Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavanaugh

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavanaugh

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:23 pm

Merrick Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

A Democratic group filed a complaint against Kavanugh for lying before Congress

TAYLOR LINK

SEPTEMBER 9, 2018 8:48PM (UTC)

Merrick Garland may play a role in the vacant Supreme Court seat after all. A liberal group has filed a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh for allegedly perjuring himself in front of the Senate judiciary committee. Garland, who is the chief judge of the D.C. federal circuit, was asked to rule upon the complaint or appoint a special panel of jurists to investigate the allegations.

The Democratic Coalition, a group led by Jon Cooper and Scott Dworkin, claim that Kavanaugh lied under oath before the Senate back in 2004 and 2006 when he said he was unaware he read and used stolen emails in 2002. Kavanaugh was going through the hearing process in those years to become a federal district and appellate judge, respectively.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who was on the Senate judiciary committee back in the mid-2000s, asked Kavanaugh if he was involved in the stolen email scandal while he worked in the Bush White House in the early 2000s. Kavanaugh said he was unaware that emails were stolen at the time, and insisted that if he did know, he would would have blown the whistle on his colleagues. Fast forward to 2018, Leahy, still on the Senate judiciary committee, introduced new evidence that suggested Kavanaugh handled emails that were stolen during that time period.

Those who wish to bring down Kavanaugh's nomination say that these new, unearthed emails demonstrate that the judge perjured himself during the past hearings.


The Democratic Coalition filed a complaint against Kavanaugh earlier this week in regards to these allegations. They have asked Garland to review the claims.

Garland's introduction to the Kavanaugh's nomination process is ironic considering Republicans refused to give him a hearing when former President Barack Obama wished to appoint him to Justice Scalia's old seat.

Now, it appears, Garland will play a role as to whether Kavanaugh gets approved by the Senate.

Fortunately for Kavanaugh, he has been careful to speak highly of Garland the past few months.

“As I’ve said before, [Garland is] a great judge – a great chief judge – and he’s very careful and very hardworking, and we work well together and try to read the statute as written, read the precedent as written,” Kavanaugh said, Fox News reported, according to Mediaite . “He’s a judge – like I try to be as well – a judge who’s not trying to impose any personal preferences onto the decision but take the law as written, and that’s what I’ve tried to do in those cases and that probably explains some of that.”
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/09/merric ... kavanaugh/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:46 pm

Published on
Monday, September 10, 2018
by Slate
I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About
He should be impeached, not elevated
byLisa Graves

Judge Brett Kavanaugh prepares to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill on Sept. 6. Photo edited by Slate. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh prepares to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill on Sept. 6. (Photo edited by Slate/Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary.

I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.

Newly released emails show that while he was working to move through President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.

Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.

No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it.

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.



Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

Another email chain included the subject line “spying.” It’s hard to imagine a more definitive clue than that. Another said “Senator Leahy’s staff has distributed a confidential letter to Dem Counsel” and then described for Kavanaugh that precise confidential information we had gathered about a nominee Kavanaugh was boosting. Again, it is illogical to think that we would have just given Miranda this “confidential” information for him to use against us. But this is precisely what Judge Kavanaugh suggested in his testimony on Wednesday. He is not that naïve.

In the hearing this week, Sen. Leahy also noted that the previously hidden emails showed that Miranda asked to meet Kavanaugh in person to give him “paper” files with “useful info to map out [Sens. Joe] Biden and [Dianne] Feinstein, and others.” The promised information included “Biden-speak.” Again, this would not have been a normal information exchange.

In response to Leahy’s questions this week, Kavanaugh made the outlandish claim that it was typical for him to be told what Democrats planned to ask at these combative hearings over controversial nominees, and that this was in fact the “coin of the realm.” As a Democrat who worked on those questions, I can say definitively that it was not typical at all. Kavanaugh knows this full well

