Purge on the Potomac

by Roberts, David Thomas;

  “What? How could that be? Damn it!” he said to himself after he hung up the phone with the bank.

  “Will, they are jacking with me. Check your accounts,” Zach told Will.

  A few minutes later, Will returned and informed Zach, “The bank says my accounts are locked up due to an IRS lien. What the hell?”

  “Me, too. Me, too,” said Zach. He sat with his face in his hands, thinking of his next move. “Tell the entire team. If they don’t have this same issue, they need to pull their money or move it offshore―now.”

  “No audit. No lien demand. No notice. Nothing,” Will said with obvious disgust.

  “Thank the National Defense Authorization Act. Congratulations. We are officially terrorists. No habeas corpus. Assumed guilty.”

  “Orchestrated financial terrorism. The government is terrible at most things, but that’s not one of them. Thank God we followed your advice and have money offshore,” Will said gratefully.

  “Terror. That’s what these scumbags at the IRS instill in everyday Americans just trying to get by. Look at my wife, scared senseless as they beat on the front door!” Zach threw an empty water bottle to the floor.

  “Patrick Henry would have tarred and feathered a politician for even suggesting such an agency could exist.”

  “We have to find out who else is targeted. Let’s start making phone calls and see if we are being singled out, or if this is some kind of grandiose scheme associated with the referendum,” Zach ordered.

  “I’m on it,” Will told him.

  “When will we have the Swede’s data and files?” asked Zach, referring to the laptop and phones of Ottosson.

  “Maybe by tonight but, if not, by first thing in the morning.”

  Zach stood up and leaned once to the right and once to the left, to stretch out a bad lower back.

  It was a sign.

  This was normally a routine Zach practiced just before each major covert operation he embarked on, whether as a Navy SEAL or a CIA agent. He then walked over to the hotel window and stared out at the Washington monument.

  “The only thing a terrorist understands is terror. They want terror, we’ll give them terror,” he murmured to himself.

  Chapter 22

  “A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.”

  - Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)

  U.S. Supreme Court Justice

  The left-leaning mainstream media was on a public relations mission to make sure Shelly Ferguson-Haverton would get a U.S. Supreme Court confirmation vote in the Senate. The pressure put on moderate senators to elect the first LGBT judge to the Supreme Court was relentless.

  Every major media outlet in the country was interviewing Senator McCray after he had scheduled a procedural vote for Haverton’s full Senate confirmation hearing.

  “I believe we should give this judge the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The fact that we have our first LGBT nominee is historic in itself. Once we are past that issue, we can truly look at her record as a judge and vote her up or down. She deserves no less,” pandered Senator McCray to the politically correct CNN host.

  Most pundits believed the vote was a mere show vote and that the Republicans had no intention of confirming Haverton. Being labeled homophobic or anti-LGBT was almost as toxic to politicians as being accused of racism.

  McCray had his ducks in a row and had his majority whip operate a war room scenario in McCray’s spacious office. The procedural vote would give the GOP enough cover to placate the LBGT crowd and, instead of being cast as anti-LGBT for not bringing her vote to the floor, the GOP could focus instead on her lack of qualifications to sit on the nation’s highest court.

  The procedural vote went exactly as planned, despite three hold-out Republican senators who voted against allowing a full nomination vote. Senator Perez from Texas was one of the three nay votes.

  “That son of a bitch. He can’t play ball just one time, can he?” McCray said to his chief of staff as he walked with him after the procedural vote back to his Senate office.

  “He’s a showboat, nothing more,” said a legislative aide.

  “He will make a scene during the confirmation hearings, you can count on that,” replied McCray disgustedly.

  “All these Tea Party types do is throw up obstacles,” the chief of staff replied. “Why can’t he be more like the senior senator from Texas?”

    

  There wasn’t a free square inch of floor space in the large Senate Judiciary Committee meeting room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building as hundreds of cameras lined up to get a glimpse of the nomination procedural hearing of Circuit Judge Shelly Ferguson-Haverton for the Supreme Court.

  Adding to the drama of the moment was that President Bartlett had not yet appointed the chief justice to fill the vacancy left by Chief Justice Noyner’s death. Speculation swirled that Bartlett would break from tradition and appoint Haverton if she was confirmed by the Senate. Such a move would not be unprecedented, but highly unusual, as most chief justice appointments by past presidents were made from justices who had already served a period of time as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.

  Cameras flashed and there was a buzz in the air as Haverton made her opening statement, “I present myself to this body in the hopes that my time on the bench and my standing as a double minority gives me special insight into everyday American issues. I believe in the rule of law, but also in the fair dispensation of justice under those laws. I believe it is our duty to uphold the civil liberties of all Americans and I wholeheartedly believe and commit to the premise that all men, women and transgenders are created equal.”

  Of the first four senators who questioned Haverton, two were Democrats and two were Republicans. The soft questioning from the Democrats was expected, but the questions from the two Republicans sounded like campaign speeches for her. Instead of asking her tough questions about past cases and even the fact that Haverton was the most overturned federal judge in the country, the Republican senators praised her courage.

  Then it was Senator Perez’ turn.

  “I yield to the junior senator from Texas,” said McCray, with the emphasis on junior.

  “Thank you, Chairman McCray. Let me start by asking Judge Haverton what her thoughts are on being the most overturned federal judge in the country. Judge Haverton, what are we to make of this fact, and how can a federal judge who has interpreted the law and ultimately the Constitution so erroneously in the past be counted on to interpret it correctly going forward on the high court?” he pressed as the audience murmured in the background, as many in attendance were distressed with Perez’ tone of questioning.

  “Well, Senator, my views haven’t always lined up with the extreme conservative faction of the Supreme Court. I actually take pride in that. Let’s say we have had a difference of opinion on how to interpret those cases,” she answered confidently.

  “Judge Haverton, just last year you let stand a lawsuit brought on by the family of a man who was shot by the homeowner while burglarizing the home. Do you not believe that homeowner had a right to defend his family and property?” asked Perez.

  “Senator, the testimony from that case was that the perpetrator was not a threat to persons in the house. He was shot as he was escaping from a window to leave the home,” she offered.

  “And he was armed, wasn’t he?” returned Perez.

  “He did not brandish a weapon or threaten the family. The homeowner could have let him leave; he was half-way out of the window.”

  “Ms. Haverton,” continued Perez, intentionally not calling her Judge, “do you believe in the 2nd Amendment?”

  “I do, but I probably do not agree with your interpretation.”

  “Did that homeowner have the right to defend his family?”

  “Of course he did, but this man was not threatening his family.”

  “Are you saying a man that criminally trespasses in the dark of night, breaking into t
he home while this man’s family was asleep, all the while being himself armed, was not threatening?”

  “Senator, you are taking some of the facts of the case out of context.”

  “Okay, let’s go with your theory then. First, does the homeowner have a right to own the weapon?”

  “The weapon was not registered.”

  “But did he have a right to own it? Was he violating the law by owning the weapon?”

  “It should have been registered.”

  “Ms. Haverton, was the homeowner arrested for having the weapon?”

  “I don’t recall. I believe he was taken in for questioning,” she responded.

  “Of course, which, in most jurisdictions, is probably common for a shooting incident involving a fatality, correct?”

  “Different states have different laws on that.”

  “Were charges pressed against the homeowner?”

  Haverton squirmed slightly as one of her lawyers leaned toward her and whispered in her ear.

  “No, there were no charges filed. But you are referring to the criminal case, which I did not have before me. I had the civil case that ensued later.”

  “Yes, yes, I understand that, but let’s get back to the central question here. Did the homeowner have the right to own the gun?”

  “Under the current statutes, yes. But it was not registered.”

  “But that isn’t the question here, is it?”

  “Senator, that’s a significant factor in the civil case that was brought. Did the man’s family have a right to sue? I believe they did.”

  “Are you aware that the weapon used to defend that family by the father was a pistol his father had given him that was more than thirty years old?”

  “I’m aware of the fact that he used an unregistered weapon to shoot a man in the back as he was leaving his house.”

  “So, Ms. Haverton, you really don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment, do you?” Perez pressed. Haverton started to carefully measure her answers as she became increasingly annoyed with the senator.

  “I believe there should be common-sense gun laws that ensure gun safety for all citizens.”

  “Let’s get to the real question here. If you had the chance, you would support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, wouldn’t you?”

  “You’re asking me a hypothetical question about a future case and, without the facts, I can’t answer it.”

  “The senator’s time will expire in five minutes,” McCray interrupted.

  “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, Ms. Haverton, how do you interpret the meaning of the 2nd Amendment? Does a citizen have a right under the Constitution to bear arms?”

  Haverton and her lawyer were whispering back and forth, which agitated Perez because it ate into his time that McCray would gladly cut off from him the very second his allotted time was over.

  “Ms. Haverton, this is a very straightforward question. I’ll ask once again, does a citizen have a right under the Constitution to own a gun, or a hundred guns if he or she so chooses?”

  “Senator, if you would like to cite a case that I had before me, I would be happy to provide my opinion on the interpretation of that case,” she replied, avoiding the question.

  “Ms. Haverton, this body and the American public have a right to know where you stand on the 2nd Amendment.”

  The crowd became more boisterous as Perez persisted, with some whistling loudly in their displeasure.

  “Ms. Haverton, we need your answer,” pressed Perez.

  “Without the facts of a case to comment on, anything I say would be speculation.”

  “How in the hell do you speculate on the interpretation of one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights?”

  “Order! Order!” roared the chairman as he banged his gavel twice. “Senator, you have one minute.”

  “Mr. Chairman, I ask for an extension of time as this nominee refused to answer a very important question.”

  “Your extension is denied, Senator. Finish up now,” McCray said to Perez in a condescending tone.

  “Ms. Haverton, if you were rewriting the Constitution, would it have a 2nd Amendment in it?”

  Haverton thought for a few seconds and then shocked all in attendance, “Not this 2nd Amendment.”

  “And why is that, Ms. Haverton?” asked Perez, satisfied that he had pressed her enough to expose her.

  “Because, in this day and time, guns have no place in a civilized society.”

  “Meaning that, in 1789, it was a different time and different circumstances? Is that what you mean, Ms. Haverton?” Perez leaned back in his chair.

  “Totally different time, Senator, as no assault weapons existed in 1789.”

  “So, Ms. Haverton, what other amendments in the Bill of Rights are obsolete?”

  “Time, time, Mr. Perez,” shouted McCray as he banged his gavel again.

  “Mr. Chairman, I ask that you allow Ms. Haverton to answer my last question and I will yield.”

  “Your time is expired, Senator,” answered McCray without even looking in his direction.

  Perez ignored the chairman, speaking loudly over the crowd that was noisier now than at any point during the hearing. “Ms. Haverton, Ms. Haverton, what else in the Bill of Rights would you do away with? I demand your answer!”

  “Senator Perez, your time is expired!”

  “Ms. Haverton, America wants to know what other radical views on the Constitution you have? I demand an answer! Which amendments would you eviscerate?” Perez shouted.

  Haverton kept leaning over to her attorney, who was obviously telling her not to answer.

  “Ms. Haverton?”

  “Senator, I will not repeat myself again. Your time is expired!” yelled a red-faced McCray as he stood to hammer the gavel on the desk.

  “Mr. Chairman, how inexcusable that you will not allow this nominee to answer this question and put on display for all to see her disdain for our Founding document and the Bill of Rights.”

  “Mr. Perez, you will either sit down and shut up or I will have the sergeant-at-arms remove you!”

  “Shame on you, Chairman! Shame on all of you!” Perez pointed to the Senate Judiciary Committee members to his left and right who were all seated at the dais.

  “Shame on you, Senator, for your actions to demean this honorable committee and a highly respected judge,” said the Democratic senator from New York.

  “Senator, tell it to your mistress!” came back Perez to the delight of the media.

  Senator Perez packed up his briefcase, with three aides standing behind him, and left the chamber while the crowd buzzed.

  “Ms. Haverton, on behalf of this committee, I offer my apologies for the behavior of the junior senator from Texas. You have conducted yourself admirably and honorably here today, and this type of outburst will not be tolerated.”

  “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

  “At this time, I move for a two-hour recess, at which time we will reconvene after lunch.”

  McCray was livid. Meeting with GOP leaders behind closed doors after the abrupt departure of Perez and the called recess, McCray announced, “Gentlemen, Perez made us look like we are attacking this nominee. We all know how sensitive the situation with this nominee is and how we need to avoid the perception of us not being all-inclusive. That son of a bitch thinks he can walk out of my hearing? I’ll run him out on a rail!”

  “My apologies on behalf of my counterpart,” said Texas Senator Simpson.

  “No need, Kevin. I’m going to call for a vote on this nominee as soon as possible.”

  “Are you sure, Mr. Leader?” asked Simpson, unsure of the strategy.

  “We will be fair to this nominee despite Perez’ antics and theatrics. After we are done this afternoon, I’m calling for the floor vote.”

  “That quickly?” asked a senator. “I haven’t even met with her yet.”

  “Senator, you think she will change your vote?” asked McCray.

  “You know, Mr. Leader, it’s all
about optics,” said a senator from Virginia. “There’s no need to mention I’m in a Blue state that Bartlett carried by twelve points. I need to have the optics that I met with her and did my due diligence before I vote against her.”

  “You don’t have to remind me you’re up for re-election, Senator. I can count,” said McCray with finality. “Ask your questions this afternoon, Senator. I’m not letting this clown show continue. The longer this drags on, the more Perez gets face time on TV.”

  “Sir, I don’t think Haverton has been thoroughly vetted yet. I’m not sure if one more afternoon of questioning is going to be enough,” said another senator.

  “End of discussion, gentlemen,” McCray said.

  They all succumbed to McCray and, along with the Democrats, rarely challenged Haverton on any substantive issues, including her poor record of being overturned at both the Appeals level and at the Supreme Court.

  “Ms. Haverton, you have been a gracious and impressive guest of this committee today. We appreciate your responses during this full day of questioning,” McCray told the judge. “Again, I would like to apologize to you for the badgering you endured this morning. I will recommend to this committee that a full floor vote on your nomination go forward as soon as possible.”

  Haverton was excused and McCray called for the vote. Shortly before the vote, Senator Perez came back to the chamber to sit in his seat. The drama playing out on the networks was making for great coverage.

  McCray called the procedural vote for bringing Haverton’s nomination to the full Senate. The vote passed easily, with the only nay vote coming from Texas Senator Perez.

  Haverton was headed to a full Senate confirmation vote.

  Chapter 23

  “One man with courage is a majority.”

  - Thomas Jefferson

  3rd US President, Delegate to Continental Congress,

  Author of The Declaration of Independence, Founding Father

  “Smitty, you ain’t going to like this,” said Pops as he walked purposefully into Governor Brahman’s office. “Turn on the TV.”

  Brahman grabbed his remote and flipped rapidly through the channels to find breaking news, landing on the Fox News Channel.