Brett Kavanaugh Should be Impeached

[Edge-]

Liar and current Press Secretary Sarah Sanders - “The president wants this process to come to a vote because that’s what’s supposed to happen in every single one of these instances where someone is nominated, they go before, they have a hearing, and then the senators vote on it.”

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1044559991842254848

She just walked right into the Garland mentions. She really fucking sucks at her job.

Edit: https://apnews.com/af729a69fd01401896582a0defe54432

Good piece on how Mark Judge, who has seemingly made a career out of immortalizing the youthful antics of himself, Kavanaugh and their chums, is suddenly drawing a lot of blanks on that period of time that he's written so extensively about.

We can add him to the long list of conservatives who "can't recall" things when they matter.

[Deletedaccount1]

It's Kavanaugh and Sexual assault, they don't take sexual assault seriously at all. Without what amounts to video evidence, they can dismiss it as innuendo - and who cares because it really only hurts "one person", and that's not reason enough to delay or forgo what they want in order to address this thing they have no control over.

There's not even eye witness evidence or any form of corroboration about dates and times yet (the bare minimum) so why would you jump to conservatives require absolute proof?

You're also creating a huge straw man here because you need to fit everyone you don't like into one box. Are National Review and the Weekly Standard, who are supporting Kavanaugh through this while also being frequently critical of Trump on issues like Russia and his rhetoric, now all of a sudden merely "so-called conservatives"?

[Masark]

It's Kavanaugh and Sexual assault, they don't take sexual assault seriously at all. Without what amounts to video evidence, they can dismiss it as innuendo - and who cares because it really only hurts "one person", and that's not reason enough to delay or forgo what they want in order to address this thing they have no control over.

As evidenced by trump, they don't take sexual assault seriously even with a confession on national television.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/mary...-school-2018-9

Welp, this is awkward.

Kavanaugh is now claiming it was legal for him to drink at age 17 in Maryland. Problem is the legal drinking age was actually 18 at the time (1982), and it was upped to 21 while he was 17 that same year.

[Skroe]

There's not even eye witness evidence or any form of corroboration about dates and times yet (the bare minimum) so why would you jump to conservatives require absolute proof?

Because putting aside Ford, who has yet to testify, there is a rising tide of of support evidence from sources independent of each other that Kavanaugh was a guy who liked to drink and liked to party in his teenage and high school years, and his social circle at the very least, did this kind of thing with women. And to that end, it directly contradicts his own statements about his behavior and practices at the time.

There is more than enough evidence to willingly put him aside, and nominate Hardiman and Barrett who are better choices in every conceivable sense.

It is completely irrational to pursue this and put a tainted man on the court for a life time appointment, when there are two, better options, who are untainted.

You're also creating a huge straw man here because you need to fit everyone you don't like into one box. Are National Review and the Weekly Standard, who are supporting Kavanaugh through this while also being frequently critical of Trump on issues like Russia and his rhetoric, now all of a sudden "so-called conservatives"?

No. I am not.

Kavanaugh's nomination has united the Trumpublican base, which just wants to own the libs and burn it all down, with the Bush-era Republicans, particular in places like the Weekly Standard and National Review (which also publishes McCarthy for crying out loud), that know they guy and know his politics.

For the Supreme Court seat they so desperately want, and maybe too because of personal affinity (those who worked in the Bush White House know him), they're doing the same thing that the likes of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan did in 2016 with Trump - they're compromising their morality, their ethics and their standards in order to get the agenda they want advanced. Ends justified the means to these people, as always.

Kavanaugh policies on many things are likely right up my alley politically. But I've also been saying for some time, to a conservative audience that is so desperate to avoid its decline, that "how you win matters". If Kavanaugh gets pushed through and, tainted, gets put on the Supreme Court by a vote of 52-40, 51-49 or 50-50+Pence, all it's going to do is make certain Democrats will attempt court packing legislation the next time they are in power in the House, Senate, and Presidency, which is very likely after the 2020 election.

Do you realize the catastrophe that's going to be for conservatism, when Democrats legislatively add a three seats to the Supreme Court? They have zero reason not to do it. In fact, logically speak, it would represent a wholesale surrender if they didn't blow up the legislative filibuster.

Conservatives like yourself, all over the country, are playing this game the stupidest way possible. It's like you learned nothing from Obama and his first two years in office, or Bush's first four years. You folks are acting like this Senate, this House and this Presidency are the last ones we're ever going to have and every gain that the "conservative" (I use that term lightly) movement gets is some how locked in for good.

That's a farce. You're teeing everything that outrages the opposition up for reversal, and they'll do it and gain popularity off if, and Kavanaugh will be top of the list.

This is consistent with _everything_ else I've said for two years now. Unless Republicans get a buy in from Democrats to protect policy changes when they are shortly, and inevitably, in the majority, it is all going to get washed away. Quickly. Regulatory changes. Tax changes. Immigration changes. The Supreme Court.

You only have to look at the Budget to show what a defensible political consensus with many stakeholders looks like. 97 to 3 in the Senate. It's entirely possible. You just have to stop acting like this is the last Congress we'll ever have.

Kavanaugh should be withdrawn and Hardiman or Barrett put forward. Put forward Hardmian, you'll likely get not only the increasingly wobbly Murkoswky and Collins, but you'll probably get at least 5 Red State Democrats, and likely more. And you'll avoid the Court Packing nuclear option. So instead of a 50-50+Pence vote with promise of revenge, you'll get a defensible consensus.

But hey, want to be not serious and "own the libs"? Vote Kavanaugh. See how that works out when Democrats have their revenge. You'll only fall on your face in despair over what they'll do.

[Smitzelplix]

https://www.businessinsider.com/mary...-school-2018-9

Welp, this is awkward.

Kavanaugh is now claiming it was legal for him to drink at age 17 in Maryland. Problem is the legal drinking age was actually 18 at the time (1982), and it was upped to 21 while he was 17 that same year.

Gee it's almost like lying comes naturally to him. If he's willing to lie about small things like this that are easy to disprove then I wonder what else he's lying about hmmm.

[Orbitus]

Republicans don't even care about what comes out Thursday. Grassley just scheduled the vote for Kavanaugh for Friday. Just breaking on the news right now. No link yet.

[RazingCain]

Republicans don't even care about what comes out Thursday. Grassley just scheduled the vote for Kavanaugh for Friday. Just breaking on the news right now. No link yet.

Wonderful? Placing bets now, do you think he will get voted in yay/nay? Hoping Nay, but gut says the bar can go lower and a potential rapist will be on the Supreme Court.

[Orbitus]

Wonderful? Placing bets now, do you think he will get voted in yay/nay? Hoping Nay, but gut says the bar can go lower and a potential rapist will be on the Supreme Court.

With 11 Republican MEN and 10 Democrats I think 5 women and 5 men, guarantee all 11 vote for Kavanaugh to go to full vote. Now after that is where it gets really hairy. As others have said there are like 5 Republicans that are on the fence, but I am going to guess at least 4 of them are going to vote yes anyway.

[Edge-]

Republicans don't even care about what comes out Thursday. Grassley just scheduled the vote for Kavanaugh for Friday. Just breaking on the news right now. No link yet.

Just saw that. Republicans are making it abundantly clear that they're not taking any of this seriously and are only putting on a public show before ramming his nomination through anyways.

We can only hope it blows up in their faces and they are forced to either fall back on one of their multiple clean nominees, that or the worst case scenario for them and Democrats take back the Senate and essentially pull a McConnell and stalemate until after the next presidential election. I can't say I'm remotely excited at the notion because it's giving a middle finger to normal order, but given the bullshit that Republicans continue to pull I'm increasingly warming up to Democrats playing in the procedural mud the same way the GOP have decided to.

[Shadowmelded]

Republicans don't even care about what comes out Thursday. Grassley just scheduled the vote for Kavanaugh for Friday. Just breaking on the news right now. No link yet.

Source.

Also interesting Ronan Farrow tweet;

Thread from one of Ramirez’s attorneys claiming she is in touch w/ and offered to present her story to Judiciary Committee and they have “refused to meet all scheduled appointments.” Also says she agreed to FBI investigation.(As with Ford, it appears that request will be denied.)

[Shaderas]

Just my two cents, but I think this needs to be cleared up before they vote on him. He's basically being appointed to a lifetime position in the highest possible court... he needs to be above reproach. Like officers should be held to a higher standard, due to their training and knowledge of the law, the Supreme Court Justice nominee needs to be held to the highest possible standard.

[alexw]

Because putting aside Ford, who has yet to testify, there is a rising tide of of support evidence from sources independent of each other that Kavanaugh was a guy who liked to drink and liked to party in his teenage and high school years, and his social circle at the very least, did this kind of thing with women. And to that end, it directly contradicts his own statements about his behavior and practices at the time.

There is more than enough evidence to willingly put him aside, and nominate Hardiman and Barrett who are better choices in every conceivable sense.

It is completely irrational to pursue this and put a tainted man on the court for a life time appointment, when there are two, better options, who are untainted.




No. I am not.

Kavanaugh's nomination has united the Trumpublican base, which just wants to own the libs and burn it all down, with the Bush-era Republicans, particular in places like the Weekly Standard and National Review (which also publishes McCarthy for crying out loud), that know they guy and know his politics.

For the Supreme Court seat they so desperately want, and maybe too because of personal affinity (those who worked in the Bush White House know him), they're doing the same thing that the likes of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan did in 2016 with Trump - they're compromising their morality, their ethics and their standards in order to get the agenda they want advanced. Ends justified the means to these people, as always.

Kavanaugh policies on many things are likely right up my alley politically. But I've also been saying for some time, to a conservative audience that is so desperate to avoid its decline, that "how you win matters". If Kavanaugh gets pushed through and, tainted, gets put on the Supreme Court by a vote of 52-40, 51-49 or 50-50+Pence, all it's going to do is make certain Democrats will attempt court packing legislation the next time they are in power in the House, Senate, and Presidency, which is very likely after the 2020 election.

Do you realize the catastrophe that's going to be for conservatism, when Democrats legislatively add a three seats to the Supreme Court? They have zero reason not to do it. In fact, logically speak, it would represent a wholesale surrender if they didn't blow up the legislative filibuster.

Conservatives like yourself, all over the country, are playing this game the stupidest way possible. It's like you learned nothing from Obama and his first two years in office, or Bush's first four years. You folks are acting like this Senate, this House and this Presidency are the last ones we're ever going to have and every gain that the "conservative" (I use that term lightly) movement gets is some how locked in for good.

That's a farce. You're teeing everything that outrages the opposition up for reversal, and they'll do it and gain popularity off if, and Kavanaugh will be top of the list.

This is consistent with _everything_ else I've said for two years now. Unless Republicans get a buy in from Democrats to protect policy changes when they are shortly, and inevitably, in the majority, it is all going to get washed away. Quickly. Regulatory changes. Tax changes. Immigration changes. The Supreme Court.

You only have to look at the Budget to show what a defensible political consensus with many stakeholders looks like. 97 to 3 in the Senate. It's entirely possible. You just have to stop acting like this is the last Congress we'll ever have.

Kavanaugh should be withdrawn and Hardiman or Barrett put forward. Put forward Hardmian, you'll likely get not only the increasingly wobbly Murkoswky and Collins, but you'll probably get at least 5 Red State Democrats, and likely more. And you'll avoid the Court Packing nuclear option. So instead of a 50-50+Pence vote with promise of revenge, you'll get a defensible consensus.

But hey, want to be not serious and "own the libs"? Vote Kavanaugh. See how that works out when Democrats have their revenge. You'll only fall on your face in despair over what they'll do.

FYI impeachment would be the best way to go about it. Carry out a full investigation and get the FBI front and center of it. If after he is exposed for what he is, degenerate party senators refuse to go along with impeachment (the almost certain outcome) and still attempt to protect him so that there isn't the 2/3 majority needed for impeachment to succeed, then, and only then pack the court.

[Grapemask]

Just my two cents, but I think this needs to be cleared up before they vote on him. He's basically being appointed to a lifetime position in the highest possible court... he needs to be above reproach. Like officers should be held to a higher standard, due to their training and knowledge of the law, the Supreme Court Justice nominee needs to be held to the highest possible standard.