At the time, Kavanaugh was working with Miranda and outside groups to try to force these nominees through the Senate over Democratic objections, and it would have been suicide to give them our research, talking points, strategies, or confidential letters. The GOP senators, their staff, the White House, and outside groups were working intensively to undermine the work of Democratic senators to block the most extreme of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Kavanaugh’s actions were dishonorable and dishonest.
The Leahy talking points given to Kavanaugh were from my in-depth research into why the Senate had compelling historical precedent for examining Miguel Estrada’s Department of Justice records, which the White House counsel’s office was refusing to surrender. Other confidential materials Miranda shared with Kavanaugh related to investigations Democrats were pursuing over how Judge Priscilla Owen had handled an abortion case involving parental consent and about the overlap between her funders and groups with business before the courts of Texas. We would never have provided that information—key to our strategy to try to block what we considered extremist judicial nominations—to Miranda or to the White House. During his testimony, Kavanaugh conflated these adversarial proceedings with ones in which Democrats might have cooperated with the other side, like the Patriot Act and airline liability. But these weren’t hearings on some bill where senators would share their concerns across the aisle to try to get a bipartisan fix on problems in a piece of legislation. These were oppositional proceedings in committee and on the floor over controversial judicial nominees. Kavanaugh knew this just as intimately as I did—our sides fought over those nominations intensely.

It was also an area where Kavanaugh’s judicial nominations alliance had taken a scorched-earth approach, attacking Democrats ruthlessly. The White House’s closest allies went so far as to call Leahy and other Democrats on the committee “anti-Catholic,” even running attack ads.

Perhaps Kavanaugh was so blinded by his quest to get the most controversial Bush nominees confirmed in 2003 that he did not have any concerns about the bounty of secret memos and letters he was receiving—the full extent of which is not known because so many documents are still secret.

But, surely, reasonable questions about what he had been party to would have been considered after the story of the theft exploded in the news, Miranda was forced to resign, and the U.S. Senate sergeant-at-arms began a bipartisan investigation into the files stolen from the Senate?

As of November 2003, when the sergeant-at-arms seized the Judiciary Committee’s servers, Kavanaugh would have been on notice that any of the letters, talking points, or research described as being from Democrats that were provided to him by Miranda were suspect and probably stolen from the Senate’s server.

But he did nothing. He did not come forward to the Senate to provide information about the confidential documents Miranda had given him, which were clearly from the Democrats.

Kavanaugh also apparently did nothing when the Senate referred the case to the U.S. attorney’s office for criminal prosecution. (Miranda was never prosecuted.)

Eventually, though, Kavanaugh went even further to help cover up the details of the theft.

During the hearings on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a few months after the Miranda news broke, Kavanaugh actively hid his own involvement, lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee by stating unequivocally that he not only knew nothing of the episode, but also never even received any stolen material.

Even if Kavanaugh could claim that he didn’t have any hint at the time he received the emails that these documents were of suspect provenance—which I personally find implausible—there is no reasonable way for him to assert honestly that he had no idea what they were after the revelation of the theft. Any reasonable person would have realized they had been stolen, and certainly someone as smart as Kavanaugh would have too.

But he lied.

Under oath.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018 ... nate-about

DkEoFNBX4AAu7bW.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:48 am

Senator Dick Durbin


We continue to find more evidence that Judge Kavanaugh misled me and the Judiciary Committee under oath. I’m posting important documents that Senate Republicans didn’t want the American people to see. We deserve transparency about this nominee.

In 2006, I asked Judge Kavanaugh about his role in the 4th Circuit nomination of Jim Haynes – a key figure in crafting the Bush White House detention & interrogation policies. Under oath, he said, "I’ve—I know Jim Haynes, but it was not one of the nominations that I handled.”


However, these emails from 2002 and 2003 show that then-Associate White House Counsel Brett Kavanaugh played a substantial role in the decision to nominate Haynes, including examining whether Haynes “would be an across-the-board judicial conservative”.

Image
Image


It is clear now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush Administration’s detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the controversial Haynes nomination.


This is a theme that we see emerge with Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are rushing through this nomination and hiding his record.
https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/statu ... 1897315328




Polly Sigh


In 2006, Kavanaugh paid $1.2M for his home but his bank accounts in the years before, during, & after the purchase never decreased. @SenWhitehouse wants answers on how Kavanaugh paid for it & why his bank accounts suddenly got fatter in 2008-2009.

