Supreme Court Nominee #3

[Mica]

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News


“At times, my testimony — both in my opening statement and in response to questions — reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote.

He said he was emotional last week, “more so” than he’s ever been, admitting he “might have been too emotional at times.

“I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters,” he said.

‌
The nominee said going forward, he will be the same type of judge he has been, “hard-working, even keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution.”

 

[Hope4More]

View attachment 149768

Head’s up, y’all. Kavanaugh just tossed a Hail Mary.

AP news alert. Developing story.

Do you mean the grotesque, even nauseating letter by him just posted in the WSJ?

The one in which he takes no responsibility for his ugly, unhinged, partisan outburst? Those words he had written down the night BEFORE?!

And even now, he has the gall to hide behind the women & girls he trots out - his wife & daughters & mother, even girls he has coached- as he AGAIN, in a supposed apology, attacks Dr. Ford & Ms. Ramirez.

That isn't an apology; it is more evidence he is absolutely unfit to sit on the SC.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

View attachment 149768

Head’s up, y’all. Kavanaugh just tossed a Hail Mary.

AP news alert. Developing story.

Incoming!

So, is this way of admitting that he perjured himself? What next? Will he say he didn’t mean it — that he was just kidding and that everyone else shouldn’t be so sensitive?

Gaslighting, perchance?

MOO, of course.

The Latest: Kavanaugh says he may have been 'too emotional'

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is acknowledging he “might have been too emotional” in Senate testimony but says he can be counted on to be an “even-keeled” judge.

Kavanaugh said Thursday in an op-ed that his “tone was sharp” and he said “a few things” he should not have during testimony to the Judiciary Committee about accusations of sexual misconduct. He forcefully denied the allegations.​

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News


“At times, my testimony — both in my opening statement and in response to questions — reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote.

He said he was emotional last week, “more so” than he’s ever been, admitting he “might have been too emotional at times.

“I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters,” he said.

‌
The nominee said going forward, he will be the same type of judge he has been, “hard-working, even keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution.”

His candid comments make me like him even more.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Again. Ginsberg gave her opinion about the nomination process, not the nominee. Ginsberg isn't the only SC justice who has made public comments about how broken the nomination process is, and other justices, notably Chief Justice Roberts, have warned that the broken nomination process risks having the public view the Supreme Court as entirely partisan.

Again. No Supreme Court justice has ever before spoken out and said a SC nominee wasn't fit to sit on the Court. That includes retired SC justices. It simply isn't done. That Stevens did so IS extraordinary, and another flashing red light, sirens blaring, warning to us all.

RGB is right.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a very different path to power than Brett M. Kavanaugh

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Opinion | How Brett Kavanaugh Failed

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, as much as any development in the challenging era of Donald Trump, is testing America’s politicians and its civic institutions. Few, so far, have met the test.

Not Republican senators, who, after denying one president his legitimate authority to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court, are now rushing their own nominee through, uninterested in the truth, while weeping crocodile tears about other people’s partisanship.

Not Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who tainted the process by bringing forward damaging allegations against Judge Kavanaugh only at the last minute.

Not the F.B.I., which either of its own volition or because of constraints imposed by Republicans failed to interview many of the key witnesses who could speak to the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.

And not President Trump, to absolutely no one’s surprise.

In this crucible of power politics, of bullying and posturing and rage, no one has been more severely tested than Judge Kavanaugh. If he believes himself innocent of sexual assault — if he is innocent of sexual assault — the test, to him, can only appear monstrous.

Yet unfair as the test might seem to the judge and his supporters, senators who want to preserve the credibility of the Supreme Court cannot now look away from the result: Judge Kavanaugh failed, decisively.

How?
...

Kavanaugh said in a 2015 speech, “to be a good judge and a good umpire, it’s important to have the proper demeanor.” He added: “To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don’t be a jerk.”

Wise words. He wasn’t able to live by them when it mattered.

(more at link)​

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Do you mean the grotesque, even nauseating letter by him just posted in the WSJ?

The one in which he takes no responsibility for his ugly, unhinged, partisan outburst? Those words he had written down the night BEFORE?!

And even now, he has the gall to hide behind the women & girls he trots out - his wife & daughters & mother, even girls he has coached- as he AGAIN, in a supposed apology, attacks Dr. Ford & Ms. Ramirez.

That isn't an apology; it is more evidence he is absolutely unfit to sit on the SC.

Yep, that’s the one!

 

[Inthedetails]

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News
I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters,” he said.

Understandable, but at this level, I expect the candidate to focus on what the hearing was about (it was not about his family) and to DEMONSTRATE that he is clear-minded, in control of himself, and....well...Supreme Court judge-like.

He didn't demonstrate that. What makes me think he will in the future? His word that he will? Not good enough, sorry. (And I do have sympathy for what his family is going through, but that's not a consideration in deciding whether to hire him or not for the job.)

jmo

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Celebrating kegs and insulting girls: Inside Mark Judge’s 1980s Georgetown Prep underground paper

One issue featured a photo of a student vomiting into a toilet and an article laced with slurs against girls at the nearby Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md. The same issue also pitched a new school song that included a joke about rape and paeans to kegs of beer. Another issue reportedly carried photos of a bachelor party the seniors threw for a teacher that featured a stripper.

“Nothing in this paper is true,” declared its slogan, right underneath the gothic-lettered name of the newspaper.

The mimeographed and often misogynistic rag was co-founded by Mark Judge, the Georgetown Prep student who Christine Blasey Ford says witnessed Brett M. Kavanaugh allegedly try to rape her at a gathering at a house in Maryland in 1982. She said the two teens — close friends who graduated in the Class of 1983 — pushed her into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh, now a Supreme Court nominee, pinned her to the bed, drunkenly groping her, attempting to remove her clothing, and covering her mouth when she tried to scream.​

 

[Mica]

Kavanaugh saga: What the FBI report really tells us

>>snip

The level of investigation Kavanaugh has undergone is extraordinary. In fact, the Senate has received far more information about Kavanaugh than it has received about all prior Supreme Court nominees combined throughout American history.

First came the six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee made public about 500,000 pages of documents dealing with Kavanaugh and his work.

On top of this, the committee received tens of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh court opinions, articles and speeches. And Kavanaugh answered an unprecedented 1,278 post-hearing written questions from senators.

So it is abundantly clear that senators have all of the information they need to do what they are tasked with doing under the Constitution: provide their advice and consent to President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Importantly, this is not the first time the Senate has had the opportunity to review Kavanaugh’s background, education and professional qualifications for an important judicial post. It did this 12 years ago when Kavanaugh was nominated to be an appellate court judge.

At that time, the Senate found no valid reason to withhold its consent to Kavanaugh being seated on what many consider to be the second-highest court in the United States – the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

There is nothing in the record that has changed since then that should bar Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the nation’s highest court – other than uncorroborated accusations of sexual misconduct against him that the FBI has found no evidence to support.

Compare these unproven claims against Kavanaugh’s nearly 30 years of a distinguished professional career in which those who have interacted with him have given him nothing but the highest praise.

And Kavanaugh has received praise not only as an outstanding lawyer, jurist and mentor, but as a warm, decent and kind man involved with his family, his community and his church.

 

[Woodland]

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News


“At times, my testimony — both in my opening statement and in response to questions — reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote.

He said he was emotional last week, “more so” than he’s ever been, admitting he “might have been too emotional at times.

“I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters,” he said.

‌
The nominee said going forward, he will be the same type of judge he has been, “hard-working, even keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution.”

Fwiw, I dislike K's use of 'without corroboration' in this statement.

I have read a lot of stories by wrongly accused/convicted people - unable to recall any of them using 'wrongly accused' and 'without corroboration' in the same sentence.

My impression is K is simply tagging off the recent, undisclosed FBI investigation where it has been said today that no new or corroborating evidence has been produced. Carefully choreographed imo.

 

[Gardenista]

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News


“At times, my testimony — both in my opening statement and in response to questions — reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote.

He said he was emotional last week, “more so” than he’s ever been, admitting he “might have been too emotional at times.

“I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters,” he said.

‌
The nominee said going forward, he will be the same type of judge he has been, “hard-working, even keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution.”

Love him so much.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerberg-seeks-to-quell-employee-anger-over-facebook-executives-appearance-at-kavanaugh-hearing-1538687361

Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

Joel Kaplan, head of global policy, appeared at the Supreme Court nominee’s Senate hearing

 

[Hope4More]

Kavanaugh saga: What the FBI report really tells us

>>snip

Kavanaugh saga: What the FBI report really tells us

>>snip

The level of investigation Kavanaugh has undergone is extraordinary. In fact, the Senate has received far more information about Kavanaugh than it has received about all prior Supreme Court nominees combined throughout American history.

First came the six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee made public about 500,000 pages of documents dealing with Kavanaugh and his work.

On top of this, the committee received tens of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh court opinions, articles and speeches. And Kavanaugh answered an unprecedented 1,278 post-hearing written questions from senators.

So it is abundantly clear that senators have all of the information they need to do what they are tasked with doing under the Constitution: provide their advice and consent to President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Importantly, this is not the first time the Senate has had the opportunity to review Kavanaugh’s background, education and professional qualifications for an important judicial post. It did this 12 years ago when Kavanaugh was nominated to be an appellate court judge.

At that time, the Senate found no valid reason to withhold its consent to Kavanaugh being seated on what many consider to be the second-highest court in the United States – the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

There is nothing in the record that has changed since then that should bar Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the nation’s highest court – other than uncorroborated accusations of sexual misconduct against him that the FBI has found no evidence to support.

Compare these unproven claims against Kavanaugh’s nearly 30 years of a distinguished professional career in which those who have interacted with him have given him nothing but the highest praise.

And Kavanaugh has received praise not only as an outstanding lawyer, jurist and mentor, but as a warm, decent and kind man involved with his family, his community and his church.

The level of investigation Kavanaugh has undergone is extraordinary. In fact, the Senate has received far more information about Kavanaugh than it has received about all prior Supreme Court nominees combined throughout American history.

First came the six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee made public about 500,000 pages of documents dealing with Kavanaugh and his work.

On top of this, the committee received tens of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh court opinions, articles and speeches. And Kavanaugh answered an unprecedented 1,278 post-hearing written questions from senators.

So it is abundantly clear that senators have all of the information they need to do what they are tasked with doing under the Constitution: provide their advice and consent to President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Importantly, this is not the first time the Senate has had the opportunity to review Kavanaugh’s background, education and professional qualifications for an important judicial post. It did this 12 years ago when Kavanaugh was nominated to be an appellate court judge.

At that time, the Senate found no valid reason to withhold its consent to Kavanaugh being seated on what many consider to be the second-highest court in the United States – the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

There is nothing in the record that has changed since then that should bar Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the nation’s highest court – other than uncorroborated accusations of sexual misconduct against him that the FBI has found no evidence to support.

Compare these unproven claims against Kavanaugh’s nearly 30 years of a distinguished professional career in which those who have interacted with him have given him nothing but the highest praise.

And Kavanaugh has received praise not only as an outstanding lawyer, jurist and mentor, but as a warm, decent and kind man involved with his family, his community and his church.[/QUOOTE="Mica, post: 14448067, member: 108569"]Kavanaugh saga: What the FBI report really tells us

>>snip

The level of investigation Kavanaugh has undergone is extraordinary. In fact, the Senate has received far more information about Kavanaugh than it has received about all prior Supreme Court nominees combined throughout American history.

First came the six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee made public about 500,000 pages of documents dealing with Kavanaugh and his work.

On top of this, the committee received tens of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh court opinions, articles and speeches. And Kavanaugh answered an unprecedented 1,278 post-hearing written questions from senators.

So it is abundantly clear that senators have all of the information they need to do what they are tasked with doing under the Constitution: provide their advice and consent to President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Importantly, this is not the first time the Senate has had the opportunity to review Kavanaugh’s background, education and professional qualifications for an important judicial post. It did this 12 years ago when Kavanaugh was nominated to be an appellate court judge.

At that time, the Senate found no valid reason to withhold its consent to Kavanaugh being seated on what many consider to be the second-highest court in the United States – the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

There is nothing in the record that has changed since then that should bar Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the nation’s highest court – other than uncorroborated accusations of sexual misconduct against him that the FBI has found no evidence to support.

Compare these unproven claims against Kavanaugh’s nearly 30 years of a distinguished professional career in which those who have interacted with him have given him nothing but the highest praise.

And Kavanaugh has received praise not only as an outstanding lawyer, jurist and mentor, but as a warm, decent and kind man involved with his family, his community and his church.

