Kavanaugh hearings- now with sexual misconduct allegations.

[Raj Ahten]

Well the outcome of Kavanaugh being appointed was pretty much assured at the beginning of this process. We just got another lesson on how screwed up our political discourse is in the meantime.

We can now look forward to decades of republican party rule here in the US. With the court on their side we can bet on extreme gerrymanders being enshrined in law. Don't bet on ballot initiatives on redistricting by commission working either. Arizona's effort came before the court and only survived by a five four ruling. How long do you think that will last?

Court packing seems to be the only realistic option available if the dems ever gain control again and really isn't much different than what went on when the Senate wouldn't seat Garland under Obama.

Maybe when the world economy collapses when Trump refuses to repay treasury bonds to China or whatever causes the next crisis will usher in a new order but I'm not optimistic about anything.

[Simon_Jester]

The Republicans gut the FBI's ability to investigate him and/or refuse to do jack shit about anything the FBI finds.

The appropriate vector here would be a Congressional-backed investigation, like the Mueller investigation.

So, assuming that Kavanaugh wasn't blindly partisan before, what are the odds that he is (or if he was, that he's even more so) now, after that confirmation process?

Honestly, that's a pretty dumb assumption.

Furthermore, you're basically arguing "don't resist when we appoint unqualified assholes with a criminal record to important jobs, because if you resist, we'll just bulldoze over you and you'll have an unqualified VENGEFUL asshole with a criminal record holding an important job."

I mean, it's in the spirit of the Kavanaugh hearings because it reduces to "don't resist, just lie back and try to have fun, or else" but still, wow.

Not that I want to condone anything the Republicans have done vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, but at least let's not all pretend that the Democrats would have had any greater respect for the institutions of our democracy were the situations reversed. They would have been just as happy to push through a controversial candidate, using any trick necessary, and its idiotic to think that the Democrats would have held any higher standard if they had been in the situation of power.

Citation needed. As we saw with Al Franken, the Democrats don't have a major institutional problem with the idea of shit-canning one of their own big players on account of them turning out to have done heinous shit.

The last time the Democrats nominated someone to the Supreme Court, it was a guy Orrin Hatch suggested to Obama. One of the most senior Republicans then in politics said "I hope Obama appoints this guy," and he appointed this guy.

Of course, he still got stonewalled by Senate Republicans refusing to even give him a hearing, on the grounds that "hey, having confirmation hearings for OUR guy two months before an election with a 30% chance of sweeping US out of office is fine, but having confirmation hearings for YOUR guy eight months before an election with a 30% chance of sweeping YOU out of office is unconscionable."

So cut the #BothSides . It's silliness.

The problem here isn't partisan, in an of itself, it's a much broader, deeper issue with our political culture. I'm not trying to argue for some golden mean fallacy about the Democrats and Republicans being "equally bad", my point is that the reasons that allowed the current political paradigm to develop are not necessarily partisan.

I'm going to be blunt, the Republicans started doing this first. Newt Gingrich is the key figure here; his role in the history of American politics was to be, basically, the guy who kicked off the modern vein of "hey, let's do scorched-Earth destruction of important nonpartisan institutions to gain political power!"

The first really obvious shot fired in the war was Gingrich defunding the Office of Technology Assessment, which cut off Congress's access to any source of complex technical advice other than lobbyists. This in turn increased reliance on lobbyists, who belong to the highest bidder.

It was only a matter of time before everything else got involved, one piece at a time. You can trace a fairly direct trendline on this up through the Kenneth Starr investigation, the Bush years*, the collective Republican freakout at a black guy Obama being in the White House, followed by the rise of Tea and Mitch McConnell vowing that the main purpose of the United States Senate was now to make Obama a one-term president. And so on, and so on.

Trying to have a conversation about how the plague of partisanship that is now crippling our institutions came to exist, without acknowledging that the Republicans have done the overwhelming majority of the work to make this happen, is like trying to talk about the dangers of a fire without being willing to discuss heat, fuel, or oxygen supply.
______________________________________________

*(mitigated there by it being in effect the 'last ride' of the old Republicans from the Nixon and Reagan eras)

Both sides are quick to demonize any position the other takes as being horrible, and the lack of any sense of compromise between those polarities means that supposedly non-partisan elements like the Supreme Court get dragged in as well. I'm sure I'll be labelled an "apologist" and other such nonsense for pointing out the obvious, because apparently these days it's anathema to try and take a step back and assess the bigger picture instead of getting dragged down into the partisan weeds.

I mean, you're not wrong to identify the problem, and I don't think you're actually engaged in apologism. It's just that when the problem is an infection caused by having a filth-covered spike jammed in your foot, talking about the infection as the problem without trying to remove the spike isn't going to help much.

Nearly half of each party now hates the other party, rather than simply disagreeing with them:

Well yes. When you spend thirty years building up a propaganda machine that half or more of your party listens to exclusively, and which is incapable of admitting that your side is wrong about anything ever, and which verifiably tells malicious lies about the other side regularly, then yeah, half of your side will hate the other side.

And when you spend thirty years doubling down on extremely blatant willingness to fuck over lots of growing minority groups, and when at every opportunity to stop and say "you know, this may forward my ideological goals but a person with a sense of decency would stop here," you don't stop here... yeah, half of the other side will hate you.

We live in a political ecosystem created by very deliberate choices made by the Republican leadership of the mid-1990s. This is the future they chose for themselves, and by voting Republican enough times in the interim, we made it OUR future too.

And you can do the "ohohoho, clearly YOU are trapped within the system that I see above!" line, but the thing is... I can prove this shit happened. I'm not making this shit up. ANY two-sided struggle between two rival institutions can be condescendingly dismissed as pure partisanship. That includes the ones that really ARE legitimately struggles between one side that is mostly-OK-ish and one side that has genuinely fallen unto evil. So your ability to dismiss this as partisanship doesn't prove anything; it's a fully generic dismissal you would always be able to apply under any circumstances.

[Tribble]

I'm not following. The Republicans just proved that they're capable of stonewalling appointments as long as a Democrat candidate is in office. Term limits don't seem likely to change that or their ability to hold seats in Congress. If Ted Cruz can't run anymore there are plenty of other Tea Party/alt-right fucks who will eagerly take his place and the same sorts of people will vote for them.

Give me the exploded version?

Sure. So it's basically a given now that no party will ever support each other's nomination from this point forward. Stonewalling is going to happen under the present rules as you probably agree. And true, term limits may require some additional rules to make them work, so that's a fair criticism. If unworkable in practice, you could implement a transition period such that retirement from the supreme court was evenly spaced and term limits were fixed to, for example, 12 or 18 years, then any presidential term would ideally only result in the appointment of a fixed number of justices (3 or 2 in the example terms). Attempting the same arguments as they did with Garland would no longer have any meaning and one would hope that the electorate would punish a party for attempting such political games. Granted, maybe that's too ideal and additional rules would need to be put in place to prevent that eventuality, but I'm not quite that cynical (really close, but not quite).

Then you have to deal with the real life factor that a justice may want to retire prior to the conclusion of their term or may be incapacitated or found to be unable to conduct their duties which would throw the even distribution out of whack. In that case, you'd have to shorten the term of the specially appointed justice to keep the system stable. Granted, games could still be played ("Justice X was appointed under the spotty party and therefore specially appointed justice Y should also be a spotty appointee") but you're not in a worse position than now.

Putting a limit on specially appointed judges would almost certainly need to be done to prevent gaming. Otherwise you could end up have something like this (assuming 18 year term, which gives ~2 appointments per presidency):

President X appoints 2 judges during his terms, A and B
President X is approaching the final years of his/her presidency
It looks that President X's successor will lose to President Y
Judges C and D will have their terms expire during President Y's term(s)
Judges C and D were appointed earlier on from President X's party, and really don't want to lose their party's spots to candidates from President Y
Therefore Judges C and D retire early, letting President X appoint 2 more judges (so long as his/her party had control of the Senate), effectively preventing President Y from apponting judges unless another judge retires / is incapacitated early.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Napoleon the Clown]

What happens if the FBI decide that they have enough on Kavanaugh to start a criminal investigation ?

The Republicans gut the FBI's ability to investigate him and/or refuse to do jack shit about anything the FBI finds.

Or Trump pardons him.

Or that.

