Status
Not open for further replies.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037514830490607617



Video embedded in tweet. Video of the full exchange embedded in the following tweet.

Oh and, for those curious, the law firm in question has 7 people in DC

Kamala Harris is a total bitch. She's asking Kavanaugh if he has EVER discussed the Mueller investigation with ANYONE at a particular law firm (that employs more than 250 attorneys). This question presumes he will not only recall the identity of every single person with whom he has had a passing mention of the investigation over the past eighteen months, but also that he will recall their past and current employment status. She can't figure out why he might not want to give a definitive answer on that? How utterly imbecilic must she be?
 
Last edited:
"We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society" is what he said. Kavanaugh was one of the judges from the second list by the Federalist Society.

This is a lie started by Chuck Schumer, picked up and repeated by many news outlets and is now considered gospel by those who want to believe Kavanaugh was nominated to keep Trump from potentially being prosecuted for crimes in the future.

He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate. ...
I don'y know about Schumer's part in the matter, but I watched the hearings and it was very real.

First, Kavanaugh was not on the FedSoc list so he worked to get himself on it. He tried to block that immigrant teen in custody from getting an abortion. That made the news, he made the list.

Then he met with Trump's lawyers and voilá, he became Trump's pick.

He denied the meeting then said he didn't discuss anything about absolute POTUS power. But the Senators interviewing Kavanaugh had plenty of his past statements to the contrary.

He came across as lying to cover up meetings with Trump's lawyers and very much dangling that **** in front of Trump to get the nomination.

And there's evidence he lied in previous confirmation hearings before Congress.

As for this:
"In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." – Brett Kavanaugh
That's not in the Constitution and I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh had a different POV during Clinton's civil suit by Paula Whatshername.
 
Last edited:
That's not in the Constitution and I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh had a different POV during Clinton's civil suit by Paula Whatshername.

I don't know about his opinion on the Clinton suit contemporaneous with its occurrence, but as long ago as 2009 he said Clinton should not have been subjected to it while in office:
Judge Kavanaugh, who after working for Mr. Starr served as an aide to President George W. Bush, has since expressed misgivings about the toll investigations take on presidents. In 2009, he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”
 
I'm not sure that a president is exempt from congressional investigation for crimes he may have committed before being elected. Who has said that, Kavanaugh?


According to Kavanaugh, and at least two different DOJs, one from each party, the job of the president is too demanding and important to spend time on mounting a defense if he is indicted or charged criminally or civilly. See the quote in my prior post.


He doesn't believe that it does, hence his suggestion that Congress should pass a law that mandates a deferral of prosecution and investigation.

I would recommend reading the opinion that he wrote in the Minnesota Law Review for a better understanding of what he meant without the spin of the media and politicians, both for and against his nomination.

It's only eight paragraphs long and shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. It starts on page 6 of this PDF.

This whole 'defer prosecution until the term ends' because POTUS is too busy and too important to be tried while in office is an absurd premise. It ignores the potential for the crimes to be too serious to defer.

Trump's had dealings with the Russian mob since the 80s. He's hiding his tax returns because they are full of tax cheating and he fears that will be uncovered. And what is supposed to happen if Mueller has clear evidence Trump conspired with the Russians using stolen emails to win the election? How are crimes like that supposed to be handled if they are to be postponed until Trump is out of office? And what if despite the crimes he cheats again to get elected? Then he has four more years of deferred prosecution?

The point is not that Mueller will uncover these crimes though I'm pretty sure that is some of what Mueller has on Trump.

The point is, how can you possibly give Trump a pass before you know the extent of the charges?
 
Last edited:
I don't know about his opinion on the Clinton suit contemporaneous with its occurrence, but as long ago as 2009 he said Clinton should not have been subjected to it while in office:
Your link says site can't be reached but I have this one:

CNBC:
Kavanaugh mentioned that case, along with his tenure as staff secretary to President George W. Bush, in a Minnesota Law Review article in 2009, as he wrote about how difficult the job of being president can be. In that article, he said he had come to realize it "was a mistake" to have believed, as he once did in the 1990s, that a president should be "one of us" who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share.

Like all of them, convenient partisan opinions.
 
Kamala Harris is a total bitch. She's asking Kavanaugh if he has EVER discussed the Mueller investigation with ANYONE at a particular law firm (that employs more than 250 attorneys). This question presumes he will not only recall the identity of every single person with whom he has had a passing mention of the investigation over the past eighteen months, but also that he will recall their past and current employment status. She can't figure out why he might not want to give a definitive answer on that? How utterly imbecilic must she be?

You weren't paying close attention. You would do yourself a favor to read this account:

Politico
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) asked Kavanaugh earlier Thursday if he could “rule out the possibility” that he discussed the investigation with anyone at a law firm that has more than 250 lawyers on staff.

“I don’t know who works at that firm, other than a few people I'm aware of just from the public,” Kavanaugh replied, again declining to name McNally at that point. He reiterated a denial of any untoward conversations regarding Mueller’s probe.
Why not say he hadn't discussed Trump's case with any lawyer as he said earlier?

The dude was struggling to keep his story straight.
 
That's exactly what it means. So he thinks a president should be exempt from all civil and criminal investigations, let alone prosecutions, no matter what he may have done in office or before he took office.

Why? Why should that be the case? Where does the Constitution exempt this one person -- alone among all Americans -- from the ordinary processes of law? Impeachment is the mechanism by which he can be removed from office for misconduct in office. It doesn't have anything to do with investigation and prosecution for crimes, including crimes that may have put him in office in the first place.
This is especially invidious where there is time limitation on bringing charges or suit. The eight years in office may mean that a case can no longer be brought.
 
