General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKavanaugh was behind Ken Starr's inquisition about oral sex (NYT)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-clinton-impeachment.htmlThe Partisan Battle Brett Kavanaugh Now Regrets
By Michael D. Shear and Adam Liptak
Aug. 4, 2018
....
The atmosphere inside the independent counsels office grew even more intense as it became clear that Mr. Clinton would testify in the Lewinsky case, and that Mr. Starr was determined to send an impeachment report to Congress.
As prosecutors prepared for their face-off with Mr. Clinton in August, Mr. Kavanaugh took a hard line in urging relentless and detailed questioning of the president, according to two people in Mr. Starrs office who recalled a memo Mr. Kavanaugh sent urging the use of explicit questions during the interview.
The president has disgraced his office, the legal system and the American people by having sex with a 22-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle, Mr. Kavanaugh wrote in the memo, according to a 2010 book, The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr.
In the memo, Mr. Kavanaugh added that Mr. Clinton had attacked the Starr team with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush.
Unless Mr. Clinton resigned or admitted to perjury and publicly apologized to Mr. Starr, Mr. Kavanaugh wrote, he should be asked detailed questions based on Ms. Lewinskys testimony about oral sex, masturbation and the like.
If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying? was one of the questions Mr. Kavanaugh suggested.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Questioning because we know he wont be consistent.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)"So Ms. Daniels mentioned that Mr. Trump was wearing what they call 'tighty whities'. Now given what you suggested Mr. Clinton be asked, I'm sure you would support us asking if Mr. Trump's tighty whities had dribble stains on the front?"
lapfog_1
(29,217 posts)that provided Clinton a definition of sex that made sure NOT to include anything that he and Lewinski actually did...
giving Clinton the opportunity to claim "I did not have sex with that woman..."
Whereas most if not all of America would think that he did have sex with her and that he was lying to the public.
Not excusing what he did...
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The Wapo did a big article about that last week.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Franken would take this information and grill the SOB with it. That's why they took him out.
Butterflylady
(3,546 posts)Franken was their biggest threat. I can only hope Mueller will nail his a** to the wall and put in jail where that piece of slime belongs.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)Former U.S. Senator Al Franken
July 13 at 9:21 PM ·
When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions Id love to see him answer.
1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. Id like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think its proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?
Hell say no, of course.
2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?
3. And would you agree that its important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?
This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, Id turn to an issue thats received a bit of attentionbut not nearly enough.
4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldnt you agree?
5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. Did I quote you correctly?
This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Posts Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nations highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the countrys most important legal and factual claims.
It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.
6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?
If he says that he doesnt, Id skip down to Question 22. But, if he wont take it back, Id want to pin him down.
7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?
8. So, today, you are telling the American peopleunder oaththat it is your determination that [n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.
9. And that determinationit wouldnt be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?
10. And its not based on any personal bias, is it?
11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?
12. Was it a full and fair understanding of the facts?
Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, Id skip down to Question 22. But if not, Id continue with
13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?
14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?
Of course he doesnt.
15. Of course you dont. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the factsisnt that right?
16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.
17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?
18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?
19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selectionwhereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?
20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion thatand Ill quote it againNo president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination?
21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?
Then Id try to sum it up.
22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?
23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination?
By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, Id ask where it came from.
24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?
25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?
I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.
And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and Im sure theyre workshopping answers at this very moment.
But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. Its just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesnt care that its false. And if youre sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?
More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.
In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They dont make law, they interpret it. They dont create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.
The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholarbut he wouldnt have been on that list if he werent committed to the right-wing cause.
Thats why its critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course thats what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what hes there to do.
When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.
Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independenceand what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaughs nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaughs confirmation hearingeven if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.
NNadir
(33,538 posts)Boomerproud
(7,961 posts)We are all poorer for his not being in the public domain.
renate
(13,776 posts)He is so damn smart and a truly good guy.