Kavanaugh Confirmation Spreads Panic in DC

Elder Patriot – Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski was the lone Republican to vote against bringing President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh confirmation vote to the floor of the full senate.  

This is hard to understand for a Senator who comes from a state where men compose nearly 57% of the population.  For the most part these are old school frontiersmen, not urban femme boys who are susceptible to feminist teachings and the #MeToo movement.

There has been much speculation over the picture below:

What could corrupt Senator Dianne Feinstein (left) possibly be saying to Murkowski?

By the body language and the look on both senator’s faces, Feinstein does not appear to be merely discussing how Judge Kavanaugh would vote on an issue of particular interest to them.

Unless, that particular interest is in protecting the corruption of establishment uniparty members from exposure:

What do they have to hide and why do they fear Judge Kavanaugh, specifically?

Listen to this exchange between Lindsey Graham and Judge Kavanaugh during the regular round of hearings on his nomination.  They are discussing when it becomes appropriate to use military tribunals in place of the criminal court system:

Here’s the transcript of the Senator Graham-Kavanaugh exchange:

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.

Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.

Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.

Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?

Kavanaugh: That is correct.

Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.

Kavanaugh: Yeah.

Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?

Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?

Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.

Understanding that exchange, can the Senate’s long standing policies of shipping our wealth to foreign countries coupled with the Senator’s personal enrichment for both that and their acquiescence to the sale our national security assets (Uranium, missile technologies, nuclear secrets, money) to enemy states (Russia, China, Iran) have anything to do with the desperate attempt to tank the Kavanaugh nomination?

Before dismissing this possibility, remember these words from Senator Graham during the extra-judicial hearing demanded by Democrats:

It would seem Graham’s anger revealed significantly more than just simple partisan politics:

Senator Graham: “Boy, y’all want power?  I hope you never get it!”