Hate Speech and Violence: Tools of Destruction

Lately, every time I get an idea for a blog posting, something else happens that forces me to re-think what is needed!  Here I am again, having written something previously that now seems irrelevant, given the events of this past week. Responding to them is difficult and therefore my thoughts may seem somewhat disordered and disconnected partly because they are responses to questions that come to mind in a random manner.  I must say that further discussion of issues raised by these events seems unavoidable.

 But first, let me express my condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the synagogue shootings.  I plan to attend a memorial at a local synagogue tomorrow to join others from our local area communities in remembering and revering those precious lives taken and those devastated by this tragedy.

The subject of today’s post is related to the threats that surfaced in the form of pipe bombs delivered to persons known as continuous critics of Donald J. Trump, and to the Saturday, October 27, 2018 domestic terrorist shootings at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill area.  Both events add to the urgency of the moments leading toward perhaps the most critical off-year election in modern history.

With all that has happened to inflict fear and death upon innocent victims and their families, leaving many people of good will with uncertainty and anxiety, there are several intricate and complicated issues to consider.  I will address just two of them in this Blog post:  (1) constant lying matters because words have power; (2) violence and fear-mongering are tools of terrorists and extremists.  I will refrain from enumerating details of the incidents themselves, believing that most of those details have been thoroughly broadcast.  

Let us proceed, keeping in mind one basic question: How can a constitutional democracy address extremist terrorism that threatens the very existence of the Republic?  While some of my answers may simply reinforce the obvious, it is a matter of pure necessity for all of us to engage in a serious discussion of the implications of these incidents of domestic violence and terror.

1)   A democratic society must condemn and repel  propaganda andBigLies, along with the falsity of cover-up of facts and wrong-doing.   Why? Because lying or false witness undermines the credibility of a culture, its religious and ethical base, and people’s individual lives.  Lying and fear-mongering are so potent in their power that whole communities and nations can be destroyed in terms of their ability to deal with the reality of the world if false witness is allowed to flourish. Untruth, including the purveyance of invented scenarios of frightening circumstances, the politicizing of every event and issue, is the true “enemy of the People.” In all its forms, false witness or untruth undermines the ability to trust, to engage and to support one another.

 This is not just a religious concept.  It is a truth of community life.  It is the reality of living in a corporate entity rather than in a disconnected world of individuals who fail to recognize their interdependence and mutual responsibility for one another as human beings, regarding each other as “suspicious,” or as threats or as less-than- human. 

Why is lying so powerful?  For many reasons, such as;

a)      Lying rips apart a trust that must exist between people to order life and to enhance our community life, as well as our common humanity. Sharing truth, honesty and veracity is what provides a foundation upon which we build communities of peace and cooperation rather than a hateful suspicion of the ones who are not of our tribe and do not understand, appreciate or accept other’s cultural beliefs and customs.

b)      The tendency of human beings to bear false witness about “the others” (those who are different) in terms of stereotypes, biases and prejudices leads to the cancer-like growth of tribal divisions, suspicions, discrimination and hate that tears at the fabric of our culture.  

c)      lies told by politicians to gain election and keep special privileges greatly diminishes the role and the ability of government to function on behalf of the People  

d)      Lying leads to more lying and covering up the damage that has been done;

e)      lies lead to violence to back up one’s ideology or narrative, to escape responsibility for miscreant behavior, or to put on a display of strength

f)       Lies bring us to a point where government is not only compromised, but stymied from acting to enhance lives, government itself, governing standards and the good purposes of our institutions and organizations.  We fail over and over to solve problems that affect many of our citizens because the Big Lies and false narratives prevent government from functioning at a level that provides universal improvements.  The purposeful benefits of government are stymied mainly because the foundation of Trust between government and the people is corrupted by untruths, hypocrisy, discrimination and the falsity of politicizing pressing issues and exaggerating non-essential diversions.

What can we do about it?  Not a lot unless attitudes about lying are directed toward condemnation and prevention.  The awful truth is that our society leans toward tolerance rather than condemnation.  I’ll offer some thoughts that might engender attitude reversal:

1.      strengthen laws and regulations that demand truth in advertising and product contents

2.      upgrade penalties for lies, withholding of facts and cover-ups by corporations, public officials and governmental agencies

3.      reject or boycott products, services or organizations that present themselves or their products and services falsely to the public; praise and reward those who act truthfully and fairly

4.      demand proof from all candidates for office for every claim, statistic or charge they make in written word or technological broadcast medium and allow for rejection by public media officers of all advertisements that cannot be backed-up by factual substantive documentation; re-institute the concept of “equal time” so that the exposing of untruths will not be costly.

5.      stop the covert attack upon consumer protection boards and councils; we cannot keep tabs on government and private agencies without watchdogs, appeal boards and advisory councils; we must have such groups everywhere that fraud and falsity are potential means of hurt and harm to people

6.      use the right to vote to send a definitive message to every politician who uses false propaganda, made-up conspiracies and outright lies to maintain his or her position and access to special interest money;

7.       act to provide for recall from office of any politician who puts special interests, political expediency, monetary gain or self-aggrandizement above the needs and will of local constituents; start this on Nov. 6, 2018.

(2) Violence and Fear-mongering are antithetical in a democracy built upon equal rights, freedom, equal justice under the law, and equal opportunity to pursue happiness and well-being.  Just how does that work?  

Inventing scenarios and instilling made-up fears in people results in the following:

1.      voters intimidated by fear of certain groups (like immigrants from Islamic countries, Mexico, Central and South America), or traditional fear of “others” like Jews and African Americans, are tricked into believing that any form of opposition to such groups is acceptable and therefore doable without consequences

2.      those scape-goated by the words and actions of discrimination, unequal and elongated incarceration, or being kept out of the mainstream of society are treated and seen as worthless and a burden to society

3.      the talents, skills and ideas of an enormous number of maligned people are lost to a society that never considers them as viable or valuable; billions of dollars in advancement and inventiveness, as well as taxes paid to governments and profits earned for industrial producers, are lost forever; it is one of the penalties we pay for sacrificing the contributions of certain groups by making them objects of fear and loathing

4.      the nullification of other citizens in terms of their “unworthiness” tends to kill their incentive and motivation to fight a life-long abnormal battle for their rights and better opportunities; persons in poverty, LGBTQ persons, people of color, minorities, persons challenged either physically or mentally – these and more represent many of those who have given up on our institutions -- like government, schools and even providers of services -- rarely becoming involved with any of them

5.      hate speech carries these losses and abnormal consequences to another level, for such speech is a form of violence in that it does physical and mental harm to its recipients; because of its potential to do harm and injury, it is illegal; or, to put it another way, it is unprotected speech subject to legal penalties because it is against the law

6.      violence in all its forms is always destructive of democratic values and norms; it is a despotic tool by which democracy and human rights are attacked and destroyed.  It is therefore intolerable, and must be opposed in any of its forms, whether physical, psychological, ideological, or political.

 Violence is always destructive in some way; it is never justified when used to gain advantage, loyalty, riches, power or control from or over others.  Whether or not there is such a thing as acceptable violence in war against evil and destructive forces is an open question not intended to be addressed here – in any case, even something declared as ‘justified war’ is destructive of some aspect of democracy and of societies

7.      Violence such as bombs sent through the mail to critics of current political policies and philosophy, or using guns to kill a hated group built up in someone’s warped mind, both are detrimental to our form of government, and antithetical to what we are meant to stand for.

What can we do about it?  There are plenty of suggestions and movements already floating around out there, but we seem not to have the will to take any bold steps to change the unethical acceptance of violence of many types.  We believe a myth that 2^nd amendment rights extend to guns as well as people.  We accept the killing of innocent church, synagogue and mosque worshipers who happen to be present for worship when some person takes it upon him (or her?) self to kill people not of their kind.  We have come to accept the structured restriction and discrimination built into many of our institutions like universities and the justice system.  The killing of innocent black young men by police is simply not acceptable in a democracy, yet juries still acquit blatant police shootings of innocent victims.  It is equivalent to domestic terrorism. 

