Connect with us

Latest

Breaking

News

Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Tragic Comedy Circus

Incredibly unruly Democrat opposition to conservative Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues, with ever greater theatrics.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

679 Views

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings began Tuesday, marking perhaps the first truly real political news in a couple weeks. This confirmation hearings began with disruption, spectacular theatrics and attempts to stall the confirmation hearings and otherwise delay, damage or destroy the chances of this judge becoming a Supreme Court Justice. All this resistance came from Democrats.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

In the succeeding days what can only be called a political circus continued to gain steam, as the full power of the Democrat Party apparatchik came to bear on this confirmation, with people like Hillary Clinton, Senator Cory Booker and others doing everything they could to disrupt and prevent the confirmation of this judge to the US Supreme Court.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the loser in 2016’s Presidential election, was silent when the first new Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, went through the confirmation process. But this time, she sent out 25 tweets to her 23 million followers urging them to tell their respective senators not to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

According to The Washington Times, Cory Booker, a US Senator from New Jersey, released previously confidential documents in a display of grandstanding, daring people to charge him with breaking the law, and possibly losing his Senate seat:

Sen. Cory Booker released previously confidential documents Thursday from Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s past into the public, declaring it an act of civil disobedience and saying he was ready to be kicked out of the Senate for his behavior. Republicans said it was presidential posturing for Mr. Booker, who is part of a crowd of Democrats eying a White House bid, and looking to use the confirmation hearings to try to stand out for liberal activists.

But Mr. Booker said the documents, which he says relate to “racial profiling,” deserve to be made public. And he said he would welcome being martyred for his actions, which the GOP said could include being expelled from the Senate.

“Bring the charges,” the New Jersey senator demanded.

By the time he released the documents, Republicans said they had, in fact, been cleared for release.

The conflict arose after Mr. Booker probed Judge Kavanaugh Wednesday night over his thoughts on race in America — and demanded he explain 2002 emails where he said the Supreme Court nominee discussed racial profiling.

But the emails are among tens of thousands that have been turned over to the Judiciary Committee, though they are not yet public. That left the nominee struggling to answer, and Republicans complaining of unfair treatment.

Mr. Booker quoted from the emails during his questioning of the judge. He said they were labeled “racial profiling,” and said they related to the practice after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After Judge Kavanaugh said he wanted to see the emails before responding, it was revealed that the email couldn’t be shared because it was deemed “committee confidential.”

Republicans argued that even discussing the documents in public was a violation. But Democrats said the documents should never have been kept confidential in the first place.

“I am releasing it to expose that number one, emails that are being withheld from the public have nothing to do with national security,” Mr. Booker said Thursday morning.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said he hoped Mr. Booker would change his mind because releasing sensitive records would be “conduct unbecoming of a senator.”

“Running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the Senate,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Other Democrats on the committee, though, stood behind Mr. Booker. Several said they would also release confidential documents, and said they would face the consequences along with Mr. Booker.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, welcomed their resistance on Twitter.

“I stand [with] Judiciary Committee Democrats who are well within their rights to release these very important documents that a former Kavanaugh deputy designed as ‘committee confidential,’” Mr. Schumer tweeted.

This is a small wonder, given Kavanaugh’s record as a strict constitutionalist, and therefore conservative with regards to interpretation of the Constitution. As the replacement for the newly retired Robert Kennedy, Mr. Kavanaugh carries with him the potential of keeping a conservative majority in the Supreme Court for a generation or more to come.

This is not good news for the globalist, liberal, elite, progressive, secular humanist ranks that make up the modern Democrat Party in the United States. A solid constitutionalist majority is sure to block much of their efforts to continue the forty or fifty-year trend of “legislating from the bench” that progressive liberal activists have employed, taking lawsuits to the Supreme Court to “create” rights that the Constitution never mentioned, and to destroy the traditionally Christian, family-centered culture that was once commonly held by most Americans, regardless of political party.

Fox News reported on the theatrics that began the the first day of the confirmation hearings in Washington:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing was overtaken by political theatrics on Tuesday, as Democratic lawmakers and protesters delayed the formal start of proceedings by more than an hour – and Republicans fired back by touting Kavanaugh’s credentials and decrying the breach of decorum.

The spectacle underscored the political nature of the confirmation hearings, coming two months before the midterms and as some senators gear up for a possible 2020 presidential run against President Trump. Several of those senators led the charge Tuesday in objecting to Kavanaugh.

The disruptions continued as lawmakers attempted to make opening statements. There were 63 interruptions before the break for lunch.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch struggled to deliver his prepared remarks, as protesters audibly shouted over him.

Grassley acknowledged it was one of the most unruly openings of any Supreme Court hearing, saying “this is something I’ve never gone through before in 15 Supreme Court nominations.”

This was rightfully also a mob in action, and not at all even relevant to the matter of Kavanaugh himself. This amounted to campaigning, probably because the Democrat senators are concerned about losing the November midterm elections.

When Judge Kavanaugh actually got to introduce himself to the Senate, his speech was simple, direct and compelling in a very understated sort of way. In it he made the point that his view of the Supreme Court is that it is not supposed to be a partisan stronghold. He discussed the matters of strictly following the Constitution without regard for the fashionable opinions of the moment. Judge Kavanaugh’s whole opening statement is shown here:

The struggle is likely to go Kavanaugh’s way. In fact, although the Democrats don’t act like they realize this, their actions may actually end up hurting them in the November elections. However, this is the direction the party has chosen: to go hard to the left, to be extremely progressive, virtually socialist, in nature.

While this strategy has helped them win primaries, it is unclear how it will affect the outcome of the midterm elections, and this is the concern most prevalent on the minds of Democrat strategists.

Stormy waters ahead.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
3 Comments

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Raycomeauvoza0dbJohn R. Nolan Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Raycomeau
Guest
Raycomeau

I am afraid that Hillary Clinton has poisoned the voting success for Democrats. Who would want that bunch of lying cheating gang to be in charge of anything including a parking lot.

voza0db
Guest

The best part of all the hearings until this moment (Day 3) is this one

John R. Nolan
Guest
John R. Nolan

Watching self destruction of Amazia, through the eyes of commentators here, is like watching updates of the brilliant ‘GOON SHOW’, in real time.
How can the world not realize what absolute asses we are making of ourselves, as we allow these psychotic, inbred, decadent morons, who call themselves politicians, to lead us all into nuclear destruction.
Rest assured, the residents of many far away, undiscovered planets, in distant galaxies, are getting a million laughs a minute, watching this childish behaviour of people who pride themselves on being, (supposedly) smarter than the apes.
I think the apes win, hands down!

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending