[KitJ]

You bring up an interesting point about law clerks voting for Ruthie.

Recall how much noise the dems made about Whitaker not being confirmed by the Senate.

Those law clerks aren’t confirmed either.

What goes around...

[haffast]

"""You bring up an interesting point about law clerks voting for Ruthie."""

Saw an anon with this one:

[TEXOKIE]

2/10/2019, 10:57:22 PM · 1,492 of 1,505
KitJ to TEXOKIE
You bring up an interesting point about law clerks voting for Ruthie.

Recall how much noise the dems made about Whitaker not being confirmed by the Senate.

Those law clerks aren’t confirmed either.

What goes around...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now THERE’S a good point. Those law clerks weren’t vetted either!...as a comparison to the appointment of temp Whittaker. That certainly COULD be a basis for talking points galore.

But there IS a distinction:

Whittaker, while perhaps not “vetted,” at least is operating openly in the office, with a recognized authority to do so whether the dems want to recognize that or not.

The law clerks, equally unvetted ARE NOT OPERATING OPENLY with recognized authority as even SC Temp Justices. (I know - there isn’t such - and that is the point) THEY ARE INSTEAD USING THE OFFICE OF RBG SECRETLY IN HER NAME TO SUBMIT COURT FINDINGS.

If this is happening, John Roberts is complicit.

How do we find out if this in fact happening?

#ProofOfLife