This woman apparently means business.

Epstein, who owned a home on the island of Little St. James, first had a case built against him when the flight logs of one of his planes, the “Lolita Express,” were subpoenaed in 2009. Pilot David Rodgers subsequently provided the logs, which revealed several famous individuals had frequented the jet, including former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew of the U.K. These logs did not include flights made by Larry Visoski, Epstein’s pilot for more than 25 years.

The new logs will provide records for seven additional aircraft from 1998 to 2019.

“The records that have been subpoenaed will make the ones Rodgers provided look like a Post-It note,” said a legal source told The Mirror. “There is panic among many of the rich and famous.”

And when she finishes in the islands, maybe she could come to Cook County.

About RPG’s alleged death-bed comment:

If there is a legal argument for why Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky should not fill the vacancy before Election Day, make that argument. If there is a moral argument, make that argument. But don’t fall back on hackneyed, manipulative appeals to emotion. In other words, don’t be like Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Don’t be like independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Make your case without the “dying wish” tearjerker argle-bargle.

The inimitable AOC:

“The very last dying wish of RBG was that her vacancy not be filled until the new president takes office in January. That was her dying wish,” said Ocasio-Cortez.

The congresswoman added, “Mitch McConnell publicly, the night of her passing, he couldn’t wait 24 hours, issued a statement saying that he was going to give Trump a vote in violation of her dying wish. People can say, ‘How appalling,’ people could say, ‘This is horrible,’ et cetera, but we know who this man is. We know who this man is. This is a man who does not care about a dying woman’s final wish, clearly.”

Argle-bargle.

“Unfortunately, Sen. McConnell has decided to go against Justice Ginsburg’s dying wishes and is cementing a shameful legacy of brazen hypocrisy,” said Sanders on Sept. 18. “The right thing to do here is clear, and Senate Republicans know it. We should let voters decide. Period.”

This is the familiar leftist dodge, acting as there wasn’t a vote so we need one right now. Ask the street mob to signal their approval. They never get that republic-not-a-democracy business. Government by referendum.

Alas,

When it comes to the confirmation of Supreme Court justices, there is no “dying wish” clause in the Constitution. This is the highest court in the United States, after all. Not the Make-a-Wish Foundation.

Give that man a silver dollar.

Blow by blow account:

“I carry with me — I don’t have it. I gave it, I gave it to my staff. I carry it with me in my pocket a — do I have that around anyone? Where’s my staff? I gave it away anyway …”

He must have found something, because soon he began reading — or trying to read — some statistics. Numbers are not Dementia Joe’s forte, to put it mildly.

This day, he kept repeating the word “military.” But the actual virus numbers were for Michigan, the state he was in, in addition to his perpetual state of confusion.

Perhaps his handlers wrote “MI,” assuming that even someone as simple as Joe Biden could put two and two together. If so, they were misinformed.

“U.S. COVID-infected military uh excuse me U.S. COVID-infected in America, six thousand 344,700 U.S. COVID deaths one thousand 189,506. Military COVID-infected 118,984. Military COVID deaths 6114.”

Actually, Mr. Vice President, the military’s death toll is exactly seven. The fatalities in Michigan, where you were babbling, is actually closer to that six-thousand figure.

Sad about him, mad about Dems who put him up there.

A burning question in at least one circle:

WORN A BRA LATELY? Both anecdotal evidence and sagging sales figures suggest that, in the era of WFH and its corollary, a repudiation of any hint of containment, many women are answering “no” to that question. Which is why this column will focus not on a garment that’s being worn but one that’s been cast aside.

Hadn’t thought of it myself.

A good argument for getting a 9th justice now:

One good argument for a vote before Nov. 3 is having a full Court of nine Justices in the event of a contested election (see nearby). The country would not be well served by 4-4 votes that allow disputes to be settled by a cacophony of lower courts. The Court itself will suffer if it looks dysfunctional on the crucial legal questions surrounding the legitimacy of an election. If Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm, the case for doing so before Nov. 3 is compelling.

Of course, there’s no good argument at all, per Dems.

Now you see it, now you don’t, from your friendly if not well organized, CDC:

The Centers for Disease Control updated a document Friday without fanfare that updates the agency’s position on how the virus spreads, then removed the new guidance Monday saying it was posted in error.

The document said person-to-person and coughing/sneezing/breathing [are] the primary ways the virus is transmitted through droplets, but the agency then said there is growing evidence that airborne droplets after a sneeze or cough — droplets that linger in the air

Dennis Byrne has this right:

It seems only fair. The over-wrought Democratic rhetoric demands that President Donald Trump not nominate anyone until “the people” have had a chance to make whom they want to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

That would be by electing someone who would appoint a high court nominee who best reflects voter’s views. In line with that, we know from Trump’s list of potential candidates who Trump might nominate.

So, isn’t it fair that Biden should unveil his list of potential nominees? Doesn’t fairness dictate that voters should know in advance if Biden’s choices would reflect the voters’ views?

Of course, Democrats won’t do that because it’s their strategy to keep voters in the dark as much as possible about what a Harris-Biden, err, Biden-Harris, administration would do. In other words: lights out.

Truth is, while voters might not know who in particular might be nominated, they well know what sort of person will be nominated. Trump would appoint someone who interprets the Constitution as it was written. Biden (or whomever has his/hers hands on the throttle) would appoint someone who thinks words have no meaning when it comes to the Constitution.

The further truth is that all the lip service both parties variously give/gave to the idea that voters should have a say in who gets nominated, neither party truly believes it. Not Republicans when they refused to bring President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland up for Senate confirmation at the end of that president’s term. Not Democrats now that Trump will bring his up for confirmation before the election or the seating of the new president.

For both parties, it’s a power play. And why not? Many Trump supporters voted for him because they believed that the courts had become a sponge of soft judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Especially when it came to abortion.

Same for the Democrats. In voting for Obama and now for Biden, they believe that the candidate should reflect their liberal views, especially when it comes to abortion

Trump is right: Delaying the nomination to open the door for a liberal/progressive/radical nominee would be a betrayal of his supporters. Just as not trying to push through Garland’s nomination by the lame duck Obama would have betrayed his supporters.

In essence, Trump is following the same path that Obama took in not waiting for an election to dictate whom the nominee would be. So, let the hypocrisy cease.

By the way. If Ginsburg was so determined to ensure a liberal would be appointed to the court in her place, she would have retired when Obama was president so that he could have made the appointment. Instead she stayed on the court, presumably because she could not imagine Hilary Clinton losing to Trump. She gambled and she lost and so did her supporters. That she didn’t retire so that Obama could have nominated her successor says something about…well, I’m not sure. Either her judgment or her character.

Nicely argued.

Senate Republicans set course to quickly fill a new Supreme Court vacancy, with most lining up behind President Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and rejecting Democrats’ calls to let the winner of the presidential election make the pick. President Trump said he would nominate a Supreme Court pick on Friday or Saturday and that he has five women under consideration to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday of metastatic pancreatic cancer at the age of 87. Mr. Trump maintained that the replacement of Justice Ginsburg should happen swiftly. “We won the election and elections have consequences,” he said Monday morning on Fox News. “We have plenty of time.”

Trump to Make Supreme Court Nomination Friday or Saturday – WSJ

In the vein of “Are you or having you been ever” a CATHOLIC?

The Constitution is clear that religious faith may not be used to prevent an American from holding office. But there is another faith now, a strident faith, that of the left and anyone who stands in its way is to be marked.

Durbin is a Catholic Democrat from blue Illinois, and he seeks votes in Chicago. That he would ask whether someone was an “orthodox Catholic” is stunning.

Durbin. Yuck.