Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Of course they think it's ok. It's what they do! |
Anonymous
|
Kavanaugh is getting a seat on the court, and there's nothing any of you can do about it.
And that makes me warm inside. |
Anonymous
Yes, I saw that. It doesn't explain why the FBI has been directed not to talk to her. |
Anonymous
Benjamin Wittes is not the left. He's a conservative who knows what it means to do the right thing. |
Anonymous
yes, saying he is the left is like saying that Kim Kardashian is a supreme court justice. |
Anonymous
|
David Brock on NBC:
“I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch." But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause. Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge. At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage. When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.) Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh. That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair. But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time. Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office. A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency. Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes. Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences. But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights. But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us." |
Anonymous
I’ve voted Democrat all my life, but after this unbelievable farce which appears to be the last gasp of desperation of an already lost party I think I will probably vote red in November. Mostly because the democratic message isn’t about Helping workers, promoting American liberty or world peace. It’s about hating trump because he doesn’t speak politely. There is no message for the Democrats and it’s an embarrassment. |
Anonymous
|
I asked this earlier but was never answered.
If someone were known to have shaken his naked penis in someone's face at a party when he was in his 20s, so close they had to touch it to get away from it, should that preclude them from the supreme court. Put aside the partisan politics, and just answer without that. Is that disqualifying behavior? |
Anonymous
|
18:56: How many times are you going to post that drivel? David Brock? Who really gives a damn what he says?
He has been anti-Kavqanaugh from the start. Shows how invested the media is in working with the Dems to prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed. |
Anonymous
I've voted Democrat all my life, but after this I will actively donate in races in other states for candidates who are running against republicans. I know longer feel like I can just consider voting to be enough. |
Anonymous
ve It's unbelievable that the right feels intimidation is a legitimate political tactic and not an immoral and disgusting technique reserved for dictators, banana republics, and the mob. Fixed it for you. |
Anonymous
| Trump's presidency is illegitimate and he's already had one SC appointment as it is. |
Anonymous
The Rachel Mitchell memo is insignificant. You are falling for political BS. She is saying she doesn't have the evidence to take it to court. And how would she? She was not even permitted to have an interview with Kavanaugh? do you know how many cases where there IS evidence that the prosecutor refuses to take to court? The only take things where they are pretty sure they will get a conviction. She never ever ever says that she thinks he is innocent. You should read this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5ba1f80d92bc Most sexual assaults are not reported. The ones that are mostly NEVER go to trial. It DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT HAPPEN. In this case, he could have done it. He should not be on the SC if he could have done it. We don't give positions to people who could have done it. Would you hire a tutor who MAYBE slept with his/her last student? Would you hire a housekeeper who MAYBE stole jewelry from her last employer? NO YOU WOULD NOT. |
Anonymous
Sorry the math is against your wish. It comes down to Collins, MurKowski, Flake, Manchin, and Heitkamp. Kavanaugh only needs 2 out of 5. Collins' election is 2 years away. Flake has not switched party yet. He will most likely be confirmed. |
Anonymous
Liar! If you did, you would say you voted “democratic,” which is how you say it. This is the wing nut term. |