It’s that time of week again, so here are four excellent video clips from Sam’s show last night.  Enjoy!

Brett Kavanaugh: No More Nineties Reboots, Please – Act 1

Whether or not someone should be denied advancement for a drunken act committed as a teenager depends on whether or not they have taken responsibility for the behavior, addressed and corrected the character defects that made the abuse possible, and attempted to make amends. Since, Kavanaugh has not done these things, he is in denial, and the character defects he still has disqualify him.

The Case for Universal Health Care – Act 2 Part 1

What care causes 45,000+ deaths a year? RepubliCare!

The Case for Even More Universal Health Care – Act 2 Part 2

Republicans hate single payer, because they want our health care payments to finance corporate welfare, not health care.

Chuck Jones Will Kick Your Ass – Act 3

Kudos to Chuck Jones, the next Wayne County Township Trustee!

Way to go, Sam!

RESIST!!

VOTE BLUE!!

47 DAYS!!

Last night Rachel Maddow interviewed Hillary Clinton on a wide variety of subjects, and you deserve to see it.  I found the complete interview, but it is not from MSNBC, so, in case it is removed,  I’m also sharing three shorter clips that are from MSNBC.  If the first is still there, you can ignore the rest.

Rachel Maddow, full interview with Hilary Clinton 18th September

Clinton: Donald Trump Will ‘Wholesale Fire People’ After 2018 Election

Clinton: W.H. Should Ask FBI To Reopen Brett Kavanaugh Background Check

Hillary Rodham Clinton Envisions Packed Agenda If Democrats Retake Congress

I never have been a big Hillary Clinton fan, but I so wish that she was President!

RESIST!!

VOTE BLUE!!

48 DAYS!!

Not too much has changed in the status of Trump’s fellow pervert, Kava-Nazi.  He and Blasey are scheduled for a hearing on Monday.  “Judge”, the pervert’s friend, should be called as a witness, since Blasey says he was there.  Since the pervert claims he was not even at the party, other attendees should be located to see if any remember him being there.  Blasey’s therapist and husband should be called to testify that she has been feeling the effects of the attempted rape for years.  However, Upchuck Snake in the Grassley [R-IA] is doing none of these things.  Republicans want to make it a “he said-she said” like Anita Hill’s hearing about Pervert Thomas.  Here’s the perspective of people who specialize in sexual assault.

Soon after Christine Blasey Ford was revealed as the author of a letter alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her decades ago, the responses ran along predictable lines. While some argued that she should be heard, others questioned how much of her memory can be trusted.

Amid a spate of speculation, The Washington Post published an exclusive account of the assault Saturday evening, identifying Ford. Kavanaugh issued a statement Sunday denying the accusations, but after heated pushback from politicians and the public, Kavanaugh agreed to questioning by the Senate panel Monday. A second hearing, where Kavanaugh and Ford will both testify publicly, is scheduled for next week. The results threaten to thwart his confirmation.

Critics of Ford have taken to calling into question whether it’s possible for a 30-year-old memory to be credible.

Sex crimes prosecutors across the country forge ahead on “he-said-she-said” cases regularly.

“I stand to believe there’s no such thing as a ‘he-said-she-said’ case,” Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Sex Crimes Bureau, told The Post. “As a prosecutor, it’s your job to break down every minute of the encounter so that details on one side pushes the facts over the edge.”

Prosecutors do that regularly, in large part by parsing what’s reasonable and what’s believable through corroboration, details that have the ring of truth and inconvenient facts that are subtle signs of credibility.

Ford’s account is credible, even though she can’t remember several details.

There’s no criminal trial, but Kavanaugh still has the presumption of innocence, said attorney Douglas Wigdor, a former prosecutor who now represents victims in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases against high-profile men… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

I disagree with one point.  The presumption of innocence is particular to criminal proceedings and conformation is not a criminal matter.  A seat on the Supreme Court should require the highest standard of blamelessness, not the highest standard of guilt.  A Supreme Court appointee must be above reproach.  Even the slightest hint of reprobate behavior must disqualify.

On a final note, there should be more FBI investigation.  When Feinstein referred the letter to the FBI, they had already closed the investigation.  They could only reopen it, if the White House requested it.  That’s why they just appended it and passed it on.  It’s also why they can’t do it now.  The White House refuses to make the request, because they know what the FBI would find.  More to come…

RESIST!!

VOTE BLUE!!

49 DAYS!!

As hard as I worked on yesterday’s article, the story kept developing, even as I was writing it, and just as I was publishing it, the news broke that Christine Blasey Ford had come forward and passed a lie detector test.  Upchuck Snake in the Grassley [R-IA] says this is Democrats fault, because she came forward so late.  Orin “Women are Inferior” Hatch, trotted out that age old saw, “She’s just mixed up.”  Pervert Kava-Nazi has changed his tune.  He now claims he wasn’t even at the party, where he tried to rape Christine.  Let’s look at what could happen, but before we do, this is where we were when Christine first came out.

Here are ways forward.

The fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination looks much different after Christine Blasey Ford came forward in a Washington Post interview and said that he attempted to sexually assault her when the two were in high school. What happens next? Will President Trump and Senate Republicans stick with Kavanaugh? Right now, we have more questions than answers. Here are the big ones …

How do the looming midterms affect Republicans’ choices? A big part of this story comes down to timing. An investigation of the allegations, as Democrats have called for, would almost certainly take at least a few weeks. And if Republicans decided in mid-October that they could not move forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination, they might not have time to choose a new nominee and get him or her through the confirmation process before the current Senate session ends in December. The Supreme Court nomination process for Kavanaugh was scheduled to last about three months — from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s resignation in late June to a full Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, which was expected in late September — at least until this news broke. So if Republicans want to move on from Kavanaugh and try to get a different nominee confirmed, they probably need to pick that person during the next two weeks in order to finish the process by the end of December.

What’s wrong with waiting till January? Well, Republicans are expected to maintain control of the Senate — they’re 2 in 3 favorites according to our latest Senate forecast — but if Democrats gain control, it’s hard to imagine them confirming a second Trump appointee to the court. So the GOP has some incentive to either fully stand behind Kavanaugh — or abandon him very quickly. Remember, the current Senate, which has 51 Republicans and 49 members aligned with the Democrats, is in operation through the end of the year. The people elected in November don’t start serving immediately. So Republicans, no matter what happens in the midterms, can push a Supreme Court nominee through until the end of the year. There would be strong criticism of Republicans if they pushed through a Supreme Court nominee in December if the voters had elected a Democratic Senate a month earlier, but Senate Republicans have ignored such norms before and I expect would be fine with doing so again for the purpose of ensuring a solid conservative majority on the Court… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <FiveThirtyEight>

Republicans still plan to vote Pervert Kava-Nazi out of committee on Thursday.  Jeff Flake [R-AZ] could put the kibosh on that.  I hope we get to meet Christine, under oath, soon.

There’s one thing I can tell you with certainty.  I have no idea where this issue will be this time tomorrow.

RESIST!!

VOTE BLUE!!

50 DAYS!