Showing posts with label Impeach Kavanaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Impeach Kavanaugh. Show all posts

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Presidential immunity hearing


No.  

The correct answer is: absolutely not.

And if it's yes, then I guess Biden has a job to do.


SCOTUS gave him the delay, now the lawyers can say whatever will keep him happy.  It doesn't have to be an actual effort to argue the case.  

Despicable. But good on Sotomayor, I guess, for making them say it.


I expect Justice Roberts will find other reasons to send the case back to Chutkan for further action before she can set the trial date.






Yes. None of this makes any sense at all.  It was only ever a delay tactic, and SCOTUS is complicit.

But Alito is making his loyalties clear.


Oh, my goodness.  That's a stretch the light from another universe couldn't match.







Reasonable guess.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04/26/2024:







UPDATE 04/28/2024:




Sunday, January 22, 2023

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Director Doug Liman says his self-funded Brett Kavanaugh documentary Justice, which premiered at Sundance Friday night, might be far from finished as new tips started pouring within a half hour of the highly-secretive project being announced on Thursday.

[...]

“The machinery that’s put into place against anyone that speaks up… we knew that machinery would be turned on us,” Liman said. “The film wouldn’t have been shown at Sundance, there would have been an injunction” had word of it leaked in advance.

[...]

The film follows up tips the FBI apparently ignored in an investigation launched after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were both high school students in Maryland.

[...]

Blasey Ford appears briefly in the opening few minutes of the film. Excerpts from her dramatic testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee serve to tell her story. Liman said he did not include a new on-camera interview with Blasey Ford because “she did her part. She more than did her part for this country. She’s done enough for 10 lifetimes.”

[...]

Justice premiered in an overflowing theater to enthusiastic response. The documentary had been kept under close wraps and was only announced as part of the lineup at the opening news conference a day earlier.

[...]

In a statement released after the festival announced the premiere of the documentary, Liman said, “It shouldn’t be this hard to have an open and honest conversation about whether or not a Justice on the Supreme Court assaulted numerous women as a young man. Thanks to this fantastic investigative team and the brave souls who trusted us with their stories, Justice picks up where the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh fell woefully short. The film examines our judicial process and the institutions behind it, highlighting bureaucratic missteps and political powergrabs that continue to have an outsized impact on our nation today.”

  Deadline
Impeach Brett Kavanaugh.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01/27/2023:  Why Kavanaugh won't be removed.
The reason the federal Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, which had been tasked with investigating the allegations against Kavanaugh in 2018, stopped its probe in 2019, after he was sworn in at the Supreme Court, was because it no longer had any jurisdiction to examine his conduct. It had no authority to investigate a sitting justice, and so this machinery also ground to a halt. Another tip line to nowhere.

All of which means that the Liman film, and whatever resultant probe it generates, actually only replicates the problem faced by Ford back in 2018, and by Anita Hill and the other Clarence Thomas accusers back in 1991: No matter how much evidence you amass, no matter how many tips you investigate, no matter how many people eventually turn up to corroborate your story, there is nobody to call. There is no entity in existence to properly evaluate the claims, and there is no instrument to test them and to bring about accountability. Liman’s rolling tip line may indeed be a welcome move to correct the factual record and to amp up a cultural conversation about judicial behavior, and that is not a trivial intervention. But what it cannot be—because we haven’t yet built such a thing—is a formal political or legal engine for actual change in the judicial appointment system, or to the judiciary.

[...]

And once again, without actual rules and enforceable systems of accountability, it will be yet another reminder that the women who are abused have no power, and that once the justices are seated, their relative power is boundless.

  Dahlia Lithwick @ Slate

Friday, January 20, 2023

Investigating Brett Kavanaugh documentary

Sundance has added a secret documentary about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from director Doug Liman to its lineup, Sundance programmers announced Thursday.

The film “Justice” is intended to screen on Friday night at 8:30 p.m. MT as a special premiere at Park Avenue Theater followed by a Press & Industry screening at 10 p.m. MT.

[...]

“This is a film that focuses on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh and the investigation that ensued,” festival director of programming Kim Yutani said in a press conference. “It is a very powerful documentary that we felt was important to add. We saw it practically yesterday, and it’s a film that I think challenges existing narratives, I think it asks tough questions, and I think it provokes conversations.”

  MSN
“It shouldn’t be this hard to have an open and honest conversation about whether or not a Justice on the Supreme Court assaulted numerous women as a young man,” said Liman in a statement. “Thanks to this fantastic investigative team and the brave souls who trusted us with their stories, Justice picks up where the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh fell woefully short.”

Liman added: “The film examines our judicial process and the institutions behind it, highlighting bureaucratic missteps and political powergrabs that continue to have an outsized impact on our nation today.

  Hollywood Reporter
No doubt Justice will be well and widely viewed.

UPDATE 01/22/2023:

The film premiered. New tips are "pouring in."

Impeach Kavanaugh.

Saturday, December 14, 2019

What does Bret Kavanaugh have to do with impeaching Trump?

Nothing really.  But the Supreme Court has just taken up three cases having to do with releasing Trump's financial records.


He's treating Kavanaugh like he did Manafort and the others when they were in a position to possibly flip on him.  This is the legal edge of bribing a judge.  And, why not?  That's why they put Kavanaugh on the bench.  To be Trump's toady.

Jesus wept.  And Kavanaugh needs to be impeached, too.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, September 16, 2019

Kavanaugh update

The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.

The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no other comment about the episode.

[...]

The Times' revision says: "Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."

  Fox News




Sued for what?  The article reported that Stier - a witness - recalled it - not that the victim recalled it.  The victim may not recall it because it didn't matter that much, she was drunk, she's pro-Kavanaugh, or she doesn't want to be involved - or some other reason.  Doesn't mean it didn't happen.  And it certainly doesn't mean there's anything to sue the Times for.  Also, they didn't "walk back" anything.  They added to the report.

UPDATE:



Yes, yes it was.  And the Times seems to have fallen several levels in the past several years,  but it's not something to be sued over.

UPDATE:



It was a failure to dot the i's and cross the t's, not a correction.

For the record

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, sent the FBI a letter last year asking it to look into an allegation of sexual misconduct against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

  The Hill
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday called for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's impeachment following a new allegation of sexual assault against him published in the New York Times.

  
Yeah, that's not going to happen, either.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Kavanaugh was never fully investigated

During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

[...]

Mr. Kavanaugh, now a justice on the Supreme Court, has adamantly denied her claims. Those claims became a flash point during his confirmation process last year, when he was also fighting other sexual misconduct allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, who had attended a Washington-area high school near his.

Ms. Ramirez’s story would seem far less damaging to Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation than those of Dr. Ford, who claimed that he pinned her to a bed, groped her and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth.

But while we found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Ramirez’s story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred.

[...]

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Mr. Kavanaugh did not speak to us because we could not agree on terms for an interview. But he has denied Dr. Ford’s and Ms. Ramirez’s allegations, and declined to answer our questions about Mr. Stier’s account.

[...]

Ms. Ramirez, who was never asked to testify, [...] found the [Kavanaugh confirmation] hearings distressing. Her efforts to backstop her recollections with friends would later be cited as evidence that her memory was unreliable or that she was trying to construct a story rather than confirm one.

Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

  NYT
I don't understand how the Senate is allowed to impose limits on an FBI investigation.
Ultimately, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, concluded, “There is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez.” Mr. Kavanaugh was confirmed on Oct. 6, 2018, by a vote of 50-48, the closest vote for a Supreme Court justice in more than 130 years.

[...]

More than 3,000 Yale women signed an open letter commending [Ms. Ramirez'] “courage in coming forward.” More than 1,500 Yale men issued a similar letter two days later.

[...]

College students wrote about how Ms. Ramirez had helped them find the words to express their own experiences. Medical students wrote about how they were now going to listen differently to victims of sexual violence. Parents wrote about having conversations with their children about how bad behavior can follow them through life. One father told Ms. Ramirez he was talking to his two sons about how their generation is obligated to be better.
Kavanaugh was a bully predator then, he's a liar now.  He is not fit for the highest court in the land.  We all know that.

Kudos to Mr. Stier and the Times for at the very least keeping the story of Brett Kavanaugh's lack of fitness for his position alive.

Impeach Kavanaugh.

UPDATE:





UPDATE:







Friday, August 2, 2019

Thursday, April 11, 2019

A necessary act

More than two dozen progressive groups are asking House Democrats to investigate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.

“Senate Republicans made a mockery of their constitutional responsibility to provide ‘advice and consent’ on the president’s nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, and the American people deserve to know how and why the process was such a sham,” the groups wrote in a letter to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

  The Hill
I think we know.
“The public is just as entitled to a thorough review of Justice Kavanaugh’s record now as it was before he was elevated to the Supreme Court and to know whether allegations against him of sexual assault and perjury have any factual basis,” they added.
True. And not only the sexual assault and perjury allegations, but the many complaints that had been lodged against him before he was seated on the Supreme bench.
The groups also asked for a review of Kavanaugh's personal financial debts that the White House attributed to purchasing baseball tickets and home improvements.
Yes, and who cleared that huge debt he had before he was nominated.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, March 18, 2019

Impeach Kavanaugh




On Friday, the Tenth Circuit denied appeals over its decision to boot 83 ethics complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh. The court had previously held that the complaints had to be dismissed, because it had no authority to hold a sitting Supreme Court justice accountable. The Tenth Circuit upheld that theory.

[...]

It is important to emphasize that the Tenth made no ruling on the merits of the complaints. Most of the complaints stem from Kavanaugh’s repeated lying during his old confirmation testimony in 2004 and 2006. The Circuit court did not exonerate Kavanaugh, nor did it determine that he shouldn’t be punished for lying. It simply said that it does not have the authority to hold him accountable, given that he has now been elevated to the Supreme Court.

[...]

Chief Justice John Roberts might be toying with the idea of instituting a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, but as of now, no such code exists.

  Above the Law
A miscarriage of justice if there ever was one. He should have been ineligible to sit on the Supreme Court until those complaints were addressed and cleared.


No body [has] the Constitutional authority to hold a sitting Supreme Court justice accountable for perjury.

Except for the United State Congress, through the mechanism of impeachment.

Impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court justice works just like if does for a president or for any federal official. The “impeachment” charges are brought in the House, through a simple majority vote. The trial is conducted in the Senate where there needs to be a 2/3rds majority for conviction and removal from office.

[...]

Impeachment charges are now the ONLY WAY to have a real “investigation” into Kavanaugh’s misdeeds.

[...]

Given the current make-up of Congress, Democrats in the House can start he ball rolling on their own steam, without support from Republicans. [...] Regardless of where you stand on the attempted rape allegations against Kavanaugh, that he lied under oath is, or should be, a devastating charge on its own.

[...]

Impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh is now the JOB of Congress. It’s not a political tactic, it is a Constitutional requirement of their office.

Unless lying under oath just doesn’t matter to Congress. In which case, like, why is Michael Cohen going to jail? Why does Michael Cohen get three-and-a-half years for lying to Congress while Brett Kavanaugh gets to be on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life?
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Petition to impeach Kavanaugh

A petition calling for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be impeached has gathered over 155,000 signatures in the wake of his confirmation and multiple allegations of sexual assault brought against him.

  The Hill




...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.