Mormon Women for Ethical Government

[california boy]

On 9/29/2018 at 1:32 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no functional equivalence here. On the one hand, it is a matter of the Church officially enunciating a position. On the other hand it is a matter of a political pressure group assuming for itself without authorization a name typically associated with the Church of Jesus Christ and its membership. 

1

Sorry, but I disagree.  Just ask my kids how unfair it is to be labeled anti-gay because of the church's partisan involvement in Prop 8.  There were many members that opposed the political actions of the church, yet now find themselves lumped in with all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being an anti-gay church.  It may be a matter of the Church's official teachings, but they made it political.  That is the similarity.

Edited September 30, 2018 by california boy

[Bane]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And if the investigation comes up with confirmation of Ford’s account, that there be some form of real repentance involved.

How is it possibly going to do that?  Find a witness supportive of Ford who for some reason has not yet already come forward?  Why would such a witness have not already appeared?

Or do you anticipate that the testimonies of Kavanaugh, Judge, or Smyth might change because of the investigation?  Why would they?

[Gray]

On 9/28/2018 at 3:53 PM, Storm Rider said:

I certainly detest the act of telling me you are non-partisan, but then act only in a partisan manner.  However, it is very easy to understand that Trump gets up in the morning and paints a big target on himself by both his words and actions.  

It would be so easy to actually be non-partisan and actually stand for an ethical form of government. It is not like it is difficult to find fault with both sides of government. They are fumbling a great opportunity for Mormons to be perceived as a force for good rather than just another partisan hack job. 

If you wish to target unethical government practices, there is no bigger target in US history than the Trump administration. Ethical and informed conservatives oppose it and have from the beginning. In this way ethical conservatives and liberals are united in a non-partisan cause.

[Gray]

On 9/28/2018 at 2:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Definition of “corruption” very well can be — subjectively so. 

I suppose from the perspective of a tinpot dictator, corruption doesn't seem so corrupt. But by the standards of Western democracy, it's very clear what corruption is and isn't.

[Gray]

On 9/28/2018 at 2:34 PM, smac97 said:

So . . . yeah.  They are "bipartisan," but united in disliking Donald Trump.

Informed conservatives of conscience oppose Donald Trump. Maybe you've never heard of Evan McMullin? Jeff Flake? Rick Wilson? The never-Trump conservative movement is a bulwark of sanity against the corruption of the kook-right.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I suppose from the perspective of a tinpot dictator, corruption doesn't seem so corrupt. But by the standards of Western democracy, it's very clear what corruption is and isn't.

The word “corruption” has been thrown around so much these days that it has largely lost its meaning. Too often it is used to mean “doesn’t accommodate my pet peeve or conform to my political agenda.” 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Informed conservatives of conscience oppose Donald Trump. Maybe you've never heard of Evan McMullin? Jeff Flake? Rick Wilson? The never-Trump conservative movement is a bulwark of sanity against the corruption of the kook-right.

The never-Trumpers are entitled to their views. What they’re not entitled to do is form a group and falsely imply that said views typify the Church or its members. 

[BlueDreams]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The never-Trumpers are entitled to their views. What they’re not entitled to do is form a group and falsely imply that said views typify the Church or its members. 

I wouldnt mind if there was a group that called themselves mormon women against abortion. Even though i’m more ambivalent to abortion and wouldn’t be in said group. Or even mormon women meat lovers 😛. For me the name doesn’t represent the church...it just denotes the parameters of who’s likely apart of it and where they derive some of their beliefs/positions. They’re not claiming to be some official branch of the church structure either. 

I don’t own the title just because I’m in the church and don’t mind when others use it (unless it runs strongly counter to what the church stands for). Since we’re both lay people and not apostles who can decide if they’re “entitled” to identifying themselves mormon in their work...I figure its opinion, not actual policy for our church. It also gives note of LDS people who may not hold a stridently Partisan view...which I appreciate for helping to remind us and the world that we’re not a monolith of ideas/theology that surround a republican platform. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Bane said:

How is it possibly going to do that?  Find a witness supportive of Ford who for some reason has not yet already come forward?  Why would such a witness have not already appeared?