Since every Republican save one voted for Kavanaugh, impeachment is nothing more than pissing up a rope and sucking the wet end of it*. If (and I know it's a colossal IF) the dems take the Senate, they need to block any and all of Trump's appointments to the courts. It won't do anything about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but it will prevent further damage. If they take Congress and the White House in 2020, they need to pack the courts by adding extra seats -preferably two for every Trump appointee.

As for the FBI, given the way the Bureau kneecapped Hillary for an October Surprise, and the other bullfuckery the FBI has done over the years, anyone remotely left of center who considers them an ally, a bulwark against Trump, or their friend is a fucking fool.

There are a lot of fools, as I'm sure you're aware.

The Republicans gut the FBI's ability to investigate him and/or refuse to do jack shit about anything the FBI finds.

The appropriate vector here would be a Congressional-backed investigation, like the Mueller investigation.

Which is even less likely than the FBI investigating him, being allowed to do so thoroughly, and the results of the investigation not being dismissed by those with the power to actually do something about it.


People need to accept that the Republican party, at this point, is comprised almost entirely (if not entirely) of bad-faith actors that give absolutely no fucks about actual rule of law. Their entire purpose now is to maintain power, keep those they don't like under boot heel, and to cause those with less power to suffer.

[Elfdart]

This cartoon is grossly unfair. There is no image of Mitch McConnell furiously masturbating in the corner.

[Dominus Atheos]

Rinse and repeat every time the government changes hands, then?

Probably best to institute term limits like most other countries.

Might help, but wouldn't solve the problem of depoliticizing the courts. In fact, it might actually make things worse since it could guarantee that a scotus appointment would be a campaign issue every election.

A better idea would be to make the supreme court be made up of 9 random appeals court justices who hear exactly 1 case (and the decision is final, no more appeals, no en benc, etc) and select exactly 1 case for another random group of 9 to hear. No gaming the system, no strategic lawsuits brought before a friendly court, and most likely a lot less partisan rulings rulings since any really bad decisions could be revisited by another group on another case, and then decided by yet a third random group.

That would require a constitutional amendment though, whereas court packing only requires a simple majority.

[Mr Bean]

Rinse and repeat every time the government changes hands, then?

Probably best to institute term limits like most other countries.

Might help, but wouldn't solve the problem of depoliticizing the courts. In fact, it might actually make things worse since it could guarantee that a scotus appointment would be a campaign issue every election.

Term limits on both sides would help, both on Scotus and in the Senate/House because some of the worst Senators today are those who have been in office 20+ years, look at Chuck Grassley and Orin Hatch who have been Senators since the Carter administration. So I say the same for both.

You get twenty years, Senate/House whatever you want in any combination once you hit the 20 year mark of service you can't run for re-election again except as President, you want to stay in politics? Go back and be a Governor or go down to a state house. As for the Supreme Court they get one shot at it. One twenty two to thirty year term no re-elections you can't serve on the Supreme court again the only reason for the flexible 22-30 year limit is so they can start spacing out terms so a justice retires every two to four years instead of clumps obviously if someone dies or has to quit for heath reasons. For example Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer are all over 20+ years of service if they could get together an announce retirements in 2020, 2022, and 2024 we could get the train started.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm generally not a fan of term limits on elected officials, because it sets an arbitrary limit on the freedom of choice of the voters. If the voters want to boot someone, they can. If they like how they're doing and want them back, that should be their choice as well. A much bigger impediment to reform, in my opinion, is gerrymandering and voter suppression, which keeps bad men in power against the will of the people.

Term limits for judges means that an asshole like Kavanaugh isn't a lifetime appointment, but it also means that the court, and how the laws are interpreted, potentially change with every election cycle.

In any case, changing either would require a constitutional amendment, and that burns up a lot of political capital that could be better spent elsewhere (such as scrapping the Electoral College and getting rid of Citizens United).

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, fuck...

https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/bret ... ation-lie/

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

READ MORE: Brett Kavanaugh was a ‘frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker,’ Yale classmate says

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee revealed the fraud in a letter to the FBI and Justice Department Friday, asking them to prosecute Judy Munro-Leighton for lying to and obstructing Congress.

Mr. Grassley said Ms. Munro-Leighton is a left-wing activist who hijacked another “Jane Doe” anonymous report about a backseat rape and claimed it as her own story, calling it a “vicious assault.”

“I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA Kavanaugh raped me,” Ms. Munro-Leighton wrote in an Oct. 3 email claiming to have been a victim of the judge.

WATCH: New York witch discusses reason to hex Brett Kavanaugh



Mr. Grassley’s investigators tried to reach her for a month but were unsuccessful until this week, when they spoke to her by phone and she confessed that she was not the original Jane Doe, and “did that as a way to grab attention.”

She admitted to the false allegation, and said she has actually never met Justice Kavanaugh.

“I was angry, and I sent it out,” she told investigators.

READ MORE: Brett Kavanaugh sworn in as U.S. Supreme Court justice after bitterly divided confirmation

“In short, during the committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted committee resources,” Mr. Grassley wrote. “When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a ‘ploy,’ and a ‘tactic.’ She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

President Trump seized on the report Saturday, calling her “a vicious accuser.”

“What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?” he demanded via Twitter.


WATCH: Crowd shouts ‘lock her up’ about Kavanaugh accuser who admitted she lied

Mr. Grassley has previously asked the FBI to probe Julie Swetnick and her lawyer, anti-Trump crusader Michael Avenatti, for lying to Congress and obstructing. Ms. Swetnick had originally claimed to have been the victim of gang rapes involving Justice Kavanaugh during high school parties, saying she saw him and a friend spike punch to leave girls unable to resist. She later changed her story to say she saw Justice Kavanaugh and his friend near a punch bowl, and could not identify them as having actually been part of any rape.

None of the witnesses she told NBC could corroborate her story were able to do so.

Indeed, NBC found one woman who, despite a sworn statement backing up Ms. Swetnick, told the network Mr. Avenatti was twisting her words.

READ MORE: ‘SNL’ goes into Republican ‘locker room’ to cover Kavanaugh celebrations

Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was delayed while the committee investigated a number of sexual assault and harassment claims, none of which have been corroborated by any public evidence to date.

He vehemently denied all of the claims.

He was confirmed, though only one Democrat joined with all but one Republican in backing him.

WATCH: Trump speculates how many Supreme Court justices he may appoint

So, this woman took an anonymous report (which may or may not actually be true) and claimed that she was the victim to promote the story and attack Kavanaugh.

Of course, one accuser being dishonest does not prove that the others were being dishonest. In a rational, decent world, this would have no bearing on the credibility of any other accuser. But how it will actually work is that this will be mercilessly used as "proof" that all accusers are lying (as long as they are women and the accused is a white man).

Its also really shitty how everyone is using headlines like "Kavanaugh accuser admits she lied"- because if people read that headline, and read no further, their natural assumption will be that it refers to the highest profile accuser- Dr. Blasey-Ford. When in fact there is zero evidence that she lied.

See, this is why you've got to be careful about "the ends justify the means" type thinking. Because if you get caught using dirty tricks, it undermines the credibility of your whole side (at least if you're a Democrat-Republicans seem to be able to lie and get caught and go on lying with impunity).

Edit: And as much as it makes me nauseous to agree with Chuck Grassley on anything, yeah, this woman should be prosecuted. Treat her the same as those fuckheads who tried to frame Mueller.

[aerius]

Well, fuck...

https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/bret ... ation-lie/

Actually, it gets worse.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ ... nfirmation

Senate Judiciary Committee Releases Summary of Investigation from Supreme Court Confirmation
414-Page Report Concludes No Evidence to Support Allegations Against Justice Kavanaugh

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is releasing a summary report on the committee majority’s investigation of misconduct allegations presented during the confirmation process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“The revelation of last minute allegations tested the committee in many ways. But these investigative efforts rose to the occasion and were critical to helping us obtain the truth. This was a serious and thorough investigation that left no stone unturned in our pursuit of the facts,” Grassley said. “In the end, there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against the nominee.”

The summary report and its exhibits amount to 414 pages. Committee investigators spoke with 45 individuals and took 25 written statements relating to the various allegations made in the course of the Supreme Court confirmation process. In neither the committee’s investigation nor in the supplemental background investigation conducted by the FBI was there any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations.

No evidence to support any of the allegations. I haven't read any of the transcripts or read the full report yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of folks have perjured themselves among other things.

