superspreader event in the Rose Garden?”

Taking this approach does a number of things:
1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.

2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.

3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward delegitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.
Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television.

So Mr President. How's that not wearing a mask and not practicing social distancing

working out for you?

?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=u8B3N1NPokAAX-MKs6j&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&tp=7&oh=d39ae943d58e6c59423833286f361e1a&oe=5F9B765B

?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=uw-JfplL0oUAX8NR0qF&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&tp=6&oh=3491122b5dc1e894ad8e81ac7458ec01&oe=5F9E7777

Trump's Covid just proves, once again,

that irony is not dead. Assuming that he's not faking it, it also demonstrates that karma, like gravity, never stops working. If you don't keep your feet under you, you will fall. Some people like Trump have to learn everything the hard way.

Shame on him and his whole campaign for not informing the Biden campaign that Hope Hicks had tested positive. Not that he gives a fat rat's ass about anyone.

Just so's ya know

Biden's 2016-2018 tax returns are publicly disclosed and available for viewing on his web site. I hope he mentions this fact in the 1st debate. Make this fact go viral please.

joebiden.com

My social media are full to overflowing with comments about Trump's taxes.

None of it admiring him for being a tax cheat. Lots of snarly pissed sarcastic stuff. It is the Oct surprise come early. Lots of "lock his fat ass up."

For all those afraid that Trump won't go peacefully if not re-elected,

rest assured he may mouth-off his BS, but he is a coward at heart. On Jan 20, Biden will be sworn in as POTUS. There are more than enough Fed judges, who would be honored to administer the oath of office. But John Roberts will no doubt do the honors. One week earlier, the WH staff will be busy packing the Trump belongings and moving them out. Cleaning the WH residence and moving in the Bidens' stuff in. (Let's hope they count all the silver too!) The Secret Service and the US Marshalls will deftly escort the Trumps to a waiting helicopter. All the bru-ha-ha about Trump not going peacefully is merely Trump getting the MSMedia to talk about himself. If you haven't learned by now that Trump shoots his mouth daily to stir the pot and keep the chaos boiling -- well where have you been for the last 4 years?

I can't watch the news much any more

At least not lately. It's so depressing. I fear that McConnell will push thru some Christian Taliban justice for the USSC. And there's nothing we can do about it, unless Biden gets sworn in, and we expand the SC to 15 justices. I feel like Republicans are poking a stick in my eye, while pissing on my feet, all the while laughing at me.

Citizens United has got to go!

Not much will change until we pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate the dark money from elections. Did you know that Canada doesn't allow corporations to make campaign contributions, because corporations are not people!

Right now it is Wall St and Fossil Fuels that own and operate the Republican party. It's not the MAGAt Trumpsters who scare me. They are all just useful idiots, who respond emotionally to the culture war, and who the 1%ers manage to enrage over guns and Jesus.

Never ceases to amuse me that "Christian" Republicans are ignorant about Jesus' teaching on money

Oh they know the "Render unto Caesar" bit. But how many ever contemplated:

Acts2:44-45 "All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone who was in need."

Matthew 19:21 "Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me."

Not that early Christians were communists. But they did live communally.

BTW: It was Judas, who carried the money bag during Jesus ministry. John 12:6 "He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it."



Why Republicans want to abolish social security

During your working life, you pay 6.2% of your income up to a limit $137,000. Your employer also pays a matching 6.2%. It is that matching 6.2% or $8537 possible max that Republicans deeply resent shelling out for your retirement security.

The old canard about SSI being creeping socialism is -- Yeah? Well so what?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29 Next »