Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[fraurosena]

Oh my! What are the odds?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

13 hours ago, fraurosena said:

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

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

Sadly, I can't imagine the Dems will get enough seats to do it as it requires a two-thirds vote in the senate.

[formergothardite]

I really think it will be difficult for a blue wave to take on the Senate. The only way to stop this is for whatever the hell they are hiding that must be very, very bad, to be leaked out. There is something that they aren't even wanting the democrats to know about. He is going to get confirmed unless something drastic happens. 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[fraurosena]

This thread reveals how Kavanaugh's finances do not add up. At all. More's the pity that nobody brought this up in his hearing.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

Durbin accuses Kavanaugh of misleading senators in 2006 hearing

Quote

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of misleading the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing more than a decade ago, releasing emails Tuesday he says proves his claim.

Durbin released two pages of emails from 2002 stamped "committee confidential" — meaning they had not been cleared for public release — that detail Kavanaugh's conversation with two other White House officials on the nomination of William "Jim" Haynes to fill a judicial vacancy.

“It is clear now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush Administration’s detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the controversial Haynes nomination,” Durbin said on Tuesday.  

The emails released by Durbin show Kavanaugh, then an employee in the George W. Bush White House, discussing a potential Haynes nomination with two of his colleagues in a brief email thread. 

After the two colleagues exchanged emails discussing Haynes, Kavanaugh replies saying that they need to "resolve" the package of judicial nominations, potentially including Haynes, "quickly." 

"What is the basis for saying he would be an across-the-board judicial conservative? I have no reason to think that one way or another outside of defense/military area — and I know others have questions about that," Kavanaugh added. 

Haynes, as general counsel to the Pentagon, was involved in the Bush administration detention policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

When one of Kavanaugh's White House counsel colleagues asked who had questions about Haynes, Kavanaugh replied: "Call me." 

Durbin on Tuesday seized on the emails as evidence that Kavanaugh misled senators when he testified during his 2006 confirmation hearing to sit on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Democratic lawmaker had asked Kavanaugh at the time about his involvement in Haynes's nomination, including if he knew about Haynes's work on Bush's detention and interrogation policies.

Kavanaugh told senators that while he knew Haynes, "it was not one of the nominations that I handled."

Durbin on Tuesday called the emails the latest example of a "theme" around Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, confirmation hearings for which took place last week.

“He says one thing under oath, and then the documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh’s record — the questions about this nominee’s credibility are growing every day," Durbin said.

Spokesmen for Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about the status of the emails released by Durbin.

Raj Shah, a spokesman for the White House, quickly hit back at Durbin's "latest lie in attempting to smear" Kavanaugh. 

"When you look at the full testimony, Sen. Durbin’s cherry-picking of Judge Kavanaugh’s words is more deceptive. In later testimony, Judge Kavanaugh explicitly answered 'yes' he was 'involved in discussions involving the nominations of Haynes,'" Shah said in a series of tweetsresponding to the emails Durbin released. 

Shah's tweet includes a screenshot over questions between Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kavanaugh from the 2006 hearing. Schumer, following up on Durbin's question, asks Kavanugh if he was "involved" in discussions about Haynes, including if voiced opinions about him. 

"I don't remember the timing of that, but if it was when I was in the counsel's office, it would have come through the Judicial Selection Committee when I was part of it," Kavanaugh responded. 

When Schumer asked if he could give a yes or no answer about if he was involved with discussions on Haynes, Kavanaugh added "senator I believe those were when I was still in the counsel's office, so the answer would be yes." 

Shah, following up in a separate tweet, questioned what Durbin's "point" is by releasing the emails on Tuesday. 

"He has none. ...Dems are dishonestly conflating being the WH Counsel lead responsible for “handling” the nomination with any discussion of the nomination whatsoever. It’s a complete and total smear with no basis," Shah added.

Durbin's office said in a release that the emails are still marked "committee confidential" and had not been cleared for release by Republicans or Bill Burck, a lawyer for Bush who has been sorting through documents from Kavanaugh's work as White House counsel.

The emails aren't the first time Democrats have accused Kavanaugh of misleading senators during his 2006 hearing. 

Both Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — who, like Durbin, are members of the Judiciary Committee — seized last week on Kavanaugh emails regarding Bill Pryor’s judicial nomination.

Kavanaugh previously said that he was not involved in the nomination proceedings, but could not rule out last week that he might have questioned Pryor, who is controversial because of his stance against Roe v. Wade.

Asked by Leahy if he interviewed Pryor, Kavanaugh said he didn’t “believe so, but added it’s possible.

“I don’t believe so but if I did it would have been part of the general process,” he said. “It’s possible; we interviewed hundreds of nominees."

Asked later by Grassley, who argued that Democrats were trying to misrepresent the email, Kavanaugh added that he was not the “primary person” on Pryor.

These are not the same emails as Patrick Leahy released last week, but another case involving the nomination of William Haynes.

[fraurosena]

This is horrific. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From one of my senators (it's a lengthy thread)

 

[dripcurl]

I am currently attempting to email all Republican state senators, and I have emailed the Democrats who have not expressed  opposition to Brett Kavanaugh yet. It is obviously very easy thanks to Google (and thanks to Annie Maxwell!) to find out who all of these senators are and contact them.

 

I have also noticed due to some sleuthing that it is fairly simple to email any chief of staff for each senator. firstname_lastname@senatorlastname.senate.gov

[fraurosena]

Holy moly!

(thread)

I'm gonna do some more digging to find out what this is all about.

[fraurosena]

This is the Intercept article in one of the above tweets:

Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciary Commitee Democrats

Quote

DEMOCRATS ON THE Senate Judiciary Committee have privately requested to view a Brett Kavanaugh-related document in possession of the panel’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, but the senior California senator has so far refused, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

The specific content of the document, which is a letter from a California constituent, is unclear, but Feinstein’s refusal to share the letter has created tension on the committee, particularly after Feinstein largely took a back seat to her more junior colleagues last week, as they took over Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings with protests around access to documents.

The letter took a circuitous route to Feinstein, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. It purportedly describes an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents the area.

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school.  Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own.

Eshoo passed the letter to her fellow Californian, Feinstein. Word began leaking out on the Hill about it, and Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee, but she rebuffed them, Democratic sources said. Feinstein’s fellow senators want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call unilaterally. The sources were not authorized to speak on the record, and said that no senators on the committee, other than Feinstein, have so far been able to view the letter.

The woman who is the subject of the letter is now being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors. Joseph Abboud, an attorney at Katz’s firm, said that the firm was declining to comment. Emma Crisci, a spokesperson for Eshoo, declined to comment on the letter her office sent to Feinstein, saying that the office has a confidentiality policy when it comes to constituent casework. A spokesperson for Feinstein did not respond to requests for comment.

Update: September 13, 2018

Feinstein has released a statement Thursday afternoon acknowledging the existence of the letter. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, a woman has confided in a letter to sen. Eshoo about an incident between her and Kavanaugh in high school. As the woman's lawyer is a whistleblower lawyer who works with #MeToo survivors, it could well be that the incident was of a sexual nature, although at this point that is only speculation. However, the incident apparently is sufficiently serious for sen. Feinstein to refer the matter to federal investigative authorities.

 

[Cartmann99]

Conservatives have already decided that any allegations against Kavanaugh are either lies, or just stupid kid stuff. They are also attacking Feinstein. I guess they would have preferred that she have a press conference and publicly announce exactly what the allegations were, instead of turning it over to the FBI?

You can't win with these people.

[formergothardite]

They will claim it is nothing big, or if it is something big it was too long ago. The woman waited too long to speak out so it couldn't have been that bad. NOTHING will stop them from confirming him. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Great op-ed by Patrick Leahy: "Brett Kavanaugh misled the Senate under oath. I cannot support his nomination."

Spoiler

Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate. 

Last week, I uncovered new evidence that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh misled the Senate during his earlier hearings for the D.C. Circuit Court by minimizing and even denying his involvement in Bush-era controversies. I gave him the opportunity to correct his testimony at his hearing last week; he chose instead to double down.

I make no claim that Kavanaugh is a bad person. But when his prior confirmation to our nation’s “second highest court” was in jeopardy, he repeatedly misled the Senate when the truth might have placed that job out of reach.

Take his relationship with the ringleader of the “Memogate” scandal. Between 2001 and 2003, two Republican staffers regularly gained unauthorized access to the private computer files of six Democratic senators, including mine, taking 4,670 files on controversial judicial nominees.

Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times about this scandal in 2004 and 2006. He testified repeatedly that he knew nothing about the source of the information; that he received nothing that even appeared to be prepared by Democratic staff; and that he never suspected anything unusual, or “untoward.” 

But emails I released last week show that then-Republican Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Manuel Miranda regularly shared obviously ill-gotten, inside information with Kavanaugh, which Miranda often asked be kept secret.

That includes eight pages from a Democratic memo, taken verbatim from me, on a controversial nominee that Kavanaugh was asked to not forward. Emails also show that Miranda told Kavanaugh about a sensitive, private letter that I received on a nominee’s position on abortion — a letter Miranda described as “confidential,” requesting that “no action be taken.” They also show Miranda asked to meet privately at his home to give Kavanaugh “paper” on Democratic senators’ thinking.

Other emails describe meetings we were holding, materials staff were sharing internally, leads we were pursuing, what staffers were advising their senators with the notation “highly confidential,” a private letter I had sent to another senator, and even one from an associate of Miranda with the subject line “spying” with information from a Democratic “mole.”

Last week, when confronted with these emails, Kavanaugh testified that this was normal information shared with “friends across the aisle.” As I told Kavanaugh then, I was born at night, but not last night.

I have served in the Senate for 44 years, including 20 years as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. It has never been normal to obtain sensitive, inside information from the opposing party, conveyed in secret and in real time involving the most contentious issues before our committee. A smart political operative on the frontlines of these battles would have seen these glaring red lights for what they were: clear evidence of nefarious acts.

And that’s not all. In 2004, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked about Kavanaugh’s role in vetting U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit nominee William Pryor. Pryor had called Roe v. Wade a constitutional “abomination” and argued that a right to same-sex intimacy would “logically extend” to “necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia.”

Kavanaugh distanced himself from Pryor. He denied any part in vetting him, testifying that it was “not one that [he] worked on personally.” Yet emails suggest that Kavanaugh not only recommended Pryor for the seat, he also participated in a working group on the nomination, talked to a reporter about him and appears to have interviewed him.

There are similar concerns that Kavanaugh misled the Senate about his work on other controversial nominations, including William Haynes, who helped develop immoral George W. Bush-era interrogation policies, and Charles Pickering, who reduced the sentence of a man who burned a cross in front of an interracial couple’s house. Kavanaugh might have also misled the Senate by denying any involvement with detainee policies or any knowledge of documents related to a warrantless surveillance program.

Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath.

Just as troubling is that there is still much we do not know. With the rush to confirm Kavanaugh, the Senate has vetted only 7 percent of his White House record. And Republicans are intent on keeping the rest hidden. On Thursday, Republicans repeatedly blocked subpoenas that would have answered these questions. And the White House is withholding an outrageous 102,000 pages of records, the “most significant portion” of which relates to judicial nominations. The chance that these records do not contain evidence relevant to Kavanaugh’s truthfulness under oath? Approximately zero.

Compare this process to the Elena Kagan nomination: As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I worked with then-ranking Republican Jeff Sessions to obtain 99 percent of Kagan’s White House records. President Barack Obama did not assert privilege over a single document.

Over four decades, I have voted for more Republican-nominated judges — including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — than the vast majority of Republicans. I do my best to evaluate each on the merits. Setting aside my concerns about what a Justice Kavanaugh would mean for the rights of Americans, I cannot support a nominee for a lifetime seat to our highest court who cast aside truth in pursuit of raw ambition. Unimpeachable integrity must never be optional.

 

[fraurosena]

What a despicable douchebag.

Here's Ronan Farrow's article:

Quote

n Thursday, Senate Democrats disclosed that they had referred a complaint regarding President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the F.B.I. for investigation. The complaint came from a woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were both in high school, more than thirty years ago.

The woman, who has asked not to be identified, first approached Democratic lawmakers in July, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh. The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.

In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Kavanaugh’s classmate said of the woman’s allegation, “I have no recollection of that.”

The woman declined a request for an interview.

In recent months, the woman had told friends that Kavanaugh’s nomination had revived the pain of the memory, and that she was grappling with whether to go public with her story. She contacted her congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, a Democrat, sending her a letter describing her allegation. (When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Eshoo’s office cited a confidentiality policy regarding constituent services and declined to comment further on the matter.)

The letter was also sent to the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. As the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein was preparing to lead Democratic questioning of Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing weeks later. The woman contacted Feinstein’s office directly, according to multiple sources.

After the interactions with Eshoo’s and Feinstein’s offices, the woman decided not to speak about the matter publicly. She had repeatedly reported the allegation to members of Congress and, watching Kavanaugh move toward what looked like an increasingly assured confirmation, she decided to end her effort to come forward, a source close to the woman said. Feinstein’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Feinstein’s decision to handle the matter in her own office, without notifying other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stirred concern among her Democratic colleagues. For several days, Feinstein declined requests from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman’s letter and other relevant communications. A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care of it.” On Wednesday, after media inquiries to the Democratic members multiplied, and concern among congressional colleagues increased, Feinstein agreed to brief the other Democrats on the committee, with no staff present.

On Thursday, Feinstein announced that she had referred the matter to the F.B.I. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

In a statement, an F.B.I. spokesperson said, “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process.”

After Feinstein’s announcement yesterday, a White House spokesperson, Kerri Kupec wrote, about Kavanaugh, “Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him,” calling it an “11th hour attempt to delay his confirmation.”

Given the heightened attention to issues of sexual misconduct amid the #MeToo movement, the political risks of mishandling the allegation were acute, particularly for Feinstein, who is up for reëlection this year and is facing a challenge from her left. During Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, in 1991, the Senate was accused by some of failing to take seriously enough Anita Hill’s allegations that Thomas had sexually harassed her while acting as her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After the Thomas hearings concluded, it emerged that Senator Joe Biden, who was the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, had failed to call three additional women to the witness stand who had been willing to offer testimony confirming Hill’s complaints about Thomas’s inappropriate behavior toward women. Last December, Biden, who may run for President in 2020, publicly apologized for failing Hill, saying, “I wish I had been able to do more.”

Sources familiar with Feinstein’s decision suggested that she was acting out of concern for the privacy of the accuser, knowing that the woman would be subject to fierce partisan attacks if she came forward. Feinstein also acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh. Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said that they respected the need to protect the woman’s privacy, but that they didn’t understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate questions about the allegation. “We couldn’t understand what their rationale is for not briefing members on this. This is all very weird,” one of the congressional sources said. Another added, “She’s had the letter since late July. And we all just found out about it.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

What about all the women he didn't try to rape tho? Why aren't Democrats talking about all those times he kept his pants on and went home without assaulting anyone? https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/1040616745499848704?s=19 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Let's not forget Anita Hill. I fear it won't be much different this time.

[Cartmann99]

10 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Let's not forget Anita Hill. I fear it won't be much different this time.

I just had a flashback to watching those hearings on television. Has Ginni Thomas (wife of Justice Thomas) attacked this woman yet?

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

What about all the women he didn't try to rape tho? Why aren't Democrats talking about all those times he kept his pants on and went home without assaulting anyone? https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/1040616745499848704?s=19 

Wait, he attended an all-male high school, and yet he knew 65 high school age women well enough that they could serve as character witnesses?!? Seriously?!? If you told me that he had a few close female friends from like church, his neighborhood, or clubs he belonged to, I could buy that, but 65?!? 

Honey, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

[Cartmann99]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Mama Mia]

The whole thing stinks. If the Dems knew these were the exact allegations in July, they should have brought it to the Judiciary Committee or someone then. I read that Feinstein knew in July, but dismissed it as not a serious problem? 

And obviously the GOP, and/or Kavanaugh knew this would come up, if they had 65 women he knew 35 years ago on hand to do this very specific letter in roughly 30 seconds. 

Yes he was a kid, a drunk kid, but this Wasn’t a case of mis-read signals while making out.  

At the very LEAST, it certainly seems like an issue that would make him biased in any sort of consent / diminished capacity / assault cases. Of course, she COULD be lying, or delusional, but the immediacy of that letter makes him look more quilty, not less, IMHO

[Cartmann99]

Hmm...