Dem Senators Reject Results of Investigation They Demanded

By John Semmens — Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

After reaching an agreement with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Az) to a one-week FBI effort to corroborate the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford alleging that somewhere at some time during her teen years a teen-aged Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, Senate Democrats rejected the findings.

Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) called the FBI probe “incomplete. All they did was confirm that the witnesses named by Dr. Ford could not corroborate her story. They did not interview the hundreds of Kavanaugh’s high school and college classmates who may have known something of events that might or might not have taken place during the tumultuous decade of the 1980s. In his testimony Judge Kavanaugh admitted to liking beer. The FBI neglected to probe further the magnitude of this love for this alcoholic beverage and whether it may have led to behavior inappropriate for a future judge.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) lamented that “our fears have been realized. Rather than embarking on a broad investigatory probe like Special Counsel Mueller has, the FBI was limited to the scope agreed upon by the Flake-Coons compromise. For all we know, Kavanaugh could’ve been involved in the Russian meddling with the 2016 election, or have cheated on his taxes, or have at one time or another known someone who had. This chain of events vindicates my initial inclination to oppose anyone that Donald Trump nominates to any high office.”

Senate Judiciary Committee member Cory Booker (D-NJ) brushed aside the lack of corroboration, saying “at this point, whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent is no longer relevant. Maybe the Judge is an honorable man, but so many questions have been raised that if he were he would’ve already stepped down. That he hasn’t convinces me that he is the wrong man for the job.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del) acknowledged that “the FBI report does, technically, meet the terms of what Sen. Flake and I agreed to, but at this point, the accuracy of Dr. Ford’s allegations is irrelevant. My biggest objection to Kavanaugh is his ill-tempered objection to being smeared. It is one thing for us senators to launch scurrilous attacks. That is part of the give-and-take of politics. It is quite another for a would-be Supreme Court Justice to vociferously object. No other nominee, with the possible exception of Justice Thomas, has exhibited such ill-temper toward senators at a confirmation hearing. At this point, Kavanaugh is damaged goods. Can anyone now doubt that his anger at us might influence his decisions in a partisan way going forward?”

After a reporter reminded him that current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has engaged in partisan remarks regarding election campaigns, Coons said “that proves my point. If a Justice who was confirmed in a bipartisan 96-3 vote would step over the line it seems even more of a risk that a Justice almost unanimously opposed by all Democrats and savaged by many of them might be significantly dissuaded to buy arguments on behalf of the partisan interests and issues favored by Democrats in cases heard at the Court. Clearly, that ought to disqualify him.”

Meanwhile, Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley’s quixotic bid to have a court block a Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation was dealt a setback by Republican Major Leader Mitch McConnell’s determination to press ahead with a vote by Saturday. In his original lawsuit, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the federal district court in Washington, DC had set next Tuesday to hear arguments. Merkley is now asking Berman for an injunction to bar a vote until his suit can be heard. “With the White House and both houses of Congress in Republican hands, the courts are the last hope for preserving the Democratic agenda,” Merkley pointed out. “If Kavanaugh is confirmed this weekend the progressive movement’s last bastion may be lost for decades. Judge Jackson was appointed by President Obama. Surely, she must recognize that the prescribed Constitutional separation of powers cannot be allowed to stymie her much needed intervention.”

Leftist Threats over Kavanaugh Proliferate

Democratic Senators aren’t the only ones behaving badly in the Kavanaugh confirmation process. Planned Parenthood sent out a tweet warning saying “Roses are red. Violets are blue. Vote NO on #Kavanaugh or else we’re coming for you.”

Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of the organization, justified the vague threat, saying that “preservation of the sacred right of abortion is essential to the health of the women’s movement. Anyone who will not commit to upholding this right against all challenges or limitations is an enemy of the movement. Enemies should expect to be attacked.”

Laguens reserved “a very special contempt” for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) who announced her support of Kavanaugh on Friday afternoon. “For years we’ve backed her as a solid vote for abortion only to see her put some cockeyed allegiance to ‘due process’ and ‘evidence’ ahead of believing women who tell their rape stories. She has gone over to the dark side and must be punished for her betrayal.”

Democratic congressional staffer Jackson Cosko was caught “doxxing”–publishing the home addresses of Republican Senators Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lindsey Graham. The publication of such information allows fanatics easier access to harass or attack these individuals.

Cosko had been working for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex) but was fired after his arrest. Cosko, who describes himself as a “Democratic political professional with cybersecurity expertise,” complained he is being “made the scapegoat. Sen. Schumer said we would take down Kavanaugh by any means necessary. I did what I thought it was my duty to do given my computer savvy and commitment to the revolution. Since I was only carrying out the will of the Party’s leader I should have the same immunity he has.”

Porn lawyer and early front-runner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination Michael Avenatti boasted that “I have the names of dozens of new accusers that the FBI and Senate failed to include in their process. Not only will I be feeding out these accusations to the media one-by-one between now and 2020, but once I am elected president I will pack the court with people more in tune with the wishes of the voters. I will put an end to the stilted system where justice positions are reserved for lawyers and judges and balance out the codgers and hags that have dominated the Court with true tribunes of the people—people like Julie Swetnick and Deborah Ramirez, whose heroic efforts to derail the Kavanaugh appointment show them to be individuals of extraordinary merit—just the kind needed to transform this hoary institution.”

At the University of Texas, Austin an angry anti-Kavanaugh mob disrupted a peaceful demonstration by the Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) in support of the Judge’s confirmation—tearing up their signs, chanting f*ck YCT, and attempting to intimidate them. An ad hoc leader of the mob explained “there are some views that don’t deserve the privilege of being heard. It is our right as the vanguard of the progressive transformation initiated by President Obama to fight the dissemination of anti-social ideas by whatever means necessary.”

At the University of Southern California 100 students demanded that Professor James Moore be fired for responding to a broadcast email urging students to “believe survivors.” Moore’s reply noting that “accusers sometimes lie” and advocating a stronger appreciation of “due process” enraged these students.

The school’s Dean Jack Knott called Moore’s email “extremely inappropriate, hurtful, insensitive” and promised to “convene a faculty meeting to discuss the appropriate steps needed to combat the type of bias exhibited by Professor Moore. What he said is not what our school represents.”

For his part, Moore expressed remorse, hoping that might save the job he’s held for 30 years. “It was never my intention to hurt anyone,” he said. “I guess I’ve been reviewing so many cases of kangaroo justice when it comes to unsubstantiated allegations ruining the college careers of too many students to be adequately sensitive to the feelings of those who think that allegations must be believed unless the accused can conclusively prove they are untrue. For that I am deeply sorry and will correct my thinking on this issue if I’m given a second chance.”

Georgetown Professor C. Christine Fair declared that “white Republican men deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps” for supporting Kavanaugh (who she slandered by calling a “serial rapist”) and that “their corpses should be castrated and fed to swine.” Georgetown University said Fair’s views “fit within the school’s guidelines. We do not prohibit ideas, even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable. The University is a place where the free and open discussion of the evils inflicted throughout history by while males must be protected from criticism.”

Nadler Vows “Real” Investigation

Contending the “the Senate has grossly failed to carry out its advise and consent responsibilities in the Kavanaugh matter,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) vowed that “when I’m chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after the elections we will reopen the investigation. For one, I think Mr. Avenatti has come forward with some pretty interesting possibilities.”

Nadler says he “will be filing for a subpeona requiring FBI Director Wray to handover all relevant documents and testify under oath” and promised that “unlike the namby-pamby Republicans, I won’t take no for an answer. Ultimately, even if we can’t impeach Kavanaugh we can create enough suspicion to make his life a living hell. This, I think, will send a stern message to Trump that his days of getting his way in anything that requires congressional acquiescence are over.”

In order for Nadler to make good on his promise Democrats will have to win enough seats to gain a majority in the House. While the prospects of this happening have recently been put in doubt by the over-the-top behavior of so many Senate Democrats, Nadler expressed confidence that “my announcement today will reverse the tide. Once voters know that I will be the one in charge if they vote Democrat our Party’s victory is assured.”

Former Clinton advisor and CNN political commentator Paul Begala echoed Nadler’s confidence. “Once the GOP-controlled Senate votes to confirm Kavanaugh women are going to be furious! They’ll turn out in droves to vote Democrat while Republican men, satisfied with Kavanaugh’s nomination, will stay home and watch football instead of voting.” A possible flaw in Begala’s vision is that there are no football games on election day.

California Mandates Adding Women to Corp Boards

The California Legislature passed, and Gov. Jerry Brown signed, a new law requiring that every corporation located in the state have at least one female board member by the end of 2019 and three by the end of 2021.

Democrat State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, author of the legislation, asserted that the new requirement “will make businesses more successful. Everyone knows that women are smarter than men. Requiring that they be given more leadership roles will inject a greater degree of raw intelligence into corporate decision-making.”

The legislation is modeled on similar laws in Norway and France. “If a pair of the leading economies in the world have the good sense to compel this restructuring we don’t want to risk falling behind the curve,” Jackson argued.

Gov. Brown admitted there could be some risks to the state’s economy, but ventured that “sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. Could some corporations leave the state? Yes, but it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. Our high tax rates have spurred many to relocate to other states. If we can survive that, surely the lesser irritation of requiring a few females be appointed to boards of directors ought not to have much impact.”

Brown also cited a broader rationale and suggested that “there may be forces at work to mitigate the actual process. We already recognize the right of men to declare themselves to be female or gender-fluid and enter women’s locker rooms and toilets. They could do the same in order to meet the new requirement for female board members. I mean, if we can get used to an anatomically male female showering in the ladies’ locker room we should be able to get used to them in the corporate board room.”

As an example of his reasoning, Brown observed that “Angelos Sofocleous, assistant editor of the Durham University philosophy journal Critique, was recently fired for asking ‘is it a crime to say women don’t have penises?’ In our modern way of thinking, the answer is yes. This realization lights the way to men currently on corporate boards saving their jobs by coming out of the closet and admitting they are transgender. So, I think California is, once again, taking on the role of trailblazer when it comes to social innovations.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect.” This post is also available on Facebook.

Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Leave a Reply