Trump Orders Supplemental FBI Investigation re: Kavenaugh

Donald Trump today ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, which is to completed within 1 week and limited to existing accusations.

Mark Judge sent this letter (signed under penalty of felony) to the Committee yesterday. In it he says he never saw Kavanaugh "act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

Today his lawyer said he will cooperate with the FBI or any confidential law enforcement agency in the probe (she did not say he would testify before any committee.)

Also today, Judge submitted this letter, again under penalty of felony, denying all the allegations in Julie Swetnick's claim.

< Senate Committee Passes Kavenaugh, Flake Calls for FBI Investigation | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have never, before this week, heard (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    the expression, "under penalty of felony." I don't think it has any specific legal meaning. "Under penalty of perjury or false declaration," I understand; it means, "I agree to be punished, if this statement is false, the same as if I had testified falsely under oath in court." Such statements are authorized and subjected to penalties by 28 USC 1746. Can anyone help me with this?

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    I had thought it was a criminal law term.

    I am perplexed by that too (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    I use 28 USC 1746 all the time instead of having to use a notary, especially for detained clients who don't have ready access to notaries and in civil forfeitures.

    Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:


    "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).


    I think they are using "penalty of felony" to include making a false statement to Congress under 18 U.S.C. 1001 as well as perjury statutes.

    Section 1001 (a)

    (a)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--....
    (2)  makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3)  makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    but there is 1001(c) that applies to congress.

    (c)  With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to....(2)  any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    I have never heard anyone use that term before, but I guess it's to include any possible felony that might apply to submission of a false statement or writing


    Letters are hearsay bupkis (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:42:15 PM EST
    The argument that the Mark Judge letters were evidence of anything was ridiculous. Sen. Whitehouse was really good on this point.

    For (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    what it's worth, Avenatti's client made a sworn statement, wouldn't that engender a greater risk of penalty than a letter?

    Not sure how that (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    works when there is no pending case.

    See section 1001(c) (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    quoted by Jeralyn above.

    Read the statement (none / 0) (#18)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:06:06 PM EST
    Avenatti or one of his legal assistants wrote it.  It does not really accuse Kavanaugh/Judge of much of anything.  Maybe putting grain alcohol in the punch but that would hard to prove. Even if you provided them with the grain alcohol unless you could prove he did not switch it before pouring it into the punch he would probably get off.  I also suspect there is some timing issue.

    She also said she saw Kavanaugh standing in line.  As far as I know standing in line is not a crime.

    There is something about targeting shy girls but again pointing your finger at a shy girl and saying you can get her drunk and seduce (trying to use a word that will not upset Jeralyn) is not a crime I know of.

    The whole statement was really wishy washy if you read it carefully.  But the key issue to me is that there is no time issue with gang rape and the proper place to report that crime is the local LEOs.

    Kinda like if I say your Momma wears combat boots.  While it may be insulting it is not a crime.


    Why the obsession with whether BK is (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    accused of "a crime"? We are talking here about his character and fitness for the position of Supreme Court Justice. If it is true that he attended such "parties," even at age 17, that's an important fact in and of itself. If he participated in helping ensure that the girls there got drunk, so as to make them more willing to succumb to, or unable to resist, the (alcohol-disinhibited) will of the boys, that is an important fact. If he stood in a "line" of boys that suggested an interest in engaging in -- rather than in stopping or at least protesting -- sexual assaults being perpetrated by his friends on girls whom they had prevented from freely consenting, then that is a very important fact. Let's see what the investigation turns up. If he has falsely denied conduct that he in truth did engage in, his dishonesty alone is an important fact. As would be his unwillingness to acknowledge his own past shortcomings and say how he has overcome them (if he has). I am not interested seeing him prosecuted, just in preventing him from assuming a very powerful position in our country that he is eminently unsuited for in so many ways.

    Do I get a nickel (none / 0) (#26)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    for every time you said "If Kavanaugh" in that post.  I agree that all your' ifs are true Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.  But I don't see any thing to suggest they are.  Perhaps as important is what does it say about the credibility of the accuser that she went to parties where gang rape was happening and said nothing about it.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Get serious. I was talking about (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:14:19 PM EST
    awaiting the result of the FBI investigation, and what I would conclude depending on what they might find. And that none of it would be a "crime" as you were obsessing over, as if "not demonstrably guilty of a serious crime" were the standard for being qualified for a Supreme Court appointment.

    What you were talking about (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:07:01 PM EST
    was Kavanaugh going to ten parties than none of the six previous FBI investigations never turning up.

    I am not buying it.  When I was investigated by the FBI for my Top Secret clearance after being nominated to go to OCS in 1967 (often called 90 day wonders as 2nd LTs were being turned out for service in VietNam) I was shocked when I got back to the world and found out how many folks the FBI talked to.

    As both you and Jeralyn posted in an earlier thread hearing about a gang rape was not something either of you had experienced.

    Several people from that time and place said if even a single gang rape occurred word of it would have spread like wildfire.  On the other hand both Kavanaugh and Ford's yearbooks had plenty of references to drinking at parties.  

    I knew very few people who did not go to parties in high school where alcohol was served.  I would guess the majority of SC justices drank alcohol in high school.

    So far I have seen nothing Kavanaugh did that would disqualify him.  In fact he has been confirmed before and none of this came up.

    Maybe you could provide some real evidence for what you consider disqualifies him.  Not something like 'If he did this' but something that meets basic standards of evidence.


    No, actually, you do not get to tell (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:13:58 PM EST
    me what I mean, other than what I write. What I wrote, after all those "if"s, was "Let's see what the investigation turns up."

    The ABA (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:20:24 AM EST
    flagged Kavanaugh as a problem in 2006 downgrading his rating. This is not the first time he has had problems. How do we know that he passed 6 times? Republicans are not the most honest people. His records are being withheld from the commitee. He apparently lied in his previous hearings for his current judgeship and I understand that is the main reason the GOP is hiding his records.

    At the hearing with Ford, he lied big and small. It was amazing to watch. He lied about the drinking age in Maryland. He lied about a girl named Renate. He lied about his drinking at Yale. I mean there are legions of witnesses to his lying about what he did at Yale. He even sat there and spewed conspiracy theories worthy of infowars. McConnell told Trump not to nominate him because he had "problems". So here we are.

    As far as Avenatti's client, she's apparently going on TV this weekend to tell her story. The senate could have called her as a witness but they chose not to. They also could have called others but they chose not to and the GOP even lied about calling Ramirez.


    I'd be happy to provide evidence (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:24:52 AM EST
    Regardless of the substance of the serious allegations against him, there's his own testimony.  Do you really believe that "Ralph Club" was a reference to his weak stomach/spicy food?  All his friends were talking about their weak stomachs?  The "Ren@te Alumnius" was a "friendly" reference by Kavanaugh and 11 teammates who were just boasting of their friendship with that particular girl?  "Devil's Triangle" is not the common meaning of the phrase but a harmless quarters game and Kavenaugh isthe only one who's heard of it?

    Lying to Congress is disqualifying.


    Gang rape (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    I heard of parties where guys took turns with a drunk girl. It was  not called gang rape, but it would probably meet that definition.

    Personally, I went one time with my roommate to a bar with a wild "scene" when I was first out of law school.  It was fired-code-violation packed.  People drunk everywhere, people making out and more everywhere.   When we got back home, my roommate told me there was a girl who was so drunk, she cold barely stand up, and all the guys were feeling up her chest. My roommate laughed about it, saying "she was defenseless."

    I said to him he should be careful because that could meet the definition of sexu*l assault. He stopped smiling and grew grim.  It has stayed with me how this really cool guy and good friend could so easily do that without a second thought.

    Kavanaugh is ten times worse than my former roommate.


    The big picture is (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 01:54:06 PM EST
    Kavanaugh attended a number of parties where he and others were very drunk and rowdy.  He was not the nerdy church mouse and choir he had at first depicted.

    Occam's razor.  If you really want to believe Kavanaugh, you should consider the reverse (sorta)of what his supporters are saying about Ford--that she was assaulted but just mixed up who the attacked was.  So, using that same type of reasoning, then Kavanaugh could honestly not recall the event, but still have committed the assault, if he was drunk and could not recall because he passed out or had a black out, or cannot remember clearly.

    Just common sense.  

    But do Kavanaugh's supporters really believe that the alleged assault is enough to disqualify him? I submit, no.  They believe it was too long ago, boys will be boys, and she was not actually raped, so it is no big deal.  Right?  That is what you really believe, true?

    Why do his supporters not consider that possibility?  that would square the circle for many.


    I think in my opinion he fully remembers and does not care.


    It's impossible to know who's telling (2.00 / 3) (#46)
    by McBain on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    how much of the truth if any.   You're welcome to keep guessing but I haven't seen anything yet that would get in the way of me voting to confirm him if that's what I was going to do before these allegations surfaced.

    His Horrible Performance at the Thursday Hearing (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by RickyJim on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:24:05 PM EST
    would be enough for me to conclude that he shouldn't be a judge on the Supreme (or any) Court even if I like his approach to the law and find the sexual charges against him unconvincing.

    Personally (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:49:28 PM EST
    The fact he was a loutish drunk is not the point.  A point.  Not the point.

    The comment you replied to says something like 'its impossible to know the truth...'

    Which is just laughable.  Google devils triangle.

    If you actually believe, McBain, "Renate Alumni" means they just thought she was a really good friend you are even dumber than you seen.

    If he had said, as W did, when I was young and stupid I was young and stupid this would have been over very quickly.

    He didn't do that.  He lied.  And lied and lied.  Under oath.  And in the process he let the mask slip.  Everyone saw who he really is.

    And you are absolutely correct he should not be on the Supreme (or any) Court


    CaptHowdy: "If you actually believe, McBain, 'Renate Alumni' means they just thought she was a really good friend you are even dumber than you seen."

    ... if only Kavanaugh and his pals had gone to high school with Mary and Jeff Stone on "The Donna Reed Show."

    The biggest scandal would have likely been the episode where Mary's friend Renate accidentally agreed to attend junior prom with Brett, having momentarily forgotten that she had earlier promised to go with Brett's friend P.J.

    But Renate was such a swell gal, neither of the boys could stay mad at her for very long -- especially after her dad showed that there were no hard feelings by buying each of them a case of beer. Because Brett and P.J. really, really liked to drink beer.



    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    Powerful white male. There is never enough proof tohold back one of them....

    This again is not a job interview.  If you wpuld hire someone like that upu would mot be in business very long.


    This again is not a criminal prosecution (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 07:41:29 PM EST
    and is a job interview.

    None of the allegations would keep me from (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by McBain on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    hiring Kavanaugh for an important job position if he was well qualified.  

    So you're fine with ... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    ... a judge who's willing to lie under oath?



    I'm not (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 02:37:25 PM EST
    And thank you to all the lawyers in my life helping me understand why judges are revered.

    Now that I know why, I understand fully why Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court deligitimizes it.


    Ol' boys network (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 06:00:52 PM EST
    still alive, if one is to believe you.   And I have my doubts.  

    People don't hire risky people from my experience.  A whiff of an issue, and their on to the next resume.  Unless, of course the candidate is related to the President, etc.  


    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#116)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 08:55:53 AM EST
    you would be willing to employ someone who beat his wife everyday after work and locked is children in the basement so long as he was "well-qualified."

    The allegations (none / 0) (#198)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Oct 06, 2018 at 08:11:26 AM EST
    include most prominently that he lies under oath.

    No problems, eh?


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 03, 2018 at 10:30:43 PM EST
    According to Dr. Ford's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 05:04:22 PM EST
    allegation, Mark Judge was an accessory, and, maybe, even a co-principal in the attack, based on fact and degree.  The allegation has Judge aiding and abetting the act of Kavanaugh.  Often, the allegation is stated as Judge just being in the room--a witness only.  

    I am looking forward to reading the (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 05:20:23 PM EST
    future court opinions of Judge Kavanaugh dismissing all sorts of criminal charges on the ground that the sworn denial by the accused of committing a crime should preclude any further law enforcement questioning or investigation. I have quite a few clients who could benefit from that precedent.

    or maybe (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    he'd be a better judge for defendants' appeals now that he knows what it's like first-hand to be falsely accused of a crime. Maybe he would be more open to overturning a death sentence for a defendant with an innocence claim...(one can hope.)

    Does he have a record (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    of deploying empathy in his decisionmaking? I wasn't aware of that.

    Made me look (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    From scotusblog:

    Meanwhile, Kavanaugh sometimes rules for defendants, occasionally in surprising ways. Indeed, the opinion of Kavanaugh's that might be most surprising to his critics was filed in 2016's United States v. Nwoye. Kavanaugh's opinion, joined by Judge Harry Edwards and over the dissent of conservative Judge David Sentelle, strongly endorsed the admission of expert opinion on "battered women syndrome" and reversed a woman's conviction for extortion.
    The first published writing on criminal law by Kavanaugh that I found was a January 2007 concurrence in U.S. v. Henry, in which Kavanaugh joined Garland and Judge Karen Henderson in the reversal of a defendant's sentence in light of the Supreme Court's United States v. Booker decision.
    in November 2008 Kavanaugh wrote for a 2-1 panel, rejecting the government's appeal and affirming a no-jail sentence. Kavanaugh's opinion again addressed "the big picture of current sentencing jurisprudence" and stressed the "anomalous" point that after Booker, "judges have far more ... discretion in sentencing that they had pre-Booker."

    6. Many of Kavanaugh's rulings can be labeled "pro-defense": Although some court-observers fear that Kavanaugh's confirmation could drive the Supreme Court further to "the right," I found at least eight D.C. Circuit decisions -- in addition to the Nwoye "battered women syndrome" case mentioned above -- in which Kavanaugh wrote to join a "pro-defendant" ruling.


    ndeed, in a rare (for the D.C. Circuit) case involving a death-penalty defendant, Kavanaugh said this: "I believe it is essential for judicial and executive officials to ensure - particularly in death penalty cases - that claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence are property explored."

    I believe the implication is (none / 0) (#98)
    by McBain on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    going through this ordeal, might make have a positive effect on future legal decisions.  

    That's probablt what Kavanaugh was ... (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 02:14:54 PM EST
    ...referencing when he angrily stated "what comes around goes around."

    Nope (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    Kavanaugh's demeanaor during the hearing shows in my opinion that he carries grudges.  The Clintons are behind this?  

     He hates Democrats and the Left.  He will in my opinion get even if he gets on the Court.


    IMO (none / 0) (#123)
    by jmacWA on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    He showed that he is a pure partisan... he will never vote for anything that does not have strong GOP backing.  Every vote on anything that can be directly tied to something the Democrats want he will be against.  Definitely not SC material

    Apparently (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    He recently authored an opinion that said it was proper and legal for law enforcement to use a polygraph in things lik BG checks.

    Above the Law (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 06:52:16 PM EST
    Problem is (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    a reliable polygraph requires things that don't seem to be present in the one Ford took.

    Ford testified she was under time pressure and what most would consider stressful conditions when the polygraph was administered in a rented room.

    She was flying (even though she has a fear of flying) to and from her Grandmother's funeral and the polygraph was administered in a hotel room; not the office one would expect.


    None of those circumstance would (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    make it more likely for her to pass the polygraph; indeed, quite the opposite.

    True story (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:32:10 PM EST
    Back when I was a freelancer in NY in the 80s I sometimes took the odd retail job to supplement

    One of those was the Pink Pu$$y Cat in the west village.  It's an "adult" store.  It was sort of fun for a while.  Not really a long while.  Anyway at some point I had secured a real contract for work and at this exact time the PPC decided to polygraph all their employees.

    I was excited and fascinated.  Never having taken one.  I instantly decided that since I really could care less about the job I would see if I could "beat" it.  So I lied.  Too every question except the ones like "are you seated" and I passed with flying colors.

    I'm aware the fact I didn't care about the job helped.  

    But afterward I told the guy.  The tester.  He just shrugged.


    Yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by linea on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:48:08 PM EST
    Well, there it is. You proved it.
    I'm aware the fact I didn't care about the job helped.

    You know first-hand that it simply tests blood pressure (etc.) and other physical stress indicators. I guarantee given my prescriptions for Xanax and Propranolol (and others) that I most definitely would past a Poligraph test lying on every answer. I bet I could pass it without meds if I dropped my weight down low enough too! Barely a pulse, `pro-anna and pass a poligraph' ha ha. Just kidding.


    Truth is (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    As much as you do it you are not really a very good liar.

    A pretty bad one actually.  


    From what I understand (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    a polygraph gets a base level of how your body is responding and then measures how your body responds to questions compared to the base level.

    From what I know of the polygraph, in some part due to Ford's lawyers saying the details would only be released if the polygraph administrator was allowed to testify, is that Ford passing was only based on two questions which were a summary of her claims.  Again from what I understand a polygraph should include multiple questions, often repetitive, so you might be able to get away with the first lie but not get away with multiple lies.

    In any case if she was under stress I would assume any results would be questionable.


    You are an expert on polygraphs? (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    ALERT (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    Just be clear

    This is

    Revenge for the Clinton's


    The (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    fix is in
    The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI's investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.

    I said an investigation would not (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    Be allowed.

    We could start a pool on what comes next.

    I still say it end with more time with the family


    Still (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:07:37 PM EST
    How much will be be able to control?

    That's one thing.  But its already been explained that the world is going to meet the third and the connected alleged eye witnesses.  

    So there's that too.


    That's the thing (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    They know Kavanaugh is guilty of this. They've probably known for a long time. Everything they do just makes him look more guilty. The press is going to keep digging. It is going to get worse for Kavanaugh. He might make it on the court but like Jennifer Rubin said if the GOP doesn't do a thorough investigation the Dems will. It's going to be constant embarrassment for him if he makes it to the court. I wonder if it's possible he could even be disbarred from all this when the facts eventually come out. Then he would have to resign from the court I would think.

    What most offends Republicans ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    ... like Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn about the Kavanaugh scandal is not its underlying allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape. Rather, they're incensed that the general public even learned about the allegations in the first place.

    Yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    All true

    This is just "my opinion" but I do not think fig leaves will cut it.  For Flake or any of the group on his train.

    Flake is running for president  


    I guess (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:54:24 PM EST
    Flake thinks this is going to help him somehow. I'm not sure it does with anyone. His best bet would be for the Kavanaugh nomination to fail.

    I completely disagree (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 09:02:49 PM EST
    Ever since the elevator it's been the Jeff Flake show.  I was laughing out loud at the fawning news coverage of the whole thing.

    TODAY! At the GLOBAL CITIZEN FESTIVAL, which no, I did not watch but surfed last a time of two, guess who was on stage?

    Jeff Flake AND Jeff Coons.  Together.  Reliving the glory days of Flakes heroic grandstand

    Sen. Jeff Flake called a 'hero' at Global Citizen Festival

    A ticket??


    An independent ticket? (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 09:07:10 PM EST
    It's  not bad.  

    They won't get my vote but if a third party can't make inroads now it's never


    Chris Coons (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 08:44:53 AM EST

    Flake (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    will hit the jackpot if the FBI finds enough to derail the nomination.

    He will more or less break even if Kavanauh withdraws.

    His political future is toast if the FBI comes back with no definitive answers and he reverts to form and votes yes.


    I agree (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 08:10:03 AM EST
    I that

    That said (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    I don't think option 3 would stop him from trying.  It's been clear what the plan was for a while

    Flake is a snake.  A dangerous one.  And a skillful one.

    The good news is I would say an independent Flake candidacy would be hard to see as anything but a plus for us.


    Apparently the FBI started contacting (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:12:30 PM EST
    yesterday.  Perhaps they have already interviewed Avenatti's client.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:28:01 PM EST
    they are saying they are not going to interview her. I guess they are afraid of what she has to say.

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    Who is "they"?

    The white house or the FBI.  because there is a real possibility they may have differing agendas


    The press (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:34:18 PM EST
    but apparently the press got their information from the white house.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    sourcing does indeed seem to be entirely from the WH, totally suspect by now even from the very top levels(hello Kelley and Conway). IMO the tRump has devolved into a fiefdom with a weak and deranged figurehead king, with each lord fighting to protect and expand their turf with selective and deceitful leaks as one of their main weapons.

    From the article it is apparent that these alleged restrictions are the work of McGahn's office, not really surprising since there is no bigger fanboy of Kavanaugh. The bigger question is who narked him out?

    I was always(it's been a long 2 days) wary of this investigation  becoming somewhat of a sham with the time constraints and plenty of more nuanced "restrictions" from the WH However this seems ham handed and obvious and very detrimental to the search for the holy fig leaf. Nobody who was on Kavanugh's side would leak this.



    Flake and Coons (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    Are on 60 minutes.

    Hopefully (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 10:01:00 AM EST
    not as some BS bipartisan coverup for the latest sham.

    Her (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    involved appears to be specifically banned
    A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
    They are only interested in creating a fig leaf for Flake.

    Ah (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    "A white house official"

    See above


    A thought (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    If the White House does not want the FBI to ask about Kavanaugh's drinking at Yale he must have lied on one of his background checks about his drinking habits. I guess that would count as lying to the FBI and possible charges?

    Kavanaugh COLD OPEN (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 11:32:21 PM EST

    Cold (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 11:44:55 PM EST
    Matt Damon nailed it.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    "Ronan Sinatra."

    Please .. (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 08:10:53 AM EST
    ...stop saying Bill Cosby.

    The wife (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    Was perfect.  I could not stop looking at the wife.  It was so easy to imagine her in front of a mirror practicing

    Two facial expressions that have been stuck (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by vml68 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    in my head since the hearing - Kavanaugh's wife's expression and Lindsey Graham's.
    I am usually not easily intimidated but I honestly had trouble looking at Graham's face while we was shouting. I found it over the top aggressive and frightening. This kept coming to mind.

    New rules? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 08:41:06 AM EST
    Or perhaps suggested guidelines

    1.) Everybody, on both sides, stops involving Bill Cosby.

    2.) A moratorium on the use of the term "incredibly credible".

    May be updated.

    One thing I have noticed (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    For me at least Kavanaughs performance really does not age well.

    It's like every time I see it it's worse.

    Like we are so numbed to the crazy I was actually not able to fully process in the moment how completely fullbore batsh!t straight jacket bananas that really was.

    Like my brain was just out of the little peptide things that process crazy.

    But it's catching up.

    It seems worse every time I see it.

    I would be surprised if this is not a shared reaction.

    Trump wants a full investigation (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    As defined by the republican majority on the committee.

    He actually just said that.

    Former FBI Director Comey (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    has a delightfully wry style of writing, and conveys an important truth about real investigations:
    "F.B.I. agents know ... that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper."
    Per op-ed in NYT as quoted in WaPo.

    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    The only question is whether they'll be permitted to dig there or if someone's declared those issues "off limits".

    Do you think (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    Trump might right now be wishing the FBI didnt hate his fu@king guts?

    That be true. (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    trump says... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    "I've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh's file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week."

    This is going to be a problem.

    Maybe OT but here goes (none / 0) (#21)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:27:55 PM EST
    Ford seemed shocked when she was asked/informed during the hearing by Grassley about the offer from the committee to hold a private hearing at any time and location Ford wanted.  Her lawyer sorta chimed in something about attorney/client privilege.

    My understanding is that an attorney is suppose to pass on any reasonable offer to the client.  I also remember several MSM reports where Grassley was blabbling longly and loudly about the committee being willing to have a hearing anywhere and any time Ford wanted.

    In an earlier post I mentioned Ford seemed to have been in the DC area for at least a day or two before the hearing and most likely longer than that; possibley even while her lawyers were saying her fear of flying merited a delay of the time of the hearing.

    In any case it seems like either Ford is lying about not knowing about Grassley's offer or her lawyers are guilty of not passing on the offer to her while she was seculed somewhere with no contact to news.

    Maybe Peter G and Jeralyn could weigh in on what the responsibility of lawyers is in passing an offer to a client and what obligation lawyers have to bargain in good faith.

    Seems like I was right (none / 0) (#149)
    by ragebot on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 03:15:34 PM EST
    McConnell just gave a floor speech saying the Senate would investigate this;  since DiFi/her office advised Ford to contact particular lawyers; something which seems to not be in good form.  Graham has also said the Senate needs to investigate the lawyers and if they did not advise Ford about the offer to be interviewed on the West Coast they would ask for the lawyers to be disbarred.

    I am still wondering about where Ford was for the period just before the hearing.  Since she has already been busted for the fear of flying claim she may well have been in the DC area while her lawyers were claiming she needed a delay because flying to DC was not an option.

    Also have to wonder about her claim that she was not aware of the offer.  Anyone paying the slightest attention knew from MSM coverage that Grassley had made multiple offers to meet Ford any place and any time she wanted.  Unless she was pulling a Bodhi and riding the big ones at Bells Beach during the 50 year storm it is not easy to understand how she was not aware of Grassley's offer.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    Your comments are irrelevant.

    And, no one will be able to find out what the attorneys told their client.  All that is protected by the attorney client privilege

    But so standard GOP--go off on an irrelevant tangent.  How many times will the GOP manufacture a controversy about whether the staff polished the handrails on the Titanic?


    Something Does Need to be Explained (none / 0) (#162)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    Viz, What was going on between Feinstein's receiving Ford's letter dated July 31 with, "As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." and Sept. 12 when Feinstein forwarded the letter to the FBI.  Don't tell me you are not curious.  :-)

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    The issue is "are the allegations true," not how they became public.

    The only person with standing to complain about the letter becoming public is Dr. Ford.  If she is not complaining or asking for an investigation, then the others should let it drop.

    But the GOP is protesting way too much--to them the allegations should never have become public--and that sounds very much like Dr. Ford should have kept quiet.  Isn't that the GOP's overall reaction to these types of complaints--just sweep them under the rug, and please do not make them in the first place.


    Lies upon lies (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    McConnell just gave a floor speech saying the Senate would investigate this;  since DiFi/her office advised Ford to contact particular lawyers; something which seems to not be in good form.

    "Not in good form" - heh.  The party that doesn't want to investigate sexual assaults or lies under oath, but wants to investigate something they think is in poor taste.  Hey ... will you hire Emily Post, this time.

    BTW - Dr. Ford was not "busted" re: her fear of flying.  She gave a clear explanation about it.  Your boy Kavanaugh, OTOH, was busted lying to Congress numerous times about his inscriptions in his yearbook, at the very least.


    FOX News (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    blurb about the investigation suggests that the FBI would get Kavanaugh's calendar and test the ink and paper to see if it was really done in 1982 and not done recently.

    I am not sure if such a thing is possible but I wanna see that done.

    The calendar (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:10:49 AM EST
    actually backs up Ford's claims.

    The (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 07:00:52 AM EST
    July first entry might be key, witnesses might remember more when questioned about a specific date and time.

    Particularly so, in my experience, because (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 10:44:28 AM EST
    of the date's proximity to a holiday weekend. Dates with that kind of association (birthday, holiday, weather event, etc.) are more often recalled, it has seemed to me.

    A tweet this a.m. linked to (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    a newspaper article.  Maryland's law raising the drinking age to 21 from 18 went into effect July 1. Some kids were grandfathered in depending on date of birth.  Not Kavanaugh.

    What you fail to realize... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jmacWA on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 05:20:25 AM EST
    Is that he was grandfathered in with his FAKE id. :)

    Did Kavanaugh's fake ID ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    ... also include the alias "McLOVIN"?



    Sure, done all the time (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    Basic forensics in the Questioned Documents field.

    I declare under penalty of perjury! (none / 0) (#28)
    by linea on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    How does that work? You post something on Twitter and add that and magically it has some actual legal weight? Avenatti posted the statement from his `client' on Twitter. Doesn't it need to get filed in some legal manner? I seriously don't understand this.


    Yes, three exclamation points.

    Have you tried to read the statutes (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:16:08 PM EST
    that I linked, and that Jeralyn quoted nearly in full?

    And speaking of awesome bands (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 10:54:15 AM EST
    I was very sorry to see in this morning's paper that Marty Balin, founder and longtime leader of Jefferson Airplane (and later Starship), has died, at only 76 years of age.

    Damn (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    The creative tug of war between ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    ... Marty Balin on one side and Paul Kantner / Grace Slick on the other accounted for the band's artistic schizophrenia, as it careened between the hard rock edges of "Somebody to Love" and "White Rabbit" and the schmaltzy balladeering marshmallow that's "Miracles."

    But what I want to know is, who's responsible for the band's recording of "We Built This City," which is arguably the worst rock'n'roll song of all time?



    Wait a minute. What about (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    "MacArthur Park"? Dave Barry even wrote a well-researched and thoughtful book on this subject. And hilarious, of course.

    "MacArthur Park" is awful. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 11:34:13 PM EST
    It's also not a rock song. Frankly, I don't know what it is, save for cringe-worthy.



    With linea now gone (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    but certainly still on the payroll for someone, I'm sure she'll pop up at another blog to maintain her source of nut-induced foreign income!!!

    Seattle? cough cough

    Yes, three exclamation points (as a going away present)


    Gone? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 08:52:23 AM EST
    See Jeralyn's comment/announcement (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:55:20 AM EST
    Christine Blasey Ford's therapy (none / 0) (#47)
    by hardindr on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    Bob Somerby, who I have read for many years, had a post today that was very interesting.  In it, he notes that Tucker Carlson of Fox News asserted that Ford's memories of the alleged sexual assault on her by Judge Kavanaugh were recovered memories, which are notoriously unreliable and often of events that never occurred to the person that holds them.  I know that Jeanine Pirro of Fox News had also made an assertion that Ford had undergone hypnotherapy, but had offered not evidence to support this.  I have wondered exactly what kind of therapy Ford went through when she first brought up the alleged sexual assault.  I haven't been able to find any reliable reporting about this.  Has anyone read any?  If she went through therapy that was likely to cause the creation of recovered memories, like hypotherapy, then that to me would create great doubt as to whether her account is accurate.

    I was able to find the following articles after a quick google search:


    Given so much at stake based on one individual's 36-years-removed memory, and especially her reported dependence on the controversial practice of psychotherapy, Loftus seemed the perfect individual to speak to on the subject. Thankfully, granting the fact that there are so many factors we still don't know for certain, Loftus happily agreed to speak with me on Saturday about the Kavanaugh case and issues that can arise from relying on memory alone absent corroborating evidence.

    "I don't see evidence that this is a typical repressed memory case," Loftus said as we began our talk. "That doesn't seem to be the pattern here. What does seem to have happened, it appears as if in 2012, 30 years after she was in high school, or age 15, she is in marital counseling for some reason - we don't know what - and the topic comes up that she was assaulted by some boys in high school."

    "Why did that come up in marital therapy?" she continued while acknowledging that there seems to be evidence that Ford was assaulted by someone in some manner. "That would be something an investigation might reveal. We have no idea."

    A key, to Dr. Loftus, is when Ford eventually attached Kavanaugh's name to what happened to her in 1982.

    "I don't see any evidence that she said the name at that time [in 2012], so when did she attach the name of Brett Kavanaugh to the episode?" she wondered. "An investigation might reveal that she continued on in the therapy and that they developed in more detail, and it might reveal that - who knows - she looked at yearbooks and tried to identify anybody she might remember from the boys at Georgetown Prep. We just don't know."

    Of the possibility that the name could have been added later as a part of "memory recovery" psychological techniques, Loftus responded: "Possibly. It's just one possibility since we have incomplete information about this."

    Chris Hayes

    Dr Blasey Ford's account is that she always remembered and knew what happened to her from the moment it happened, but that she only told a therapist about it in 2012. That's quite different than a "recovered memory."

    Cathy Young

    What to make of the story so far? It is important to note that what Ford alleges is not a gray-area encounter where the lines between consent and coercion are blurred, but a violent attack. Dismissing it as "loutish behavior," as some conservatives have done, is wrong -- and I say this as someone who has criticized feminist attempts to conflate loutish behavior with rape.

    But there is also much we don't know. Ford has told The Washington Post that she came to terms with the trauma caused by the attack after going through psychotherapy. Were there elements of "recovered memory" in this process? It's possible that the real-life incident was more ambiguous than Ford now recalls, and that the therapy influenced her memories.

    If anyone else has seen any reporting about Ford's therapy, I would be interested in reading it.

    Elizabeth Loftus is frequently cited by (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 05:56:09 PM EST
    criminal defense attorneys.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#50)
    by hardindr on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    I am familiar with Loftus' work on memory, which is why I included her in my quotes.

    And eye witness ID. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:00:43 PM EST
    What would it (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    take to convince a Republican that Dr. Ford was telling the truth and Kavanaugh is not?   This is not a he said, she said; it is a he said, they said. And, the "they" includes TV viewers throughout America without MAGA hats blinding them and clogging their ears.

      Even if a thorough FBI investigation is allowed (and it appears that it will not be, which can be added to the obstruction of the confirmation process, according to reports that the White House has clapped down), the only  people in the room are the alleged victim, the alleged attacker and the alleged accomplice/possibly co-principal.  It would not be unusual for attacker(s) to deny; and it may be expected that Kavanaugh and Judge would  do so. Yes, the house, its floor plan, the guests, and the party date itself, could be verified.  Others at the party described by Dr. Ford, were unaware of what went on upstairs.

    We have enough right now to know, from Kavanaugh's confirmation records, and, his, screed on Thursday, that he is a liar and untrustworthy. And, based observation, likely an untreated alcohol abuser.  Enough to know that he is a political operative masquerading in black robes, who will  contaminate the institution of the Supreme Court.  Even a devastating FBI report, at this point, would be but toxic icing on the poisoned cake.  A vote will be "plowed through" on the day of the report's completion, with a yes vote that includes Saint Flake.  Talk about a con job.

    A Better Tack (none / 0) (#73)
    by RickyJim on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 10:16:41 PM EST
    would be to argue to Republicans that Kavanaugh has shown himself to lack judicial temperament.  That is much easier than trying to prove Ford's account of the incident in question.  I think a big issue for some Republicans now is how sure they are that they will retain control of the Senate next year.  If they are, they would be quite more willing to dump Kavanaugh and start the ball rolling on getting another conservative candidate through the process

    This may be a big shock (none / 0) (#190)
    by ragebot on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 09:56:12 PM EST
    but since I am a registered Democrat I can't directly answer your question about what it would take for a Republican.  For a lot of folks in the South you registered as a Democrat if you expected to vote in meaningful elections since no Republicans ran for anything.  While I realize things have changed I was/am simply too lazy to change my registration.

    Lots of things made me question Ford's credibility.  As I have posted several times the timing is suspect; and yes I have seen plenty of explanations.  I never understood why she did not respond to Grassley's offer to meet anywhere, any time, in private or public.  Her explanation in the hearing that she was not aware of the offer only served to confirm that there were problems with her credibility.  

    I also have lots of questions about what I will term her mental health and her and her doctors efforts to address it.  While I am aware of doctor/patient stuff she seemed to be happy to release parts while refusing to release everything.  Not to mention she threw her shrink under the bus and said the shrink made a mistake in her notes.

    I have also posted about how her fear of flying does not fly with me.  Ford seems fine flying to remote islands on long flights but has a problem flying to DC for a hearing.  That does not pass the smell test.

    There have been lots of claims that Kavanaugh was not telling the truth.  At first it was about the stuff related to when he was working for Bush and Starr.  Later it also included drinking, how certain terms were defined by high school students in the 1980s, if he was at a party with Ford and what happened at that party.  I suspect I have missed some.

    While you seem sure Kavanaugh was not telling the truth in all, or at least most, of those examples there are others who take the opposite view.

    One that really concerns me about your claim that

    And, based observation, likely an untreated alcohol abuser.

    is that all claims about him drinking to excess were long ago.  All six of the FBI investigations directly ask about alcohol abuse and none turned up anything to suggest he was an abuser.

    I would point that I have been diagnosed as having CDO (that is like OCD but in alphabetical order).  I am not a doctor but Kavanaugh seems to be an OCD type (something I view a lot of high achievers as having).  They are able to go to extremes in a particular area (be it good grade in law school or drinking beer) and then move on with life.  Someone like Kavanaugh seems to have been able to sift through what is good and what is bad and eliminate the bad.  No one is saying for the last 25 years he has been involved in anything like excessive drinking or poor treatment of women.

    While I was not an Obama fan I was more than willing to let it slide that Obama, by his own admission, smoked pot and drank in high school and used hard drugs in a limited manner in college.  The same goes for Kavanaugh.


    To be clear (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 10:00:27 PM EST
    The problem is not that he drank

    To the extent drinking is an issue at all its only that he repeatedly lied about it.

    And the fact that the "black out" part could be very relevant.  Which he also lied about


    Nope, Judicial Temperament is the Issue (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 03, 2018 at 08:45:09 AM EST
    More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation's highest court.
    Unlike the other stuff, his lack of it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Theology question (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    For someone better versed in these things.

    I have been noticing that every time the media uses this sort of dramatic end when that cracker Kennedy asked if he believed in God and then asked him to "swear to god" which he enthusiastically does they always edit out the "I swear to god" part.

    This surprised me since I found it, well, dramatic at least and I would expect them to use it.  They always cut it out.

    Is there an issue with swearing to god so literally.  

    Pretty well versed. But no clue. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    Matthew 5:34? (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    And of course, in some Jewish traditions you're not supposed to say or write "G-d" or utter or write the "name of G-d" at all.

    URBAN DICTIONARY (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    I was not really aware of this one...

    say i swear to god
    something you say to somebody when you don't really give a sh!t about their story. this is a phrase usually used when somebody else won't shut the fu@k up about something you don't give a fu@k about. you usually let them talk for a little while but when they get to the point of being annoying, that's when you tell them, "Say I swear to God." In short, it's just another way to let somebody else know you don't care. When you tell them to say "I swear to God," they usually get the message right away after saying "I swear to God," and shortly afterwards realizing that it means you don't care.

    This seems pretty clear (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    Jesus addressed the subject of oaths in the most influential sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:33-37, we read:

    Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.



    ... I'm always amazed by Jesus of Nazareth's fluency in medieval English.



    I thought I remembered (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    Swearing to god at some point as a child and being chided for it.  

    A literalist. How could I have missed this? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 12:27:59 PM EST
    Quaker theology has long adhered (none / 0) (#102)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    to this admonition from the Sermon on the Mount (as well as others). As a result, because there were a number of well-respected Quakers among the Founders of the American republic, the Framers included "swear or affirm" in each place in the Constitution that oaths (of office, etc.) are referred to. In U.S. Courts to this day, witnesses are asked to "swear or affirm" that they will tell the truth, to honor this scruple.

    Remember this (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 04:23:37 PM EST
    And btw (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:39:29 AM EST
    If they do this it's  all out war.  The calls for a democrat president and congress to increase the number of justices to 11 and pack it with democrats are going to go main stream
    Ask yourself,  after Garland and now THIS why on earth would they even hesitate to do whatever it takes.

    Parent | Reply to This


    Pack The Supreme Court

    So it's past time for liberals and the left to consider court packing: When they next have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, Democrats should add at least two new seats to the Supreme Court and then fill them, ideally, with left-wing, well-qualified women of color. They could even call it "court balancing."

    "Pack the courts as soon as we get the chance," tweeted Indiana University law professor Ian Samuel, the co-host of the popular Supreme Court podcast "First Mondays," on the the day Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court in June. "`Pack the courts' should be a phrase on par with `abolish ICE.'"

    This might sound extreme, but it isn't. The Constitution allows for Congress to decide the number of Supreme Court justices. "There is nothing magical about the number nine," HuffPost's Zach Carter observed in June. "The court was founded in 1789 with just six justices and has included as many as 10, from 1863 to 1866 -- when a Republican legislature intentionally shrank the court size to seven justices to prevent President Andrew Johnson from making any appointments."

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    However, I would increase the number to 13.  There are 13 federal appellate courts sitting under the Supreme Court.  Each Supreme Court justice oversees an appellate court, so at present, some justices have responsibility for more than one.  With the growth of the country, it would be reasonable to have one Supreme Court justice for each Court of Appeals. Thirteen would be a manageable number. And, given the circumstances, critical to the future of the country.

    I am interested but (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 06:20:30 PM EST
    This to me seems like the ultimate nuclear option.

    Cautious for that reason to advocAte a thing so monumental I don't really understand all the implications.

    All that said, if they confirm Kavanaugh I am 100% onboard.  


    The hubris here is pretty unbelievable (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    Frank Figliuzzi and other former FBI are saying Trump is lying about the "investigation".

    How can they think this will fly.  By the end of the day the written orders the FBI received will be public.

    This is painful to watch.  And at this point is becoming a win win for us.  

    I really think if they confirm him without a real investigation it will be better for us politically than if there is no vote.

    A failed vote would drive up red turnout.  Especially in red states against democrats.  A successful vote will turn a wave into a tsunami

    A withdrawal would I think mostly hurt republicans especially if it's to late to put up another which seems the plan.

    Give republicans no other choice but to vote up or down.

    Sorry, should say (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    will be better for us politically than if there is A no vote.

    Fear not, (none / 0) (#118)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    Fear not as there will be new accusers along about Thursday.

    BTW, the link below contains a summary if detail made by the Senate lawyer regarding Ford's credibility.  


    She (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    IS a hired gun for the Repugs
    She was NOT allowed to question Kavanugh in depth.
    She makes NO mention of Kavanaugh's highly evasive and combative answers to direct questions and his laughable explanations for damaging evidence against him.

    What reputable prosecutor or investigator would make such a determination when only one witness was interviewed?


