How Did Behar Pass 7th Grade Civics?

Some of you who read my column probably wonder why I so often write about our U.S. Constitution.

I do so simply because so many people in places of influence who should be thoroughly conversant with our Constitution all too often display a woeful ignorance as to what it says, and why it says it.

On Nov. 7, Matthew Dowd, an ABC political analyst, appeared on The View, to give his analysis of the just-completed 2018 mid-term election.


Dowd: “In 2016 we had a split decision. Trump takes the Electoral College — geography; Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote. Last night was an even bigger example of that. Democrats won the popular vote last night by eight million votes. They lose U.S. Senate races in “red” areas because ...”


Joy Behar: “(Interrupting) Gerrymandering ...”


Now, if you don’t realize that Behar’s interruption displayed abject ignorance as to how U.S. senators are elected, you need to take a remedial class in U.S. government or civics.

Sister Pancratia taught us civics during the second semester of seventh grade. She taught us that the U.S Constitution divided our national government into three branches: the legislative, the executive and the judicial, and that our legislative branch was bicameral, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

She also taught us that each state’s representation in the senate was equal. Each state had two senators. Representation in the senate was not based on population.

In the House, on the other hand, each state’s number of representatives was based on population.

The arrangement is known as the “Great Compromise.”

When the convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, Edmond Randolph of Virginia, proposed a two-house legislature with membership in both houses set in proportion to its population.

The Virginia Plan was favored by the states with large populations. The less populous states feared the Virginia Plan. They feared that if voting was based on population, big states would control the new government, and the votes of all the smaller states would be irrelevant and meaningless.

To protect small-state interests, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral legislature, with each state having an equal vote.That, of course, would have allowed the little states to out-vote the bigger states, and was unacceptable to the bigger states.

The deadlock was finally broken when Roger Sherman and Oliver Elsworth, both of Connecticut, proposed the Great Compromise.

It called for a bicameral legislature, with representation in the House to be based on proportional representation according to the number of free inhabitants in each states, and with each state having equal representation (one) in the Senate.

The Great Compromise essentially blended Randolph’s Virginia Plan and Patterson’s New Jersey Plan. In further discussion, the Sherman/Elsworth plan was modified to provide that each state would have two senators (rather than one), and that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person to determine population for the purpose of representation in the House.


This compromise, together with a second compromise that left the issue of slavery to the states, made possible the adoption of the new proposed Constitution. Without these compromises, it is likely that the North and South would have gone their separate ways.


It is also certain that the large states would never have agreed to each state having an equal number of votes in Congress, and the small states would never have agreed to proportional representation.

Behar’s notion that Democrats lost Senate races in red states due to gerrymandering is evidence of an utter lack of understanding as to how U.S. senators are elected.

Senators are elected statewide. They are  not elected from "districts" that are susceptible to gerrymandering. It is only possible to gerrymander "districts" within a state. Where the election is statewide it can’t be gerrymandered.


Two other points:


— Article V of the Constitution says “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”


— The Electoral College, Dowd to the contrary not withstanding, plays no part in electing U.S senators or representatives.




John Donald O’Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 29, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

This Thanksgiving, Be Thankful the US Isn't Socialist -- Yet

Can socialism work in the United States? I suppose your answer will depend on how you define work.

If you mean it will work as well as it did in the USSR, or as it is presently doing in Venezuela, then you can fairly say it will work in the United States. But do you really want to live in a 21st century USSR? Venezuela?


The Union of Soviet Social Republics came into being in December 1922, and lasted nearly 70 years, until December 1991. The USSR had its beginning in the 1917 revolution when Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Provisional Government.

The country became a one-party state, governed by the Communist Party. Following Vladamir Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin came to power.

Stalin committed the USSR to socialism (communism), a planned economy, the abolition of private ownership, rapid industrialization and forced collective farming. Famine followed; millions died.

Those landowners who survived were sent to forced labor camps. Under Stalin, communism became totalitarianism. The “Great Purge” followed.

According to declassified secret police records, more than 1.5 million people were arbitrarily arrested in 1937 and 1938; some 600,000 of them were shot.