" What the FBI report really tells us?" There is no FBI "report," first of all, and second, the pages of raw interview transcripts have not been, and will not be, released to the public.

What that headline & story tells us is nothing more or more credible than republican talking points being peddled by Fox "news."

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

How Jeff Flake's One-Week Delay Helped Clear Brett Kavanaugh's Name

Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key undecided vote, said this morning: "It appears to be a very thorough investigation.”

Senator Flake told reporters: “We’ve seen no additional corroborating information.”

By all indications, the additional FBI investigation has been good for Kavanaugh.

Let’s also consider the other ways in which the week-long delay helped Kavanaugh clear his name.

Wild Avenatti-Swetnick claims collapse

The New Yorker’s “corroborating” source for Deborah Ramirez undermined

Ford’s allegation vetted and questioned

Perjury claims debunked

 

[Gardenista]

How Jeff Flake's One-Week Delay Helped Clear Brett Kavanaugh's Name

Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key undecided vote, said this morning: "It appears to be a very thorough investigation.”

Senator Flake told reporters: “We’ve seen no additional corroborating information.”

By all indications, the additional FBI investigation has been good for Kavanaugh.

Let’s also consider the other ways in which the week-long delay helped Kavanaugh clear his name.

Wild Avenatti-Swetnick claims collapse

The New Yorker’s “corroborating” source for Deborah Ramirez undermined

Ford’s allegation vetted and questioned

Perjury claims debunked

Happens Every. Single. Time. And it makes more and more people #WalkAway.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Opinion | We were Brett Kavanaugh’s drinking buddies. We don’t think he should be confirmed.

Charles Ludington, Lynne Brookes and Elizabeth Swisher attended Yale University from 1983 to 1987 with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

We were college classmates and drinking buddies with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. In the past week, all three of us decided separately to respond to questions from the media regarding Brett’s honesty, or lack thereof.
...

By coming forward, each of us has disrupted our own lives and those of our families. As well as navigating the intense media interest, including having news vans and reporters set up in front of the home of one of us, we have received large amounts of hate mail, including threats of violence. We have lost friendships. The work servers of one of us were hacked.
...

None of this is what we wanted, but we felt it our civic duty to speak the truth and say that Brett lied under oath while seeking to become a Supreme Court justice. That is our one and only message, but it is a significant one. For we each believe that telling the truth, no matter how difficult, is a moral obligation for our nation’s leaders. No one should be able to lie their way onto the Supreme Court. Honesty is the glue that holds together a society of laws. Lies are the solvent that dissolves those bonds.
​

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Dem Sen. Heidi Heitkamp a 'no' vote on Kavanaugh

It's going to be a "no" vote on Brett Kavanaugh from North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp (HYT'-kamp), one of the few Democratic senators who'd been undecided on the Supreme Court nominee.
​

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Singing, Chanting and Rage on Capitol Hill as Kavanaugh Vote Nears

It started almost plaintively. “Why aren’t you brave enough to talk to us?” a protester demanded of Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, as he waited for an elevator in a Senate office building on Thursday.

Mr. Hatch, shielded by aides, waggled his fingers dismissively at her. “Don’t you wave your hand at me!” she responded. “I wave my hand at you!”

Mr. Hatch waved her off yet again, telling her and other protesters that he would talk to them “when you grow up.” They exploded in fury.

“How dare you talk to women that way!” the woman said, as Mr. Hatch retreated to the back of the elevator car, then, grinning from behind his aides, waved off the women a final time.​

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Yale Students and Alumni Have New ‘Demand’: Investigate Brett Kavanaugh for Perjury Now

While congressional Republicans declared Thursday that “nothing new” was learned from the FBI’s limited scope investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, congressional Democrats lamented that the FBI investigation wasn’t thorough enough. On this same day, near 500 alumni and current students at Kavanaugh’s alma mater of Yale demanded that the U.S. Senate open up a perjury investigation.

The letter was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).
...

“These questionable statements follow claims he made in previous confirmation hearings, which based upon information that has become public during the current confirmation process now appear to be false, including: statements that he made about the selection process for controversial candidates for the federal courts made by President George W. Bush; statements about his knowledge of the Bush-era warrantless surveillance program; and his claim that he never received documents stolen by Republican Senate aide Manny Miranda,” the Yale letter continued.

A number of alumni were featured in a press release, arguing that lying under oath should “disqualify” Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.
​