Yep. People like Dacien and, well, literally every non-Skroe conservative in here seem to have forgotten what this whole thing is about. Dacien goes on long rambles that imply Kavanaugh is entitled to the Supreme Court position, and how dare someone threaten to ruin his good name with accusations.

But being nominated to the Supreme Court isn't an event about the nominee. This isn't about Kavanaugh. This isn't a process intended to determine how worthy of a reward he is. This isn't a series of hearings to sing his praises. A Supreme Court Justice is a lifelong government servant whom we entrust with the greatest power in the country. The Supreme Court doesn't even bow to the presidency. This is supposed to be about whether Kavanaugh is fit for that power and that position. For life.

[Bodakane]

they didn't steal this court position. they stole the one that what's-his-name got, the grey haired guy. that's the one they stalled and stole.

this one was legit, since the previous dude stepped down mid-presidency.

Yes, I know.

They would have been putting the first guy through this time and not Kavanaugh.

[Edge-]

Ready for a double whammy?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/polit...ota/index.html

North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer, the Republican challenging Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, suggested the allegation of sexual and physical assault -- even if it's true -- should not disqualify Brett Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

...

"My point was that there was no type of intercourse or anything like that," Cramer said. "That was my point, that nothing happened in terms of a sexual event beyond, obviously, the attack."

You know...nothing beyond the [alleged] attack.

Cramer said he'd have a bigger problem with Kavanaugh knowing Ford is right and lying about it than he would with Ford's allegation being true.

So sexual assault? No big deal.

But lying about sexual assault? A bridge too far!

Cramer is really doing everything possible to make himself seem like a disgusting asshole.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.206c405534aa

[quote[Three Yale Law School classmates who endorsed Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh called Tuesday for an investigation into allegations by two women that he engaged in sexual misconduct in the 1980s.

Kent Sinclair, Douglas Rutzen and Mark Osler were among roughly two dozen of Kavanaugh’s law school classmates who lauded Kavanaugh’s qualifications in an Aug. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[/quote]

More and more folks that came out in support of Kavanaugh seem to be supporting an investigation before he's railroaded through to a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the US.

[Deletedaccount1]

Yep. People like Dacien and, well, literally every non-Skroe conservative in here seem to have forgotten what this whole thing is about. Dacien goes on long rambles that imply Kavanaugh is entitled to the Supreme Court position, and how dare someone threaten to ruin his good name with accusations.

But being nominated to the Supreme Court isn't an event about the nominee. This isn't about Kavanaugh. This isn't a process intended to determine how worthy of a reward he is. This isn't a series of hearings to sing his praises. A Supreme Court Justice is a lifelong government servant whom we entrust with the greatest power in the country. The Supreme Court doesn't even bow to the presidency. This is supposed to be about whether Kavanaugh is fit for that power and that position. For life.

So every conservative in here in other words.

[Smitzelplix]

Here's the full text of the article that @Edge- linked to. I'm doing this because The Washington Post only has a limited amount of free articles you can read before they ask you for money and some might have reached their limit by now, like I'm about to.

Three former Yale Law School classmates who endorsed Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh called Tuesday for an investigation into allegations by two women that he engaged in sexual misconduct in the 1980s.

Kent Sinclair, Douglas Rutzen and Mark Osler were among roughly two dozen of Kavanaugh’s law school classmates who lauded Kavanaugh’s qualifications in an Aug. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Their support for an investigation came as Yale Law professor Akhil Amar — who taught Kavanaugh and testified on his behalf before the committee this month — also called for a probe into what he described as “serious accusations” from the women.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the charges. On Thursday, he is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee along with one accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, who said he assaulted her at a party in high school.

Senate Republicans have rebuffed calls by Democrats for an independent investigation of Ford’s claims.

In their Aug. 27 letter, a bipartisan group of Yale Law School alumni praised Kavanaugh’s judgment and thoughtfulness.

However, in a joint statement to The Washington Post on Tuesday, Sinclair and Rutzen said that new allegations require “a fair and credible investigation.”

“The confirmation process should be conducted in a way that fosters trust in the process and the Supreme Court, and that seriously considers allegations of sexual violence,” stated Sinclair, a political independent who practices law in Beverly, Mass., and Rutzen, a lawyer in Washington and registered Democrat.

[Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona county sex crimes prosecutor, emerges as top GOP choice to question Kavanaugh accuser before committee]

Osler, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., said in a phone interview that “corroborating evidence” is necessary to determine what occurred.

“The focus can’t just be on the accusers and trying to bring their veracity into question. The circumstances need to be probed,” said Osler, a Democrat.

A fourth Yale Law classmate, Robert Rivera Jr., said that he “would be seriously shocked” if the allegations were true but suggested that an investigation would helpful.

“This would be 100% contrary to the character of the man I know and a powerful punch in the gut,” Rivera, an attorney in Houston and a political independent, wrote in an email, calling Kavanaugh “honorable” and “respectful.”

“Has he always behaved himself honorably and the allegations against him [are] manufactured or mistaken? I wish there were a way to know for sure. Perhaps a more in-depth investigation can help answer the question and our political leaders can will themselves to conduct one fairly and thoroughly without delay. How can one oppose that in good faith?” he wrote.

The Post sought Tuesday to speak with more than 30 Yale Law School and Yale College graduates who signed letters in support of Kavanaugh last month.

Many said they continued to support him.

“None of the allegations have changed my view of him as a classmate and colleague of his,” said Paul “Whit” Cobb Jr., a lawyer in Virginia and registered Republican.

Helen Rice, who described herself as a liberal Democrat, said Kavanaugh was “never anything but polite and respectful” as a friend, despite their political differences.

“I’ve been appalled at the way he’s been treated in the news media and by the Democrats,” said Rice, a social worker in New York state who said she met Kavanaugh while he was in law school.

“We’re all in danger if allegations are all it takes to prove our guilt. Who is to say an allegation couldn’t be leveled against you or me?” she said.

[‘Back in the foxhole together’: Conservatives rally around Kavanaugh amid accusations]

This week, Amar — who in July called Kavanaugh a “superb nominee” in a New York Times op-ed — called an investigation the “best way forward” for both Kavanaugh and his accusers.

“If the investigation’s facts and findings support him, then he will join the Court in the sunshine and not under a cloud,” Amar wrote Monday in the Yale Daily News in a piece titled “Second thoughts on Kavanaugh.”

Separately, former Kavanaugh classmates Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing on Monday asked the New Yorker magazine to withdraw their names from a statement defending Kavanaugh from claims made by another classmate, Deborah Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself during a dorm party. An editor’s note said the two did not “did not wish to dispute Ramirez’s claims.”

Garry, who was featured praising Kavanaugh in a television ad released last week by the Judicial Crisis Network, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. Ewing could not be reached for comment.

[Fugus]

Here's the full text of the article that @Edge- linked to. I'm doing this because The Washington Post only has a limited amount of free articles you can read before they ask you for money and some might have reached their limit by now, like I'm about to.

I am using Google Chrome, you can open the page in Incognito Mode and it will always open. Same for any equivalent mode on any other browsers.

[dpark1023]

More mixing up of evidence and proof. And the standards for this are not the standards of a trial.

A credible accusation (which this is) is evidence enough.

- - - Updated - - -



Ehhh Collins has no guts and only votes against the party when there is safety in numbers.

She was quite ready to support Kavanaugh up to this point, even though she, as an ostensible pro-choice Republican got guarantees about Roe v Wade from him. Ya know, so she could say "good golly good gosh I was bamboozled" later.


The kindly grandmother is not a good person and a political opportunist of the first order. Certainly no maverick.

She'll vote against Kavanaugh sure... if she has guarantees that there won't be any negative consequences to her because of that vote.

Would any accusation against a republican in a time in which it hurts Trump not be considered credible in your eyes?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.businessinsider.com/mary...-school-2018-9

Welp, this is awkward.

Kavanaugh is now claiming it was legal for him to drink at age 17 in Maryland. Problem is the legal drinking age was actually 18 at the time (1982), and it was upped to 21 while he was 17 that same year.

Just wait till the public finds out he doesn't give his partners reach arounds