Fucking hell, when will you morons learn to stop punching yourselves in the balls? It's pretty much guaranteed that Kavanaugh did a bunch of questionable and/or illegal shit in his youth, and you can likely track down credible witnesses and build a good case against him. But no, you get one flaky witness, an attention whore lawyer who falsifies witness statements, and this latest whacko who just outright lies. You had one job, and you screwed the pooch. People need to go to jail for this fuckup, starting with Creepy Porn Lawyer and Judy Munro-Leighton.

[The Romulan Republic]

Blasey-Ford was an excellent witness, and it is a terrible tragedy that her credibility will be further and unjustly damaged by the mistakes or misconduct of others.

I am not a fan of Mr. Avenatti, as I feel that he is using his clients (at least some of whom certainly have legitimate grievances) as a springboard for his own political ambitions, but your demands that he be jailed with no evidence that he was aware of any dishonest by his clients or committed any crime (perfectly echoing the demands of Chuck Grassley), as well as your speculation that "a bunch of folks have perjured themselves among other things." with no evidence (and despite admitting that you haven't read the transcripts or reports), and your following rant against the Democrats, all suggest that your true motive is to undermine the credibility of all accusers and to attack the Democrats.

[bilateralrope]

Why couldn't they have released the full report a week ago ?
Or waited a few more days before releasing the summary ?

The timing makes me think they are trying to influence the election without giving anyone time to figure out what the facts really are.

[aerius]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... gh-n924596

New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh
"I do not like that he twisted my words," one woman says of lawyer Michael Avenatti.

Oct. 25, 2018 / 6:53 PM EDT
By Kate Snow and Anna Schecter

When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick back-tracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys."

NBC News also found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick's claims.

In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls. But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, "I didn't ever think it was Brett," the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.

When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, "no." She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were part of that group.

In a statement Thursday about his referral of Swetnick and Avenatti for a criminal investigation, Grassley said, "When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I take it seriously….But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth."

Avenatti responded in a statement to NBC News saying, "Senator Grassley has just made a major mistake. Let the investigation into Kavanaugh and his lies begin."

Kavanaugh and Judge denied the allegations leveled by Swetnick and other women. Avenatti, asked about the inconsistencies within the second woman's account, said: "It is a sworn declaration that she read and signed and repeatedly stood behind."

According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"

The statement also said that Kavanaugh was "overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."

But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female."

Shortly after tweeting out the woman's allegations on Oct. 2, Avenatti confirmed to NBC News that it was the same woman interviewed by phone on Sept. 30. But when questioned on Oct. 3 about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was "disgusted" with NBC News. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?"

After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration.

"I have no idea what you are talking about," he said in a text. "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions."

He sent a follow-up message moments later: "I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct," Avenatti said. "She must have been confused by your question."

Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue," the text read.

But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she's "been consistent in what she's told Michael."

In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."

Summary. Swetnick contradicted her sworn statements and walked them back when interviewed by NBC. The anonymous woman who allegedly corroborated Swetnick's testimony had her statements falsified by Creepy Porn Lawyer. Either that or she's a fucking idiot, maybe both. Supposedly, she only skimmed the forms before signing, and when interviewed by NBC she claims that the statements are false and Avenatti either made shit up and/or twisted her words.

You do not let your clients contradict their sworn declarations on national TV. Especially in a high profile case like this one. You either make damn sure that nothing they say contradicts their sworn statements or you muzzle them, preferably the latter.

Either the clients lied on national TV or they lied on their sworn declarations. Additionally, if the anonymous witness isn't lying to NBC, then Avenatti knowing falsified a witness statement. Either way, their credibility is 100% shot as is that of the lawyer. Way to score an own goal. The entire case was a fucking clown fiesta.

[The Romulan Republic]

Like I said, I'm not a fan of Avenatti. I think he's at best a shameless self-aggrandizer who's using his clients to promote himself as a potential Presidential candidate- something that he bluntly is not qualified to be. What I object to is demanding that he should be locked up, when he has not been charged much less convicted, based on vague maybes.

Why couldn't they have released the full report a week ago ?
Or waited a few more days before releasing the summary ?

The timing makes me think they are trying to influence the election without giving anyone time to figure out what the facts really are.

Indeed. They're probably hoping for a last-minute push to convince voters that Democrats are a mob out to get white men.