top of page

Doug Jones Is Right, Mark Judge Needs To Get His Ass To D.C.

  • Writer: walterskuzeski
    walterskuzeski
  • Sep 23, 2018
  • 2 min read

Screnshot: Doug Jones on Fox Busines, YouTube

Republicans have proven they do not care for the American people. They do not care about Democracy, so they are willing to railroad through an unworthy and disliked Judge like Brett Kavanaugh.


Meanwhile, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee don't find it necessary to talk to Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge. The man that Kavanaugh's accuser claims was present at the scene, who MediaMatters has discovered, "advocated for bigotry and extremism-and even wrote about being a peeping Tom,"


Some of what MediaMatter has reported on Mark Judge:


-Judge bragged that he had been a peeping Tom as a teenager, climbing a tree to spy on an unsuspecting girl in order to “have an orgasm.”


-Judge wrote that men are unable to control sexual urges for teenagers while arguing that some cases of sexual abuse of students should be expected as the normal outcome of teacher-student interactions.


-Judge mischaracterized President Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood tape: “Trump boasted about women allowing him to kiss and grab them because of his fame.”


-Judge criticized the “liberal media” for criticizing Roy Moore, the Republican Senate candidate from Alabama who reportedly assaulted a 14-year-old, but praising a fictional film about the consensual relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old.


So when you hear a little of Judge's thinking process, what Doug Jones said on CNN and Twitter, would make complete sense:

Screenshot:MediaMatters.org

To get to the truth as best as we can in this case. You would make Mark Judge testify, right? He was apart of the accusation, and his work seems to apply that women aren't to be respected all that much ... But, the Republican Party doesn't care much about women either. Certainly, not those who have been sexually assaulted.


But then again, What does Doug Jones know about the law? Other than, convicting a case from 1963?

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page