    Dolores Umbridge (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    Yes, Rachael Mitchell, the (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    hapless "female assistant", as McConnell described her upon hiring, appears to be attempting to salvage her reputation.  An uphill climb after her cheesy line of questioning that ended up becoming a bridge to nowhere.  

    Ms.Mitchell's assessment on prosecution of Kavanaugh belies her understanding of a confirmation hearing.

    She was not much better if she thought she was hired as a prosecutor--proceeding with little time for preparation, with investigation inadequate to any facsimile of such.

    It may be that she does not want to acknowledge that she was hired by the Republicans for the purpose of giving embarrassment protection to the  "Mad Men" era Republican line-up.  However, she was whisked away, without explanation, during the Kavanaugh questioning period, preventing her from continuing---curiously at a point where she was touching on that July 1 entry in Kavanaugh's "exculpatory" calendar.


    She likes beer (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    RawStory (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    Why should Ford get a free pass (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    from scrutiny?  Everything Kavanaugh has said has been examined, criticized or mocked.  Why isn't it OK to take a critical look at what she said?

    Do people really care if Kavanuagh was a big drinker in high school or college? I don't think so.  People want to know if he was involved in inappropriate, possibly criminal sexual behavior. Since Ford is accusing him of exactly that, I think it's fair to take a closer look at her story.

    I found this part of Mitchell's memo interesting...

    Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
    • No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
    • No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
    • Dr. Ford's husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in
    2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh's name was widely reported in the press as a
    potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
    * In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

    I'd like to know how accurate delayed disclosures are?  


    Maybe Grassley will form a commission (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    To figure out just how accurate delayed disclosures are.

    I have an idea, ask the Vatican


    struggle?? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    Dr Ford did not struggle to identify Kav by name...she just didn't want to name him. That statement in itself invalids Mitchell's other claims.

    Right. Struggle. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:57:25 AM EST
    As if the therapists had been doing all they could to wheedle a name out of Dr Ford all that time.

    Like that's their job.


    Besides (none / 0) (#132)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    What about Kav's depiction of the "I don't recall" comments of witnesses as confirming that they didn't happen? This wasn't a delayed disclosure either...it just happened!

    Making the SCOTUS an openly partisan court will severely damage this country and make a Constitutional crisis in the near future inevitable.


    What Was She Asked to Do? (none / 0) (#130)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    Before you pile on so hard on prosecutor Mitchell, it should be known what question she was answering.  What does her contract say?  I agree with her that based on what has come out so far, no reasonable prosecutor would indict Kavanaugh for what he has been charged by Ford.  Maybe an unreasonable prosecutor like Angela Corey would.  Was she even asked to evaluate Kavanaugh's suitability for serving on the SC, based on his Thursday performance?

    No reasonable prosecutor (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    would prefer charges without first ensuring a full and complete investigation that includes interviewing all the witnesses who might corroborate (or refute) the victim's complaint or who might disprove (or corroborate) the suspect's overwrought but unwisely detailed denials. However, most police forces today would make an arrest on the victim's confident complaint alone, if the accusation was within the statute of limitations.

    How do you define (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ragebot on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    'confident complaint'?  I doubt today any LEO anywhere  would arrest anyone if a vic said sometime over thirty years ago (and no way to be more specific) at a location some where (again no way to be more specific) with some, but maybe not all people there, identified there was some type of physical/sexual assault; especially if alcohol was involved.  Over at VC there was an interesting analysis of What Maryland calls "misdemeanors" is very different from what other states do.

    That is a big part of the problem with Ford's story.  When so much time has passed and some, but not all, of the laws have been changed every DA/SA I know of would run from a case like this in a hurry.

    Another big consideration is Ford's actions since she first contacted her congresswoman.  Hiring a lawyer at the behest of DiFi, taking a polygraph test, and having multiple GoFundMe pages totaling North of $US1,000,000 would raise questions in most LEOs minds.


    You really (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    need to quit reading wingnut welfare. There was one Go Fund Me page that was real. There's always people running scam go fund me pages that have nothing to do with anything but using an event to gain money for themselves.

    Anyway, NBC news is now out with Kavanaugh witness tampering.


    here (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 05:27:35 PM EST
    Which is interesting (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:06:10 PM EST
    Among other reasons because in his testimony he said he did not know about this allegation when the alleged tampering happened

    More (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    than interesting, if this verifies it's slam dunk perjury
    Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez's allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

    Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez's allegations. Kavanaugh answered: "In the New Yorker story."

    not that it will be disqualifying in the eyes of the Republicans.

    I always thought the Yale story would be more problematic for Kavanaugh, too many liberal eye witnesses.


    It will (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    definitely test Flake's statement if he lied to us he is done.

    First of all ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    ... you don't speak for most LEOs.  More importantly, what an LEO would do is irrelevant - this is a job interview and not a criminal prosecution.

    But you already knew that.


    That is Outrageous (none / 0) (#139)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    but unfortunately true.  As we have discussed several times previously, I think nobody should be indicted for an offence until after a hearing before a neutral judge who can ask the police to obtain additional evidence.

    How many elected DAs would permit one of (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    his/her prosecutors to accept this role?

    Maricopa county (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    I like beer (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    do you like beer? Does Rachel Mitchel like beer? Only if Republicans are buying.
    The day after the hearing, Mitchell was reportedly in good spirits while celebrating with Grassley's staff.

    "She was laughing and tossing back beers with Grassley's staff at Union Pub on Friday,

    We can safely assume she wasn't assaulted
    After having drinks with Grassley's staff, Mitchell sent Judiciary Republicans a five-page memo claiming a "reasonable prosecutor" would not pursue Ford's case.

    I'm sure she only had one. (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    What (none / 0) (#148)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    no ralphing?

    Maybe. Nashville Hot Wings on the menu, (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 03:29:15 PM EST
    sounds super spicy!

    Were Grassley staffers playing Devil's Triangle (none / 0) (#156)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 05:42:33 PM EST
    with Mitchell?  Y'know, that Republican drinking game. . . .

    Flake is speaking (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    So far if I understand he is voting yes on Kavanaugh and looking HARD for an excuse.

    Mealy mouthed mother f'ker

    Here's a prediction (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    Before the end of the week Flake is going to have a close encounter in an elevator or elsewhere with ACTUAL victims

    Which was not in his plan I'm thinkin


    Being reported (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    New expanded orders given to the FBI

    The White House has authorized the F.B.I. (none / 0) (#145)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week, two people briefed on the matter said on Monday.

    "The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason," Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. "But they should also be guided, and I'm being guided, by what the senators are looking for."

    Only Sexual Misconduct? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    So no investigation of possible perjury?

    The FBI needs (none / 0) (#179)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:19:34 PM EST
    to reclaim the lost weekend---lost to deception and   fraud. Flake and Collins will surely ask for a three day extension as well as penalty days.

    Trump was (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    surprised by how vocal Kavanaugh was about "difficulty" with drink, and things that happened when he drinks.   Surprised by all the beer talk.  Of course, Kavanaugh neither said nor admitted to a difficulty with drink, he just likes beer--a lot, and says so a lot, then and now, and would like to know if Democratic senators do as well.  

    Swetnick being interviewed on MSNBC (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    Doesn't seem either nutty or slu++y

    Honestly.  I'm starting to think they should confirm him.  


    Julie Swetnick, in her first broadcast television interview since accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, told NBC News national correspondent Kate Snow she couldn't be sure that Kavanaugh was one of the boys who assaulted her during a party in the 1980s.

    Weren't Her Allegations (none / 0) (#167)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    that Kavanaugh and Judge were spiking the girls'drinks and Kavanaugh was in the lineup as the boys were taking turns?  And of that she is certain?

    confusion over her statements.
    Before airing the interview, [NBC's] Snow said: "NBC News, for the record, has not been able to independently verify her claims. There are things she told us on camera that differ from her written statements last week."

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:53:57 PM EST
    Her interview was not heavy on facts dates etc.

    So in general as I said you just have to look and listen and decide if you think she is a nut or a slu+ or a liar.

    She didn't really strike me as any of those things.  And while specifics were not the strong point she is alleging some pretty horrific things.

    I suggest watching it for yourself.

    Otoh at the rate news is breaking you could probably find more "incredible credible" stories.


    I Watched (none / 0) (#185)
    by RickyJim on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    The two things that have to be pursued before one can come to a conclusion:
    1. The police report she said she filed after being "violated".  MSNBC says the police told them it might take a month to find.
    2. Corroboration.  Swetnick gave four names to MSNBC who she said saw the same things she saw.  One is dead, one denies and two haven't replied.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    I watched it.  

    No (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    it will further enable them, it will just be another in a long line of outrageous thing they get away with. What's next, bomb Iran, cancel the elections? WTF knows with this gang, I just know that if the nomination goes through my paranoia goes up.

    You are right of course (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 07:08:49 PM EST
    I can't help gaming it out.  And in my game out they are so screwed if they confirm him.

    1. Impeachable

    2. If the yahoos lose they are going to be on fire.  Turn out will go up.  I completely disagree with the idea turnout on the right would be more if he is confirmed.  

    3. If he is confirmed opponents will be ON FIRE.  
    I really really think if they shove this guy thru after ALL this there will be the literal mother of all backslashes.

    4. See 1.  And add if they go after Kavanaugh there is going to be calls to go after Thomas.


    I (none / 0) (#175)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    think impeachment is a long shot, no matter what happens in November, barring an indisputable smoking gun, there will not be the votes in the Senate to convict.

    Even if a smoking gun exists and the blue wave happens, the Dems won't be able to get a proper investigation started until the middle of January.

    I suppose the best case scenario would be for the Senate goes 50-50 (forcing Pence to vote yes) then have the true smoking gun dropped a week or two before the election.


    I don't want him confirmed (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    But I do worry about how a loss would inflame the right.  

    The right's already inflamed. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:46:38 PM EST
    But even more so, Democratic voters are incensed. The Kavanaugh nomination is proving to be incendiary. From the Washington Post:

    " The number of Republican voters who say they're more enthusiastic than usual about voting is 59 percent. Which is much like it was in previous wave years for the GOP. What's different this year is Democratic voters. In 2010, 42 percent said they were more enthusiastic than usual; in 2014, it was 36 percent. But this year it's 67 percent, a jump of more than 30 points from the last midterm."

    The driving force behind this surge is women, particularly black woman and college-educated white women. And when the normally circumspect Sen. Mazie Hirono is dropping the F-bomb in news interviews, yeah, I'd say women are royally pi$$ed.



    I don't think you have seen the right (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 10:01:12 PM EST
    Inflamed until he goes down.

    They are being led they believe this all for show and Kavanaugh is all but confirmed

    I will enjoy seeing them lose their minds as much as any one.  But they will lose their minds.


    Republicans have maxed out and hit their ceiling. Democrats have not. When Democrats turn out, Democrats win.

    And that's always been our problem. Republicans fall in line, whereas Democrats think they have to fall in love first. Republicans may be bat-guano crazy, but they show up on Election Day, even if it's only for the local school board. We do not, unless we're inspired to do so.

    But this year, I daresay we're inspired. Big time.


    I think (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    with impeachment of Kavanaugh it would be something obvious like losing his license to practice law. You can't be on the supreme court I would think without a law license. I don't know. We've got legal eagles here who would know about that type of thing. But I would certainly say he could be charged for perjury or lying to congress. Kavanaugh's case seems to be pretty open and shut on that account.

    Abe Fortas (none / 0) (#178)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:17:57 PM EST
    resigned from the court after pressure from his colleagues and the public.  He had be charged with trying to get Lyndon Johnson to pardon a convicted felon friend of his, years before.  The evidence was not overwhelming but he decided to throw in the towel after a while.  So impeachment is not the only way.

    I do not believe there is any (none / 0) (#180)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:28:47 PM EST
    requirement that a Supreme court justice be a lawyer. So I don't see how a law license would be a requirement to serve.

    Just for the record, there is no formal (none / 0) (#181)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:38:04 PM EST
    requirement anywhere that to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, you have to be lawyer, or a member of the Bar. Of course, it's only common sense, since resolving difficult legal problems is what they do. But there are no rules establishing  minimum qualifications. That said, apparently every justice since the first (John Jay) has been a lawyer, and rightly so.

    So if he (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 05:30:09 AM EST
    was disbarred he could not serve on the supreme court?

    No one has said that, GA6 (none / 0) (#186)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    If under some fantasy scenario Kavanaugh were to be disbarred, I would imagine he would resign from the Court, either the D.C. Circuit, where he presently sits, or the Supreme Court if he were to have been confirmed for service there. But no, there is no rule that says he "could not serve on the Court."

    A Serious Scenario (none / 0) (#172)
    by RickyJim on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    Friday, Mitch forces a Senate vote of Kavanaugh's nomination.  K goes down by 51-49.  Next week Trump nominates somebody else recommended by the Federalist society (probably female) and orders an expedited FBI background check so hearings can start by the end of October.  The nominee gets confirmed in November.  Well we tried. :-)

    Every day we delay this (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    You get the idea

    Flakey (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    Is saying very promising things.  With that and 3 bucks, a coffee can be yours.

    Here's what I think, if Flake has decided to run as an independent, as it seems, he will NOT vote for Kavanaugh.

    He knows the "base" already hates him.  Which is why he won't run as a republican.  He needs a new base.

    If, then, will others join him.  I think so.  Only one other is needed.

    I think Flakey (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    might be had on honesty.

    Murkowski is not happy about Kavanaugh's opinions on native Alaskans.  She cold give two sh*ts about Primary challenges.  She has already beat one.

    Collins will pretend again to be unknowingly bamboozled, but as you point out, she may not be needed.


    I was thinking (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 02, 2018 at 04:55:51 PM EST
    Murkowski too.

    But if they peal off I think there could be others.


    Flake being had on honesty.  Assuming he would know it if it punched him in his big crooked nose.


    They haven't even begun (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 03, 2018 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    To be confronted by women.

    Last week was just the warm up.


    new thread is up on this topic (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 04, 2018 at 01:10:56 PM EST