General News You Want to Talk About

Politicus USA wrote:
Trump Is Threatening America With Violence If Republicans Lose The Midterm Election

Aug 28th, 2018

Trump is threatening the American people with violence as he is trying to scare voters into supporting the Republican Party in November.


NBC News reported:

The level of hatred, the level of anger is unbelievable,” he said. “Part of it is because of some of the things I’ve done for you and for me and for my family, but I’ve done them. … This Nov. 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me, it’s a referendum on your religion, it’s a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment.”

If the GOP loses, he said, “they will overturn everything that we’ve done and they’ll do it quickly and violently, and violently. There’s violence. When you look at Antifa and you look at some of these groups — these are violent people.”

Here is Chuck Todd on MTP Daily talking about Trump’s threat:



[ . . . ]

Donald Trump is trying to scare Republican voters to the polls.

CNN wrote:
Puerto Rico's new Hurricane Maria death toll is 46 times higher than the government's previous count

August 28, 2018

Puerto Rico's government raised its official Hurricane Maria death toll to 2,975 on Tuesday in the wake of a new estimate from researchers.

The new figure is 46 times larger than the previous toll the Puerto Rican government released in December 2017, when officials said 64 people had died as a result of the storm.

It comes on the same day researchers from George Washington University revealed findings from a study on storm-related deaths commissioned by the US commonwealth's government.

[ . . . ]

And recently, the Puerto Rican government had quietly admitted the official toll was higher than its December 2017 tally. In a report to Congress earlier this month, the US commonwealth said documents show that 1,427 more deaths occurred in the four months after the storm than "normal," compared with deaths that occurred the previous four years.

But Tuesday's estimate was an even higher number.

[ . . . ]

The George Washington University study also found that the risk of dying as a result of the storm was the highest for people living in Puerto Rico's poorest municipalities, and that older, male Puerto Ricans had a notably higher risk of death after Maria.

The New Yorker wrote:
Since the middle of July, a group of some twenty government officials has been gathering each week at the headquarters of Customs and Border Protection, in Washington, D.C., to discuss what the Trump Administration should do in the aftermath of the President’s failed zero-tolerance policy. The policy, which called for the criminal prosecution of anyone crossing the border illegally, and led to the separation of more than twenty-five hundred children from their parents, has coincided with a broader effort to dismantle the U.S. asylum system. Yet the government never had a plan for keeping track of the separated parents and children once they were in custody, and, even after a federal judge in San Diego, Dana Sabraw, ordered the government to reunite them, it struggled to comply. “I definitely haven’t seen contrition,” an Administration official, who told me about the weekly meetings,

[ . . . ]

. . . To date, no one in the Trump Administration has been held accountable for its family-separation policy, even after evidence has steadily mounted as to its immense human costs and administrative failures. The government’s own data show that it has had no appreciable effect on migration patterns throughout the summer, but the Administration pursued the policy anyway, targeting immigrant families. . . According to a report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, at Syracuse University, “The Administration has not explained its rationale for prosecuting parents with children when that left so many other adults without children who were not being referred for prosecution.” Michelle Brané, of the Women’s Refugee Commission, told me, “It’s still baffling to me that no one has had to answer for this.”

[ . . . ]

Some five hundred and sixty children are still separated from their parents, including twenty-four who are five years old or younger, and the parents of more than three hundred and sixty of them have already been deported.

[ . . . ]

I asked the current Administration official whether the outcry over family separation had caught the government by surprise. It had, the official said. “The expectation was that the kids would go to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that the parents would get deported, and that no one would care.” Yet, when it became clear that the public did, the Administration chose not to change course.

CNN wrote:
CNN Poll: Brett Kavanaugh nomination has lowest public support since Robert Bork

August 16, 2018

Overall, 37% of Americans say they'd like to see the Senate vote in favor of his confirmation. Kavanaugh's support is the lowest in polling dating back to Robert Bork's nomination by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. That's lower support for Kavanaugh than similar public assessments of the unsuccessful nominations of Merrick Garland and Harriet Miers, as well as all successful nominees save David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, for whom equivalent data are not available. Slightly more, 40%, say the Senate should not vote to confirm Kavanaugh, while 22% have no opinion on the matter. And Americans' first impressions of the judge are mixed: 33% have a generally positive take, 27% neutral and 29% generally negative.