Restrictions or removal from voter rolls imposed upon voters of certain characteristics is a form of violence done to persons who have the absolute right to vote as long as they are registered to do so.  The use of mistakes on registration forms or lack of an invented “proper” ID is a form of violent removal of an absolute right to vote.  The intended lack of resources, polling places, places to register, even the change of location of polls without proper notification of voters, is a use of hurdles that violently reduce the ability to vote. 

Forms of violence against others in violation of our Constitution even extends to (and from) the current occupier of the oval office who has supported violence (body-slamming, punches to the face, roughing-up protesters, voter suppression, hate speech, foreign hacking and other interventions), as an acceptable means of dealing with protesters, liberals, democrats and children of immigrants seeking asylum.  His personal denigration of anyone who bugs him, irritates him, criticizes him or does not show enough loyalty to him is a use of violence that demoralizes and even destroys his enemies.  His conduct of acceptance of the violence “on all sides” or of “nationalism” is a signal to all hate groups that he is their leader and supporter.

In my anger and frustration, I have some thoughts on what we need to do about this, but it cannot be taken as a full answer because that can only come forth when Donald Trump is removed from office.

1.      on Nov. 6^th vote out of office every Republican who has pledged loyalty to Trump, has practiced violence that has the potential to harm citizens especially children or has passed any of his legislation or budgets, or has not spoken against his many forms of violence

2.      support impeachment of Trump

3.      support term limits for legislators and judges

4.      remove all special privileges and waivers of legislative requirements so that Congressmen must obey whatever they impose on the rest of us

5.      condemn violence in any form wherever it appears, including the public market

6.      insist on more volunteer citizens being involved in the inner workings of government as a check on all forms of violence, fraud and violation of standards

7.      refuse to allow members or supporters of hate groups or of any form of violence to ever be a candidate for public office; we must begin to prevent extremists of Left or Right  from ever getting on the ballot in the first place because their views are anti-law, anti-constitution, anti-democracy.  In other words, their speech, ideology, and methods are automatically destructive of democracy and therefore have lost the privilege of running for office.  Such people are ineligible to run because they cannot truthfully take an oath of office that contains a promise to support the Constitution.

8.      expose every form of violence wherever we find it

9.      stand with others to support their hurt and pain; give positive feed-back to every person who deserves a pat-on-the-back; act to support community efforts to address human needs and flaws; give a hand-up to someone who needs it; speak up when any form of violence or degradation toward another human being or their heritage stares you in the face; give allegiance to people’s well-being rather than to symbols, myths, false narratives, political talking points, or to leaders who use violence, hate speech, ridicule, lies and exaggeration to create and maintain a parallel but false reality in which they can control an entire society and its people. 

10.  reject leaders who say that only they can solve problems or make government work;  who claim to know more than the scientists or the experts; who reject the will of the people in favor of their own judgment; who bully and intimidate to get their way; who promise one thing and do another; who view others in terms of their loyalty and usefulness to him or her; who turn standards and norms upside down in order to advance their own agenda; who posit most everything on the power of strength, winning victories, greatness, brute force and negativity

In light of the horrendous events of this past week, it should be obvious that I do not fully agree with some of my fellow Democrats (or Republicans) who say we must simply ‘reduce the rhetoric,’ lower our ‘tone’, and work across the aisle’ to resolve our problems of division and tribalism.  Such is not a panacea for resolving our divisions.  I am in favor of continuing protest of the violence, neglect and built-in discrimination that exists throughout our legislative, executive and judicial processes.  We must be vigilant and call out every example of de-constructive action or hate speech that does violence to our form of government. 

On the other hand, I am in favor of bringing back something called (from the Big Band era) – “accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative, latch-on to the affirmative and don’t mess with Mr. In-between!”  We are currently engaged with accentuating the negative, eliminating the positive, minimizing the affirmative and ignoring the moderate middle.  Let us end on that note with the promise that a fuller explanation of that old lyric will be forthcoming soon!

             

  

"MAKE or BREAK" Election Approaches

WP: The outside prosecutor Senate Republicans hired to lead the questioning in last week’s hearing about the sexual assault allegations against Brett M. Kavanaugh argued in a memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee why she would not bring criminal charges against the Supreme Court nominee.

Publius2:  I didn’t know that bringing criminal charges had anything whatsoever to do with this hearing.  One more reason to fault the Committee for not being clear on exactly why they were meeting and taking testimony. However, this hiring points out most vividly the purpose of this hearing: to advance the notion that Republicans are attempting to be fair and impartial while all along hiding themselves from public questioning of witnesses that would serve to tarnish their ‘brand’ or image.  They are simply playing politics to hold onto their majority status in Congress.

WP: In the five-page memo, obtained by The Washington Post, Rachel Mitchell outlines more than half a dozen reasons why she thinks the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford — who has accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a house in suburban Maryland when they were teenagers in the early 1980s — has some key inconsistencies.

Publius2:  I thought Mitchell agreed that more information was needed from the FBI to be able to assess other witness corroboration. Did she not also mention that other methods of getting information might be preferable? (I believe that might be the very reason she was removed – it sounded too much like agreement with the witness!)

WP:  “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell writes in the memo, sent last Sunday night to all Senate Republicans. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.

Publius2:  ”What ‘case’?  I thought this was a background check and job interview.  Isn’t it important to gather facts and evidence rather than to speculate on criminal charges in a court of law?  A Supreme Court nominee was being examined here, not to determine criminal charges, but to determine ‘fitness’ for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.  It’s that ‘fitness’ that needs to be determined, and the more people who can testify to that, the better. 

But first, one should have a definition of criteria that go into determining what constitutes such “fitness.”.  What is happening here is that a prosecutorial questioner is making up scenarios based on nothing other than her own subjective outlook without having either the back-up of evidence, or the criteria against which this nominee (and any nominee) should be judged.  Just another item on a long list of procedural failures by this Committee and the Congress in general.

WP:  Mitchell continued: “For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” 

Publius2:  Of course, this evidence would not fly in Court, but this is not a court, nor a criminal proceeding, and this is not evidence of the kind that must meet a standard of preponderance.  Mitchell’s conclusion has no relevance whatsoever to anything but her manufactured scenario.   The Committee failed to furnish any guide as to what criteria the nominee must meet, and in comparison to which, Senators might make a sound judgment.  This lousy process by an incompetent bunch of untrained, undisciplined, and unprincipled so-called “representatives of the People” is almost as bad as the inane politically-motivated questions they usually ask. Perhaps it might be best if the Chairman provided each of the members with a simple check-list of criteria so the members could follow a defined process, and check-off each item when appropriate. On the other hand, that might not look good and be a burden to the members; instead, have their staff keep track so they can tell the members what to do next (just as they must do currently!). 

WP:  The memo has prompted significant pushback from Democratic senators, who have argued that Ford is not on trial and that Kavanaugh is merely interviewing for a job. But the memo is clearly aimed at assuaging the concerns of a handful of GOP senators who are on the fence about whether to vote to confirm Kavanaugh and are considering whose story — Ford’s or Kavanaugh’s — to believe.

Publius2:  And that is the exact reason why this is a ‘farce’ and not a disciplined process of determining whether this man meets certain criteria for holding the office of Justice of the SCOTUS. 

The truth is that this hearing is about “winning” re-election, maintaining power, and defeating a liberal ideology.  It has had little or nothing to do with the nominee and a set of criteria (qualifications) for the job of Justice of the Supreme Court.

WP:  The FBI is now investigating Ford’s accusations, as well as those of a second woman, Deborah Ramirez.

Publius2:  And we all know what a farce that is, since Trump was the client and could dictate the parameters of the investigation.  He says he told the FBI to investigate whatever is needed; let the information guide them. However, several media sources have reported indications that the FBI did not interview witnesses that have come forward nor many that have been previously named by some of the participants in FBI interviews.  Rumor had it that the ‘investigation’ might end early, and it did – less than the week it was expected to take.  One democratic congressman said on national TV that if the Democrats win the House, there will be hearings into these matters.

The Committee now has an FBI report of interviews taken as of its delivery to Chairman Grassley on Wednesday might (he tweeted about receiving  it early on Thursday morning).

That report is available to all Senators to read in a secure location.  It will not be released to the public (unless someone leaks its contents). 

We are now in the midst of another “faked scenario” where the WH and the Senate Republicans can easily agree that the report contains enough information in Judge Kavanaugh’s favor that he can be confirmed without question as soon as possible.  All this, without any discussion, no review by the American Bar Association or the citizens of America.  No knowledge of what is in the document leads easily to bickering again from both sides of the aisle as to its fairness and its biases.

WP:  In her memo, Mitchell argued that Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault, including when exactly it occurred. Mitchell also noted that Ford did not identify Kavanaugh by name as her attacker in key pieces of evidence, including notes from sessions with her therapist — records that Ford’s lawyers declined to provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Publius2:  Well, here’s a thought:  why not make a deal about records – the WH provides all documents that relate to Kavanaugh’s work in the Bush administration, plus any documents related to consultation with any lawyers regarding any charges or accusations about his conduct, and Dr. Ford turns over her psychiatric records. Of course, the first thing out of Republican mouths will be ‘lawyer-client privilege’, and refusal to turn over any such legal records.  So, how about HIPPA privilege – Dr. Ford’s medical records are equally protected but no one seems to want to point that out!

Before the FBI report was completed the lawyers for Dr. Ford offered to exchange the psychiatrist’s records of conversations with Dr. Ford if the Committee would recommend an extension and further interviews of witnesses that have come forward.  Little was said about the offer, and nothing was done about it. 

WP:  Ford testified before the panel Thursday that she is “100 percent” sure Kavanaugh was her attacker.

“I believed he was going to rape me,” she told the panel. “I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most.”

But in the memo, Mitchell also argued that Ford “has no memory of key details of the night in question — details that could help corroborate her account,” nor has Ford given a consistent account of the alleged assault. Noting that Ford did not remember in what house the incident allegedly occurred, or how she left the gathering and got back home, Mitchell said “her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.”

Publius2:  It sure does raise significant questions.  Strange that this is being treated as a criminal proceeding and not as a gathering of information.  All of-a-sudden testimony is being treated as though it is on trial along with the person who spoke it.  Mitchell and other Republicans (except perhaps for Senator Flake) are treating Dr. Ford as a witness at a criminal trial when all she is doing is bringing an incident to their attention so they can look more broadly at the background of this  candidate for the Supreme Court. 

The one question that must be asked: since the accuser named a possible witness to the incident – Mark Judge, present in the very location where the incident was taking place -- how come that man did not immediately become the number one target of the Committee's information-gathering?  In either a civil or criminal court, ignoring eye-witnesses is not looked upon as a favorable tactic!  Are these Senators just not clear on the fact that they are information seekers and gatherers?

And where is the FBI in all of this?  Did they ever interview this main witness for more clarification as a first step?  Were they afraid she might remember something damaging?  Somebody worried about that, which is most likely reflected in the WH instructions to the FBI, when restrictions on the investigation would have been set.  Why can't the Committee review those instructions?

Clarification is needed regarding Ford’s testimony, but attacking the witness for not having all the facts is a diversion.  The FACTS are what the Committee should have been striving to attain, from whatever sources it could.  Particularly in the case of this witness and victim of a sexual harassment incident who presented what she could piece together and tried to clarify.  It is not her job to run down all the details, the incident’s location, the incident itself, or even her friends who might speak out, not necessarily in her favor.  

As information-gatherers, it is the Committee’s job to solicit information to better understand the incident and Kavanaugh’s part in it; to follow up on leads and vagaries, and possible witnesses.  It is not Dr. Ford’s responsibility for the very reason that she is not at trial nor presenting a criminal charge.  She is providing information to the Committee; that’s all.  If that information has gaps, it is their responsibility to act to provide more detail, which they should have done when they received her prior written testimony!  

This brings us to the point that the Committee should have looked at this in a whole different manner.  It should have been received as confidential.  It should have been investigated by the Committee before any hearing was held.  Either the Committee investigators and/or the FBI should have been contacted to provide  a wider background investigation of what was known and unknown, but at least alleged with leads and possible witnesses named. If a public hearing was required, it should have been Judge Kavanaugh alone answering questions based on an adequate and thorough investigation.  

The process was a sham, and now has come back to haunt us all as a false “he said; she said” scenario being used to discredit Dr. Ford’s testimony. And, while Trump attacks those gaps in her tesimony, he knows two things: she did provide some information on such points as location, where the incident took place, and who was present.  Second, he knows what kinds of restrictions he placed on the FBI investigation to pevent further detail from coming forth!

As a Director in charge of operating a federal grant – the largest one in the country for the particular programs it funded, and as the President of a National Association of directors of such programs -- I have had the opportunity to testify often before the Committee or sub-Committee responsible for overseeing the agency from which the grant was processed.  I was often in a tight squeeze between recognizing the viability of the agency that provided the funds, while also criticizing that agency for their program policies when that was necessary. 

Whenever I testified, I had to first submit written testimony.  There was generally some written or verbal guidance as to what was expected from a ‘witness.’  If I had something controversial to present, there might come a phone call, or written communique asking for more background and information.  When I testified, the panel listened carefully, asked questions respectfully and then followed-up with me or our Association’s information agent, or with the funding agency itself.  It was exceedingly rare that I ran into questions that impugned my presentation or attempted to politicize our issues.  It was generally aimed at finding out more about what the problems were and whether anything had been done to resolve them.  One time, the Chairman and a colleague from the other side of the aisle stayed a bit past adjournment to talk with us informally about some of the issues we had raised.  Another time, I was contacted by phone by a congressional staffer who asked that I assist with writing new legislation based on suggestions I had submitted.

There simply are better procedures than those displayed by this Committee in this incident.

WP:  Mitchell also stressed that nobody who Ford has identified as having attended the gathering — including Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and Leland (Ingham) Keyser — has been able to directly corroborate Ford’s allegations. Keyser, however, has told the Judiciary Committee that she believes Ford’s account.

Publius2: More foolishness by the Committee and Ms. Mitchell.  Dr. Ford did provide  information about people who might have additional information, and about the location where this could have happened.  Since she is not on trial, she should not be blamed for lack of information from those people.  It is the job of the Committee to take the steps necessary to follow those leads and find out what they can contribute to the question of the character and fitness of this nominee.

WP:  Mitchell, who GOP senators selected to handle the questioning in last week’s hearing with Ford and Kavanaugh, is a registered Republican who is chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County attorney’s office in Phoenix. Although she asked Ford all of the questions posed by Republican senators, she asked Kavanaugh only two rounds of questions until GOP senators began speaking again.

Mitchell stressed that she was “not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree.” The memo obtained by The Washington Post does not include any analysis of her questions to Kavanaugh.

Publius2:  It could be of value to know:  1) what was the purpose of Ms. Mitchell’s questions? (To what end(s) were they asked?)  2) What motivated each set of questions?  Why were they asked? 3) What did they accomplish?  (What were the outcomes of the questioning?).

 Was what she asked simply a means of protecting Republican members?  Was one of her purposes simply to lay groundwork for her irrelevant report (which she probably had outlined even before the questioning began).  Or, was there some legitimate reason for her questions that she just hasn’t seen fit to divulge?  In my estimation, her part and her questions have not been analyzed because it was a ‘ploy’ not a legitimate procedure.

WP:  “There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process,” Mitchell wrote in the memo. “But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.”

Publius2:  Again, a completely irrelevant statement.  However, it shows that she was fully aware that this was not the legal world, but the political  ‘advise and consent’ world in which she was making her report.  Her job should have been to elicit information for further investigation by asking probing questions.  She did not.  Instead, she acted on a basis that had little relevance to the job interview of a potential Supreme Court Justice.  

Her remarks and her report appear to confirm that her job was to prosecute and destroy the presentation by Dr. Ford as too weak to hold-up in a court of law.  As a by-product, she was able to give Republican Committee members one more cover they will need to recommend Kavanaugh’s appointment (already decided in their partisan minds) to the full Senate.  Her report of ‘legal context’ was in keeping with that latter motive, and not the motive of investigating the character and qualifications of the nominee.

WP:  The prosecutor joined a private meeting with all Senate Republicans on Thursday after the hearing, where she told the senators that after the eight hours of testimony she heard, she would not have prosecuted Kavanaugh for assault, according to two officials familiar with her remarks. 

Publius2:  Wonderful, except it doesn’t resolve a thing since this Committee was not asked to determine whether Judge Cavanaugh deserved to be prosecuted for assault.  The Committee was asked to determine if he was fit for the job of Justice and would they advise the President of that decision.

WP:  The committee is also sending to all Senate Republicans a detailed timeline of key events regarding Ford’s accusation, including when she first approached her congresswoman, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), with her allegations and the committee’s investigative work. (seung-min.kim@washpost.com)

Publius2:  OK…that could be educational, but does it help in any way to determine whether Judge Cavanaugh is fit for this job, or does it simply attempt to impugn the testimony of Dr. Ford, leaving the question of Cavanaugh’s appointment in Limbo?

Here is the result writ large of what the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has wrought with his arbitrary decisions regarding scheduling of hearings and voting on legislation; on the use of the filibuster, and the use of delaying tactics to deep-six the nomination of Merrick Garland to a spot on the Court.  He delayed Obama appointments of judges; he delayed votes on critical legislation; he left Democrats out when making decisions on vital legislation; he aided and abetted in the ruination of the Affordable Health Care system. He even declared that he would work to make sure that President Obama was a one-term president.

Here is the crux of this whole matter:  Majority Leader McConnell has so 'de-constructed'  the rules of the Senate, and the procedures it takes to lead to good legislation (including how many votes are needed to pass particular bills), and the untruths that he has conveyed to the public, that he has produced the Monster we all saw on Thursday, September 26^th at that Committee hearing.  He is responsible for the lack of planning, the way in which Democrats were treated, the lack of ability of his committees to operate in any other than a strikingly partisan way, and the ability to lie with impunity.  This twit of a leader is probably the number one advertisement for term limits, and for mandated bi-partisan leadership of both Houses of Congress.  No one – especially Mitch McConnell – should ever be allowed a life-long career as a politician!  

Conclusion: 
I have been fortunate (and sometimes not-so-fortunate) to see the inside workings of our federal government, both in the administrative Executive branch and in the offices and hearing rooms of the Congress.  I count myself fortunate to have had that kind of access, and to have even been called upon by Committee chairmen in both House and Senate to assist in drafting portions of law that changed some of the policy and procedure of an administrative agency. In addition, during 18 years of retirement, as a (volunteer) political activist, I have had occasion to lead a local area grass-roots team for a successful presidential campaign; formed a unique bi-partisan committee that recruits and trains non-governmental non-profit agencies to become year-round voter registration agencies. 

I am inserting this information, not to call attention to my personal achievements, but to help readers understand that I do not speak from entirely outside the governmental system. I speak of reforms and change from the perspective of an observer and activist who has seen from the inside how government operates, and how it screws-up.  In some of the agencies and congressional offices, I have found competency, openness and ability to translate concerns of citizens into viable legislation and laws; and into workable programs and helpful regulations – something not many get credit for doing. But, I have also found incompetency, little understanding of everyday issues and needs, and some with ideology and values that are destructive of democracy. 

Springing from the right-wing Nixon/Reagan ideology and political revenge tactics, there is now such a raw partisan need for victory and power, that the real work of legislators, administrators, and now Justices and judges has been diminished day-by-day by a social and political misfit who cannot make any decision without personalizing and politicizing it in some way.  
And now, that authoritarian leader is about to gain control of the Supreme Court and thus of the entire Justice system.  He has already, as you know, demeaned and diminished the stature of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

As to the investigation of Kavanaugh’s background: in spite of what Trump says about openness, the FBI has finished its investigation and has produced a report on the Kavanaugh nomination within the parameters that Trump directed because he is the client as well as the one to whom the FBI agency is beholden. From this moment on, Trump will use the FBI for whatever purposes he has, because whatever they do will be at his direction. This so-called ‘investigation’ has helped to stamp the FBI as a "captured-by-Trump" agency. 

Adding the Judiciary to his stable of captures will be the Coup de grace.  When Kavanaugh is confirmed by the Senate (and he will be confirmed), Trump will control all three branches of our federal government, and when that is fulfilled, he will have completed his quest for an imperial presidency.  
What comes next will be scary and irreversible by ordinary means: in my opinion, Trump will attempt to form, from the remnants of the FBI and intelligence agencies, a national police force that will be used to control everything from religion to childbirth to how patriotism is displayed and expressed.  He will enforce a type of state religion, he will disrupt protests of any kind (like that local police department helicopter did when it flew so dangerously close to protestors recently, scattering debris and projectiles in every direction). And guess what?  The captured branches of his government will back him up at every despotic turn; particularly the newly captured SCOTUS. 

The new federal alert system that ran a test on Wednesday afternoon is a possible first step toward the use of advanced technology to track anyone a national police force desires to find, to intimidate, to message, to frighten.  That alert system can be used in ways that are for good or evil results.  Beware electronic nationwide contact – it is the playground of despotic personalities!

Trump has -- with the assist of Breitbart News and Steve Bannon; with the ever-present encouragement of Sean Hannity and Fox News; with the backing of willing and captured followers as well as the violent backing of hate groups of all kinds – Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, KKK (take a look at the report from the SPLC if you want the full list of over 950 of them) -- been able to con and bamboozle millions of voters.  The Big Lie and issue diversion are his primary tools of such deception.  He has been moving in this Fascist direction for a considerable period of time, and now sees the inevitable results arriving on his doorstep, while his erstwhile followers see only what they want to see.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/02/21/year-hate-trump-buoyed-white-supremacists-2017-sparking-backlash-among-black-nationalist

Do not be fooled!  This is not just a nomination to the Supreme Court.  This is a proving ground -- a laboratory -- for a would-be dictator.  Trump has told us this all along, but we have not listened.  Now, however, he has created a con-job extrordinaire:  a report from the main questioner at Committee hearings for a SCOTUS nominee that focuses on false conclusions; a secret FBI report that he ordered and set parameters for; a cover-up of further allegations against his SCOTUS nominee, and an imperial presidency all wrapped up in a bundle that cannot be quickly undone.  
Nor can the People open it to look inside.  Our freedoms have been violated over and over during this period of vetting of a nominee to the Supreme Court!

 He will put a far-right radical onto the Court.  He will form some type of national police force (and national monitoring system).  He will control all three branches of government.  He will be the imperial president... 
UNLESS, the voters get in his way in both 2018 and 2020.  And here is the scariest of all:  a recent poll indicates that this entire charade has energized Republican voters.  
If the Blue Wave does not happen in 2018, it is entirely possible, in my estimation, that there will be either no election in 2020 for president, or only one choice on the ballot.  We are on-the-brink and the Kavanaugh debacle has helped bring us here!  Great shame on all those who have bought this manure farm, and especially on those who buy this con-job on Nov. 6, 2018!

Mark your calendars, readers.  This is one week we must be able to remember because it (and others yet to come) will mark the destruction (‘de-construction’) of our form of government.  No more unique checks and balances; no more great debates of issues and ideas; no truth and no access to truth; a battered press considered “fake news” and a 'threat'; a criminal despot occupying the imperial presidency, controlling all matters executive, legislative and judicial.  
Have you read the “Handmaid’s Tale” or seen the movie?  Our losses may be worse as a central government begins to use technology to track our every move, monitor every word, punish every criticism, violate every reasonable standard and repress every attempt to regain what America is meant to be.  “Making America great again” will become a slogan most hated and most repressed by the imperial regime that started it in the first place because it will have the essence of rebellion written all over it, and might encourage the victims of Trumpism to fight back in order to "make America Great Again."  We are about to inherit the whirlwind: a world turned upside down and inside out...

When you go to the polls on Election Day 2018 – Nov. 6th – remember this:  this may very well be your last chance to save your country, and your last chance to vote your conscience.  And, if you decide not to vote -- or to vote for Republicans—you might just seal your fate for the rest of your life!

Nov. 6, 2018 is that critical – a “Make or Break”-- “Do or Die” kind 
of election!