Supreme Court Nominee #2

[Mica]

are these credibility issues corroborated by anyone other than an Ex

the restraining order was denied

It was about additional issues beyond the restraining order and not related to the ex.

 

[Mica]

It didn't tho when i put in judges name??

The statement came up when I put in Swetnick’s name and the judges name. Only 1 entry for the judge - one in which he was the attorney representing a client.

 

[Hope4More]

I sure did.

Justice Kennedy was a "swing vote" who sometimes sided with the liberal Justices. If he is replaced by Kavanaugh it is unlikely he will do the same. JMO

That scares the democrats very much. That's why Chuck Schumer said this.



Schumer: I’m going to fight the Kavanaugh nomination 'with everything I’ve got'

Of course Schumer said that. Would you prefer that he lie? You'd have to be either naive or uninformed to believe that any Senator ,on either side, would say or act differently.

The most egregious act against a president being able to have his nominee forwarded has a name: Merrick Garland, nominated by Obama. Republican leader McConnell broke every norm in the book by refusing to even give Garland a hearing. For a year. With the deliberate goal of holding the seat open and hoping for a republican president. McConnell has not only "confessed" to doing exactly that, he has explicitly said that trashing of the Senate norms & the confirmation of Gorsuch are his finest achievements.

So, what exactly is your point about Schumer stating the obvious?


Gorsuch got through, remember? There was no effort - by Dems or anyone else- to criticize him on the basis of character. Remember?

What is different about Kavanaugh is K's lack of character, and his well known reputation in DC for not only extreme partisanship, but for his enthuastic use of dirty tricks towards partisan goals, and yes....for perjury.

 

[Mica]

Lindsey Graham promises 'full scale' probe into Democrats' handling of Ford-Kavanaugh allegation


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to launch a thorough inquiry into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to find out whether there was any wrongdoing in how they managed the sexual misconduct allegation Christine Blasey Ford leveled at Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"We're going to do a wholesale, full scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again," Graham said during an interview on ABC News' "This Week."

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham continued, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

 

[CARIIS]

I find gang rape allegations to be too out there. Multiple gang rape over multiple parties, yet the parties continued and no one was charged or arrested. Doesn't sound all that believable to me.

I would agree - possibly- if there were not two books out detailing a lot of things

We all know money and white privilege can keep a lot of people out of trouble.

 

[CARIIS]

Why do you say his records have been blocked?

results came back different than judges??

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Of course Schumer said that. Would you prefer that he lie? You'd have to be either naive or uninformed to believe that any Senator ,on either side, would say or act differently.

The most egregious act against a president being able to have his nominee forwarded has a name: Merrick Garland, nominated by Obama. Republican leader McConnell broke every norm in the book by refusing to even give Garland a hearing. For a year. With the deliberate goal of holding the seat open and hoping for a republican president. McConnell has not only "confessed" to doing exactly that, he has explicitly said that trashing of the Senate norms & the confirmation of Gorsuch are his finest achievements.

So, what exactly is your point about Schumer stating the obvious?


Gorsuch got through, remember? There was no effort - by Dems or anyone else- to criticize him on the basis of character. Remember?

What is different about Kavanaugh is K's lack of character, and his well known reputation in DC for being not only extreme partisanship, but for his enthuastic use of dirty tricks towards partisan goals, and yes....for perjury.

I don't want anyone to lie.

Gorsuch replaced a strong conservative in Scalia. The status quo remain.

This appointment will change the balance of the Court and that's why I say it has the democrats running scared. JMO

 

[Hope4More]

Lindsey Graham promises 'full scale' probe into Democrats' handling of Ford-Kavanaugh allegation


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to launch a thorough inquiry into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to find out whether there was any wrongdoing in how they managed the sexual misconduct allegation Christine Blasey Ford leveled at Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"We're going to do a wholesale, full scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again," Graham said during an interview on ABC News' "This Week."

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham continued, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

More groundless mudslinging to deflect from the truly rigged K nomination process, start to finish, the fake investigation still unfolding.

I especially appreciate (sarcasm) Graham's insistence for a full scale, nothing held back, no limitations, in depth investigation....of how a credible accuser of K managed to slip over their wall of obstruction ("so it never happens again!!!"), rather than the same kind of investigation into, you know, the accusations themselves, you know, against a SC nominee.

 

[Mica]

I don't want anyone to lie.

Gorsuch replaced a strong conservative in Scalia. The status quo remain.

This appointment will change the balance of the Court and that's why I say it has the democrats running scared. JMO

Absolutely correct. For any conservative nominee at this point in time, using Lindsey Graham’s words, “You're looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time.”

 

[simba16]

At least 4 former Yale classmates have spoke out in past week about Kavanaugh's lies under oath. Lynne Brooke's was just on MSNBC for 2nd time this week. She is a registered Republican but she said "This is about the integrity of our courts."
Jerry Nadler, a House Democrat who is poised to take over the Judiciary committee if Democrats take over House, said on ABC this morning the committee would have to investigate apparent perjury.

 

[borndem]

Viral Kavanaugh cartoon powerfully depicts the assault of Lady Justice

touché

 

[CARIIS]

I don't want anyone to lie.

Gorsuch replaced a strong conservative in Scalia. The status quo remain.

This appointment will change the balance of the Court and that's why I say it has the democrats running scared. JMO

I dont think it is running scared. I think people who believe the woman's body is hers not the fed govts, that affirmative action is a good thing, that people ought to marry who they love, that govt officials are not above the law are all good things.

The world saw the real him the other day. He is crass, obnoxious, etc etc

yuk!1

 

[CARIIS]

At least 4 former Yale classmates have spoke out in past week about Kavanaugh's lies under oath. Lynne Brooke's was just on MSNBC for 2nd time this week. She is a registered Republican but she said "This is about the integrity of our courts."
Jerry Nadler, a House Democrat who is poised to take over the Judiciary committee if Democrats take over House, said on ABC this morning the committee would have to investigate apparent perjury.

hi honey

before we found out he is an alleged sex offender - he perjured himself on several things relating to his actions while with Bush

My fav was the lie about knowing that a dem guys emails were being hacked which he adamantly denied, And then BAM (just like Perry Mason) or KA BOOM (like the Batman show)

and then they presented the emails from HIM discussing "SPIES" and "moles" - his emails -- his words:

hello??

 

[Hope4More]

I don't want anyone to lie.

Gorsuch replaced a strong conservative in Scalia. The status quo remain.

This appointment will change the balance of the Court and that's why I say it has the democrats running scared. JMO

Ranch. Democrats aren't running scared. Given a repub president & Senate, and a determined long-term campaign to put right wing justices on the Court, it has been inevitable that Kennedy will be replaced by a right-winger justice, no matter what.

That inevitability is just as true today as it was from the minute Kennedy retired. Dems are fully aware of that reality. If you cast back a few weeks, remember that over a half dozen dem senators were expected to vote for Kavanaugh?

Virtually no one inside Washington believes there is ANY chance the Dems will win the Senate back in a few weeks. Whether Dems take the House or not is entirely irrelevant to the SC nomination process.

If K goes down (highly unlikely)? McConnell & crew went on record yesterday that would BENEFIT repubs, by motivating their base to vote in the midterms, might even stave off losing the House.

Repub Senate, new nominee = confirmed. Repub Senate, Kavanaugh =confirmed (after token farce investigation).

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Ranch. Democrats aren't running scared. Given a repub president & Senate, and a determined long-term campaign to put right wing justices on the Court, it has been inevitable that Kennedy will be replaced by a right-winger justice, no matter what.

That inevitability is just as true today as it was from the minute Kennedy retired. Dems are fully aware of that reality. If you cast back a few weeks, remember that over a half dozen dem senators were expected to vote for Kavanaugh?

Virtually no one inside Washington believes there is ANY chance the Dems will win the Senate back in a few weeks. Whether Dems take the House or not is entirely irrelevant to the SC nomination process.

If K goes down (highly unlikely)? McConnell & crew went on record yesterday that would BENEFIT repubs, by motivating their base to vote in the midterms, might even stave off losing the House.

Repub Senate, new nominee = confirmed. Repub Senate, Kavanaugh =confirmed (after token farce investigation).

So you are saying that women are doomed and no matter who is confirmed Roe v Wade will be overturned? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

Chuck Shumer said this about Kavanaugh.

Schumer laid out the outlines of the Democratic attack: Confirming Brett Kavanaugh as the next justice on the high court would reverse decades of settled law and put women’s reproductive rights at “grave, grave risk,” he said, arguing that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

Schumer: I’m going to fight the Kavanaugh nomination 'with everything I’ve got'

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

self-deleted

 

[Hope4More]

I'm curious. To those who think K should be confirmed:

Would you still support his confirmation if it can be proven that he perjured himself during this nomination process?

Would it matter to you what he perjured himself about, if it could be proven?

For example, would you give him a pass for lying about year book related questions- Renate, Devil's Triangle, Ralphing, etc.

Would you give him a pass for lying about his drinking (including legal age to drink, drinking to excess, blacking out, etc)?

Would you give him a pass about always respecting girls/women & never acting inappropriately towards them physically or sexually (not referring to assault here)?

Would you give him a pass if it could be proven he liked about knowing the Dem docs he used were stolen?

Would you give him a.pass if he lied about ANY matter of substance relating to his WH duties under president Bush?

 

[CARIIS]

More on the perjured testimony before the alleged sexual issues came out

Comment Of Senator Leahy On His Questioning Of Judge Kavanaugh On Hacked Democratic Files
Between 2001 and 2003, two Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee regularly hacked into the private computer files of six Democratic senators, including me. They stole 4,670 files, and they used them to assist in getting President Bush’s most controversial judicial nominees confirmed. This became public in late 2003 when The Wall Street Journal happened to print some of the stolen materials.

The ringleader behind this massive theft was a Republican Senate staffer named Manny Miranda. The scandal amounted to a digital Watergate — a theft not unlike Russia’s hacking of the DNC.

During all of this, Judge Kavanaugh worked in the White House Counsel’s Office on judicial nominations. He worked hand-in-hand with Miranda to advance these same controversial nominees. Not surprisingly, Judge Kavanaugh was asked extensively about his knowledge of the theft during both his 2004 and 2006 hearings. And I mean extensively: 111 questions from six senators, both Republicans and Democrats.

He testified under oath — and he testified repeatedly — that he never received any stolen materials, and that he knew nothing about it until it was public. He testified that if he had suspected anything “untoward” he would have reported it. At the time, we left it there. We didn’t have evidence to suggest otherwise.

Today, with the limited amount of Judge Kavanaugh’s White House record that has been provided to the Judiciary Committee, for the first time we have been able to learn some information about his knowledge of this theft.

Here is a description of the three emails that have been made public. There are many more that have been hidden from public scrutiny under a faulty claim of committee confidentiality. I suspect there are even more that were never released to the committee at all, based on the partisan and woefully incomplete document production.

• Miranda email exposing what I was going to ask a controversial nominee at her coming confirmation hearing.
  • On July 19, 2002, Mr. Miranda sent Judge Kavanaugh and another Bush official an email asking why the “Leahy people” were looking into financial ties between two special interest groups and Priscilla Owen, a particularly controversial nominee to the Fifth Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh was the point person in the White House for the Owen nomination. Then, two days before her hearing, Miranda shared that the Democrats were “passing around” a related 60 Minutes story. He also said, “Intel suggests that Leahy will focus on all things money.”
  • This “intel” was stolen. In fact, it appears to have originated with a memo I received from my staff the night before Miranda sent it to Judge Kavanaugh.

• Miranda email disclosing private draft letter of mine before any mention of it was public.
  • In January 2003, Mr. Miranda forwarded to Judge Kavanaugh a private letter from me and other Judiciary Democrats to then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle. This letter was a draft, and obviously so. Someone eventually leaked its existence to Fox News. This was a private letter, and at the time I was shocked to learn its existence had been leaked. But here’s the thing: Judge Kavanaugh had the full text of my letter in his inbox before any reference to the letters existence was leaked to the press.
  • This letter was big news in the judicial nominations world at the time. And Judge Kavanaugh was a main player in that world. He would have known that he received this letter before it was in the press.

• Miranda wanted to meet privately, off-site, with Judge Kavanaugh and another Bush official to hand-deliver documents related to Senators Feinstein and Biden.
  • Judge Kavanaugh said at the time he couldn’t make it, but wanted to discuss it later.
  • Only part of this chain has been made public. Additional emails raise further suspicion.
  • Judge Kavanaugh disclosed in his testimony today that he may have met privately with Miranda on other occasions.

There are numerous other committee confidential emails that shed light on Judge Kavanaugh’s relationship with Miranda. They need to be made public now, before it’s too late. They raise serious questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s claim that he never suspected he benefited from this massive hacking of Democratic files. And they also raise questions about his truthfulness under oath in response to the 111 questions he received on this topic the last time he was before the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Grassley has assured me he will release these documents for my questions tomorrow.

Press Contact
David Carle: 202-224-3693

Comment Of Senator Leahy On His Questioning Of Judge Kavanaugh On Hacked Democratic Files | U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont

 

[KALI]

You betcha. Question then is, who's going to leak it? Because, I REALLY want to know what they find .

My husband just brought up an interesting idea, that the FBI investigation will look at Dr. Ford, and see what can be dug up...to completely discredit her charges.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm curious. To those who think K should be confirmed:

Would you still support his confirmation if it can be proven that he perjured himself during this nomination process?

Would it matter to you what he perjured himself about, if it could be proven?

For example, would you give him a pass for lying about year book related questions- Renate, Devil's Triangle, Ralphing, etc.

Would you give him a pass for lying about his drinking (including legal age to drink, drinking to excess, blacking out, etc)?

Would you give him a pass about always respecting girls/women & never acting inappropriately towards them physically or sexually (not referring to assault here)?

Would you give him a pass if it could be proven he liked about knowing the Dem docs he used were stolen?

Would you give him a.pass if he lied about ANY matter of substance relating to his WH duties under president Bush?

I have seen absolutely nothing so far that makes me feel that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

I will not entertain any unsubstantiated claims at this point. They are only a distraction. JMO