Image
Image

Whitehouse Releases Written Questions for Kavanaugh
Washington, DC — Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released his written questions for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh following his Judiciary Committee hearings last week.
Whitehouse’s questions are available here and below:
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/m ... ehouse.pdf

https://twitter.com/WendySiegelman


https://medium.com/senator-sheldon-whit ... 5956a3dd63



Looks like Senate Democrats just exposed Brett Kavanaugh’s gambling problem
Bill Palmer | 9:32 pm EDT September 11, 2018
Palmer Report

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has more than a few problems to his name. He’s been caught committing several counts of felony perjury during his confirmation hearings. He’s been exposed as having extremist anti-woman views. He was rather clearly only nominated due to his radically unconstitutional beliefs about a sitting president being protected from investigation. Now it turns out Kavanaugh appears to have a whole different kind of problem.

It’s already been publicly exposed that Kavanaugh racked up as much as $200,000 in personal debt which mysteriously disappeared; his excuse about buying baseball tickets for his friends is absurd. Last week Democrats exposed emails which revealed that Kavanaugh once apologized to his friends after “growing aggressive after blowing still another game of dice.” When you’ve got a guy admitting that he can’t control his emotions when it comes to gambling, and he’s got appearing-and-vanishing personal debt in the six figures, it’s enough of a red flag to keep a guy from getting a job at Arby’s, let alone the Supreme Court.


Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse just submitted this glaring question for Brett Kavanaugh to answer: “Have you ever sought treatment for a gambling addiction?” This was reported this evening by the Huffington Post. To be clear, the Democrats would not go down this road, with a question this accusatory, unless they have something up their sleeve to corroborate it, or else it would backfire.


We don’t have any way of knowing what Senator Whitehouse and the Democrats are sitting on when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh’s apparent gambling problem. But we’re about to find out. The Democrats have been exposing Kavanaugh’s various lies and scandals in stages, ostensibly in order to maximize the impact of each one. Things are about to get very, very ugly for Kavanaugh – and it helps explain why Senate Republicans were reportedly hoping Donald Trump would pick someone else.
http://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/ga ... sed/12614/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:01 pm

THE OTHER THING KAVANAUGH AND TRUMP SHARE: HIDDEN MONEY STORIES

September 12, 2018/33 Comments/in Financial Fraud, Law /by empty wheel

This week, Senate Judiciary Committee members are releasing their Questions for the Record for Brett Kavanaugh (questions that he won’t be able to answer given the accelerated confirmation process Chuck Grassley has set). Sheldon Whitehouse’s QFRs have already generated considerable notice. Amid questions about predictable legal (prosecuting a president, environmental rulings, Roe, transgender rights, labor, guns) and GOP rat-fuckery (Starr, staff secretary, and other Bush White House policy issues), Whitehouse asked two questions that should have but did not come up in his hearing: about how debt allegedly tied to Washington Nationals season tickets evaporated when he came under consideration for SCOTUS, and the possibility he’s a heavy gambler (as suggested by one of the letters Don McGahn and Bill Burck tried to keep hidden).

But I’m more interested in some of Whitehouse’s other questions about finances. First, after asking about the baseball tickets, Whitehouse asks why the aspiring Justice has declared himself “exempt” from reporting certain gifts and/or reimbursements.

14. On your Financial Disclosure Report dated July 15, 2018 in Section V. Gifts, you did not check the box for no reportable gifts, you simply wrote “Exempt.”

a. Does this response indicate that you received a gift(s) but considered that gift(s) exempt from the reporting requirements?

b. For each gift (if any) you believe is exempt from reporting, please provide a description of the gift, the approximate value, date received, the donor, and the reason you believe the gift was exempt from reporting requirements.

15. On your Financial Disclosure Report dated July 15, 2018, you did not list any reimbursements. Instead you simply wrote “Exempt.”

a. Does this response indicate that you received reimbursement(s) but considered that reimbursement(s) exempt from the reporting requirements?

b. For each reimbursement you believe is exempt from reporting, please provide a description of the costs incurred, reasons for the costs, the date and amount of any reimbursements that you received for these costs, and the reason you believe the reimbursement was exempt from reporting requirements.


If, as he has claimed, the baseball tickets ended up being gifted by someone, they should be declared here. But then, having asked whether Kavanaugh isn’t declaring gifts he should, Whitehouse then asks about some financial details that also might amount to gifts or other income requiring disclosure: A cost of living adjustment he is known to have received as a judge, a big bump in assets in 2008-2009, the unexplained source of money he used to buy his home, and his membership at Chevy Chase Golf Club.

