• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

Wrangor thinks she’s lying. Angus says whatabout. Junebug writes three paragraphs of legalese that distills down to pubs good dems bad. Lectro mashes the crayon further up his nose and heads to The Donald for further instruction
 
My thoughts on this subject are probably a little different than most, for good reason. In December of 2003, at the tender age of 28, I was accused of sexually assaulting an intern in our office. She was very specific as to when and what happened. Stated it was something she would never get over. An investigation followed. I was interviewed. She was further interviewed. Other co-workers were interviewed. Luckily for me, on the night she indicated the event happened, I was in another town at a work function. I had multiple witnesses step up and say this. Upon being questioned and this pointed out to her, she changed the date of the occurrence. More investigation, more interviews. Date number 2 ended up being a date in which I was at a friend's birthday party, a party she was not at. Again, she is interviewed, a second time says she must have gotten the date wrong and said a third date. We are now into March, investigation, interviews. Date number 3 ends up being another travel day for work. Not possible I could have done it. With her credibility finally shot, in April she finally admits she made it up in order to get me fired because she wanted my job. Oddly she isn't fired, but within a month leaves.

As of right now, I do not think Kavanaugh should deny his nomination (unless he knows he really did this). However, I don't think the vote should occur until an investigation is held. As long as she says he did it and he says he didn't, both deserve an investigation.

I am sorry you had to undergo such an ordeal. I also really appreciate your rational opinion on the SCOTUS nomination.
 
I have studied each instance of his so-called lies and I am not convinced. Several are not even worth comment, and for the one that comes closest—the stolen memos—his denials are plausible.

If I thought he had lied under oath, I would not support his nomination.

You'd come up with another excuse like you have here. There's no doubt he lied about not seeing the stolen Dem memos or about his participation in the torture discussions.
 
Can Junebug, or wrangor or angus or even lectro explain to me:

1) What is the problem with delaying a week to organize a proper hearing on this issue or a do an investigation?

2) Why not just withdraw Kav's nomination and put forward a different abortion hating, gun loving nominee? Kav can't be the only on paper qualified conservative justice.

and show an ounce of contrition?

in 2018, every political situation comes down to this:

 
My thoughts on this subject are probably a little different than most, for good reason. In December of 2003, at the tender age of 28, I was accused of sexually assaulting an intern in our office. She was very specific as to when and what happened. Stated it was something she would never get over. An investigation followed. I was interviewed. She was further interviewed. Other co-workers were interviewed. Luckily for me, on the night she indicated the event happened, I was in another town at a work function. I had multiple witnesses step up and say this. Upon being questioned and this pointed out to her, she changed the date of the occurrence. More investigation, more interviews. Date number 2 ended up being a date in which I was at a friend's birthday party, a party she was not at. Again, she is interviewed, a second time says she must have gotten the date wrong and said a third date. We are now into March, investigation, interviews. Date number 3 ends up being another travel day for work. Not possible I could have done it. With her credibility finally shot, in April she finally admits she made it up in order to get me fired because she wanted my job. Oddly she isn't fired, but within a month leaves.

As of right now, I do not think Kavanaugh should deny his nomination (unless he knows he really did this). However, I don't think the vote should occur until an investigation is held. As long as she says he did it and he says he didn't, both deserve an investigation.

Uggghhh. That sucks, man. Sorry that happened to you.
 
My thoughts on this subject are probably a little different than most, for good reason. In December of 2003, at the tender age of 28, I was accused of sexually assaulting an intern in our office. She was very specific as to when and what happened. Stated it was something she would never get over. An investigation followed. I was interviewed. She was further interviewed. Other co-workers were interviewed. Luckily for me, on the night she indicated the event happened, I was in another town at a work function. I had multiple witnesses step up and say this. Upon being questioned and this pointed out to her, she changed the date of the occurrence. More investigation, more interviews. Date number 2 ended up being a date in which I was at a friend's birthday party, a party she was not at. Again, she is interviewed, a second time says she must have gotten the date wrong and said a third date. We are now into March, investigation, interviews. Date number 3 ends up being another travel day for work. Not possible I could have done it. With her credibility finally shot, in April she finally admits she made it up in order to get me fired because she wanted my job. Oddly she isn't fired, but within a month leaves.

As of right now, I do not think Kavanaugh should deny his nomination (unless he knows he really did this). However, I don't think the vote should occur until an investigation is held. As long as she says he did it and he says he didn't, both deserve an investigation.

sorry to hear it...
 
The smart move, given two opportunities (one stolen) and the inevitable challenges to limit or overturn abortion rights (etc.) would have been to nominate at least one woman.


I think Trump saw and sees Kavanaugh as more than merely some conservative judge. He probably sees him as his likely personal protector if he can push this through...which seems likely.
 
Really good article on Vox today: Kavanaugh and Trump are part of a larger crisis of elite accountability in America

This part is fantastic:

There’s a strange dimension to the Republican campaign to push through Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, on top of a credible accusation of sexual assault from his days in high school, which Kavanaugh denies. It’s their insistence that he is “one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees to come before the Senate,” as Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley put it. “His credentials are well known.”

But what are these qualifications and credentials? An honest look at his career shows that it’s extraordinarily undistinguished.

Born into a privileged family that was well-connected in Republican Party politics, Kavanaugh coasted from Georgetown Prep, where he was apparently a hard partier, into Yale, where he joined the notoriously hard-partying secret society Truth & Courage, and then on to Yale Law School.

Soon after graduating, he got a gig working for independent counsel Ken Starr — a plum position for a Republican lawyer on the make because the Starr inquiry was supposed to take down the Clinton administration. Instead, it ended up an ignominious, embarrassing failure, generating an impeachment process that was so spectacularly misguided and unpopular that Democrats pulled off the nearly impossible feat of gaining seats during a midterm election when they controlled the White House.

Kavanaugh clerked for Alex Kozinski, an appeals court judge who was well known to the lay public for his witty opinions and well known to the legal community as a sexual harasser. When the sexual harassment became a matter of public embarrassment in the wake of the #MeToo movement, Kavanaugh professed to have simply not noticed anything amiss — including somehow not remembering Kozinski’s dirty jokes email distribution list.

Despite this inattention to detail, Kavanaugh ended up in the George W. Bush White House, playing a critical behind-the-scenes role as staff secretary to an administration that suffered the worst terrorist attack in American history, let the perpetrator get away, invaded Iraq to halt the country’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program, and destroyed the global economy.

Kavanaugh then landed a seat on the DC Circuit Court, though to do so, he had to offer testimony that we now know to have been misleading regarding his role in both William Pryor’s nomination for a different federal judgeship and the handling of some emails stolen from Democratic Party committee staff. On the DC Circuit, he issued some normal GOP party-line rulings befitting his career as a Republican Party foot soldier.

Now he may end up as a Supreme Court justice despite never in his life having been involved in anything that was actually successful. He has never meaningfully taken responsibility for the substantive failures of the Starr inquiry or the Bush White House, where his tenure as a senior staffer coincided with both Hurricane Katrina and failed Social Security privatization plan as well as the email shenanigans he misled Congress about, or for his personal failure as a bystander to Kozinski’s abuses.

He’s been a man on the make ever since his teen years, and has consistently acted with the breezy confidence of privilege. As he told Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep,” though the line was mysteriously omitted from the written transcript of the speech given to Congress.

The article then goes further with how Donald Trump has earned a rap sheet that would make Capone blush but has largely been able to move on unfettered in his "business" endeavors, how elite members of society get to act how they want but then turn around and demand that all others be held accountable for their actions, and finally how #MeToo can challenge this status quo and possibly force elites to some sort of accountability.
 
Man, between that Vox article and the Whelan debacle, I don’t understand how conservatives can say with a straight face that this feels like the right thing to do (push him through). Our system is severely broken.
 
Glad you are keeping an open mind too.

i meant broadly, as in "this nomination is turning into a circus and maybe was a bad idea. we could probably score an easy win but we can't possibly admit he's a flawed choice"
 
Really good article on Vox today: Kavanaugh and Trump are part of a larger crisis of elite accountability in America

This part is fantastic:



The article then goes further with how Donald Trump has earned a rap sheet that would make Capone blush but has largely been able to move on unfettered in his "business" endeavors, how elite members of society get to act how they want but then turn around and demand that all others be held accountable for their actions, and finally how #MeToo can challenge this status quo and possibly force elites to some sort of accountability.

Yep. He’s a mediocre rich white guy is being rewarded for carrying water for other mediocre rich white guys.

Why not just find someone who actually worked their way up the ladder instead of drinking and networking?
 
Can Junebug, or wrangor or angus or even lectro explain to me:

1) What is the problem with delaying a week to organize a proper hearing on this issue or a do an investigation?

2) Why not just withdraw Kav's nomination and put forward a different abortion hating, gun loving nominee? Kav can't be the only on paper qualified conservative justice.

P. sure the Constitution says you have to get the nominee out of committee before a few weeks, else you have one of those crises we keep hearing about.
 
The judiciary committee is conducting an investigation. The vote on confirmation has already been delayed to allow that to occur.

We shouldn’t get into the business of destroying people’s political careers over vague and uncorroborated allegations. If her testimony is compelling and Kavanaugh’s is not, he should either be voted down or withdrawn.

1) What's the rush with investigation though, why not take a couple weeks to make sure this is thoroughly investigated? It only has to be "he said / she said" if we rush to a hearing on Monday.

2) Will his career really be ruined? He still has a lifetime appointment on the DC Circuit court, right?
 
I have studied each instance of his so-called lies and I am not convinced. Several are not even worth comment, and for the one that comes closest—the stolen memos—his denials are plausible.

If I thought he had lied under oath, I would not support his nomination.

Oh good, you’re back. Now that you’ve carefully studied each instance perhaps you can respond to this post now:

Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
When you look back through the records, keep in mind that giving an opinion in 2001 as to the legality of a program does not mean he knew the program was implemented in 2002.

He wasn’t asked whether he knew the program had been implemented. Here’s the relevant text

Senator Leahy. Did you see documents relating to the
President's NSA warrantless wiretapping program?
Mr. Kavanaugh. Senator, I learned of that program when
there was a New York Times story--reports of that program when
there was a New York Times story that came over the wire, I
think on a Thursday night in mid December of last year.
Senator Leahy. You had not seen anything, or had you heard
anything about it prior to the New York Times article?
Mr. Kavanaugh. No.
Senator Leahy. Nothing at all?
Mr. Kavanaugh. Nothing at all.

Do you think that Kavanaugh believed he had not “seen or heard anything” about the program when he gave that answer?

Do you think the one email we have seen is the only document that exists showing Kavanaugh had knowledge of the program?
 
So he’s unqualified because he worked for Starr and Bush in his 20s and 30s and they were failures despite the fact he clerked for Kennedy and has spent 12 years distinguishing himself on the second highest court in the land since his early 40s. Sound.

It’s almost like you didn’t read the article.
 
He's unqualified because he lied to the committee and to senators.
 
Back
Top