Women, in particular, are notably opposed to Kavanaugh's nomination, and it's not just partisanship driving the difference. Just 28% of women say the Senate should vote in favor of confirming Kavanaugh, compared with 47% of men. That gender gap extends to Democrats (6% of Democratic women support confirmation vs. 22% of Democratic men), and independents (28% of women vs. 47% of men). There's a far smaller gap between GOP women (71%) and men (77%).

[ . . . ]

The Senate Judiciary Committee has announced that hearings on Kavanaugh's nomination will begin September 4, but Democrats on the committee have sought access to more information from Kavanaugh's time working in George W. Bush's White House. The poll found 41% of Americans say they want the government to provide more documents from Kavanaugh's career and 27% say Senate Democrats have enough information already.

CNN wrote:
Jeff Flake's moment: How a reliable conservative cast Kavanaugh's confirmation into doubt

September 28, 2018

 . . . On Friday morning, he [Republican Senator Jeff Flake] issued a statement saying he would back Kavanaugh, after all.

"Oh f***," Sen. Chris Coons said after learning how his friend would vote. The Delaware Democrat became emotional, going silent for several seconds. "We each make choices for our own reasons," he said. "I'm struggling, I'm sorry."

Then Flake got on an elevator, and everything changed.

Stopped at the elevator

On the way to the Judiciary Committee's meeting to advance Trump's Supreme Court nominee to the full Senate floor, Flake was involved in a dramatic confrontation when two female protesters, Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher, blocked his elevator door.

"You have children in your family," Archila told him. "Think about them. I have two children"

"I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me," Gallagher said. Through tears, she pleaded, "Don't look away from me. Look at me and tell me that it doesn't matter what happened to me."

Head bowed, Flake nodded at the women and told them "thank you." He didn't respond directly.

Hours later, inside the committee room, came the day's third key moment.

Flake tapped [Democratic Senator] Coons on the shoulder, and the two retreated to a private anteroom. It set off an hour of frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations, as questions about whether Flake had changed his mind hovered.

When Flake emerged, he dropped a bombshell that would throw Kavanaugh's confirmation into chaos: He'd vote to advance him Friday -- but wanted a weeklong FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations he faces. Otherwise, Flake, a key swing vote, said he would oppose Kavanaugh on the Senate floor.

It was a stunning move that other Senate moderates quickly backed, forcing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand and leading Trump to agree to order the FBI probe.

[. . . ]

Asked by reporters later what changed his mind, Flake said he couldn't pinpoint the reason -- but that he'd had sleepless nights.
He said it has been "remarkable over the past week" how many people saw Ford make her allegation against Kavanaugh publicly "and were emboldened to come out and say what happened to them. I've heard from friends, close friends, and I had no idea."

"I wanted to support him. I'm a conservative, he's a conservative judge. But I want a process we can be proud of," Flake said of Kavanaugh. "And I think the country needs to be behind it. And we need a more bipartisan process. That's why this is important."

[ . .  .]

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- where Republicans had 11 votes to Democrats' 10 -- Flake was the only potential swing vote on the panel.

On Thursday, in a hearing scheduled to air a sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh, California professor Christine Blasey Ford told the committee she'd feared he would rape her at a party when they were both teenagers. Kavanaugh insisted he was innocent.

CNN wrote:
New questions emerge over FBI investigation of Kavanaugh

October 1, 2018

The White House is fighting to regain control of the confirmation of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, but a controversy is widening over its role in an FBI investigation into allegations against the nominee of sexual assault and misconduct.

New signs emerged Sunday that the [White House] administration is taking steps to make sure the [FBI] probe is narrow and focused -- as Republicans seek to forestall further delays to the confirmation process or another erosion of the judge's position.

[ . . . ]

A swift investigation by the FBI -- should it produce no new information about Kavanaugh's past that hurts his chances -- could permit Republicans to fire up the machinery of the Senate and potentially call procedural votes to advance the nomination by the end of the week.

[ . . . ]

Trump said Saturday that the FBI would have "free rein" to investigate whatever it wanted in the probe, saying, "They have free rein to do whatever they have to do." But potential inconsistencies emerged Sunday between public statements by administration officials that appeared to finesse Trump's assertion and what some sources are saying privately about the probe.

[ . . . ]

A source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN that the FBI will interview a handful of people and only take direction from the White House, not the Senate.

A source briefed on the matter said the White House sent the limited parameters of the investigation to the FBI based on a Senate request.

[ . . . ]

Indications that the White House was intimately involved in the process could risk tainting its eventual conclusions or leave the impression that the probe is using the prestige of the FBI but is only a cursory effort designed to restore Kavanaugh's momentum as quickly as possible.

[ . . . ]

Signs that the White House is more closely involved in setting the terms of the new background check on Kavanaugh than might have been initially clear sparked disquiet from Democrats.

[ . . . ]

" . . . I have never heard that the White House, either under this president or other presidents, is saying, 'well, you can't interview this person, you can't look at this time period, you can only look at these people from one side of the street from when they were growing up,'" [Democratic Senator Amy]  Klobuchar said.

[ . . .  ]

Initially, it appears, the bureau will talk to people who could shed light on Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a house party when they were teenagers. This is expected to include Mark Judge, whom Ford alleges was in the room at the time, and two other people Ford said were at the party, Patrick J. Smyth and Leland Keyser, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN. Judge has already said that he had no memory of any alleged incident involving Ford and Kavanaugh, and Smyth and Keyser have said they don't remember the party. However, Keyser, a friend of Ford's, does not refute the allegation and has said she believes the account, her lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Ford and Kavanaugh -- who gave testimony under oath to the committee on Thursday -- were not on the initial list of names given by Senate Republicans to the White House, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

[. . . ]


A source familiar with the situation told CNN's Ariane De Vogue that the FBI had spoken on Sunday to Deborah Ramirez, another woman who came forward with allegations against Kavanaugh from his time at Yale University, which the judge has also denied.

But there is so far no indication that the FBI has or will talk with Julie Swetnick, whose attorney, Michael Avenatti, also represents Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who alleges she had an affair with Trump. Trump has denied that allegation.

Suggested Phone Script wrote:
Hi, my name is [NAME] and I’m a constituent from [City].

I'm calling to ask that [SENATOR NAME] publicly demand that the White House rescind its unreasonable limits on the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh's sexual assault claims, past drinking habits, and potential perjury.

The public deserves to know the full truth about a Supreme Court nominee.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[IF LEAVING A VOICEMAIL: please leave your full street address to ensure your call is tallied]

Washington Post wrote:
White House agrees to expand Kavanaugh probe slightly as McConnell signals vote is imminent

October 1, 2018

The White House has given the FBI permission to expand its probe of Brett M. Kavanaugh at least slightly, according to two people familiar with the matter, after facing a barrage of criticism over the weekend about the constricted investigation.

[ . . .]

The White House and the FBI, though, still view the investigation as limited and time-sensitive, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday he intends to hold a vote on the nomination “this week.”

[ . . . ]

Even the broadened probe — which will now encompass the allegations of a third accuser — seemed to have limits that might fuel the controversy.

The FBI will not, for example, conduct an unfettered review of Kavanaugh’s youthful drinking or examine statements Kavanaugh made about his alcohol consumption during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to see if those answers were accurate or misleading, the people familiar with the matter said. The White House also could resist inquiries into new allegations, the people said.

But people familiar with the matter said agents will be allowed to question more witnesses with information on the sexual-misconduct allegations. Drinking is inextricably intertwined with the allegations Kavanaugh faces, so it would be impossible to avoid that topic entirely. Two people familiar with the interviews so far say agents have asked routine questions, including about alcohol use.

Precisely whom FBI agents will talk to was not immediately clear. . .

[ . . . ]

 . . . [Democratic Senator Christopher] Coons said he expected a standard FBI investigation would allow agents to reach out to more witnesses that they learn about through the course of their initial interviews, but “I came away from our conversation with the impression that was not the case.”

[ . . . ]

If nothing comes up that craters support for Kavanaugh, McConnell would plan to schedule the first test vote on Kavanaugh this Friday, with a final confirmation vote possible over the weekend. If the FBI completes its review earlier, McConnell might speed up that timeline.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) — who are considered key swing votes — have yet to announce how they would vote after the FBI completes its work. A Collins spokeswoman said the senator “was consulted about the White House authorizing the expanded FBI approach to the Kavanaugh background check and it is her understanding that the work will still be completed in the original one-week timeline.”

Collins is pressing for the FBI to investigate the allegations of misconduct leveled by a third woman, Julie Swetnick, against Kavanaugh.

Collins, along with Flake and Murkowski, “advocated for the additional background investigation because she believed that it could help the senators evaluate the claims that have been brought to the Judiciary Committee,” said spokeswoman Annie Clark. “That would include the allegations that were brought by Julie Swetnick.”

Flake said he hoped the FBI would do a “real investigation,” rather than one meant to support a decision that Republicans already have reached.

[ . . . ]

An administration official said the FBI now also would be allowed to investigate the claims of Swetnick.

NBC wrote:
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public

October 1, 2018

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee [Brett Kavanaugh] was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.

[ . . . ]

On Sunday, Berchem emailed FBI agent J.C. McDonough her memo. After getting no response, she resent the summary on Monday morning along with screenshots of certain texts that she thinks raise questions that should be investigated. “I’m sure he’s really busy and expect that he’ll get back to me,” said Berchem.

[ . . . ]


Berchem, 51, a graduate of Yale and a Connecticut resident, reached out to Sen. Richard Blumenthal's office last week. Blumenthal, a Democrat, sits on the Judiciary Committee.

“We heard from Kerry late on Thursday and submitted her summary to the Judiciary Committee early Friday,” a spokeswoman for Blumenthal said in a statement to NBC News. “After we were made to jump through several hoops that delayed our moving forward, it became clear that the majority Committee staff had not turned this summary over to the FBI and, in fact, had no intention of turning it over to the FBI. With our assistance, Kerry submitted her summary to the FBI herself.”

[ . . . ]

Berchem hired a lawyer on Sunday to help her get her information into the right hands. She has twice sent her memo to the FBI and has yet to hear a response, according to her lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He flagged two texts in particular.

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. . .

Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, said: "It would be surprising, and it would certainly be highly imprudent, if at any point Judge Kavanaugh directly contacted an individual believed to have information about allegations like this. A nominee would normally have been counseled to leave to his legal and nominations team the job of following up on any questions arising from press reports or otherwise, and doing so appropriately."

Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

[ . . . ]


Finally, Berchem is concerned about what she witnessed at the 1997 wedding where Ramirez and Kavanaugh were both in the wedding party.

According to the information Berchem provided, Ramirez tried to avoid Kavanaugh at that wedding of their two friends, Yarasavage and Kevin Genda.

Ramirez, “clung to me” at the wedding, Berchem wrote to Yarasavage in a Sept. 24th text message. “She never went near them,” a reference to Kavanaugh and his friends. Even in the group photo, Berchem wrote, Ramirez was trying to keep away from Kavanaugh.

Suggested Phone Script wrote:Hi, my name is [NAME] and I’m a constituent from [City].

I'm calling to ask that [SENATOR NAME] publicly demand that the White House allow the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh's sexual assault claims, past drinking habits, and potential perjury.   The FBI should be allowed to follow all leads within the permitted time period by speaking to all pertinent witnesses.

The public deserves to know the full truth about a Supreme Court nominee.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[IF LEAVING A VOICEMAIL: please leave your full street address to ensure your call is tallied]

Washington Post wrote:
FBI navigates political minefield and deadline in Kavanaugh inquiry

October 2, 2018

The White House has given the FBI until Friday to provide the results of a week-long inquiry into allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted female students while in high school and college — accusations he has angrily denied. Officials said the FBI could finish before Friday, particularly as senators clamor for information ahead of an expected first procedural vote on his confirmation this week.

FBI agents have completed a first batch of interviews of four individuals closest to the alleged events, and the White House has given the bureau a green light to conduct some further interviews, according to the people familiar with the matter.

On Tuesday, the FBI moved beyond those initial four people, interviewing Tim Gaudette, a Georgetown Preparatory School classmate of Kavanaugh. Gaudette’s attorney, Kenneth Eichner, said an FBI interview took place but declined to comment further. Gaudette’s home was the site of a July 1, 1982, party that Kavanaugh references on his calendar and has become the focus of lawmakers’ concerns.

FBI agents have also interviewed Mark Judge, a key Kavanaugh high school friend who has denied any knowledge of a teenage gathering like the one described by Kavanaugh’s first accuser.

In the interview, Judge also denied recent allegations leveled by Julie Swetnick, saying he had no knowledge of anything like what she had claimed — that he, Kavanaugh or other male friends tried at house parties to get girls drunk in order to take advantage of them, according to two people familiar with the interview.

Another friend from Kavanaugh’s high school days, Chris Garrett, has also completed an FBI interview, according to Garrett’s lawyer, William M. Sullivan Jr., who declined to comment further.

[ . . . ]

John Clune, an attorney for Ramirez, said Tuesday on Twitter that his client spoke with the FBI for more than two hours Sunday in a “detailed and productive interview.” The agents “were clearly motivated to investigate the matter in any way they were permitted,” he added. But he asserted that Ramirez had provided the names and contact information of more than 20 witnesses who might be able to corroborate her allegation that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were at Yale, and that, as far as Clune knew, the FBI had not contacted any of them as of Tuesday.

“Though we appreciated the agents who responded on Sunday, we have great concern that the FBI is not conducting — or not being permitted to conduct — a serious investigation,” he said.

Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who said she was assaulted by Kavanaugh when they were teens and who testified to the Senate last week, wrote FBI Director Christopher A. Wray on Tuesday to say they were concerned the FBI had not sought an interview with her.

“It is inconceivable that the FBI could conduct a thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s allegations without interviewing her, Judge Kavanaugh, or the witnesses we have identified in our letters to you,” the lawyers wrote, demanding an immediate answer to what they said were days of silence from the FBI.

The bureau declined to comment.

[ .  . . ]

Because the White House and even the president are dictating what the bureau should do, Wray is also involved in the matter, according to people familiar with the work.

[ . . . ]

Some people have approached the bureau on their own, and at times been frustrated to be routed to a tip line or online reporting form. That is how the bureau normally handles voluminous tips in high-profile matters, but in a probe with a short deadline, the response feels inadequate to some.

[ . . . ]

[Former FBI assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division, Joseph] Campbell said that in his experience with background checks or other investigations at the FBI, “I never encountered an instance where I was directed in regard to specifically talk to these people or don’t talk to these people.”

Suggested Phone Script wrote:Hi, my name is [NAME] and I’m a constituent from [City].

I'm calling to ask that [SENATOR NAME] publicly demand that the White House allow the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh's sexual assault claims, past drinking habits, and potential perjury.   The FBI should be allowed to follow all leads within the permitted time period by speaking to all pertinent witnesses, and should be allowed to interview Brett Kavanaugh himself and Professor Christine Blasey Ford.

The public deserves to know the full truth about a Supreme Court nominee.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[IF LEAVING A VOICEMAIL: please leave your full street address to ensure your call is tallied]

Washington Post wrote:
As FBI background check of Kavanaugh nears its end, probe appears to have been highly curtailed

October 3, 2018

The FBI background check of Brett M. Kavanaugh appeared to remain curtailed in its scope Wednesday even as agents neared the end of their work, opening up the possibility that the bureau would again face criticism over what some will view as a lackluster investigation.

Though complete details of the FBI’s findings had yet to be released Wednesday evening, the bureau’s inquiry seems to have focused mostly on an allegation by a California professor who claims Kavanaugh assaulted her decades ago at a party in Maryland, when both were high school students.

The Washington Post has been able to confirm interviews with only six witnesses, five of whom have a connection to the professor or her allegation.

[ . . . ]

Even before the probe had ended, several people who claimed to have information that could be useful said they ended up mired in bureaucracy when they tried to get in touch with the FBI. Democrats also cried foul over what they saw as inappropriate parameters that the White House seemed to be imposing on the bureau.

President Trump has insisted publicly he was not curtailing the FBI probe. But privately, the White House restricted the FBI from delving deeply into Kavanaugh’s youthful drinking and exploring whether he had lied to Congress about his alcohol use, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Some of those involved in the case complained that the bureau did not follow leads that were offered to it.

The FBI, for example, interviewed Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing his penis to her at a gathering when both were college students at Yale, and Ramirez’s team provided agents with more than 20 people who might have information relevant to her claims. But as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.

The FBI also did not interview Christine Blasey Ford, her legal team said. Ford is the California professor whose public testimony about a high school gathering at which she said Kavanaugh forced her onto a bed and groped her helped spark the background check in the first place. The legal team said Ford was willing to turn over to the bureau notes from therapy sessions in which she described the assault.

Instead, the bureau interviewed three people who Ford said attended the party: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and Leland Keyser. The FBI also talked to two other friends of Kavanaugh’s who were listed as attending a gathering during the same summer that Ford alleged she was assaulted: Chris Garrett, who went out with Ford for a time, and Tim Gaudette.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that agents also had apparently not talked to Kavanaugh himself.

“The White House confirmation that it will not allow the FBI to interview Dr. Blasey Ford, Judge Kavanaugh or witnesses identified by Deborah Ramirez raises serious concerns that this is not a credible investigation,” she said in a statement.

The FBI similarly had not — at least as of Wednesday — interviewed Julie Swetnick, who said in a declaration that Kavanaugh was physically abusive toward girls in high school and was present at a house party in 1982 where she says she was the victim of a “gang” rape. But the bureau did ask Judge, who was named in the affidavit, about her claims.

Last days you can register to vote for the 2018 midterms in all 50 states:

 overherewiththequeers:

bylillian:

janes-gang:

Alabama: OCT.22rd
Alaska: OCT. 7th
Arizona: OCT. 9th
Arkansas: OCT. 9th
California: OCT. 22rd
Colorado: Election day.
Connecticut: OCT. 30th
Delaware: OCT. 13th 
D.C: OCT. 16th
Florida: OCT. 9th
Georgia: OCT. 9th
Hawaii: OCT. 9th
Idaho: OCT. 12th
Illinois: OCT. 9th
Indiana: OCT. 9th
Iowa: OCT. 27th
Kansas: OCT. 16th
Kentucky: OCT. 9th
Louisiana: NOV. 17th
Maine: OCT. 16th
Maryland: OCT. 16th
Massachusetts: OCT. 17th
Michigan: OCT. 9th
Minnesota: OCT. 16th
Mississippi: OCT. 9th
Missouri: OCT. 10th
Montana: OCT. 9th
Nebraska: OCT. 19th
Nevada: OCT. 9th
New Hampshire: NOV. 6th
New Jersey: OCT. 16th
New Mexico: OCT. 9th
New York: OCT. 12th
North Carolina: OCT. 12th
North Dakota: Election Day.
Ohio: OCT. 9th
Oklahoma: OCT. 12th
Oregon: OCT. 16th
Pennsylvania: OCT. 9th
Rhode Island: OCT. 7th
South Carolina: OCT. 9th
South Dakota: OCT. 22rd
Tennessee: OCT. 9th
Texas: OCT. 9th
Utah: OCT. 7th
Vermont: Election Day.
Virginia: OCT. 15th
Washington: OCT. 8th
West Virginia: OCT. 16th
Wisconsin: OCT. 17th
Wyoming: OCT. 22rd


Please register online if you aren’t already. Check your registration and your friends. Lots of people don’t have much time left to register! Don’t wait until the last minute! 

Register to vote ONLINE NOW!

Memes are all very good, but to get the assholes out, you have to VOTE.

Anyone who follows me is just gonna have to get used to seeing this a lot until election day.