16. In 2014, federal judges received a lump sum equal to the amount of their delayed cost of living adjustments. For you, this was estimated at $150,000. This amount does not appear to be reported anywhere in your financial disclosures. Please explain this discrepancy.

17. Your Bank of America accounts appear to have greatly increased in value between 2008 and 2009. Your Financial Disclosure Report dated May 15, 2009 reflected a value in the range of $15,001 – $50,000. Your Financial Disclosure Report dated May 14, 2010 reflected a value in the range of $100,001 – $250,000. You did not report any increase in Non-Investment Income, nor did you report any gifts during this period. Please explain the source of the funds that accounts for the difference reflected in these accounts between your 2008 and 2009 Financial Disclosure Reports.

18. In 2006, you purchased your primary residence in Chevy Chase, MD for $1,225,000, however, the value of assets reportedly maintained in your “Bank of America Accounts” in the years before, during, and after this purchase never decreased, indicating that funds used to pay the down payment and secure this home did not come from these accounts.

a. Did you receive financial assistance in order to purchase this home? And if so, was the assistance provided in the form of a gift or a personal loan?

b. If you received financial assistance, please provide details surrounding how this assistance was provided, including the amount(s) of the assistance, date(s) on which the assistance was provided, and the individual(s) who provided this assistance.

c. Was this financial assistance disclosed on your income tax returns, financial disclosure forms, or any other reporting document?

19. You have disclosed in your responses to the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire that you are currently a member of the Chevy Chase Club. It has been reported that the initiation fee to join this club is $92,000 and annual dues total more than $9,000.

a. How much was the initiation fee required for you to join the Chevy Chase Club? What are the annual dues to maintain membership and is this the amount that you pay?

b. Did you receive any financial assistance or beneficial reduction in the rate to pay the initiation or annual fees? If so, please describe the circumstances.

c. If you received financial assistance, please disclose the amount of the assistance, the terms, the dates the assistance was provided, and the individual(s) or entity that provided the assistance.

d. To the extent such assistance or rate reduction could be deemed a “gift,” was it reflected on your income tax returns, financial disclosure forms, or any other reporting document?


The beauty of these questions is that — while I fully expect Kavanaugh to just blow off the slew of questions he’s getting this week (given that they’ve broken the rules everywhere else on this nomination, why the fuck not on QFRs?) — he is now on notice that these financial issues have been noted. If he doesn’t fix any non-disclosures now, he will no longer be able to claim that his failure to disclose required items was just a mistake.

And Whitehouse might believe there are more. He asks, first directly, and then at the end of the series of questions Whitehouse poses about the credit card debt, whether Kavanaugh’s in debt to people he hasn’t told us about.

Are there any debts, creditors, or related items that you did not disclose on your FBI disclosures?

Did you have any creditors, private or otherwise, not listed in your Financial Disclosure Reports?

My favorite bit about Whitehouse’s QFRs, however, is that at the end of all these financial questions, the former US Attorney and Attorney General then asks whether lying under oath is an impeachable offense.

24. Is lying under oath an impeachable offense for an Article III judge?


You see, we can argue Kavanaugh lied under oath in his confirmation until we’re blue in the face. Kavanaugh, each time, will offer a well practiced lawyer’s parse about how his transparently dishonest comments don’t amount to perjury, and he’ll get away with that.

But finances are a different issue. Whitehouse has put Kavanaugh on notice that not disclosing certain things — like who paid for his house or paid off his season ticket debt — will amount to lying.

So Kavanaugh may blow off these questions. But that may come back to haunt him.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/12/t ... y-stories/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:37 am

Ryan Goodman

Notice Kavanaugh does not answer @SenKamalaHarris' written question.

Q: whether he "communicated with" anyone who represents, advises now or in the past President Trump or the White House "including through an intermediary" about Mueller investigation"?

His answer is not a No.

Image
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1040073811390078976



emptywheel

How to smear the Wilsons came up in at least one National Security Council meeting.

Sounds like Kavanaugh may have been in the loop of outing a CIA spy.

Image
https://twitter.com/emptywheel


Kavanaugh vote delayed until next week
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:35 pm

Image


Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats

Ryan Grim
September 12 2018, 4:24 p.m.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have privately requested to view a Brett Kavanaugh-related document in possession of the panel’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, but the senior California senator has so far refused, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

The specific content of the document, which is a letter from a California constituent, is unclear, but Feinstein’s refusal to share the letter has created tension on the committee, particularly after Feinstein largely took a back seat to her more junior colleagues last week, as they took over Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings with protests around access to documents.

The letter took a circuitous route to Feinstein, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. It purportedly describes an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents the area.

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own.

Eshoo passed the letter to her fellow Californian, Feinstein. Word began leaking out on the Hill about it, and Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee, but she rebuffed them, Democratic sources said. Feinstein’s fellow senators want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call unilaterally. The sources were not authorized to speak on the record, and said that no senators on the committee, other than Feinstein, have so far been able to view the letter.

The woman who is the subject of the letter is now being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors. Joseph Abboud, an attorney at Katz’s firm, said that the firm was declining to comment. Emma Crisci, a spokesperson for Eshoo, declined to comment on the letter her office sent to Feinstein, saying that the office has a confidentiality policy when it comes to constituent casework. A spokesperson for Feinstein did not respond to requests for comment.

Update: September 13, 2018

Feinstein has released a statement Thursday afternoon acknowledging the existence of the letter. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/bre ... feinstein/




The real reason Dianne Feinstein just referred Brett Kavanaugh to the FBI for criminal investigation
Bill Palmer | 3:05 pm EDT September 13, 2018

This afternoon, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein confirmed earlier reporting that she had received a letter about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and that she had passed it along to the FBI. She revealed no details, and the reporting on the letter has been vague to say the least. So what’s really going on here? What kind of criminal matter is this? And why didn’t she just publicly out him instead? We can give you some insight into all of the above.

Let’s start with what we know. Here’s what Dianne Feinstein is saying about the matter: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.” This tells us more than you might think.

First, Feinstein wouldn’t have referred this to the FBI unless there’s a prosecutable alleged crime involved. So it’s completely fair to assume that the woman’s letter accuses Brett Kavanaugh of a felony, and that the statute of limitations has not expired. In other words, the FBI will criminally investigate Kavanaugh for this. BuzzFeed, which has a solid track record on these things, says that prominent “Me Too” attorney Debra Katz was seen on Capitol Hill last night just as this story was breaking, leading many to believe that she’s representing the unnamed woman. If she is representing the woman, it would all but confirm that this is a sexual assault accusation of some kind.

The New York Times now says that according to its sources, the letter “included the allegation of sexual misconduct toward the letter’s author” and that the incident took place when they were both in high school. For reference, Kavanaugh went to high school at Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Maryland. Also for reference, the State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for felony sexual offenses. Again, we don’t know for sure what Kavanaugh has been specifically accused of in the letter. This does make clear that this is not strictly about the felony perjury that Kavanaugh committed last week, or even the circumstantial evidence that he has a gambling problem. But the more immediate questions are focused on why Dianne Feinstein handled things in this manner.

Senator Feinstein made clear in her statement that the woman in question does not want to come forward publicly, and it certainly makes sense that Feinstein would want to honor that. But there may be a lot more going on here than meets the eye. Feinstein is fiercely opposed to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, and she tends to be consistently (if sometimes quietly) aggressive when it comes to getting what she wants. Kavanaugh knows what really happened between him and this woman, and by simply allowing it to be known that she’s made a criminal referral to the FBI in this matter, she’s giving him a chance to walk away.

Let’s say that Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination before Monday. In such case he might be able to disappear quickly enough that his secret never comes out. Maybe he gets to retain his current position as a federal judge. Maybe he gets to keep his marriage intact. Maybe he gets to avoid going to prison. We don’t think the FBI will drop the matter just because he walks away from the nomination, but if nothing else, public attention might subside. Feinstein appears to be giving him the opportunity to walk away before this blows up.

There is also the question of why Dianne Feinstein hasn’t shared this letter with her Democratic colleagues. The Intercept, which routinely tries to falsely scandalize prominent Democrats, is painting the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee as being outraged at her. However, this rings false on a number of levels. The most plausible explanation is that Feinstein didn’t share this with the Democrats on the committee so she’d have an excuse not to share it with the Republicans on the committee either. The worst case scenario here is that a Senate Republican dishonestly spins this letter before it becomes public, thus muddying the waters and insulating Kavanaugh.
http://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/di ... fbi/12642/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:57 pm

:yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :yay :yay


Key supporter of Murkowski, Alaska Federation of Natives, announces opposition to Kavanaugh

Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday September 13, 2018 · 2:21 PM CDT

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 13: President Donald Trump hosts a working lunch with members of Congress, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (L) at the White House, June 13, 2017, in Washington, DC. Trump and lawmakers discussed administration plans to reform the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. (Photo by Mike Theiler-Pool/Getty Images)
Murkowski, contemplating where her loyalties lie.


Sen. Mazi Hirono (D-HI) was quietly fierce in last week's hearings for Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, and has remained so, demanding "to know the full extent of Brett Kavanaugh's lies regarding indigenous communities." That is putting her Alaska colleague, Republican Lisa Murkowski, on the spot and the pressure has only increased. The state's largest Native group, the Alaska Federation of Natives, has announced its opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination.

Noting that the "federal judicial appointment and confirmation process is designed to thoroughly vet nominees" and because of that "we did not immediately weigh in on President Trump’s choice to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy." But this time is different.

However, the questions and colloquies that came out of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Senate Judiciary hearings last week have necessitated us taking a position. AFN joins our colleagues and friends across Indian country in strongly opposing Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court because of, among other things, his views on the rights of Native peoples. […]
During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Kavanaugh questioned the legitimacy of Native Hawaiian recognition, citing their different treatment by the federal government, and the fact that they do not live on reservations or enclaves. If he remains of the view that the special trust relationship only extends to Indian tribes with his brand of federal history, including territorial removal and isolation, he could very well rule that Congress lacks the authority to deal with Alaska Natives. This thinking could overturn much, if not all, of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as well as all other federal legislation and regulations addressing Alaska Natives, tribes, corporations and organizations. To confirm a nominee who does not understand or appreciate the position of Native Hawaiians, and who could weaken the special trust relationship Alaska Natives share with the federal government, would be imprudent.
The statement concludes that, based on even the limited information released thus far, "his confirmation would be for Native peoples, particularly Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians."

Why this is so significant for Murkowski is because the AFN was instrumental in supporting Murkowski's historic write-in campaign in 2010, when she lost her primary to tea-party nutter Joe Miller. At the time, when she had just received their endorsement, Murkowski exclaimed "I will fight for you as long as I am able. I love you all."

We'll see whether that "as long as I am able" has expired.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9 ... -Kavanaugh
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:46 am

POLITICS 09/14/2018 10:50 am ET Updated 0 minutes ago
Brett Kavanaugh Accused Of Attempting To Rape A Woman In High School

The bombshell revelation comes a week before the Supreme Court nominee is set to receive a vote before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

By Amanda Terkel

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is denying allegations that he tried to rape a woman.
A woman is accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her at a party while they were both in high school.

Kavanaugh, in a statement to The New Yorker, which broke the details of the encounter, denied the claim.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

The woman, whose identity is still not public, sent Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) a letter in the summer, after Kavanaugh was nominated, sharing her concerns about him.

From The New Yorker:

The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.
The classmate who was reportedly with Kavanaugh said he has “no recollection” of the incident.

Rumors of this letter and sexual misconduct allegations have been swirling for weeks on Capitol Hill, with reporters and other Democratic senators pressing Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to share the information.

On Thursday, Feinstein finally acknowledged she had received a letter but did not want to give more details because the subject did not want to go public. She said she referred the matter to the FBI.

Sources close to Feinstein say she was acting out of concern for the privacy of the woman. But The New Yorker reports that Feinstein “conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had ‘taken care of it.’” She also thought Democrats should focus on legal issues with Kavanaugh, rather than personal ones.

Republicans dismissed the revelation about the letter on Thursday. And on Friday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) retweeted someone who was mocking it as a game of telephone.


Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also released a letter Friday morning from 65 women who said they supported Kavanaugh.

The offices of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who are considered possible “no” votes against Kavanaugh, did not immediately return a request for comment.

The White House put out a statement on Thursday, calling the controversy an “11th hour attempt to delay” Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh on Sept. 20.

This is a breaking news story and will continue to be updated.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/br ... 32ebf7dedf
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby Cordelia » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:26 pm

They've got to postpone his confirmation now, right?

California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

By Emma Brown

September 16 at 1:28

Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it...

Full Story... https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 1fd4140977


Edit to add Kavanaugh's High School, ultra-elite Georgetown Prep:

In his remarks at the White House last month, Kavanaugh gave a nod to the school: “The motto of my Jesuit high school was ‘Men for others.’ I’ve tried to live that creed,” he said.

Image

https://www.businessinsider.com/georget ... uch-2018-8
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:31 am

Ryan Goodman
One year after alleged sexual assault, Kavanaugh’s friend and alleged accomplice (Mark Judge) thought it great to associate himself with this quote in their high school yearbook 1983:

"Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnQmNiLXgAA ... ame=medium
https://mobile.twitter.com/TomArnold


☇RiotWomenn☇
@riotwomennn
·
13h
Carefully scruntize every word of Kavanaugh's high school year book to determine if the content tends to support the description of what happened to Christine Blasey Ford

Write your Sentor, fax, email & share the yearbook if you think it would be helpful to Senators.

Image
Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby Cordelia » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:58 am

Judge Kavanaugh (ironically named pals). Let's--he's toast.
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:03 am

Flashback: Collins: Franken allegations ‘credible, disgusting and appalling’
Image
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ ... ing-248510



☇RiotWomenn☇

Kavanaugh's friend & the person in the room, Mark Judge is a writer

In this passage Judge says there is an ambiguous place between "yes" and "no" and in that place, if a man is any kind of a man, he'll feel the power and prove himself to a woman ...
Image
https://twitter.com/riotwomennn


Breaking per Politico: Flake no longer ‘comfortable voting yes’ on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Keep calling Murkowski, Collins 202-224-3121
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:01 am


Daniel Lippman

.@AndrewRestuccia and I called many of Kavanaugh's 65 female HS acquittances who signed a letter supporting him. After his accuser came out on Sunday, only TWO said they still stood by him. More than two dozen didn't respond, and two declined to comment.
https://twitter.com/dlippman


HAVE MARK JUDGE TESTIFY ALONG WITH CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD (AND KAVANAUGH)

September 17, 2018/1 Comment/in Law /by emptywheel
I am strongly opposed to giving the President any “break” in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship — unless before his questioning on Monday, he either (i) resigns or (ii) confesses perjury and issues a public apology to you. I have tried hard to bend over backwards and to be fair to him and to think of all reasonable defenses to his pattern of behavior. In the end, I am convinced that there really are none. The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me.

SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s justification for asking the President (among other things): “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office, would she be lying?”


As you’ve no doubt heard, the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape during high school, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her lawyer, Debra Katz, says Ford is willing to testify before Congress, though no one has yet asked her to.

If she’s willing, I’m all in favor of having Ford testify. After all, Brett Kavanaugh thinks a 17-year old must jump through extraordinary hoops before she can terminate an unwanted pregnancy; surely he thinks young men should similarly bear the consequences of their actions?

But she shouldn’t testify alone. Mark Judge should testify along with her. After all, according to her letter and the WaPo account, he was a witness to the event.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

And while he currently claims he doesn’t recall the event, she says that the one time they crossed paths afterwards, he exhibited discomfort upon seeing her.

Judge has also admitted to being an alcoholic in high school. He and Kavanaugh both admitted to being Keg Club members together, and they appear in a number of pictures together. In addition, Judge’s comments about women at the time were pretty atrocious.

Virtually all the people attacking Ford’s story are utterly silent on Judge’s presence as a witness. I suspect that’s because both his own descriptions of his social life at the time, and his professed inability to recall the event, might suggest that Kavanaugh, too, was simply too drunk to remember this attempted rape.

So if we’re going to put Ford (and Kavanaugh) under oath, let’s also put the one witness under oath, the one Ford says not only told Kavanaugh to “stop,” but actually saved her by piling on top of the two of them, the one who (Ford claims) exhibited some memory of the event after the fact by exhibiting discomfort.

Update: Brit Hume’s daughter, Virginia, who went to Holton Arms with Ford and organized the letter signed by 65 women attesting to Kavanaugh’s character, was tweeting with Judge about ignoring youthful indiscretions last year.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/17/h ... asey-ford/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:05 pm

And what are we hearing from the Republican women on the committee?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Kavan

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:06 pm

Al Franken should resign......oh wait :)

oh edit Collins just said both of them should testify about this issue

not going forward now
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Next

Return to SLAD Newswire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests