Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that Kavanaugh hasn't withdrawn just shows how desperate he is. he needs to hide out in the Supreme Court for life because no one will hire him with all those abuse and alcohol allegations.

He may not be teaching at Harvard next semester but he still has a day job.

Rejected by Harvard. Don't they know HE WENT TO YALE! Of all the nerve! I don't think he's going to have his other day job. He is damaged goods.

in principle, the same allegations that could keep him off the court could cause him to be removed from his current position.

Realistically no, because the standards are different. Federal judges are removed by impeachment, which requires in a trial in which the charges against them must be proven. That's not required in the advice and consent process for confirming a nominee, senators can look at everything they've learned about the nominee during the confirmation process and decide in a holistic way whether they feel the candidate is fit for confirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone got more info on those possibly proving perjury texts that BK's old Yale classmate, now Aiken, Gump partner, has highlighted?

I've only seen the NBC reports and people talking about the NBC report. The critical part is that Kavanaugh swore that he hadn't heard about the Ramirez allegations until September 23 and, yet, the texts seem to show that he was preparing a defense to those allegations in July.

"The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.
. . .
In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”
. . .
Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

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."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

Exactly! It's over. I can't believe the words out of Flake's mouth. They have plenty of perjury and temperament issues. Flake said himself, if he lies the nomination is over. Flake has to keep his word. The world is watching.

Its over FOR HIM (Flake.) We still need Collins or Murkowski, and NOT to lose Manchin or Heitkamp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Chris Coons asked Kavanaugh if he was ever belligerent when drinking, he said "the answer to that is basically no."

So, isn't the revelation says he perjured? How many small lies under oath equates to one GOP perjury?

But there's that weasel word "BASICALLY"

The standard for honesty under oath by a federal judge who is trying to be elevated to the Supreme Court should be a little stricter than chargeable perjury.

Let's look at the Code of Conduct for US Judges

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Chris Coons asked Kavanaugh if he was ever belligerent when drinking, he said "the answer to that is basically no."

So, isn't the revelation says he perjured? How many small lies under oath equates to one GOP perjury?

But there's that weasel word "BASICALLY"

The standard for honesty under oath by a federal judge who is trying to be elevated to the Supreme Court should be a little stricter than chargeable perjury.

Let's look at the Code of Conduct for US Judges

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Wow, that's pretty damning. If only Republicans cared.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile...

Murkowski appears in no hurry even as McConnell pledges to move forward with Kavanaugh vote this week. 'He talked about a vote last week, too,' she told AP. Collins, riding with Murkowski on the Senate subway, smiled and told Murkowski, 'Good answer.'

https://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC/status/1047179686651088904

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Chris Coons asked Kavanaugh if he was ever belligerent when drinking, he said "the answer to that is basically no."

So, isn't the revelation says he perjured? How many small lies under oath equates to one GOP perjury?

But there's that weasel word "BASICALLY"

The standard for honesty under oath by a federal judge who is trying to be elevated to the Supreme Court should be a little stricter than chargeable perjury.

Let's look at the Code of Conduct for US Judges

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Wow. He fails this on so many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile...

Murkowski appears in no hurry even as McConnell pledges to move forward with Kavanaugh vote this week. 'He talked about a vote last week, too,' she told AP. Collins, riding with Murkowski on the Senate subway, smiled and told Murkowski, 'Good answer.'

https://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC/status/1047179686651088904

Wait - the senate has its own subway? Cool. Lets hope their resolve lasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in college (Georgetown) at the time of these events. Did we drink? Yes. But neither I, nor anyone I knew at the time, ever instigated or got into bar fights. This does reflect on Kavanaugh's character, and not just because he lied about this stuff. He is not someone I consider fit to be a federal judge, much less on the Supreme Court.

Oh, FFS. He threw ice. That is SOOOOOO disqualifying.

Throwing ice = not disqualifying
Lying about your belligerance as a drunk = disqualifying

[Anonymous]

Has anyone posted the third Seth Abramson thread - about the Julie Swetnick allegations:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047163653110321153

(THREAD) It's time to separate fact from fiction as to the third Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick—whose allegations are complex and controversial. This thread incorporates (see the first two tweets in the thread) my threads on Ramirez and Ford. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in college (Georgetown) at the time of these events. Did we drink? Yes. But neither I, nor anyone I knew at the time, ever instigated or got into bar fights. This does reflect on Kavanaugh's character, and not just because he lied about this stuff. He is not someone I consider fit to be a federal judge, much less on the Supreme Court.

Oh, FFS. He threw ice. That is SOOOOOO disqualifying.

This is the kind of thing that he is doing that so many people are finding off putting. Of course 'throwing ice' is not disqualifying. I would even argue that aggressively throwing ice in a drunk guy's face when you are also drunk to escalate a disagreement into a physical altercation isn't disqualifying. What IS disqualifying is swearing up and down the street that you have never drank to the point of a memory lapse when you have so many such colorful incidents like this in your past!

I also think this is one instance that is NBD. And we can give him a pass for fudging on Renate or other yearbook stuff. We can give him a pass on the Kozinski stuff because of judicial confidentiality. And his evasions about the Pryor and Miranda stuff was not a huge issue (well, maybe it was). Add them all up, though, and while any individual issue isn't determinative, they show a pattern.

We can do better.

The stuff in the yearbook is not disqualifying.
Lying about the stuff in the yearbook is disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

Seth Abramson is BRILLIANT

I have a total crush on his brain now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Chris Coons asked Kavanaugh if he was ever belligerent when drinking, he said "the answer to that is basically no."

So, isn't the revelation says he perjured? How many small lies under oath equates to one GOP perjury?

Depends on your definition of "basically."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in college (Georgetown) at the time of these events. Did we drink? Yes. But neither I, nor anyone I knew at the time, ever instigated or got into bar fights. This does reflect on Kavanaugh's character, and not just because he lied about this stuff. He is not someone I consider fit to be a federal judge, much less on the Supreme Court.

Oh, FFS. He threw ice. That is SOOOOOO disqualifying.

Throwing ice = not disqualifying
Lying about your belligerance as a drunk = disqualifying

Isn't throwing an object at someone assault?

[Anonymous]

Anyone out there still remember Dr Ford? The second door? Counseling? Therapist notes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile...

Murkowski appears in no hurry even as McConnell pledges to move forward with Kavanaugh vote this week. 'He talked about a vote last week, too,' she told AP. Collins, riding with Murkowski on the Senate subway, smiled and told Murkowski, 'Good answer.'

https://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC/status/1047179686651088904

I wrote this exact same thing yesterday at 16:57 : http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/quote/555/13760264.page

McTurtle doesn't have the vote yet.