The point is, how can you possibly give Trump a pass before you know the extent of the charges?

You didn't read the law review article, did you?

I'll quote the part you are overlooking, "In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance". Meaning impeachment. Kavanaugh suggested that any investigations be left to the Congress and if any malfeasance is found, the president can be impeached, removed from office immediately, and then investigated and or prosecuted if any crimes are uncovered.

You really should take off your partisan glasses for five minutes and read the essay. One example Kavanaugh gave to support his position of deferred prosecution was the investigation into Bill Clinton.

"Looking back at the 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots."
Do you agree with Kavanaugh about Bill Clinton or do you believe it would have been absurd to wait until he was out of office to investigate his sexual exploits?
 
Just inflicting more disinformation on uninformed posters then?

Sad

Or not arsed to give you another chance to be disingenuous, particularly after the conversation in another thread you've just bailed out of.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers which is correct.

Given your recently-highlighted track record when it comes to knowledge of the law, I'm not sure I'd be itching for a fight, if I were you. Probably better to retreat again. As it is, I'm not interested.
 
For a preview of how he will change the court:

The judge made this statement during an exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) regarding “the foundations of the unenumerated rights doctrine.” The term “unenumerated rights” refers to rights, such as the right to an abortion, which are not explicitly named in the Constitution’s text, but which the Supreme Court has held to be implicit in that text.

According to Kavanaugh, “all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” to determine the scope of these unenumerated rights.

“Glucksberg” means Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision holding that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court in Glucksberg, the question of which unenumerated rights are protected by the Constitution should be answered by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

We don’t have to guess, however, whether Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a constitutional right to abortion is grounded in this Glucksberg test, because he’s already answered that question. As law professor Jim Oleske points out on Twitter, Kavanaugh said in his 2017 speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”

...

For what it’s worth, Kavanaugh’s statement that “all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” is incorrect. As law professor Jamal Greene first pointed out on Twitter, Glucksberg was “explicitly disavowed in Obergefell,” the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality decision.

According to Obergefell, Glucksberg “is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy.”

Kavanaugh’s apparent endorsement of Glucksberg as the sole test for determining unenumerated rights, in other words, threatens a whole lot more than the right to an abortion. It also suggests that he believes that a wide range of Supreme Court decisions governing sex, romantic relationships, and intimacy were wrongly decided.

Judge Kavanaugh appears to be telegraphing his belief that Roe, Obergefell, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which provides that the government cannot prosecute consenting adults for having sex, were not correctly decided.

Linky.
 
You didn't read the law review article, did you?

I'll quote the part you are overlooking, "In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance". Meaning impeachment. Kavanaugh suggested that any investigations be left to the Congress and if any malfeasance is found, the president can be impeached, removed from office immediately, and then investigated and or prosecuted if any crimes are uncovered.

You really should take off your partisan glasses for five minutes and read the essay. One example Kavanaugh gave to support his position of deferred prosecution was the investigation into Bill Clinton.

"Looking back at the 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots."
Do you agree with Kavanaugh about Bill Clinton or do you believe it would have been absurd to wait until he was out of office to investigate his sexual exploits?
I did indeed know your highlighted part. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean they didn't read or know something.

The whole point of an independent law enforcement is because the POTUS does not own his personal DoJ. And in this case we have over half of the House and many in the Senate overlooking Trump's kleptocracy. Last night on CSPAN Book TV, Rick Wilson a Republican who recently wrote, "Everything Trump Touches Dies", said Nunes should be prosecuted. Yet Paul Ryan is happy to leave him in charge of one investigation of Trump.

Sometimes Congress does not do its job, and obviously as we currently see there can still be crimes that cannot go untried. I repeat, you can't make a blanket statement that no POTUS can be indicted in office because all the future circumstances cannot be predicted.

As for the incessant GOP attacks on Bill Clinton, I agree but it wasn't a prosecution that was the problem. it was a GOP controlled prosecution. The GOP paid Jones, Ken Starr was a partisan hack, and the publicity against Clinton was ridiculous. Not only was Clinton thwarted from getting bin Laden, when Bush took over he simply wiped the slate of all warnings and nothing was done to stop the 9/11 attack.

But I digress.
 
Last edited:
As for the incessant GOP attacks on Bill Clinton, I agree but it wasn't a prosecution that was the problem. it was a GOP controlled prosecution.
And by leaving the system the way it is, any future president is open to prosecutors with a political ax to grind. Kavanaugh, along with the DOJ, believes that any criminality from a sitting president should be dealt with by the Congress.

Earlier you mentioned "convenient partisan opinions", Kavanaugh held his opinion while working for Ken Starr.
On Christmas Eve 1998, five days after the House impeached President Bill Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh urged his boss — Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel — not to pursue a criminal indictment of Mr. Clinton until after he left office. Link
 
In the category of "too unbelievable for a movie script":

Donald Trump’s most recent Supreme Court Nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is facing perjury complaints for his testimony before Congress during the Senate hearing for his confirmation.

The Democratic Coalition, in their initial complaint, alleges that Kavanaugh’s testimony, not only in this hearing but in other testimony before Congress, includes false statements about certain documents said to be stolen from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The complaint will now be heard by none other than Merrick Garland — President Obama’s pick for SCOTUS, who was denied a hearing.

Linky. (Emphasis mine.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom