I’m taking a break from making wheelbarrows of popcorn for the Beto vs Cruz debate tonight to mention that one:
1) Being blackout drunk is not an acceptable excuse for sexual assault.
I can’t believe I have to say this out loud, but here we are. Senator Sleazley, (R-IA), is hoping for one more reading of “Boys will be boys!”
Any one who feels they are entitled to violate the rights of women should not be placed in a position to rule on the rights of women.
Still can’t believe I have to say that out loud.
Moving on…..
Why are we letting Russia’s enabler be place on the Supreme court by their compromised asset?
That is how history will remember this.
Why are we doing this?
In case you wonder what I am on about, amazingly to support my position, I once again turn to the Washington Post.
Russian firm indicted in special counsel probe cites Kavanaugh decision to argue that charge should be dismissed
By Robert Barnes, July 20, Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/...
A motion filed by the Russian company this week repeatedly cites Kavanaugh’s decision, bringing new attention to his rulings on campaign finance laws and regulations during his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In the case of the foreign national decision, Kavanaugh said the government would have to prove that foreign nationals had knowledge of the law’s restrictions before seeking criminal charges. And he said the ban did not include foreign spending on “issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy.”
Kavanaugh’s decision has been embraced by Concord Management and Consulting, one of 16 Russian individuals or companies indicted by a federal grand jury in February in connection with allegedly taking part in an “information warfare” campaign aimed at swaying American voters.
In Concord’s motion to dismiss the charge, its attorneys frequently cited Kavanaugh and his 2011 decision in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission .
The lawyers noted that Kavanaugh distinguished between explicitly political ads — those that urge the public to vote for or against a candidate — and so-called issue ads.
This is also why Mueller did not include electioneering violations in his indictments against such companies as Concord.
Kavanaugh made Russian interference explicitly legally.
Without Kavanaugh, Russia could not have ran their info wars in the 2016 election in an effort to place their asset, now President Donald Trump, into the White House.
Kavanaugh will also make sure any such crimes or violations that did occur get swept under the Supreme Court carpet.
Here is that decision when Kavanaugh allowed Putin to measure the Oval Office curtains.
How Brett Kavanaugh Made Russian Election Interference Easier and Robert Mueller’s Job Harder
By Pema, Levy, September 5, Mother Jones
www.motherjones.com/...
In Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, Kavanaugh wrote for a three-judge panel that people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents cannot contribute directly to campaigns or to “express advocacy” work, which explicitly asks voters to support or oppose a specific candidate. But he gutted the portion of the law that banned foreign spending that is not “express advocacy.” Following his ruling, some of the ads paid for by the Russians in 2016 and named in the February indictment—featuring such messages as “Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote” and “Hillary is Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is”—may well be legal foreign influence activity.
The ramifications of this decision are evident not only in the lack of campaign-related charges in the February indictment; one of the indicted companies repeatedly cited Kavanaugh’s ruling in a court filing seeking to get the existing charges against it dismissed. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Concord Management and Consulting, which is controlled by a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin, allegedly spent $1.25 million per month to set up rallies, spread disinformation, and “interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation,” according to the indictment. For this, Concord was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Now, the company is now using Kavanaugh’s decision in Bluman to try to have the charge dismissed on the grounds that its activity was legal. “Foreign nationals are not barred from issue advocacy through political speech such as what is described in the indictment—they are only precluded from willfully making expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate,” the company’s lawyers wrote. Election law expert Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine School of Law told the Washington Post in July that Kavanaugh’s decision creates “potentially a huge loophole for foreign and undisclosed issue ads on federal elections.”
#Sowedoingthis?
Is it not enough Putin out foxed DC to capture the White House, are we going to give him the Supreme Court too?