Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[fraurosena]

Corey Booker has released more documents:

 

[formergothardite]

It seems like the GOP is dead set on getting him on the SC and nothing short of a miracle is going to stop them. It was just revealed he lied under oath, which is a crime and that didn't stop them! I am greatly worried that no matter what is released they will push on and vote to confirm him. Their goal is to get control of the highest court because from there they can rule America even if voters get pissed off and stop voting for them. This is scary because there is no good reason for them to keep him as a nominee. They can control him and IMO that is why they will put him in place no matter how openly corrupt he is or how much public outcry there is. 

[fraurosena]

And so has Patrick Leahy:

 

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Corey Booker has released more documents:

 

Can anyone explain the importance of these papers? I read them but am a bit confused. It sounds like they were trying to put someone in the CIA and then move him to  the 9th circuit. Is that scandalous? 

Timid Tillis is kissing up to Kavanaugh. 

 

[Cartmann99]

PBS NewsHour Link for day 4:

https://youtu.be/x-lLjyyaMbg

Links for previous days:

Day 1: https://youtu.be/ryVVTFzaADM

Day 2: https://youtu.be/x9fHsoqAkLU

Day 3: https://youtu.be/4vGW0oEiLpg

 

[fraurosena]

Liar, liar pants on fire... but still gonna get nominated. 

I just wish somebody would ask him about his personal finances today. It's so obvious someone paid off his considerable debts, and therefore that he is eminently blackmailable. How were those debts suddenly paid off? Who paid them off? Why did they pay them off?

 

[formergothardite]

Someone really needs to ask him about lying under oath. How can he be a good judge if he has no issue with openly breaking the law? 

[fraurosena]

@formergothardite, the answer to your question is in this article. The emails Patrick Leahy provided are proof that despite his denials under oath, Kavanaugh actually did have knowledge of, and even actively participated in the nomination of Pryor. Among other things.

Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress While Under Oath

Quote

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted by documents from his time as a counsel to the president and staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Newly released documents have undermined Kavanaugh’s declarations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, contradictions that are drawing close scrutiny from many Democrats. Kavanaugh has denied making any misleading or false statements.

His role in accessing stolen documents: In 2002, a GOP aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents belonging to the committee’s Democratic staff. At the time, Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer working on judicial nominations, which included working alongside Miranda. In 2003, President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to his current position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and his confirmation hearing was held in 2004—though he was not confirmed until two years later. During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents. 

But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.

Warrantless wiretapping: At a 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that he knew nothing of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, launched under President George W. Bush, until the New York Times revealed it publicly in 2005. Kavanaugh insisted he’d heard “nothing at all” about the program before that, even though he was a senior administration aide. But a September 17, 2001 email provided to the New York Times this week shows that Kavanaugh was involved in at least initial discussions about the widespread surveillance of phones that characterized the NSA program. In the email to John Yoo, then a Justice Department lawyer, Kavanaugh asked about the Fourth Amendment implications of “random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence?” Kavanaugh said Wednesday that his 2006 testimony was “100 percent accurate.” But the email, which describes the gist of the wiretapping program, which Bush approved in 2002, calls Kavanaugh’s claims of ignorance into question.

Torture: During the same 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he “was not involved” in legal questions related to the detention of so-called enemy combatants. But Durbin said Thursday that records show that there are at least three recorded examples of Kavanaugh participating in discussions of Bush administration detainee policy. Kavanaugh stood by his prior answer.

The nomination of Judge William Pryor: In Kavanaugh’s 2004 confirmation hearing, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked the nominee about his support for William Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit, given that Pryor had called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” Kavanaugh responded, “That was not one that I worked on personally.” Newly released documents suggest otherwise. Emails from the Bush White House show that Kavanaugh was involved in selecting Pryor, interviewing him, and shepherding his nomination through the Senate.

The nomination of Charles Pickering: During his 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh downplayed his role in the nomination of Charles Pickering, a controversial judicial appointee. (For instance, Pickering once reduced the sentence of a man who burned a cross in front of an interracial couple’s house.) “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,” Kavanaugh said. But new emails show he may have been more involved than he let on.

 

[fraurosena]

Just now, formergothardite said:

Someone really needs to ask him about lying under oath. How can he be a good judge if he has no issue with openly breaking the law? 

I believe Kamala Harris is going to today, quite certainly on the issue she was questioning him about yesterday, namely the alleged contact he had with people from Kasowitz's firm and discussing the Mueller probe. I really hope she also touches on the other lies, but it could well be that all the Democrats will each take up one of the lies and confront him with them. 

 

[fraurosena]

One to look out for today.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Someone really needs to ask him about lying under oath. How can he be a good judge if he has no issue with openly breaking the law? 

He'd be a perfect Dumpy judge, just a horrible judge for the rest of the country.

[fraurosena]

I'm a bit confused about today's hearing. Are these 'character' witnesses the only ones to be questioned today? Or will Kavanaugh at some point be questioned by the senators again? Because I was kinda hoping that the dem senators would confront Kavanaugh with his lies.

 

[Audrey2]

43 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Because I was kinda hoping that the dem senators would confront Kavanaugh with his lies.

 

Silly, @fraurosena, only Democrats lie. Republicans are genetically incapable of lying. They speak in alternate truths, which aren't lies.

[Cartmann99]

2 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Silly, @fraurosena, only Democrats lie. Republicans are genetically incapable of lying. They speak in alternate truths, which aren't lies.

You're pretty good at this. Have you ever considered running for president as a Republican?

[Audrey2]

6 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

You're pretty good at this. Have you ever considered running for president as a Republican?

They'd never have me. I don't dislike non-whites or LGBTQ, your uterus is your business, healthcare is important, and corporations aren't people. I don't want the lobotomy necessary to be a Republican candidate.

[fraurosena]

She was at it again yesterday:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[formergothardite]

Tillis is still filling his Facebook page with praise for Kavanaugh and posts about how he is going to get confirmed. The GOP will confirm him. Racism and lying under oath will not stop this. Someone needs to get hold of whatever is in those three years of papers they have kept hidden and release it, because I think whatever is in there is bad enough to force them to stop. 

[fraurosena]

15 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Tillis is still filling his Facebook page with praise for Kavanaugh and posts about how he is going to get confirmed. The GOP will confirm him. Racism and lying under oath will not stop this. Someone needs to get hold of whatever is in those three years of papers they have kept hidden and release it, because I think whatever is in there is bad enough to force them to stop. 

Even if these traitors confirm him to the SC, apparently he can be IMPEACHED. 

Guess what's going to happen after the blue tsunami?

 

 

[Howl]

It's obvious that Kavanaugh will be nominated in this sham process; he'll be nominated and confirmed before mid-terms.   He's a lying liar who lies, and IT DOESN'T MATTER.  Don't y'all remember the presidential campaign?  As each truly egregious aspect of Trump's utter horribleness became public, it didn't matter.  Insult John McCain? Insult a Gold Star family?  Mock a disabled reporter? Pussy tape?  Paying off porn stars?  None of that mattered, and Republicans clearly understand how this works. 

Brett Kavanaugh is a lying liar who lies;  he's corrupt at his core and IT DOESN'T MATTER.  I'm still seeing Brett Kavanaugh ads on TV, letting us know how wonderful he is.  I realized as I'm typing this that the purpose of the ads is two fold. The first is to creating an aura of public support.  The second is to alter public perception and normalize corruption of the nomination process.  The guy/his wife/  both  obviously has/have serious money management problems, racking up huge debt.  Gambling? Porn? Who the hell knows, but it's blatantly obvious that something isn't right. 

This is strictly ends justify the means over two issues and two issues only: overturning gay marriage and Roe v. Wade.  There are other shadow issues simmering away on the back burner,  including maintaining corporate personhood (Citizens United) and expansion of religious "freedom" issues relative to corporations/ businesses/individual citizens. 

We (liberals, progressives, logical thinkers and others of our ilk) can scream 'til we're blue (!) in the face, and it won't matter.  Credulous Susan Collins will fall for the usual bullshit and I don't think any Republican has the spine, let alone the cajones to vote against Kavanaugh, no matter how blatant the evidence against him that he's utterly unfit to sit on the Court. 

[fraurosena]

Interesting background article on Kavanaugh. Note his connections to quite a few other people we know, some with their own threads here on FJ Politics.

David Brock: I knew Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court.

Quote

I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps."

And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no.

Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally.

Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."

But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.

Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.

At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.

In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.

When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)

Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.

That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.

But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.

Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by pedaling the same garbage at Starr's office.

A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.

Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.

Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.

But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights. But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us.

 

[candygirl200413]

@Howl I reacted with Love because you truly hit the nail on the coffin! As I tweet so often, the supreme court was on the ballot in 2016. 

[fraurosena]

Disgraceful.