Or do you anticipate that the testimonies of Kavanaugh, Judge, or Smyth might change because of the investigation?  Why would they?

That’s veering solely into politics and I don’t want to have this thread closed too.

 

with luv,

BD

[smac97]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I disagree with your conclusions. The group can still be nonpartisan (they state non, not bi) while supporting concerns that they feel have an ethical or moral imperative.

I quite agree.  But this group appears to be decidedly partisan.  They are only criticizing Republicans, not Democrats.  They were apparently formed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a Republican.  

Take a look at this article about MWEG from the Washington Examiner:

Quote

Meet the women of the Mormon resistance against Trumpism

by Daniel Allott

 | March 20, 2018 12:00 AM

 

While there is some evidence that Mormon opposition to Trump has softened over the last year, Mormon Women for Ethical Government's resistance to many of the Trump administration's policies has only stiffened.
(Daniel Allott)

"Mormon Women for Ethican Government's resistance to many of the Trump administration's policies..."

This is "nonpartisan?"

Quote

When President Trump issued an executive order last January halting travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it prompted howls of indignation from progressive and liberal civil rights groups.

...

Many rank-and-file Mormons also opposed the ban, including Sharlee Mullins Glenn, a children’s book author living outside Salt Lake City. After discovering that other Mormon women were similarly appalled by the ban, which they claimed heartlessly singled out Muslims for disfavored treatment, Mullins Glenn launched a Facebook group called Mormon Women for Ethical Government. The page began as a place for Mormon women “to vent frustrations and talk about ideas for saving the country,” Mullins Glenn said. Within two weeks, the group had more than 4,000 members.

...

Over the last year, MWEG has become part of what might be called the Mormon resistance movement.  But unlike the progressive resistance movement, the women of MWEG aren’t marching in ****** hats or calling for Trump’s impeachment. In fact, the group’s leaders insist they don’t oppose President Trump. Rather, they are fighting the dishonesty and callousness they believe define his presidency and the descent into political tribalism they fear will become its legacy.

"The Mormon resistance movement..."  "Resistance" here being a callback to groups in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

So Trump is the proverbial Hitler-figure in this scenario.

And yet MWEG claims to be "nonpartisan?"

Yes, I know this group' "insist{s} they don't oppose Trump."  Okay.  But they are doing an awfully good impersonation of opposing Trump.

Meanwhile, where are they "fighting the dishonesty and callousness" coming from the Democrats?

Crickets...chirping...

Quote

More than a year after its creation, MWEG boasts 6,000 members and chapters in most states. MWEG members spend their time publishing policy positions, open letters, and op-eds, participating in pro-immigrant rallies and lobbying in Washington, D.C. “One thing Mormon women know how to do is organize,” said Mullins Glenn.

While there is some evidence that Mormon opposition to Trump has softened over the last year, MWEG’s resistance to many of the Trump administration’s policies has only stiffened. When asked to describe Trump’s first year in office in one word, members used “horrified,” “destructive,” “disappointment,” and “dystopian.”

Organzing against Donald Trump.

They are using overwrought and over-the-top characterizations to describe his administration (“horrified,” “destructive,” “disappointment,” and “dystopian").  Sheesh.  And these folks position themselves as "nonpartisan" and presume to lecture other people about "civility?"

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

That they’ve picked issues that are “trump” issues shouldn’t be a surprise. Democratic agendas aren’t  generally being passed through congress and by the White House right now and so have less imminent impact.

Having just spent the last seveal weeks watching a the hyper-partisan proceedings against Brett Kavanaugh, I was curious as to how MWEG would respond.

And their response was . . . to utterly ignore the deplorable behavior on the left.  They issued three statements about these proceedings (here, here and here).  In one of them they do include a single sentence that they "boldly declare that revelations of sexual misconduct should not be strategically employed by politicians for political purposes."

Pretty milquetoast, IMO.

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And a wide breadth of Americans are deeply concerned about him as a president.

I get that.  I share that concern to some extent.  I am generally (though not totally) with many of their policy preferences (including about immigration).  

My reservations about MWEG do not stem from their being "deply concerned" about Donald Trump as president.  My concern is that they are pretending to be nonpartisan when they are not.  They are plainly partisan.  They are opposed to Donald Trump.  

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Not simply having a republican but him….who for many is an icon of lack of civility and compromised ethics.

I get that.

And the lack of civility and compromised ethics exhibited by Democrats is pretty much getting a free pass from this supposedly "nonpartisan" group.

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

The issues that they have written are issues that a majority of the US population has issues with: Trump’s xenophobia, bigotry, sexism, racism, and uncivil/bombastic dialogue…as well as other public issues of concern. One can be of either party or neither and still want to see a moral compass that steers away from these things…and actively seeks to see that implemented in society.

I quite agree.

But what one can't do, however, is pose as a "nonpartisan" group while focusing pretty much exclusively on civility/ethics problems from Republicans, while ignoring comparable problems from the Democrats.

I don't begrudge these folks from organizing.  More power to 'em.  I happen to agree with them on many issues.  But my concerns are about "truth in advertising."  I am concerned that A) they are characterizing themselves in explicitly religious terms ("Mormon Women for Ethical Goverment"), which I think is presumptuous and inappropriate, B) they are also characterizing themselves as "nonpartisan," C) they are profoundly partisan (against Trump, and overwhelmingly indifferent to ethics/civility issues from Democrats).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Bane]

I love President Trump.  I am, frankly, disturbed by the church's recent supportive statements on immigration reform.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  But this group appears to be decidedly partisan.  They are only criticizing Republicans, not Democrats.  They were apparently formed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a Republican.  

Take a look at this article about MWEG from the Washington Examiner:

"Mormon Women for Ethican Government's resistance to many of the Trump administration's policies..."

This is "nonpartisan?"

"The Mormon resistance movement..."  "Resistance" here being a callback to groups in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

So Trump is the proverbial Hitler-figure in this scenario.

And yet MWEG claims to be "nonpartisan?"

Yes, I know this group' "insist{s} they don't oppose Trump."  Okay.  But they are doing an awfully good impersonation of opposing Trump.

Meanwhile, where are they "fighting the dishonesty and callousness" coming from the Democrats?

Crickets...chirping...

Organzing against Donald Trump.

They are using overwrought and over-the-top characterizations to describe his administration (“horrified,” “destructive,” “disappointment,” and “dystopian").  Sheesh.  And these folks position themselves as "nonpartisan" and presume to lecture other people about "civility?"

Having just spent the last seveal weeks watching a the hyper-partisan proceedings against Brett Kavanaugh, I was curious as to how MWEG would respond.

And their response was . . . to utterly ignore the deplorable behavior on the left.  They issued three statements about these proceedings (here, here and here).  In one of them they do include a single sentence that they "boldly declare that revelations of sexual misconduct should not be strategically employed by politicians for political purposes."

Pretty milquetoast, IMO.

I get that.  I share that concern to some extent.  I am generally (though not totally) with many of their policy preferences (including about immigration).  

My reservations about MWEG do not stem from their being "deply concerned" about Donald Trump as president.  My concern is that they are pretending to be nonpartisan when they are not.  They are plainly partisan.  They are opposed to Donald Trump.  

I get that.

And the lack of civility and compromised ethics exhibited by Democrats is pretty much getting a free pass from this supposedly "nonpartisan" group.

I quite agree.

But what one can't do, however, is pose as a "nonpartisan" group while focusing pretty much exclusively on civility/ethics problems from Republicans, while ignoring comparable problems from the Democrats.

I don't begrudge these folks from organizing.  More power to 'em.  I happen to agree with them on many issues.  But my concerns are about "truth in advertising."  I am concerned that A) they are characterizing themselves in explicitly religious terms ("Mormon Women for Ethical Goverment"), which I think is presumptuous and inappropriate, B) they are also characterizing themselves as "nonpartisan," C) they are profoundly partisan (against Trump, and overwhelmingly indifferent to ethics/civility issues from Democrats).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

One of the reasons they may be focusing on change in the Republican Party is because many many feel that is the only party they can affect  or many even care about, because they identify more as Republican, or they understand most Saints do in the US and think Mormon votes might actually matter some to the Republican party so that they can have an impact there.

I don't have a problem with them using Mormon or Women any more than I have for groups using Utahns or Californians or Americans or Republicans or Independents for _______.  If there is anyone who interprets that to mean the whole group instead of a subset, I am not particularly interested in trying to influence them as they likely have an overly simplistic view of politics and won't even bother to find out what the positions a group holds.  Does anyone here think that the National Organization for Women represents all women?

Edited September 30, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

One of the reasons they may be focusing on change in the Republican Party is because many many feel that is the only party they can affect  or many even care about, because they identify more as Republican, or they understand most Saints do in the US and think Mormon votes might actually matter some to the Republican party so that they can have an impact there.

I don't have a problem with them using Mormon any more than I have for groups using Utahns or Californians or Americans or Republicans or Independents for _______.  If there is anyone who interprets that to mean the whole group instead of a subset, I am not particularly interested in trying to influence them as they likely have an overly simplistic view of politics and won't even bother to find out what the positions a group holds.

I think this is a very practical approach, but to paraphrase, "an egocentric view of politics and not bothering to find out what the positions an unrecognized group holds" is what caught many of both parties off guard in the last US presidential elections.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Bane said:

I love President Trump.  I am, frankly, disturbed by the church's recent supportive statements on immigration reform.

It’s important to recognize what the Church does and does not say. In every formal statement by the Church I’ve seen on this topic, the Church has been careful to recognize the right of a sovereign nation to secure its borders. 

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

One of the reasons they may be focusing on change in the Republican Party is because many many feel that is the only party they can affect  or many even care about, because they identify more as Republican, or they understand most Saints do in the US and think Mormon votes might actually matter some to the Republican party so that they can have an impact there.

I don't have a problem with them using Mormon any more than I have for groups using Utahns or Californians or Americans or Republicans or Independents for _______.  If there is anyone who interprets that to mean the whole group instead of a subset, I am not particularly interested in trying to influence them as they likely have an overly simplistic view of politics and won't even bother to find out what the positions a group holds.

That sort of interpretation was the vibe I was getting from some here when the other thread was begun. Sort of a bandwagon mentality for something all good “Mormons” should supposedly support. Smac’s clearheaded analysis (thanks, Smac) highlighted how one-sided the group’s approach seems to be. 

And so far I’ve not seen anyone take a stab at my question: Would a woman who favors the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh be welcome in this group or have her views respected? How about one who sees questionable ethics in the behavior of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee?  Isn’t this all about fighting “corruption”?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That sort of interpretation was the vibe I was getting from some here when the other thread was begun. Sort of a bandwagon mentality for something all good “Mormons” should supposedly support.

I was one of those who is impressed with the group, but I never saw it as a one size fits all any more than I expected Mormon Women Stand would be.  I wonder how many actually saw it that way as opposed to assuming others would see it that way.

I think you would do best to write the group and ask them what their reactions would be, no one here has any standing to speak for them from what I have seen.

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was one of those who is impressed with the group, but I never saw it as a one size fits all any more than I expected Mormon Women Stand would be.  I wonder how many actually saw it that way as opposed to assuming others would see it that way.

I think you would do best to write the group and ask them what their reactions would be, no one here has any standing to speak for them from what I have seen.

 

I might follow your suggestion, and if I do, I’ll return here and report their response. But my question was more rhetorical than fact-finding. I think it’s fairly predictable that views such as I have suggested would not be welcomed with open arms. 

Edited to add: Regarding  the question you added to your prior post as to whether anyone thinks NOW represents all women, I would think that one who was altogether unacquainted with the organization and its ideological and political orientation could be expected not to immediately grasp that a woman with conservative views would not find herself at home there. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

This whole Senate hearing subject came up in Gospel doctrine class earlier, and it was about Isaiah 1-6 so decidedly not about Kavanaugh and US politics! I had to teach and this lady brought it up and shared her opinion and to avert a mob scene I just switched it to something germane to Isaiah 1-6

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This whole Senate hearing subject came up in Gospel doctrine class earlier, and it was about Isaiah 1-6 so decidedly not about Kavanaugh and US politics! I had to teach and this lady brought it up and shared her opinion and to avert a mob scene I just switched it to something germane to Isaiah 1-6

Good move on your part. Sunday School class is no place for such a discussion. 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  But this group appears to be decidedly partisan.  They are only criticizing Republicans, not Democrats.  They were apparently formed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a Republican.  

Take a look at this article about MWEG from the Washington Examiner:

"Mormon Women for Ethican Government's resistance to many of the Trump administration's policies..."

This is "nonpartisan?"

"The Mormon resistance movement..."  "Resistance" here being a callback to groups in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

So Trump is the proverbial Hitler-figure in this scenario.

And yet MWEG claims to be "nonpartisan?"

Yes, I know this group' "insist{s} they don't oppose Trump."  Okay.  But they are doing an awfully good impersonation of opposing Trump.

Meanwhile, where are they "fighting the dishonesty and callousness" coming from the Democrats?

Crickets...chirping...

Organzing against Donald Trump.

They are using overwrought and over-the-top characterizations to describe his administration (“horrified,” “destructive,” “disappointment,” and “dystopian").  Sheesh.  And these folks position themselves as "nonpartisan" and presume to lecture other people about "civility?"

Having just spent the last seveal weeks watching a the hyper-partisan proceedings against Brett Kavanaugh, I was curious as to how MWEG would respond.

And their response was . . . to utterly ignore the deplorable behavior on the left.  They issued three statements about these proceedings (here, here and here).  In one of them they do include a single sentence that they "boldly declare that revelations of sexual misconduct should not be strategically employed by politicians for political purposes."

Pretty milquetoast, IMO.

I get that.  I share that concern to some extent.  I am generally (though not totally) with many of their policy preferences (including about immigration).  

My reservations about MWEG do not stem from their being "deply concerned" about Donald Trump as president.  My concern is that they are pretending to be nonpartisan when they are not.  They are plainly partisan.  They are opposed to Donald Trump.  

I get that.

And the lack of civility and compromised ethics exhibited by Democrats is pretty much getting a free pass from this supposedly "nonpartisan" group.

I quite agree.

But what one can't do, however, is pose as a "nonpartisan" group while focusing pretty much exclusively on civility/ethics problems from Republicans, while ignoring comparable problems from the Democrats.

Trump is not a party. He is a a member in a party...and one of the more extreme ones they've had. If you oppose him in any manner isn't a good indication of your party affiliation. The majority of independents and democrat voters disapprove of him. And still a significant minority of republicans do too. And a larger percentage of mormons than should be expected for a republican candidate also do too. In fact approving of trump is more partisan than disapproval. 

They are still not "plainly partisan" to me. They obviously circle around specific issues (sexual assault/#metoo issues, general abuse, compassionate Immigration, racism, gun violence, etc)....issues that there had been several high profile republican/white house problems with lately. Several of these issues are technically non-partisan and have a broad range of support....but they are likely to fall against the current heads in the WH and certain branches of the Repub party.  Likewise to this:

Quote

They are using overwrought and over-the-top characterizations to describe his administration (“horrified,” “destructive,” “disappointment,” and “dystopian").  Sheesh.  And these folks position themselves as "nonpartisan" and presume to lecture other people about "civility?"

Again for most of those in any line of resistance against trump policies are not generally going to have nice words to say about the admin. Even the general public has far worse words to commonly describe him. This is by no means over the top in recent descriptions of him or his admin and policies. Or even those who aren't in active opposition, such as Bob Woodward. being civil doesn't mean they don't call out a problem when they see it. It also doesn't mean describing what they are experiencing or feeling to certain policies or actions. Of course, all of those words describe what I've experienced in this presidency from the get-go. And I could say worse. My worse moment, emotionally, had to have been Charlottesville. So obviously I'm biased. 

They are not focused on general partisan squabling, from the looks of it. Before the accusers came forward....that's basically what it was. With their focuses it may not have registered as pertinent to their goals as a group (which I would assume may still be in formation considering how young this group is). I get that dem's aren't perfect....I want to see reduced hyper-partisanship period and growth a real democratic principles again in our nation. But to me pointing them out is like talking about separating and getting better with recycling when there's currently a trash fire in the the bin. You're more likely to look and try to get rid of the flames before you get back to trying to make a better system in recycling. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me about the current circumstance....but considering the last couple of years (and the polls), I think a larger part may feel somewhat similar. 

And resistance is the common term used by many who actively opposed Trump period. It's been in use since the get-go of his admin. It's hyperbolic to assume a callback to nazi germany. It's simply in reference to a current cultural pushback to Trump and its most common naming. 
 

Quote

 

I don't begrudge these folks from organizing.  More power to 'em.  I happen to agree with them on many issues.  But my concerns are about "truth in advertising."  I am concerned that A) they are characterizing themselves in explicitly religious terms ("Mormon Women for Ethical Goverment"), which I think is presumptuous and inappropriate, B) they are also characterizing themselves as "nonpartisan," C) they are profoundly partisan (against Trump, and overwhelmingly indifferent to ethics/civility issues from Democrats).

 

I appreciated Calm's perspective on this and note what I previously said to Scott as well. But beyond that, I would point out that a non-partisan organization doesn't mean they may not favor one side more than another. Two examples of other nonpartisan organizations include the NRA and the NAACP. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 30, 2018 by BlueDreams

[nuclearfuels]

People of both genders, belonging to every religion on earth, subscribe to every political philosophy on earth.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Bane said:

I love President Trump.  I am, frankly, disturbed by the church's recent supportive statements on immigration reform.

I feel the opposite, I love the church doing this! Well, I'm biased. My son-in-law is from Mexico and came over with his father, sister and brother, by using a coyote. He learned English through perserverance, has a full time job working on body work of vehicles. Never, ever used the government. Rarely gets a vacation, if he does, it's for the weekend and maybe a Friday off. I was totally worried when my daughter first met him, thought he would wisk her off to Mexico. But he's proved to be a great husband, father, brother, son-in-law, friend. And actually the US stole the Mexican land. I don't mind them being in the US, good, good people!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

. 

Edited to add: Regarding  the question you added to your prior post as to whether anyone thinks NOW represents all women, I would think that one who was altogether unacquainted with the organization and its ideological and political orientation could be expected not to immediately grasp that a woman with conservative views would not find herself at home there. 

I think you are moving the goal posts here. Weren’t you criticizing the name Mormon Women because you saw it as implying being a global voice for all womenof the Church, not because the name didn’t identify which political slant the group holds?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think you are moving the goal posts here. Weren’t you criticizing the name Mormon Women because you saw it as implying being a global voice for all womenof the Church, not because the name didn’t identify which political slant the group holds?

???

My objection from the start has been that they seem to be appropriating the name “Mormon” for a left-of-center, anti-Trump political agenda. I would object as well were it a right-of-center group doing this sort of thing.

After Friday’s hearings and the letter introduced into the record by Sen. Booker, those who could not be expected to know any better now might think that “Mormons” as a faith group believe the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and oppose his nomination to SCOTUS. They might further believe that “Mormons” as a whole approve of the behavior of the Democrats on the committee which, for the Democrats’ own political purposes, has subjected both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh and his family to public pain and humiliation. It is being called “collateral damage” in their war to delay the confirmation in order to run  out the clock until after the elections so as to keep the seat on the court open.  

Edited October 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

This is a link to the Mitchell report on Fords testimony. 

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/