Atheism became the state religion. Church property was confiscated. Personal professions of religion were not officially banned, but participation was stigmatized by the government and its controlled press. Certain professions were closed to religious believers.

The government undertook to control and use the Russian Orthodox Church. During the first decade of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed some 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.

Most seminaries were closed, and the publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941, only 500 churches remained open while 54,000 where open prior to World War I. For 68 years, the communists (socialists) ruled without opposition. In 1991, the USSR collapsed.

If the one-party socialist government couldn’t succeed in the USSR where all opposition (churches, unions, opposing political parties, capitalists) had been crushed, why is there any reason to believe that the socialists will succeed here?


In 1999, oil-rich Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez, a communist-socialist to power. His successor is Nicolas Maduro. When the opposition won control of the National Assembly, Maduro caused its abolition. Constitutional rights have been suspended.

Chronic shortages of food, medicine and even toilet paper are rampant. For 2018, the inflation rate is projected at 1,000,000 percent. Savings of $100,000 on Jan. 1, 2018 will be worth 10 cents on Jan. 1, 2019.


Why do U.S. socialist believe they can do any better than USSR or Venezuelan socialists? Are things so dire in the U.S. that we are willing to entrust our economy (and perhaps our rights) to “economic experts,” like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?



In the Acts of the apostles, we find that the early church adopted socialism. The faithful placed all their property into the hands of the Apostles. Squabbles ensued almost immediately over the use of the donations.

The Greek Christians complained their widows were getting less than was given to the Hebrew Christian widows. A committee (the deacons) was appointed to fix the inequality. Suddenly, we hear no more of the early Christian socialist experiment.


The Pilgrim’s tried socialism at Plymouth Plantation. They nearly starved. “Communal stewardship” failed. It was only after each man was allowed to plant corn on his own parcel of land that the colony began to prosper.

Gov. William Bradford tells us that prior to allowing each man to have his own plot of land, the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of injustice. And this among “godly and sober men”!

The industrious were forced to subsidize the slackers. The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. In other words, the productive members of the Plymouth Plantation objected to being plundered by the less productive.

They objected to sharing the hard-earned fruits of their labors with those who failed to make equal effort. The 2017 Gross Domestic Product per capita in the capitalist United States, after adjustment for “purchasing power parity,” was 54,225 US dollars — 305 percent of the world average. Adjusted in comparable dollars: “Germany: $45,229; France: $38,606; United Kingdom: $39,753.


In the USSR, the workers told a bitter joke: “The government pretends to pay us; we pretend to work.”

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 20, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

When Righteousness Gave Way to Cannon Fire

In May 1856, Sen. Charles Sumner, a Republican and abolitionist from Massachusetts, delivered an impassioned speech in the U.S. Senate, entitled “The Crime Against Kansas.” It denounced Southern efforts to bring Kansas into the Union as a slave state.

The historians Morison, Commager and Leuchtenburg write that Sumner’s speech “contained some unpalatable truths, much that was neither truthful nor in good taste, and some disgraceful political invective against Senator Andrew Butler (D) of South Carolina.”

During the course of his speech, Sumner criticized two fellow U.S. senators, Andrew Pickens Butler and Stephen A. Douglas, D-Illinois. Both were principle authors of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

That act organized the region into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and adopted the rule of “popular sovereignty,” which left the people of each territory to decide whether it should enter the Union as a slave or free state.

That latter provision repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which barred slavery in the territories north of 36º 30’. The anti-slavery forces regarded the Missouri Compromise as settled law, and its repeal as betrayal.


Sumner began by claiming that the goal of the slave-holding South was to extend slavery throughout the free states.

“But the wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it. ... It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave State, the hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the National Government. ... When the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, ... here in our Republic, ... FORCE ... has been openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power.”

Sumner excoriated Butler, saying,

“The senator from South Carolina has ... chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery. ... Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea ... is all surpassed.

“The asserted rights of slavery ... are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. If the slave States cannot enjoy ... full power in the national Territories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block — then ... the chivalric senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight! Exalted senator! A Second Moses come for a second exodus! “

Sumner accused Butler of labeling abolitionists as fanatics when, in fact, he and his fellow Southerners in their embrace of the crime of slavery were the true fanatics.

Sen. Douglas, shocked by Sumner’s words, turned to a colleague and said, “this damn fool Sumner is going to get himself shot by some other damn fool.”


Abolitionists understood Sumner’s remarks as attacking Butler’s position on the immorality of slavery. But Rep. Preston Brooks construed Sumner’s remarks as a personal attack upon his cousin.
Three days later, as Sumner sat at his desk in the nearly empty Senate chamber, Brooks assailed Sumner with a gold-headed cane, nearly beating him to death.

The episode exposed the growing polarization in America. Abolitionists viewed Sumner as a martyr; the South hailed Brooks as a hero.

The Cincinnati Gazette wrote, “The South cannot tolerate free speech anywhere, and would stifle it in Washington with the bludgeon and the bowie-knife, as they are now trying to stifle it in Kansas by massacre, rapine, and murder.”

The New York Evening Post asked, “Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters? ... Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?”

The Richmond Enquirer expressed the Southern view that Sumner should be caned “every morning,” praising the attack as “good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences” and denouncing “these vulgar abolitionists in the Senate” who “have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission.”

Sumner and the abolitionists were right. Slavery was an unconscionable moral wrong. The South was right. The Constitution had been born of a compromise without which there would have been no Union — a compromise that left to each state whether it would be slave or free.

The voices of “righteousness” on each side became more shrill, until they were drowned out by roar of muskets and cannons.

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 8, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What's your Immigration Policy?

It is midnight. You are a widow, who lives alone in her home. Your ringing doorbells awakens you from a sound sleep. You warily answer the door.

A woman and a teen-age boy are on your doorstep. The woman says to you, “My son and I have illegally crossed the Texas border into your country. We need a place to stay. Can we sleep in your house tonight? Can we live with you until we can find jobs?”

What do you do?


What should President Donald Trump do when thousands of illegal aliens show up in a caravan at our southern border?

You’ve just become president. What’s your policy?

An article that recently appeared in this paper explains, or at least attempts to explain, why aliens continue to illegally cross our southern border. In it, the ACLU quotes two-thirds of the parents who have sent their children across the U.S. border (those they have been able to find and speak with) as saying, as much as they would like to have their children with them, it’s too dangerous in their home country because of gangs.

But sometimes explanations raise further questions. So what conclusion would you draw?

Is the ACLU misquoting the parents? Is there is no gang violence in their native countries?

Is the ACLU exaggerating? If there is gang violence in those countries, is it really that bad?

I assume the ACLU is accurately quoting parents, and that gang violence is a serious danger to their children. But if the children sent into the U.S. should not be returned to their native countries, what conclusion would you draw from that?

If we keep our borders open, only good, law-abiding children will cross into the U.S. The violent gang members who imperil those children in their own native countries would never illegally cross into our country.

If we keep our borders open, the vicious gang members, from whom the children are escaping, will also illegally enter the U.S. and bring gang violence here.

Consider the murder of Mollie Tibbetts of Brooklyn, Iowa. Was Mollie murdered by a U.S. citizen or a vicious alien who had illegally entered the U.S.?

If Tibbets was murdered by an illegal alien, what conclusion would you draw?

If the illegal alien who murdered her had not been able to enter this country, Mollie would still be alive.

If he had not been able to enter the country, Mollie might have died from some other cause.


Finally, do we need to know who is coming into our country? What’s your position?

It doesn’t matter who comes in; they are all God’s children.

Most aliens entering the U.S. illegally are good people, coming here to escape gang violence in their own countries. If a few vicious gang members also sneak in, the evil they do will be outweighed by the good that we do in accepting those escaping violence in their own countries.

A wall would let us monitor who is entering our country. It would be useful in allowing us to vet, so as to at least bar entry to some gang members and dangerous criminals.

A wall should never be built. It is better to accept all God’s children without vetting. Why should Americans demand to be safe, while gang members are killing children south of our border?

