Another Woman Charges Kavanaugh

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:53 am

Wow, another sexual charge. Regards, Len

Senate Democrats reportedly investigating second sexual misconduct allegation against Brett Kavanaugh

A second woman has come forward to accuse Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

Deborah Ramirez, 53, told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a college dorm party when they were both studying at Yale, “thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

“Brett was laughing,” she told the magazine, which posted the story Sunday night. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.”

Ramirez claims that a male student brought out a fake plastic penis at the party, where the group was playing a drinking game. At one point, she claims another male student exposed himself and other students encouraged her to “kiss it.”

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/0 ... /23539378/

Belle · Post by **Belle** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:14 am

God, I'd sure hate to be held to account for my behaviour as a teenager. Scrofulous parties where people took off their clothing, drug-taking and other sordid behaviour was the order of the day, as well as young people having sex all over the place, yelling in the streets in the small hours, vomiting in public places. Not that I did any of these things, but almost all of my friends did and most went into successful careers.

david johnson · Post by **david johnson** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:19 am

Belle speaks truth.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:54 am

I don't excuse Kavanaugh for anything, but as someone who went to grad school at Yale (where I was still very shy), this most famous group is a huge partying group. Years later as his boss I warned a father that his son who was about to go to Yale and wanted to be in the group that it was a heavily partying gang. This is basically a drinking song.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:54 am

david johnson wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:19 am
Belle speaks truth.

The accounts given by Blasey and Ramirez also have the ring of truth.

Q: Can the GOP lower the bar any further than they already have?
A: Oh yeah, they can and probably will.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:00 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:14 am
God, I'd sure hate to be held to account for my behaviour as a teenager. Scrofulous parties where people took off their clothing, drug-taking and other sordid behaviour was the order of the day, as well as young people having sex all over the place, yelling in the streets in the small hours, vomiting in public places. Not that I did any of these things, but almost all of my friends did and most went into successful careers.

Belle still I've heard it said by Senators if these allegations are true he's toast! Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:06 am

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:00 am
if these allegations are true he's toast!

The story appeared under Ronan Farrow's byline in the New Yorker. That alone is not good news for those who would look past BK's misdeeds in high school and college and take the position that "Boys Will Be Boys Who Become Supreme Court Justices".

Seriously though, hasn't the LONG DONG SILVER seat on the Supreme Court already been assigned to another Justice? BK is being considered not for that seat but for the ROE v.WADE seat.

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years
By Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer
September 23, 2018
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ah-ramirez

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:35 am

Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, claims he’s representing another woman with “credible evidence” against Brett Kavanaugh. Tweeting late Sunday, the 2020 presidential hopeful said he and his client will “be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee” and that Kavanaugh’s “nomination must be withdrawn.” He added that his client is not Deborah Ramirez, the woman featured in a New Yorker article published Sunday night with a second allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. Avenatti said he’s aware of “significant evidence” that Kavanaugh and his friends targeted women with alcohol and drugs in the 1980s in order to allow “a train” of men to take advantage of them sexually. A Senate Judiciary Committee staffer told the AP late Sunday that the panel is looking into the Ramirez claims as well as the Avenatti report.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-a ... -kavanaugh

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:39 am

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:35 am
. . . another woman with “credible evidence” . . . not Deborah Ramirez . . . ,

A third woman, now. No wonder McConnell and Grassley wanted to ram this nominee thru before the dike burst. Thanks for the info, Len. Did not know about this.

Boys will be boys, according to some, even some on this forum, but will they be Supreme Court justices?

For the first time, I'm starting to wonder.

The Christian Post

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is facing a new firestorm of sexual misconduct allegations involving drunken parties and gang-rapes.

Kavanaugh's nomination process has already been rocked by attempted rape accusations by California professor Christine Blasey Ford, which allegedly occurred during a drunken party in the summer of 1982. Kavanaugh has denied Ford's accusations, with both he and Ford set to testify on Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Two separate new accusations emerged late on Sunday and early on Monday, however. Attorney Michael Avenatti has claimed that he has evidence accusing Kavanaugh and a friend of participating in parties that plied women with drugs and alcohol, and then "allowing" other men to gang-rape them.

Separately, a second woman has come forward accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct at Yale at another drunken party, where she claimed that the Supreme Court nominee forced her to touch his genitals.

Kavanaugh has responded to the second accusation, but top Democrats are calling on the nomination process to be postponed.

Here are three important updates: https://www.christianpost.com/news/kava ... ns-227537/

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:05 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:39 am

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:35 am
. . . another woman with “credible evidence” . . . not Deborah Ramirez . . . ,
A third woman, now. No wonder McConnell and Grassley wanted to ram this nominee thru before the dike burst. Thanks for the info, Len. Did not know about this: busy with schoolwork.

Boys will be boys, according to some, even some on this forum, but will they be Supreme Court justices?

For the first time, I'm starting to wonder.

Short of having been proved to have committed murder, there is no way Kavanaugh is not going to be confirmed. And what are you doing "correcting essays" in September? (I see you deleted that.) High school students don't write essays. They are the cause of others composing essays.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:11 am

jbuck919 wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:05 am
Short of having been proved to have committed murder, there is no way Kavanaugh is not going to be confirmed. And what are you doing "correcting essays" in September? (I see you deleted that.) High school students don't write essays. They are the cause of others composing essays.

That's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure. But you may be right, except that even if BK were credibly accused of murder, the GOP would be steadfast, and complain as Grassley now is doing: "Why did you not tell us this sooner?"

And speak for yourself and yourn: high schoolers I know are asked to write early and often. School's been in session for more than a month.

Modernistfan · Post by **Modernistfan** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:43 pm

Republicans, is this what you want for the highest court in the United States--a party-hearty frat boy? Don't you want a legal scholar who will fairly judge the cases before him on the law and the facts? The contrast with the late Antonin Scalia could hardly be more glaring. Yes, Scalia was a conservative with whose interpretation of constitutional standards I almost always disagreed (as did Justice Ginsburg), but whose personal integrity was unquestioned and unquestionable, and who had an excellent working relationship with the aforementioned Justice Ginsburg (classical music angle--both were big opera fans). If I had a case to be argued before the Supreme Court with a female lawyer, I would be very concerned about whether Kavanaugh would judge the case on the merits based on the counsel's presentation of the governing precedents and the facts rather than on her "hotness" and the length of her skirt.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:59 pm

Modernistfan wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:43 pm
The contrast with the late Antonin Scalia could hardly be more glaring. Yes, Scalia was a conservative with whose interpretation of constitutional standards I almost always disagreed (as did Justice Ginsburg), but whose personal integrity was unquestioned and unquestionable

I agree: Scalia treated adversaries with respect, and in addition to the fact that my grandma's maiden name was also Scalia, I respected him.

Belle · Post by **Belle** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:59 pm

Our University of Sydney has a terrible reputation for this kind of behaviour and that institution has bred many of our national leaders - political, academic and cultural. The culture of bastardization, so-called 'rape culture' and assault (one woman in a recent survey complained 'they stare at us') was rife and some believe it is still a problem. Young people from the country who boarded at the university residential houses for decades felt vulnerable and they largely kept this from their parents and the general public. We await our own accusations about leaders (we've already had one about our current Leader of the Opposition, much the same accusation your nominated SC judge is experiencing, which was quickly dismissed after a so-called police investigation). Personal responsibility? Pfffft. What the hell is that? Suffice it to say, women were active participants in this culture and a conspiracy of silence existed which enabled it to flourish. Good old enablers!!

As I wrote previously, appalling behaviour seemed or seems part of youth culture. Can't remember how many so-called parties I attended where you couldn't see through the haze of dope, hear yourself because of the deafening so-called music, walk into any part of a house and avoid copulating couples and in two such gatherings (the ones where I actually stayed longer than 30 minutes) people took their clothes off. One memorable experience; a fellow jumped up and down on a couch right next to me while he had no clothes on; I looked up at him with a bored look on my face and said, "there's a good chap - go and call me a taxi would you?". If there was nobody interesting to talk to (there never was) I always left.

In the current case with Kavanaugh, what was a 15 year old girl doing drunk at a party without adult supervision?

This kind of behaviour and these attitudes were allowed to flourish with the advent of the contraceptive Pill and its legacy was the hippy generation and, now, many of our current problems. Pretty ugly altogether.

IMO it is futile comparing the behaviour of a deceased judge from another generation with another from the one or two before. These were two totally different worlds.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:43 pm

Why was Gorsuch rather than Kavanaugh chosen in the last nomination go-round? Could it be because McConnell et al knew Gorsuch was squeaky clean? That no one could or would raise a whisper about his character? And of course nobody did, there was nothing there.

But now McConnell and his crowd, knowing as early as last week that there were even more doubts being raised about Kavanaugh's fitness by a second accuser, have decided to roll the dice and ram this nomination thru, come what may. I fully expect they will confirm BK before this week is out, if only to placate their base and head off even more women coming forward.

Interestingly, the Kavanaugh defenders on this forum do not appear to deny that the incidents unfolded essentially as the two women coming forward have testified. Instead they claim that wondrously upstanding leaders often emerge from their participation in seedy adolescent pranks.

The issue, though, is whether or not Kavanaugh, misspent youth or not, is fit to be on the Supreme Court. He might be a fit president, cabinet secretary, senator or congressman, especially by the standards prevailing since 2016, but I don't think he meets the high bar of serving on the Court, let alone filling the seat of a Justice like Anthony M. Kennedy.

Modernistfan · Post by **Modernistfan** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:07 pm

My point exactly. This issue should cut across party lines. Remember that Democratic senator Al Franken of Minnesota, a flaming liberal by most standards, resigned as a result of allegations of sexually improper conduct.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:48 pm

<<What was a 15 year old girl doing drunk at a party without adult supervision?>>

So, now let's turn the microscope on young Brett Kavanaugh's conduct . . . What was that 17 year old boy doing —

1) allegedly drunk at a party without adult supervision?

2) allegedly falsely imprisoning a drunken 15 year old girl?

3) allegedly forcing himself sexually upon that drunken 15 year old girl?

The boy in the above scenario, if in fact the accuser's story holds up, would have committed at least 2 felonies, whereas the girl, even if she were drunk, committed none and in return for her indiscretion was criminally assaulted.

And that accused perpetrator now asks to be seated for life on the highest court in the land without any further investigation by law enforcement.

Belle · Post by **Belle** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:18 pm

If this man is guilty and it can be proven, of course he should pay the price. I feel sorry for the wife and children. But it's a sobering reminder of the partisan nature of your Supreme Court that this is going on. I think that if it was just about the rule of law nobody would bother, but each side wants the law interpreted according to their own values. People have a right to have no faith in such a system, either in your country or mine.

Women do have responsibility for their availability to men. They can control how they conduct themselves and what kind of message they send, especially to drunk males. To tell a daughter anything otherwise is a failure of parental responsibility. Indiscretion has the potential for disaster.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:39 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:18 pm
Women do have responsibility for their availability to men. They can control how they conduct themselves and what kind of message they send, especially to drunk males. To tell a daughter anything otherwise is a failure of parental responsibility. Indiscretion has the potential for disaster.

Nobody (boy, girl, discreet, indiscreet, drunk, sober), nobody deserves rape.

Men too must shoulder responsibility for their availability to women. They can control how they conduct themselves and what kind of message they send, especially to drunken females. To tell a son anything else is an abdication of parental responsibility, given that any indiscretion on his part carries the potential for disaster.

Moreover, to imply that a girl somehow must have done something to set off a "drunken male" is disappointing, to say the least, especially after we were just treated to a object lesson in moral relativism for contrasting the characters of Brett Kavanaugh and the late Antonin Scalia.

According to Blasey's story, there were only two drunks in question in the incident. She was imprisoned and then assaulted by "two drunken boys". One of those boys, her main assailant, was described as being "stumbling drunk". The assailant's name, she says is Brett Kavanaugh, who now claims a lifetime seat from which to administer what the rest of us will be asked to accept as Justice.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:02 am

There's a question of whether he has lied to Congress-the whole nomination is tainted-the fix seemed to be in- Mitch McConnell warned trump but I guess trump saw too many things he liked in Kavanaugh-how he treated and decides cases involving women and how he feels about letting presidents off the hook. Regards, Len

Go Avenatti Go

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:10 am

I'm home now but copying and pasting is hard when your PC has problems with the internet server-either that or my modem has a problem. Anyway here's part of a NYTimes article showing how desperate Kavanaugh is. Regards, Len

It is a remarkable step for a Supreme Court nominee to submit to a television interview — or make any public utterance — before a confirmation vote, and Judge Kavanaugh’s team chose a network that features ardent conservative commentators. Fox News is also a favorite venue of the president’s, offering the judge an avenue to make his case to Mr. Trump.

The president said Monday that he is sticking with him. In an interview with Geraldo Rivera for the debut show of “Geraldo in Cleveland” on WTAM radio, Mr. Trump called Judge Kavanaugh a “fantastic, fantastic man, a fantastic talent and intellect.” In brief remarks in New York, he dismissed the allegations about the judge’s conduct decades ago as “totally political.”

But even as Judge Kavanaugh was defending his integrity, the hits on his once clean-cut image kept coming. The New York Times published an account of him and some of his high school football teammates boasting in their yearbooks about exploits with a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school, boasts the woman recently called “horrible, hurtful and simply untrue.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/us/p ... e=Homepage

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:30 am

Join in with me as we follow the bouncing ball to the tune of Loch Lomond: It's not going to happen, it's not going to happen.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:09 pm

This song fits much, much better both BK, by his own account a sober, studious, virginal choirboy, and the GOP committee members, all of whom intend to bag their faces and peek out from behind the skirts of their anonymous hired 'female assistant' during Thursday's hearings.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hC4r3QFnmQ8

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:22 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:09 pm
peek out from behind the skirts of their anonymous hired 'female assistant' during Thursday's hearings.

Well said-the Dems won't be using her! I'm waiting and hoping that Avanati chimes in soon with another victim! Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:31 pm

McConnell intends next week to force a floor vote on a nominee he never wanted in the first place because of all the baggage Kavanaugh brought with him (Trump wanted him). He tried that tactic once before with the health care vote and failed, thanks to John McCain who stood up to the bullying tactics McConnell employed.

I don't think McConnell has the vote locked up yet, so he resorts to an intimidation strategy of calling his colleagues out on the carpet and daring them to vote no.

I also think the GOP leaders have done their cost/benefit analysis. They know that seating Kavanaugh will cost them with women but are willing to take the short-term political hit in order to accomplish the longed-for-since-1972 goal of filling the Roe v. Wade seat on the Court.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:55 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:31 pm
McConnell intends next week to force a floor vote

I gotta worry about Fri!

“AVENATTI, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find more VICTIMS that are OUT THERE,” LEN said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:40 am

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:55 am
“AVENATTI, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find more VICTIMS that are OUT THERE,” LEN said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”Regards, Len

I think Michael Avenatti heard you, Len. He has just produced an accuser, the third one now to come forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of criminal sexual misconduct while in school in the '80s.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta ... 1537974634

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... d5f9d43c72

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael ... tnick.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorney-a ... 1537974634

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... tions.html

Will it make any difference? That remains to be seen.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:57 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:40 am
I think Michael Avenatti heard you, Len.... Will it make any difference? That remains to be seen.

Joe yeah-he gave it a good shot-now if only I can reach out to Lisa, Susan, Jeff, Corker! Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:50 pm

This morning there were three. Tonight there are five.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:45 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:50 pm
This morning there were three. Tonight there are five.

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Regards, Len

Belle · Post by **Belle** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:28 pm

One of this country's leading political commentators and a vigorous intellect, Greg Sheridan, has written this today about this issue (and it applies equally to our own High Court):

The Supreme Court has almost ceased being a normal court. As others have noted, it is transforming into a kind of House of Lords, with each side of politics choosing representatives on political grounds. All nominees are qualified legally, but it is their politics that gets them nominated.This is a tragic consequence of the way judicial activism has interacted with the windy and sometimes abstract terms of the US constitution. The court rules on all sorts of issues that should be determined by legislatures. The tragically disfiguring philosophy of judicial activism means even fairly precisely worded legislation is open to radical interpretation.

And this final judgment: and it largely accords with how the vast majority feels.

This whole episode is American politics at its worst, and deeply depressing for Western culture.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:43 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:28 pm
And this final judgment: and it largely accords with how the vast majority feels.
This whole episode is American politics at its worst, and deeply depressing for Western culture.

Our Supreme Court has been a political football for a good stretch of its history: the Dred Scott decision; the constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act upheld in the early 20th century; FDR's attempt to pack the Court with leftist New Dealers; LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas, a political crony, who later had to resign for partisanship while serving on the Court; Bush 43's Harriet Miers fizzle, the Senate's abolition of the filibuster that kept federal judges moderate on both sides; and currently The Donald's craven kowtowing to the Federalist Society's list of 25 right-thinking right-wingers.

Yet somehow, who knows why, that has not led to the demise of Western civilization.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:06 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:28 pm
This whole episode is American politics at its worst, and deeply depressing for Western culture.[/b]

Belle, it makes me want to cringe-finally Kavanaugh is doing some cringing! Regards, Len

“I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now,”

And yesterday listening to Trump for over 80 minutes made me cringe some more-what an embarrassment!

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:11 am

The consternation on Jared Kushner's face as he left the press conference yesterday said it all: "I can't believe we all had to sit thru that bullshite for 80 minutes!"

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:34 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:11 am
The consternation on Jared Kushner's face as he left the press conference yesterday said it all: "I can't believe we all had to sit thru that bullshite for 80 minutes!"

LOL-yeah he couldn't exit like he did for the infamous Trump Tower meeting! I don't know how I endured those 80 or so minutes-while preparing dinner I even sacrificed my normal music when preparing dinner listening with headsets to his rambling ridiculous tirade-I had the headsets on so as not to disturb Sue--she wanted no part of Trump. Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:12 am

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:34 am
LOL-yeah he couldn't exit like he did for the infamous Trump Tower meeting! I don't know how I endured those 80 or so minutes-while preparing dinner I even sacrificed my normal music when preparing dinner listening with headsets to his rambling ridiculous tirade-I had the headsets on so as not to disturb Sue--she wanted no part of Trump. Regards, Len

Fortunately, I am teaching all day so I won't have to endure the Senate hearing. I much prefer to get lost in a masterwork like Things Fall Apart or read essays on The Big Lebowski.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:37 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:12 am
Fortunately, I am teaching all day so I won't have to endure the Senate hearing. I much prefer to get lost in a masterwork like Things Fall Apart or read essays on The Big Lebowski.

The students may be lucky to have you as their teacher-I'd have a TV in the room with this historic event running. I'll be watching it all day. My big mistake was being at shoprite yesterday and not buying a big bag of potato chips or pretzels! Regards, Len

PS-now there's this.
Are Republicans Releasing Anonymous Kavanaugh Claims to Discredit Legitimate Ones?By Adam K. Raymond

Brett Kavanaugh returns to the Senate for another round of questions on Thursday. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

With Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford hours away from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a bombshell dropped Wednesday afternoon. The committee released the transcript of a call between GOP staffers and the Supreme Court nominee that included two new allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The dam, it appeared, had broken.

But the claims quickly drew skepticism, largely because they were made anonymously, unlike the first three allegations made against Kavanaugh, in which Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick went on the record to tell their stories of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct.

One of the new claims came in the form of an anonymous letter sent to the office of Colorado senator Cory Gardner. It said that in 1998 Kavanaugh assaulted a woman he was dating in Boulder while he was working for Ken Starr’s investigation into Bill Clinton. “It’s ridiculous. Total Twilight Zone. And no, I’ve never done anything like that,” Kavanaugh told staffers when he was asked about the story.

The other allegation arose from a phone call made to the office of Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The man making the call said a friend of his was sexually assaulted on a boat in 1985 by “men she referred to at the time as Brett and Mark.” After seeing a picture of a high school-aged Kavanaugh on TV, the man said he realized he was looking at the same Brett from 33 years ago.

“No,” Kavanaugh said when asked about this story, which also implicated his childhood friend Mark Judge. “I was not in Newport, haven’t been on a boat in Newport. Not with Mark Judge on a boat, nor all those three things combined.”

So why would GOP staffers bring up these two flimsy allegations about Kavanaugh? One theory is that they’re trying to muddy the waters and discredit all of the accusations against him.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee said themselves that the letter from the person in Colorado was useless. “We have no reason to assign the letter credibility, and even if we did, we’d have no way to investigate the allegation as it was made anonymously and cannot be corroborated,” they said. So why question Kavanaugh about it at all?

Then there was the odd choice of asking Kavanaugh about several tweets from the man who called Whitehouse’s office. One of the tweets called for President Trump to be overthrown. Another asked the Pentagon to “save my country from the parasite that occupies the White House.” The staffers asked Kavanaugh if he was aware of these tweets. He said he wasn’t, of course.

The decision to ask Kavanaugh about the tweets seems less about his answer and more about the eventual publication of the transcript. GOP staffers knew Kavanaugh wasn’t aware of the tweets, but they wanted to make public an accusation of sexual misconduct that came from a Trump hater with an egg avatar. On Wednesday night, the man recanted his story in another tweet.

If Republicans are in fact trying to discredit all of Kavanaugh’s accusers, there are early signs that it’s working. Breitbart is blaring bright red headlines about a “flood of anonymous discredited accusations,” while The Federalist is highlighting the off-the-wall tweets of the man in Rhode Island.

Democrats, for their part, seem to be seeing through this gambit. One senior Democratic aide told Politico reporter Elana Schor that Republicans are “releasing anonymous allegations in an effort to make all allegations look frivolous. We’re focusing on the ones that have names attached.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... thers.html

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:11 am

I'm gonna skip it and say I didn't.

Belle · Post by **Belle** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:55 pm

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:06 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:28 pm
This whole episode is American politics at its worst, and deeply depressing for Western culture.[/b]
Belle, it makes me want to cringe-finally Kavanaugh is doing some cringing! Regards, Len

“I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now,”

And yesterday listening to Trump for over 80 minutes made me cringe some more-what an embarrassment!

I'm very disappointed, Len. Is this the price you people are prepared to pay for losing the last election; traducing the reputation of a man in a show trial without the aid of a lawyer and when there is a wife and innocent children involved? This is a horrifying spectacle the people of Australia hate on every single level and it's reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In fact, one wit in the UK has dubbed what is going on as "sexual McCarthyism". It was Brendan O'Neill from the UK who coined that term.

My son's boss, the PM of Australia, has a wife and 2 little girls. If this was happening to them I'd be absolutely mortified. And this is all about politics, and about as ugly as it gets. The irony is that you will probably end up with Trump 20/20 as a consequence.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:37 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:11 am
I'm gonna skip it and say I didn't.

I did the whole thing-Ford was great-still the Republicans came back strong in the second half-Graham led the charge. I think it boils down to Susan, Lisa and Flake-I'm nervous. Regards, Len

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:44 pm

Belle wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:55 pm
I'm very disappointed, Len. Is this the price you people are prepared to pay for losing the last election; traducing the reputation of a man in a show trial without the aid of a lawyer and when there is a wife and innocent children involved? ... The irony is that you will probably end up with Trump 20/20 as a consequence.

Belle aren't you overlooking the costs to Ford-she has innocent children and a loving husband too. Trump in 20/20 again-I don't think so. Kavanaugh is a beer man and I'm for wine-sure hope he loses but just don't know-at times he sure sounded like a mean drunk to me. Regards, Len

Belle · Post by **Belle** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:09 am

I don't have the power to know whether somebody is guilty or innocent of any crime; that's for a court of law to decide. And I don't really follow American politics, as I've said before. But this show trial and witch-hunt has staggered people in Australia and if you're friends don't like you.... We are all for a fair go and procedural fairness.

I'm not overlooking any 'costs', especially when somebody has volunteered to traduce the reputation of another person for political ends before the entire world. I'm certain this will backfire, one way or another, on somebody or other. And I'm astonished to see you writing with such venom, Len.

Women act like saints but my experience shows me they are far from saintly. The stories about women attending 10 parties where that candidate was present reminded me of the joke from Woody Allen..."the food was dreadful, and the portions were so small"!!!

As usual, the answer resides here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guwG2dS58d4

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:35 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:09 am
As usual, the answer resides here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guwG2dS58d4

Belle the youtube is the best part of this message of yours-much pleasanter than the 9 hours of TV I watched yesterday or what I think will be happening as early this weekend with our Supreme Court. Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:49 am

Belle wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:09 am
Women act like saints but my experience shows me they are far from saintly.

Truisms like this one aside, I think that the only participant in this matter who lays claim to sainthood happens to be male. His vague, self-serving responses to specific questions have been too numerous to count. He claims that his good name and reputation have been shot, and so they have, but he acknowledges not a scintilla of responsibility for bringing that upon himself.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:06 am

Flake just let me down. Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:49 am

Re: yesterday's hearing. Sen. Lindsey Graham may be scrambling to be named the next AG in order to head off the Mueller probe and thereby rescue Trump's all-enveloping behind. Notice how the majority scooted out from behind their "female assistant's" skirts yesterday at Senator Graham's instigation once PROXY LADY started asking Judge Kavanaugh tough, professional, cross-examinational questions that he couldn't answer, or tried to duck.

Re: the rest of the GOP. They may be radicals but they ain't stupid. They know that putting on the Court a thrice-credibly accused sexual assailant and former right-wing GOP political operative who blames his self-inflicted reputational wounds on a left-wing conspiracy seeking revenge on behalf of the very same Clintons he showed such prurient interest in during the Lewinsky matter, they know full well how that will cost them with women but they are also fully prepared to absorb the hit to achieve their ultimate goal of radicalizing the Court for the next half century.

Let the games begin. But I am increasingly worried that, whoever happens to win a localized tactical skirmish, we are seeing the run-up to an all-out strategic civil war. In that context and in the long run, whether the victors in the current SCROTUM-on-SCOTUS boondoggle are the radical-right extremists or their counterparts on the extreme left really doesn't matter.

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pm

lennygoran wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:06 am
Flake just let me down. Regards, Len

Maybe, maybe not. Flake appears to have joined a coalition to demand a week's delay in the Senate floor vote until a proper FBI investigation is done. That signals to me that Collins and Murkowski have privately indicated they will vote NO until and unless such an investigation is completed.

Meantime, Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IND), a swing vote, has also stated publicly that he will vote NO tomorrow "under the current circumstances", i.e., without an investigation. And there is new reporting that 4 senators, Donnelly, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski, have agreed to vote as a bloc on this nomination. Yet another signal that Collins and Murkowski are balking.

So the matter is still open. We'll see what, if anything, the FBI can come up with. If nothing, Kavanaugh will be approved easily, probably with Repubs. Flake, Collins, Murkowski and Dems. Heitkamp, Manchin and maybe even Donnelly all voting for him. If something negative should turn up, then Kavanaugh will probably cut his losses and withdraw his name before any up or down vote takes place.

Bottom line:
There is NO WAY this nomination's gonna get rammed down the American people's throats in a Senate floor vote tomorrow morning.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:30 pm

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pm
Maybe, maybe not. Flake appears to have joined a coalition to demand a week's delay in the Senate floor vote until a proper FBI investigation is done.

Yes alot happened while we were out shopping-that elevator encounter for example!

Most amazing-Trump's reaction--he came off looking like a gracious human kind of person!

Regards, Len

jserraglio · Post by **jserraglio** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:35 pm

The Kavanaugh nomination may now be dead in the water.

Kavanaugh may have lied under oath Thursday, not about sexual assault but about a comparatively minor matter, a peccadillo -- his drinking.

At least two women who knew him during his Yale College years came forward Friday night to dispute the denials he gave about that matter to the committee on Thursday. They asserted that he was a party boy, a sloppy drunk, a heavy drinker thru all 4 years they knew him in college.

Kavanaugh's lying about his drinking might be more significant than might appear at first glance. For example, when questioned by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, he denied ever having experienced alcohol-fueled blackouts, but then tried to derail her follow-up questions on that matter.

If Kavanaugh had in fact experienced such blackouts as a prep-school kid experimenting with binge drinking, it could very well explain how both Blasey and Kavanaugh could credibly tell such vastly different stories. She would recall vividly his assault on her while he honestly would not be able recall doing any such thing. But once this subject was raised, Kavanaugh abruptly and rudely cut off Klobuchar's questions to ask her whether she herself had ever had blackouts. I doubt he will be able to derail FBI questions in a similar way.

Now that his credibility under oath is being challenged publicly, Judge Kavanaugh might very well quietly withdraw his name from consideration in the coming days, citing concern for his family.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:49 am

jserraglio wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:35 pm
The Kavanaugh nomination may now be dead in the water....Now that his credibility under oath is being challenged publicly, Judge Kavanaugh might very well quietly withdraw his name from consideration in the coming days, citing concern for his family.

I hope you're right on this-I myself told Brett to stop with the beer and switch to wine!

[fleeing]

Seriously though I liked this fact check from the NY Times today!

At Times, Kavanaugh’s Defense Misleads or Veers Off Point

By Mike McIntire, Linda Qiu, Steve Eder and Kate Kelly

Sept. 28, 2018

On Thursday, the adolescent jottings of Brett M. Kavanaugh in his high school yearbook were being scrutinized under the searing lights of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, where he sat accused of committing a drunken sexual assault when he was 17.

The faded references to heavy drinking and sexual pursuits had taken on evidentiary significance, and he was pressed by senators to acknowledge their meaning. Judge Kavanaugh instead offered benign alternative explanations — an apparent reference to throwing up from drinking could have referred to spicy foods upsetting his stomach, he said.

So it went for hours, as Judge Kavanaugh mounted an emotional defense against allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. It was the second time he had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the first being earlier in September when he was asked mostly about his legal career.

The New York Times fact-checked his testimony, comparing his statements against the recollections of former classmates and acquaintances from his youth, as well as records from his time working in the administration of George W. Bush.

The combative nominee was compelled to answer questions he clearly found embarrassing or offensive. What emerges is the image of a skilled lawyer who, when pressed on difficult subjects, sometimes crafted responses that were misleading, disputed or off point. When asked about his alcohol consumption in high school, he said his classmates were “legal to drink” in their senior year, even though the legality of the drinking was not the issue (and, in fact, he could not legally drink because the age was raised to 21 before he even turned 18).

It was a performance that evolved with the increasingly fraught tenor of the proceedings. At his first hearing, Judge Kavanaugh, a Yale Law School graduate, fielded questions on policy and political work in the bland, studiously noncontroversial tradition of nominees to the high court. Still, even then some answers raised flags, as when he claimed not to know or suspect that internal Democratic documents about judicial nominations, shared with him when he worked in the Bush administration, had been stolen from Democrats’ computers.

But Thursday’s hearing sharpened the focus on a nominee in a way not seen since the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991. As in that earlier case, seemingly small details suddenly loomed large in importance.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, reminded Judge Kavanaugh that juries were routinely instructed that they can “disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing.”

“So the core of why we’re here today really is credibility,” he said.
The Alleged Attendees

Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly testified that three people had exonerated him of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her during a gathering of teenagers outside Washington in the summer of 1982. “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,” he said on Thursday, punctuating his statement with an extra “refuted.”

This is misleading.

While it is true that the three people did not corroborate Dr. Blasey’s account, they did not “refute” it either. Dr. Blasey had said that two of them were in the house, and one of them was in the room at the time of the alleged assault.

All three said they did not recall the gathering, and two of them — friends of Judge Kavanaugh’s — said they had not, in general, seen him act in an aggressive manner.

Leland Keyser, a longtime friend of Dr. Blasey’s, submitted a short statement through her lawyer saying that she did not know Judge Kavanaugh and had “no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Aside from her lack of recollections, Ms. Keyser separately told The Washington Post that she believed Dr. Blasey’s account, the newspaper reported.

During the hearing, Dr. Blasey said she did not expect that Ms. Keyser would remember the gathering because it was “a very unremarkable party” for her. She also noted that Ms. Keyser “has significant health challenges,” adding that “she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes.”

Dr. Blasey recalled Patrick Smyth, known as “P.J.,” as attending the gathering. But through his lawyer, Mr. Smyth issued a statement that he had “no knowledge” of the party or the allegations. Dr. Blasey testified that, like, Ms. Keyser, it was not surprising that Mr. Smyth would not have memories of the gathering.

Mark Judge was “a different story,” Dr. Blasey said. “I would expect that he would remember this happened.” Dr. Blasey accused Mr. Judge, a close friend and classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Preparatory School, of being in the room during the alleged assault and jumping onto the bed.

In his statement to the committee, Mr. Judge, through his lawyer, wrote that he had “no memory of this alleged incident” and that he did “not recall the party described.”
Excessive Drinking

Judge Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two as a high school and college student, but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out,” he said.
This is disputed.

His statements are at odds with how some of his classmates remembered him. In interviews before his testimony, nearly a dozen college classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s said they recalled him indulging in heavy drinking, some saying it went beyond normal consumption. (To be sure, a smaller number of classmates said his drinking was unexceptional.)

Reached after the hearing, Lynne Brookes, an undergraduate classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, said she believed he had “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.”

“He frequently drank to excess,” she said. “I know because I frequently drank to excess with him.”

Ms. Brookes was roommates with Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking game while they were students.
Image
Students from Holton-Arms, the all-girls school that Dr. Blasey attended, arriving at the Senate.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

Like Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Brookes, a Republican, was an athlete who went to a prestigious graduate school after Yale. She disputed the implication in his testimony that he could not have overindulged because he was too busy studying and competing in athletics. “It is completely possible to do both,” she said.

Another Yale classmate, Elizabeth Swisher, now a Seattle physician, said: “I drank a lot. Brett drank more.”

“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them,” said Daniel Lavan, who lived in Mr. Kavanaugh’s dorm freshman year. “His depiction of himself is inaccurate.”

Judge Kavanaugh disputed such accounts, saying they did not point to specific instances. But his own recollections have offered clues about his drinking. His high school yearbook, for example, refers to him as the treasurer of the Keg City Club, noting “100 Kegs or Bust.” Multiple high school classmates, in interviews, described Judge Kavanaugh as a heavy and frequent drinker.

As an undergrad, he was affiliated with two organizations known for hard partying, including the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon.

He also recounted his own drinking exploits in speeches. In a 2014 address to Yale Law students, he recalled a night of “group chugs” in Boston that ended with his group “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.”
A Display of Affection

A substantial portion of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was devoted to discussing his 1983 senior yearbook. In one entry, he described himself as a “Renate Alumnius,” referring to Renate Schroeder, now Renate Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic school. A number of his football teammates had similar entries. Judge Kavanagh said: “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”
This is disputed.

Four of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates, including Sean Hagan, said the notion that the phrase was meant affectionately did not ring true. They said that Judge Kavanaugh and his friends often made disrespectful sexual comments about Ms. Dolphin, and that the understanding at the time was that the many yearbook references to her were boasts about sexual conquests.

On Monday, Judge Kavanaugh’s lawyer told The Times that the “Renate Alumnius” note referred to a school event that he and Ms. Dolphin attended, after which they “shared a brief kiss good night.” Ms. Dolphin responded that they had never kissed.

On Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh steered away from the idea that the yearbook reference had any sexual connotations. “We never had any sexual interaction,” he said.

After his testimony ended, Mr. Hagan wrote on Facebook: “So angry. So disgusted. So sad. Integrity? Character? Honesty?”

Yearbook Lingo

Judge Kavanaugh’s yearbook page included the entries “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” and “Devil’s Triangle.” On Thursday, he said that “boofed” meant “flatulence” and that “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game in which three glasses were arranged in a triangle.
This is disputed.

“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.

Similarly, they said that they had never heard of a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle, but that the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman. “The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year.

“Our senior yearbook pages were a place to have a little bit of fun with commemorating inside jokes,” said Bill Barbot, who overlapped with Judge Kavanaugh at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys Catholic school. “However, the spin that Brett was putting on it was a complete overstatement of the innocence with which they were intended.”
His Social Circle

Asked about the intersection of his and Ms. Blasey’s friend groups, Judge Kavanaugh said: “When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools — Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Blasey did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me.”
This is disputed.

Judge Kavanaugh’s implication is that students at Holton-Arms, an all-girls school, didn’t mingle much those who attended Georgetown Prep. Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates said on Friday that this was not true and that Holton-Arms students were routinely present at parties with Georgetown Prep boys.

“Holton-Arms was definitely part of our social scene,” Mr. Barbot said. Another Georgetown Prep alumnus who was in Judge Kavanaugh’s class said, “Holton was as much a sister school as the others.”
Spying on Democrats

During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Judge Kavanaugh said that when he worked in the White House of George W. Bush, he was unaware that a Republican staffer had stolen documents about judicial nominations from the computer servers of Democratic lawmakers. He maintained that receiving the documents did “not raise red flags” because “information sharing was common.”
This is disputed.

Documents released by the National Archives show that Manuel Miranda, the Republican aide, had sent Judge Kavanaugh several of the stolen files between 2002 and 2003. One email chain released by the Archives describes wanting to meet at Mr. Miranda’s house so that Judge Kavanaugh, who was a White House lawyer working on judicial confirmations, could receive “useful info” about two Democratic senators.

Mr. Miranda told The Times that he had never informed Mr. Kavanaugh about the computer servers. Democrats say the documents show that Judge Kavanaugh must have been aware that the information he was receiving from Mr. Miranda was stolen from Democratic computers. Emails from Mr. Miranda to Judge Kavanaugh included remarkable detail about Democratic plans, and some were marked as “highly confidential” or “intel.”

But Judge Kavanaugh offered a more benign interpretation, saying that he merely assumed at the time that Mr. Miranda had received the information from friendly Democratic staffers.

In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh told senators that when he was in the White House Counsel’s Office, he did not work on a controversial appeals court nomination and played only a small role in another. The nomination of Judge William H. Pryor Jr. was “not one that I worked on personally,” he said. He also said that Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. was “not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.”
This requires context.

Emails released after Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court showed that during his White House tenure, he was invited to participate in a conference call on Judge Pryor’s confirmation. The email went to a group called the “Pryor Working Group.” The emails also show that he worked on the Pickering nomination, and was called by one colleague “much more involved in the Pickering fight.”

It is clear that Judge Kavanaugh — in 2006 and again this year — sought to downplay his role. Democrats believe that he actively misled the Judiciary Committee, hoping that the true extent of his involvement would not be revealed.
Abortion Rights

Judge Kavanaugh has sought to assure some senators — and the abortion rights groups that support them — by calling Roe v. Wade a matter of settled law. At a hearing on Sept. 6, he said the case was “an important precedent” and “has been reaffirmed many times.”
This requires context.

At the same hearing, the judge declined to directly answer questions by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, as to whether he believed the 1973 ruling was “correct law.”

Other comments by Judge Kavanaugh have given abortion supporters pause. Last year, he cited Roe v. Wade as an example of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s “massive and enduring impact on American law.” Chief Justice Rehnquist had dissented in the case.

In a March 2003 email, Judge Kavanaugh also appeared to question whether the abortion rights case was indeed “settled law.” In congressional testimony, he defended that email as being concerned with accuracy, and he is correct that some legal scholars do not view the case as settled law.
Executive Privilege

At his initial confirmation hearing in September, Judge Kavanaugh told Ms. Feinstein that he believed a 1974 ruling, United States v. Nixon, was “one of the four greatest moments in Supreme Court history.” In it, the court ruled that the president could not invoke executive privilege to block a subpoena from the Watergate special prosecutor to turn over audiotapes of White House conversations.

Democrats have pointed to remarks Judge Kavanaugh made about the case to suggest he would shield President Trump from a similar subpoena.
This requires context.

Judge Kavanaugh accurately noted that he had praised the decision. He referred to it in a 2016 law review article, stating that the “greatest moments in American judicial history have been when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law.” He also heralded it as “one of the two most significant cases in which the Judiciary stood up to the president” in a 2014 law review article.

But the judge has also questioned the Nixon ruling. In a 1999 round-table discussion, he drew a direct link between court rulings during the investigation of President Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court decision against Richard Nixon. He posed the possibility that the Nixon case “was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so.” He also said, “Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision.”

And he even raised the possibility that it should be overturned. “I’m curious to know what people who are upset by the recent privilege decisions think about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nixon,” Judge Kavanaugh said during the discussion. “Should United States v. Nixon be overruled on the ground that the case was a nonjusticiable intra-branch dispute? Maybe so.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/p ... e=Homepage

Who is online