Rather than turn away Central American children who may be at risk in their homelands, we should be willing to accept the risk that what happened to Mollie Tibbets will not happen to our own children.


You’ve just become president. You’ve taken an oath to “preserve and protect.”

How do you do that?


By the way ... did you let the mother and son into your home?

Posted: QCOline.com October 25, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Who wants to live in Alinsky's America?

How far will the radical left go to gain power? To keep power? To win?

If you know where to look, the answers are there. There is a playbook.

In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a little book called Rules for Radicals. No man has ever written a book which has more clearly and succinctly expressed his beliefs. Alinsky begins by stating the purpose of his book:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky minces no words as to what that involves. “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. ... This means revolution.”

But does he really mean revolution? Yes. For Alinsky, any means that the Have-Nots employ to seize power that will work to achieve that end are acceptable.

“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

But do truth and morals in any way limit the acceptability of the means? For Alinsky, they don’t. For Alinsky, there is no such thing as objective truth.

“An organizer ... does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.”

Alinsky’s radical dismisses all concerns of personal morality, conscience of the individual and personal salvation. This is a world “where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”

“One does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience ... doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”

So, does Alinsky admit to the existence of a good? Yes. It’s whatever the Have-Notes want to get.

“We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get.”

Does the radical leader admit the existence of any form of objective good or truth? Yes. He assumes his cause to be perfect — even if he knows his assumption to be a lie. “A leader,” he said, “must assume that his cause is 100 percent positive and that the opposition 100 percent negative.”

But if the radical’s ends are achievable and worth the cost, does Alinsky give us any examples of what he means by workable means.

Yes: “Pick the target; freeze, personalize it, and polarize it.”

So is personal destruction or character assassination a permissible means so long as it is workable?

Here’s what Alinsky says to that point: “Many liberals, during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn’t a 100 percent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’? This becomes political idiocy.”

But if character assassination fails, if the target isn’t destroyed, can the next obvious step be taken? If the end in revolution to seize power for the Have-Nots, if morality and conscience place no limits on the choice of the means, and if murder is workable, what objection can their be to using murder as the means?

In 1925, eight years before he became the German chancellor, Adolf Hitler published Mein Kampf and set out his future plans for Germany.

Most people in the West didn’t read it. Many of those who did read it, refused to believe Hitler really meant what he said.

Do your really want to live in Alinsky’s America?

An election’s coming.

Posted: QCOline.com October 18, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Do You Want to Live in these Democrats' America?

I consider U.S. Sen. Susan Collin’s speech in support of the Kavanaugh nomination to be the finest speech delivered by a member of Congress in my lifetime.

Collins eloquently and persuasively discussed every point that needed to be discussed. Only in one respect do I dissent.

I believe that before any American’s life or reputation is destroyed at any public hearing by an allegation of criminal misconduct, the accuser has the burden of proving that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In every criminal proceeding, the judge is required to instruct the jury as follows:

"The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

"The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the state throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence."Our U.S. Supreme Court has held that the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are fundamental to our system of justice and essential to due process.

Now a substantial wing of the Democratic Party would rewrite that rule to read that in any case where a woman charges a man with sexual misconduct

"The accused is conclusively presumed guilty of the charge against him.This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during deliberations on the verdict and cannot be overcome. You should disregard all witnesses and all other evidence that the accused presents to establish his innocence because it is easy to imagine why the accused might be lying.

"The accuser’s credibility must be afforded greater credibility because it is far more difficult to come up with any plausible reason any woman might be lying. Indeed, the accuser’s credibility may not even be questioned."

Is it really better that 100 innocent men be punished than one guilty man escape? 

If you are man, is this fundamentally transformed America in which you wish to live?

If you’re a woman, is this the shining new America in which you want your father, your husband and your sons to live?

If a man whose testimony is corroborated by three witnesses, has less credibility than a woman whose testimony is utterly uncorroborated, how many additional witnesses does the man need? Two? Twenty-five? Five-thousand?

How many more witnesses are needed before he can overcome the presumption of guilt? Or is it an irrefutable presumption? 

If women never lie, and if men never tell the truth, why waste time on trials?

If this is the sparkling new order that the progressive left wants, I want no part of it. I want a system of due process where everyone criminally accused is presumed innocent. Where accused and accuser start out equally in terms of credibility.

Where no one should be found guilty unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where accuser, accused and all witnesses face each other, and  equally face rigorous cross-examination. And I am not willing to gut any clause of our Bill of Rghts to favor a particular class of accusers or accuseds, or for reasons of political correctness, or to appease any mob.

Our traditional criminal justice system reaches its conclusions on evidence, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Sympathy, passion, raw emotion, bias, and hatred have no place in the system bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.

Our Supreme Court has held that not every hearing requires all the safeguards deemed essential to a criminal trial. The full due process required during a criminal trial may not be required in a hearing for a zoning variance. But the court has held that the due process commensurate with the proceeding must be accorded to each hearing.

At a minimum, due process requires a neutral judge (or hearing officer), notice of what the proceeding is about, and the right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses.

Since 1215, people have fought not to be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process. Is a man’s good name and reputation not part of his life and property? Or are they subject to destruction for perceived “greater good?”

In his Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky wrote

“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. ... He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

Is that the America you want to live in? If the destruction of a good man is the means to your end, is that OK?

Posted: QCOline.com October 11, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

I Believe Ford was Abused, but not by Kavanaugh

I have now listened to the Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I carefully listened to both the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Many of the senators conducting the hearing correctly said that a woman’s allegation that she was sexually assaulted deserves to be afforded careful consideration. I agree.

That being said, once such an allegation has been made, both sides deserve due process. After listening to Ford’s testimony, I am convinced that she was abused in the 1980s. But I am still troubled by the fact that it was only in 2012 that she first named Kavanaugh as her assailant (in a therapy session).

I am also convinced that Kavanaugh’s testimony of innocence was truthful. What I am saying is that I think Ford was abused by someone — other than Kavanaugh.

Ford has claimed that she and four others attended a small party at which she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh and two of those people, P.J. Smith and Mark Judge, under penalties of perjury, have denied any recollection of attending any such party.

Kavanaugh has also sworn before his God that he is innocent. The fourth person, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school, has also denied attending a party with Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh maintained a calendar/diary back in 1982 which he produced and referred to at the Senate hearing. His notes, made at the time, about parties and other events, together with his explanations relative to those notes, tend to support his testimony, and do nothing to support Ford’s testimony.

Character witnesses from Kavanaugh’s high school, college and law school days, and from all the years he has spent in his professional life, a period of some 40 years, all believe that the man Ford describes, is not the man they have known and been close to.

I fully realize the proceeding before the committee is not a criminal proceeding. But when career and family-destroying allegations of criminal violations are made against any man or woman, there has to be a presumption of innocence, and a requirement that the allegation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anything else, where there is an allegation of criminal misconduct, is not consistent with American notions of due process.

As I said, I am convinced that somebody assaulted Ford when she was in high school. I am even more convinced that it was not Kavanaugh. His denial was at least as firm as her accusation. Importantly, he was corroborated by three witnesses — one was Ford’s friend. She was corroborated by no witnesses, and no physical evidence.*

Additionally, his calendar, and the people who have known him best, tend to corroborate Kavanaugh.

I don’t think Ford is lying about Kavanaugh, I just think she is mistaken. The fact that it took her some 30 years to recall who her assailant was, and 38 years to make her allegation, does not add credibility. It might not hurt her credibility, but it certainly doesn’t enhance it.

I feel sorry for what Ford and her family have suffered. I am also deeply troubled by what Kavanaugh and his family have suffered.

Once you decide that anybody facing an allegation of criminal misconduct should be presumed guilty, and should have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, you’re not talking about American justice.

If you are willing to demand that of Kavanaugh, then be willing to have the same rules applied to you. Or don’t you believe in “equal protection?”

* (I do think the committee should have called the three witnesses. But I think their absence probably hurt the judge more than it did Ford. Assuming they testified consistently with their sworn statements, I think testimony in open court is normally more persuasive than evidence via affidavit or deposition.)

Posted: QCOline.com October 4, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea