THe problem I see now is that if a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office he is open to committing any crimes he can get away with during that time. That might not have been a question in the past but this man who sits in the WH is capable of seeing it as an open door to any and all crimes he chooses to commit. Once he is voted out of office he can use all his money & resources to travel to a country with Trump properties & no extradition agreement with the US. He will have committed his crimes & escaped indictment. He is also quite capable of completing his gutting of the US government & declaring himself ruler for life. He is not a patriot & cares nothing for this country. He is only there to get what he can. The republicans thought they were going to use him for their own purposes but they didn't count on his vanity & idiocy. Nunes says they must protect the president but from what? What crimes is the president guilty of that he must be protected by Nunes? Open & inquiring minds of real Americans want to know what Nunes is hiding?
4
Least transparent, most secretive confirmation hearing in US history. There's a reason for that, as readers can plainly see. Write your Congressmen/women and urge them to wait for ALL the documentation to come in. And, remember, Kavanaugh LIED to Congress, during his last hearing for DC Court of Appeals. He said he had nothing to do with Iraq era dark sites, Gitmo incarcerations and interrogations, and torture, when he actually wrote the policies, while he was assistant secretary to George W. Bush. He wants to change the Constitution to keep Republicans in power, and roll back every kind of civil right, permanently. Pro-business, ANTI-individual, he will be a pox on the SCOTUS, and his *bought and paid for* Koch Brothers decisions will reach into the lives of Americans for the next 4 decades, unless we get really lucky, and he keels over prematurely.
4
This means that he is exactly the right person for the job. The attacks on the presidency for political purposes instead of high crimes and misdemeanors must stop. The current attacks which are criminal and treasonous must stop. We now know that besides Trump having nothing to do with any criminal action, there was criminal action by DOJ, FBI and Obama White House members which are felonious. Democrats are repeating their 1860 attack on the US when they hated Lincoln so badly that they refused to accept his election and started a civil war.
Bill Clinton's "offenses" were nothing like the case that should be built for Trump.
2
Mr. Kavanaughs idea of Presidential actions that should only be prosecuteable after the President is out of office is not defensible. Doesn't matter who the President is. No Nixon, no Reagan (IranContra), no Cheney (Iraq) ,no Trump (too much to list). It would mean the Presidency could go off the rails ! The 3 branches of government are Republican & if there were not rule of law, our President would be the leader of the "axis of evil" .
No nomination approved till after the 2018 elections. The problem with this Presidency is truth & knowledge. You can take stupidity to court & that should never change.
1
I take no solace in Kannaugh's advice not to impeach Pres. Clinton. Clinton's low crimes and misdemeanors were deplorable but not impeachable. And as time has told, he was very small potatoes in that department. The question remains will he advise against impeachment when confronted with the monumental crimes perpetrated by this grifter-in-chief?
1
This is the guy that can change America, not Trump. His first order of business would be to make sure a sitting President stays sitting even if he is accused of criminal activity. And then, do you really think that such a President would step down if he knew he was facing prosecution and jail time? No, he would want to stay in office for life and would likely commit more crimes while there. Isn't that the way autocrats work?
1
Since he supports the report and charges his "discomfort" with the explicit nature of it is transparent attempt to distance himself from its depraved nature. If he was genuinely interested in rightness he would have stopped Starr from abusing Lewinsky and kept him on track with the Whitewater investigation he was appointed for.
Don't forget Starr was extorting Lewinsky to testify. He had her falsely convinced she committed a crime and was subject to prosecution! We don't see Kavanaugh speaking up about that.
Releasing the document exposed the truth about the republicans by showing everyone what they were really up to. All that rhetoric about corruption and illegality in the Whitewater real estate deal, which took place years before Clinton ran for president, and was his wife's business not his, and all they come up with is a pornographic report and a denial of the affair.
That made it very clear the real intent was to try at any cost to harm the president to prevent him from governing. Seems to me that is a criminal endeavor/conspiracy and not a legitimate exercise of governmental authority. Why isn't that being looked into?
He is wrong about charging the sitting president. No one is above the law thus if they commit a crime they must be prosecuted just as quickly as any other prosecution would take place. The passage of time is very important to our system. If the president does not want to have his term interrupted by a trial I suggest they not commit any crimes.
2
The GOP Congress has shamefully and possibly illegally ignored the necessary presidential oversight role that is needed now more then ever. We need to be careful to not put a partisan person on the Supreme Court especially the nominee most likely to ignore Trump’s misdeeds.
3
At the time Kavanaugh made his recommendation it was known that Clinton had committed the crime of perjury. That is why he was impeached. Kavanaugh believed impeachment was the constitutional process for dealing with a president who committed a crime.
This was the correct recommendation then, as it is now.
On the surface, this bolsters his credibility; he’s more consistent than we initially thought. Look deeper and you find a guy wanted to censor a report because he didn’t trust the country with its sexually explicit facts even though we had a right to know exactly why he worked so aggressively to impeach the President. That tells us a lot about his views on transparency (dim), values (socially conservative), and perhaps even what he thinks about free speech (limited according to his values).
Kavanaugh knew that indicting Clinton on trivial charges was a bad idea. The likely charges against Trump are significant -- obstruction of justice, conspiring with a foreign power to interfere in American elections, using the Office for financial gain, money laundering....just a few that come to mind. These have the potential to profoundly shake our Democratic Republic....Trump, if charged, must be indicted.
Further, Trump is not preoccupied by his Presidential duties. He hardly works at all. An indictment would be good for the country, as it might actually let someone else do some Presidential work in his absence.
5
Confirming Kavannaugh is essentially calling a witness for the defense to testify.
1
He lied on his previous confirmation. That should be the focus; nothing else matters.
3
Even if Kavanaugh considers himself a fair and honorable jurist, his confirmation to the Supreme Court will be one more extremely divisive action at a pivotal time in our history. The outcome: rampant cynicism, racism, inequality and lack of faith in our institutions.
Instead, this confirmation will set Kavanaugh up to be in the debt of some very powerful, corrupt men and from his past record, he does not have the judicial chops to withstand their corruption. I would say he has already drunk the kool aide. We will have one more conservative, mediocre justice, like Clarence Thomas, who offers nothing substantive or positive, but is a rubber stamp for his masters. There will be more actions like the Bush election theft that will be laid on their doorstep. The Supreme Court will become a joke, just like the Congress.
Because of how Kavanaugh was nominated, who nominated him and the circumstances surrounding this nomination, as an historic figure, he is already nullified into oblivion and his words won't mean much. As the old saying goes, if you lie down with dogs, you're going to get up with fleas. This is not the Supreme Court our Constitution or forefathers envisioned. The new Supreme Court under conservative hands will be a clap trap of favoritism and kickbacks, a real old boys club, our wonderful women jurists notwithstanding. If that's what he wants for his life, sad.
8
apparently the paper or record' has chosen sides, and want the right wing, business over everything else, to be their dogma.
3
Clinton did not give any appearances during his campaigns or while in office of colluding with the Russians to win an election. His staff did not either. Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. He was wrong. But what he did does not rise to the level of obstructionism and behavior that could endanger the United States. What Trump and his cronies have been doing is obstructionism, outright lying over everything imaginable, disregarding protocols put in place to protect people, and supporting their greed.
Trump can tweet all he likes that he did not collude. That doesn't appear to be the case any longer. It was a bad idea for JFK to appoint his brother as AG. Everyone knew it but at least his brother Bobby was a practicing lawyer. Trump appointed his unqualified daughter and son-in-law to carry out tasks that should be done by people who know what they are doing. He has selected people for cabinet positions whose experience is irrelevant or whose biases mitigate against their being effective. Trump's so called business savvy is non-existent and on display for every sentient human being on the planet now. So is our stupidity in electing him.
People might have complained about Nixon's imperial presidency but Nixon had nothing on Trump when it comes to that. Trump is an overgrown toddler who needs to be babysat. The White House was not built and Congress was not created to babysit a sitting president. I want an adult in the White House.
11
Kavnaugh's view sounds pretty sound to me: the only way to discipline a President is through the impeachment process, and the impeachment process should only be concerned with important matters of state.
What Clnton did with an intern, and his fibs about it, do not rise to this level. The allegations against Trump do, so it Mueller finds anything, he should refer his case to the House of Repsentaties. That is how the process was designed to work.
10
Ah, the days before we knew that every comma we ever wrote would come back to haunt us.
Starr himself later said he shouldn’t have done this. Everyone knew it was an absolute witch hunt. What this says to me is that Kavanaugh saw signs of a no-win, which may or may not be a sign of intelligence. It depends on how wide his view is. So far, it doesn’t look wide enough to represent our nation.
But -- this tiresome, dangerous battle between Republicans and Democrats (doesn’t include Sanders’ Independents who pose as Democrats) = modern day Gangs of New York. It hurts us all as a nation.
5
I am no legal scholar , nor constitutional historian but I find this notion of not indicting a sitting president troubling. Is this not kinging a president for as long as he can stay in office? I find it difficult to believe our founding fathers would take the time and trouble to escape a king, only to empower a kingly rule here, checks and balances or not. Yes he did his job regarding the Starr affair, but his job would be infinitely more impactful as a SCOTUS Justice, with far more damaging results.
8
Brett is a dubious politician vice a quality judge. The truth is plain as day....do not confirm on the Supreme Court.
4
Not that I would have supported indicting "anyone" for the Lewinsky matter, but ...
The question of whether or not a president can be indicted while in office perplexes me.
The argument is that said president's time would be so absorbed by mounting a defense and the subsequent trial that he/she could never govern properly.
Why then is any first term president allowed to run for re-election? At least the entire fourth year (more, actually) of a presidents term is spent with his/her time completely monopolized by campaign events and fundraisers. How do they have time to govern?
The argument is ridiculous. A crime is a crime and no one is above the law. If the president were indicted and had no time to govern they could easily resign and cede power to the vice president. They could even do so temporarily. Again, ridiculous.
14
@Gary Waldman
It is an argument intended to distract just as the presidents tweets are. In this case to distract from the fact that everything teh republicans have done since 1979 is seek to prevent the Democrats from being able to govern when they hold office.
The proof is that everything Starr and Kavanaugh did was intended to and did prevent the president from governing. That was the whole point of appointing Starr Special Prosecutor to investigate a business deal that took place years prior to Clinton running for president and which was his wife's business not his.
1
@Gary Waldman
this man who claims to be president has spent no time in running this country. He is too busy campaigning (he claims for others but only talks about himself), fundraising, & playing golf every weekend & even days of the week. Being under investigation has no caused him any loss of sleep. A sitting president should not be allowed to announce re-election efforts until his third year in office. He should do no campaigning for anyone including himself during the first three years. He should be working with his administration on the policies that concern the average american not the wealthy...where is healthcare, infrastructure, increasing wages to livable amounts without 2 jobs? He is too busy running his twitter fingers & golf clubs to be president.
1
It's antithetical to our American values to allow a president to avoid charges if he has allegedly committed a crime. The mainstay of our government is that our president is just a citizen, like any other. He does not inherit his position, but is elevated by his peers to leadership. America does not subscribe to the immunity of kings--or rather we haven't in the past. Our president is a citizen first and should answer to the law the same as any other citizen. Do we want America to slide into an era of an imperial presidency, where once a president is elected he transforms from the level of citizen into a quasi-king, no longer answerable to the law? In an age where Great Britain debates the relevancy of its own royal family, it's ironic that America, founded in order to escape the yoke of kings, should be moving in the other direction altogether.
44
@Ms. Pea..... yes, America had led the world in rejecting the yoke of kings, and of aristocratic privilege. But now we have more class stratification, inequality than many EU nations. And less democracy due to gerrymandering and big money in elections than many nations which had monarchs not that long ago.
Abroad, it's centrist accepted policy to have affordable health care for all, while the US has the most corporate profit based system that leaves out millions as 2nd class citizens. And overcharges premium payers.
The British royal family doesn't influence the UK government. And tho voters elected the conservative party, they rejected the right wing Farage candidate, who was a Trump pal.
Our American corporate/billionaire elites function as today's aristocracy---like the olden days of Europe--- to set policies for the govt we stand in line to elect.
Convenient that Kavanaugh blamed Congress for releasing the Starr Report in its entirety — salacious details intact. I mean, who could have predicted the Republican opposition would publish it unredacted? Shocking.
7
Kavanaugh isn’t a judge. He’s a radical extremist Republican hack who will vote the party line, regardless of constitutionality and merit, as a justice. There is no judicial temperament, no analysis to expect from him. We’ll just see him imposing his personal agenda on us all. Moreover, he has bizarre views in presidential authority that renders all oversight to be a nullity. His only saving grace is he probably favors congressional oversight of Democratic presidents, so he may not destroy all rules because of a fear that Trump’s successor is a Democrat.
Democratic senators would be derelict in their duty if they support this unqualified man. While most Republican senators are a lost cause, let’s hope a couple recognize Kavanaugh is a terrible pick.
I’m not hopeful any GOP senators will vote against Kavanaugh. They all put party above country, and seem unduly smitten with our Russian “asset” Trump.
7
The founders provided congress with the exclusive and unrestricted power to impeach or not to impeach. The court has absolutely no authority in this specific area. A hypocrisy riddled Republican congress decided to impeach Clinton for a relatively trivial infraction and paid the political price. Unfortunately, the court can interfere extensively with justice department investigations into uncovering and presenting the facts. This is where Kavanaugh’s philosophies around presidential power are deserving of extreme scrutiny. Democrats and Republicans should all be very concerned about a justice who provides comfort to any current or future corrupt president with a desire to obscure the truth.
4
The partisan fight to rush Judge Kavanaugh's nomination from one side or to stall the process from the other will be interesting for the theatrics, but I hope the quality of debate improves. Senator Schumer's quote in this article sounds about as sophisticated as your average paranoid political comment on Facebook. As a federal judge, there is much about the nominee that is an open book. Let's dig into the details, Senator!
2
Clinton's crime of perjury, while an affront to the rule of law, and as such entirely sufficient for prosecution, was of so different a nature that it warrants treatment different from that which we are dealing with with Trump. Trump has committed, and is continuing to commit, treason. Not just an affront to the law, but a threat to the republic's existence. This problem cannot wait for anything. While I believe the argument; that a sitting president has too much to worry about in running the country so that the indictment should be postponed till the term is finished, to be specious, because the prospect of post term proceedings would be just as big a worry to any rational person, this argument perhaps plausible to a Clinton situation, has absolutely no place in a treason situation.
4
So at the end of the article when he discuses why he "thinks" Clinton obstructed justice. He states that because he refused to testify for seven months and talked to potential grand jury whiteness he new Clinton was guilty. First how would anyone know who a potential witness would be and second he assumes to know that they would help Clinton. We the people do not need to have someone on the highest court to assume anything. When ever I here someone state that they know what someone is thinking I do not trust them. We want a person who will listen to all of the evidence not a person who is overseeing testimony and during the testimony already deciding what that person is trying to convey because he" KNOWS ".
What is the problem with a normal two to three week hearing like other controversial nominees?
2
Major difference between Clinton and Trump cases: Clinton's revolved around a marriage infidelity and the associated lies to cover that up while Trump's transgressions are against our constitutional system of governance. Apples and oranges... or more appropriately misdemeanors and major felonies.
8
Maybe I'm over thinking this, but......
Is lying about an extra marital affair even on the same level as conspiring with a US adversary to win an election in return for political favors and then using the power of the elected position to obstruct the same investigation?
11
The most disgraceful action by an American President during my political awareness (1948 - 2018) was George W. Bush directing U.S. Attorneys to prosecute Democratic candidates with phoney charges. U. S. Attorneys who refused were fired.
Now, I’d sure like to know what, if any, role Brett Kavanaugh, who was a Bush White House legal functionary, played in this legal horror.
7
Once again, partisanship prevails here. All those who agreed with Kavanaugh then will now find a crime or malfeasance in his actions.
Trump's critics are so predictable they could stop complaining today and anyone could write their script for them going forward.
2
Early on in his presidency, readers concluded that the courts would handle Trump if no other agency could.
The situation that we now find ourselves in is remarkable and dire.
Now Trump can control the courts to some degree that was not expected.
Even if the federal courts are unable to reign in this president, at least the state courts may have more success.
9
Kavanaugh is a get out of jail free card.
Forget about all the past voting what iffs and work to oppose this nomination.
Focus on the task at hand.
12
A political hack by any definition. Not fit for the Supreme Court.
13
Kavanaugh has already lied to Congress under oath, which is a crime. This alone should render him ineligible to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
27
Charles Grassley, the hateful and racist Senator (way to go, Iowa) who BROKE HIS SOLEMN OATH to “protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States by denying even a HEARING for President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, nearly a YEAR before the end of his term, is RUSHING a hearing for Donald Trump’s pick, Brett Kavanagh, the ONLY candidate provided to Trump who has expressed a STRONG belief that a president should never even be INVESTIGATED while in office. Why? It’s part of the Republican plan that World’s Dumbest Criminal Congressman, Devin Nunes, accidentally revealed at the GOP fundraiser for Cathy McMorris Rodgers: Protect Trump at ANY and all costs: First, Confirm Kavanagh quickly; Second, STOP the Trump/Russia investigation by impeaching the Deputy Attorney General so that Trump can install a yes-man.
26
Given his track record since the Clinton investigation perhaps Kavanaugh should have investigated Ken Starr
15
Kavanaugh was delusional if he imagined that the pornographic elements of the Report wouldn't be published (or leaked) by the Republican/Gingrich-controlled House.
Hey, you know the difference between Ken Starr and Bill Clinton? Ken Starr lost his presidency over a sex scandal.
10
At least someone had some sense.Another waste of money.It' that old puritan ethic raising it's ugly head.Grow up america people have affairs and they should be kept private and out of politics.
8
It’s important to remember that this affair was between a superior and a subordinate in the workplace. Mr. Clinton’s impeachment was wrong, but this wasn’t “just” an affair.
2
That is ridiculous. She may have been a “subordinate”, but she was an adult, and by her own account entered into the affair because she was attracted to him and excited by his powerful nature. That is consensual. It’s not that he threatened her with firing if she didn’t have sex with him, she courted it and enjoyed her time with him. It was her jealous, malcontent “friend” Linda Tripp that had the problem and made it her mission.
1
Whatever you think of Trump, the Clinton's have done 1000 rimes worse. They single handedly destroyed and corrupted the office of president.
7
@There
Please be specific and cite reputable sources.
3
No, the Clintons were persecuted from the time they announced candidacy intentions from the Repubs, who continued their smear techniques though the Obama administration (they couldn’t find anything personal, because he is a moral, respectable man) right up until Trump got elected. Now they are totally silent and complicit while Rome is burning.
The Kavanaugh standard, as written by the man himself, for impeachment: “There is substantial and credible information that the president obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation,” he concludes at the end. “He refused to testify for seven months and simultaneously lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would relay the president’s statements to the grand jury and thereby deceive the grand jury.”
Trump has met and exceeded this standard. Should be an interesting confirmation hearing.
16
Judge Kavanaugh has proved that is in non partisan and staunchly independent in his thinking. There is no justification to block is confirmation based solely on which party's president appoints him. He will very much be a great replacement of judge Kennedy.
7
We need a solid definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that has legal and consensual validity. As the Republic advances to what seems to be its inevitable tearing apart, all succeeding Presidents will spend most of their time defending themselves against a swarm of legal challenges, some serious, some politically motivated.
@DEH It might simplify things (you're really not familiar with the law, right?) if presidents, real or installed, weren't themselves Russian-purchased conmen.
3
Lately it seems that confirmation hearings only allow lies to Congress. As time passes, the truth eventually comes out....but it is too late. Anything to get the job. That's the way I see Kavanaugh.
4
If Starr hadn't released the whole evidence, he, Starr, would have become part of the coverup.
3
You get the sense from this articles and others that Kavanaugh is a player -- a smart, well-schooled lawyer, looking for a way up in the world, but with no moral compass, or sense of balance/fairness.
He spent 4 years on the Starr Report, even though he seems to have known early on that the whole investigation of Clinton (and Monica) had very little to go on.
Now, 20 years later, there's a ton of truly alarming evidence about Trump's conspiracy with Russia -- and many more serious crimes -- and Kavanaugh is patiently standing in line for this really good job that Trump lined up for him. That's truly abhorrent. Since when did being a lawyer mean you had to have no respect for law and order?
13
Kavanaugh thinks that the only remedy to a sitting president who is a criminal is impeachment. I would like a congressman to ask him what is the remedy when the congress that could impeach that criminal president are criminals themselves and refuse to do it. Because that is where we are. And if Kavanaugh can't see it, he's either willfully blind or working for the criminals.
40
I grew up in the DC suburbs in the 1990s. The whole Clinton debacle became part of our AP Government course. I remember my family being shocked when I told her that we watched the CSPAN proceedings in class. THAT seems minor to what we have now in Washington. I now don't question why several of my friends left this beltway bubble for Silicon Valley after high school/college. By that age, we were already exhausted by it all!
2
The fact that Kavanaugh, a Republican, urged Starr not to indict Clinton, a democrat, speaks very well of Kavanaugh and shows that he is able to put principle above partisan ideology, exactly what we need in a Supreme Court Justice.
3
It was shameful to see Clinton lie about the Lewinsky affair and since that was a crime, he deserved what he got. But to compare Clinton to Trump is the worst false equivalency known to man. Donald Trump committed crimes to get into office and continues to this day. He bullies, insults, hates on, and threatens every one and every country and leader under the sun. He is absolutely abusing his power as president. And his cronies, many of whom have had to leave office under a cloud (and we're only 1.5 years in) are the same. This is an absolute disaster, not a man who committed a stupid act of self-indulgence--harming only himself, his family and the woman he did it with--then lied while in office. I don't know what Cavanaugh thinks, but surely the sheer weight of Trump's crimes matter, since many of them violate the constitution.
19
I am confused by this story which does not make it clear whether Mr. Kavanaugh opposed an indictment that would be pursued in the court system or whether he opposed the use of the impeachment process against a sitting president.
There is a reasonable legal argument that impeachment is the only action that can be taken against a sitting president, who, if impeached and removed from office, could then be pursued in the court system for his/her high crimes and misdemeanors. This argument is based on the language of the Constitution itself.
The story does not make it clear whether this is what Mr. Kavanaugh believes or if he simply believes that a sitting president is immune from impeachment as well as the criminal court system.
2
The viewpoint that impeachment and removal from office was the Founders' recommended precondition for indictment is respectable. The viewpoint that the Founders did not intend to grant the president immunity from prosecution while in office is also respectable. Unfortunately, that question amounts to Kavanaugh's injecting a newfound claim of executive privilege into the ongoing Trump crisis -- similar to Nixon's raising of a newfound claim of executive privilege during the Watergate Scandal.
Kavanaugh's hearing should give a full airing to his views on presidential immunity, and should require the candidate to explain whether and why he will recuse himself from cases involving presidential immunity.
5
The problem with not indicting Trump is that he continues to commit crimes while in office. Violations of the emoluments clause, continued conspiracy with Russia, attempts to obstruct justice through witness tampering (dangling possible pardons) and stating intentions and attempting to remove the Special Counsel to name the obvious.
16
So these men, Starr, Kavanaugh and crew, men with children of their own, joked about the explicit sexual details that they elicited and wrote down knowing full well it would ruin a young woman's life. Amazing how supposedly brilliant minds can lack any morality. There are litmus tests of the soul, and this one was of them.
67
Better to just cover it up. As Bill said to Monica, "If I say it didn't happen, and you say it didn't happen, it didn't happen."
1
@Warren
Monica Lewinsky was an adult woman at the time. I'm curious why you would be comparing her to children?
6
@TK - I'm not comparing Monica Lewinsky to children. I'm pointing out the fact that as fathers they should have understand how damaging this could be for her and should have had paternal instincts not to do what they did. Also, the fact they did not "intend" it to be released publicly and point the finger at the House, does not excuse what they did. How does any decent person ask a young scared woman what she did next with the cigar?
3
If you want to oppose or support Kavanaugh, you have everything you need in his hundreds of opinions, dissents, and concurrences as a judge. Schumer said as soon as the appointment's announcement that he'd oppose it with every fiber of his being; he didn't need any of the documents from Kavaaugh's time at the White House to reach that conclusion. Plenty of columnists and commentators in this and other newspapers expressed their extreme opposition to his appointment almost as immediately. If you want to oppose his appointment, simply say as much. But don't pretend that something in the White House documents is some missing piece of evidence for you or the handful of senators who may have not yet committed to a position. It is nothing more than Kabuki theater.
24
@James - I salute you, James. Cogent argument. It's both sad and funny to watch outraged reactions by liberals to hundreds of perfectly sensible statements made by Kavanaugh over the decades,, hoping they can start a snowball rolling down the hill into a boulder in the middle of August.
@James
The process of appointing justices has degenerated into partisan warfare. McConnell started it and Schumer is keeping the game going. It is insulting to our intelligence for anyone to pretend to be high-minded. The Court has lost legitimacy which is a frightful crisis, greater than the one term Trump presidency that I foresee. Nobody is pretending that the disaster of Trump’s presidency is about some particular issue and no one should pretend that Kavanaugh’s appointment rides on his work for Starr. Almost every issue these days is about partisanship. Nobody is on the high road and pretending otherwise is counterproductive. It seems like the Phoenix heat burns out the nonsense so that we see things that most others miss.
2
@James
How can you pretend there is something in the documents if you cannot see the documents. What is being hidden? Just release all documents and let the facts speak for themselves.
2
"Judge Kavanaugh was responsible for drafting the “grounds for impeachment” section of the Starr report, according to lawyers who worked in the office."
So...he was for it before he was against it?
And now...he is still against impeachment even if President Trump can be indicted for conspiring with a foreign adversary to undermine the election and obstructing justice throughout the investigation?"
Kavanaugh is yet another mediocre man on the take, a treasonous lackey, willing to sell-out the constitution for a fraudulent nomination and some paid-off pedestrian debts.
And his two-faced, 11th hour (private) plea to his boss, Ken Starr, is intended to make this wishy-washy boy scout more palatable to Senate Democrats?
Good Lord!
We're talking about the Supreme Court of the United States.
Senate Democrats must boycott the fraudulent hearings to prevent a quorum. If that is a viable option, then they need to show their constituents that they are willing to fight!
#FightBack!
#AllBlueBallots
45
It is almost laughable to read about Bill Clinton’s shenanigans when comparing them to Trump. Trump has made his indiscretions bold and public, and has shoved the details into the faces of the public. His supporters avert their eyes.
But the original reason for Clinton’s investigation wasn’t sex. It was about a land deal that ultimately uncovered no nefarious dealings by the Clintons.
Trump, on the other hand, disgraces his office daily, breaking down every social and legislative achievement this country has fought so hard for.
As Shakespeare’s Duchess of York says in Richard III, ‘Shame serves thy life.’
75
That's too bad. I don't know if he'd be my choice, but he's the president's choice and absent something truly earth-shattering, like he collects headless dolls, he should be confirmed. I have no patience for the absurd and wasteful hearings that go on. I get that people find Trump disgraceful, but so is Congress. If you watched the Strzok hearing you saw the two sides locked in a childish battle, the Ds doing everything in their power to disrupt the hearing - because Trump must be destroyed (they can't ask for more or they would) - and the Rs making up new rules as they went along. I think Strzok was either dishonest or delusional, but I felt sorry he had to sit through that. Love to have seen his texts that night. There's nothing so humiliating we have to endure save our presidential debates.
I doubt that there is a D Senator opposing Kavanaugh who wouldn't have praised him to the skies as a hero for his advice to Starr (presuming that's accurate) because it was a D in the crosshairs. And I bet most every R Senator who will be defending him at the hearing would have been disappointed or worse. But, of course, now its an R they are after, so they all turn on a dime. Sometimes I wonder that so few people find this shameless behavior grounds for not voting for either side. But, I've gotten there.
I was disgusted with the Rs for doing whatever they could to get rid of Clinton and I am disgusted with the Ds for trying to get rid of Trump, as they say, by any means possible.
9
What about indicting a President while he is in office? Like the Clinton failed impeachment, it is clear that the Republican-controlled Senate will never impeach Donald Trump. Moreover, with the recent revelations by Rep. Devin Nunes of a plot to impeach deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein after the November elections in order to shutdown the Special Counsel's investigation, indicting Donald Trump now may be the only viable option for Robert Mueller. It seems that there is already a very strong case for obstruction of justice and perhaps even a stronger one for criminal conspiracy given the recent revelations about the Trump Tower meeting between high-ranking Trump campaign officials and Russian operative offering and soon thereafter delivering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. There maybe some truth to the calls by Rudy "The Mouth" Giuliani and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow to end the investigation by early September. It's clear, as they say, that Donald Trump cannot tell the truth to Mr. Mueller and therefore will not sit for an interview where he'll have to perjure himself (aka "the perjury trap"). We're nearing "high noon" and Robert Mueller may have only have until Labor Day to act before the plotters in the House act to remove him by impeaching Rod Rosenstein. The American people need to hear from him before the co-conspirators in the House act to shut his investigation down. The very survival of our democracy may depend on it.
21
If Trump is impeached, we can be rid of him once and for all. If he is indicted, there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the unlikely event that indictment were ruled permissible, there would be a circus trial and the government would be placed on hold. Even if Trump were convicted and sentenced to prison, he would remain as President until and unless impeached.
The indictment route promises chaos. Why anybody is considering it is beyond me.
5
Playing footsie with a flirtatious intern is a little different than playing footsie with Vladimir Putin.
84
@itsmildeyes
What? you mean Donald is playing a bad hand
while Bill was playing with a good "hand"?
Yes. Our Puritan roots refuse to wither.
4
@itsmildeyes
At this point the only evidence of Russian shenanigans is of Clinton's playing footsie with the dossier sources.
Kavanaugh wanted to go nuclear on Clinton, and he did, because he's a hardcore partisan. But, this article gently urges that he should be commended because "some" of the sexual details made him uncomfortable?
Are you kidding me?
This Washington insider was paid -- by taxpayers -- for years to investigate the sexual proclivities of a president. He did it willingly and he relished it. A few doubting and hand-wringing comments doesn't change the story. This sorted story was Kavanaugh's 24/7 life for years. You want this partisan hack sitting on the Supreme Court?
This is an outrage. Reject this narrative.
48
I appreciate this reporting. Although it does not support the narrative favored by many of the NYT readers, the reporting is fair and a valid piece of context.
I still think Kavanaugh should receive an in-depth confirmation hearing, and I think he is far too corporatist.
5
It would be a mistake to take anything that occurred in the course of the Starr investigation at face value. It is not impossible that Kavanaugh was pushing Starr with one hand, and with the other, wiping his fingerprints from the parts of the investigation that might cloud his career prospects. Back then, there was reason to wonder whether Starr was directing his staff or his hard-charging staff was directing him.
9
Yet he was indicted. Will Brett respect that precedent? Doubtful.
4
No, Clinton was not indicted, he was impeached. Impeachment is a political procedure, quite different from a legal indictment. The nominee clearly supported impeachment.
1
Can the SCOTUS appointees of an illegitimately elected and impeached President......ever be legitimately allowed to remain on the bench?
Just curious, no big deal.
13
@latweek
Read the constitution. Once they are in they are in for life..
3
@Mike
Read about constitutional amendments so you're up to speed for a Democratic Congress in November, and a Democratic President in 2020.
@Mike
I read it. There is nothing in the US Constitution or its laws that references anything about what you are saying regarding an illegitimately elected president's appointments for life.
Why would the constitution apply to and protect the appointments of someone who was never lawfully elected?
In a democracy no one should be above the law. The founding fathers did not want or believe in autocracy, even if it appears that Brett Kavanaugh does.
14
Refusing to testify while lying to potential witnesses constituting substantial evidence of obstruction of justice? No doubt Kavanaugh will have an explanation as to why this no longer holds true, that will make perfect sense to the GOP and the 42%.
6
My understanding is Kavanaugh was a key author of the Starr Report. You all remember the Starr Report? A huge waste of time and money and lots of discussion about a dress. Kavanaugh said to wait to indict? Of course he did. Because there was no there there. And why would someone so scholarly and brilliant want to be associated with this trashy document anyway? Here's a link to the report: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/...
9
Mr Starr and his colleagues treated Ms Lewinski, a legally unsophisticated young woman, in a reprehensible and improper manner. That should not be forgotten.
33
Well, they asked her to tell the truth. Was that reprehensible and improper?
Mr. Kavanaugh’s “substantial and credible” case for impeaching Bill Clinton applies equally well to Donald Trump. Trump has certainly lied to potential grand jury witnesses — for him, lying is as natural as breathing. And while he says he wants to answer Mueller’s questions, he employs lawyers whose sole function appears to be to stave off any prospect of an interview.
8
THERE IS however a huge difference between the two cases.
Clinton? Well, clever, charming able scoundrel for hiding the truth about a sexual encounter with a willing intern.
Trump? Do I really need to spell it out for you. For those of you... I would, if your heads were not so committed to being buried in the sand.
9
If this article is supposed to somehow take Kavanaugh off the hot seat, it's not working. Any judge endorsed by the Heritage Foundation is not safe for the 51% of our country...namely WOMEN!
26
Great observation ,Stacy.Trump may be safe with Kavanaugh on the bench but women are not-Trump's transgressions will fade in time but women's rights affect us every day we live!
6
Such is the irony of experience . . . Can’t get a job without it, can’t get a job because of it. Where are all these immaculate conceptions supposed to be coming from? Dare I say anymore?
4
No pass for Kenny Starr's top pupil in their prurient pursuit of President Clinton.
9
There are serious constitutional issues about emoluments that Trump receives on both the foreign and the domestic side of the ledger.
If there was ever a POTUS who should be called before a court to explain, Trump is definitely number 1 on the list.
16
The Clinton impeachment investigation was for one brief, consensual act of foreplay.
The Nixon impeachment investigation was for burglary, obstruction of justice and perjury.
The Trump investigations are for conspiracy with a foreign enemy of the US, obstruction of justice, money laundering, bribery, dereliction of duty, fraud, sexual assault, misuse of position and government resources and violation of the Emoluments Clause.
Nothing Clinton did came close to what Nixon did, and nothing Nixon did came close to what Trump is doing. Comparing the Starr investigation to the Trump investigations is like comparing the Whiskey Rebellion to the Civil War.
61
@WeHadAllBetterPayAttentionNow
I believe "collusion" is out and the charge is now "obstruction". Not sure what comes next, but you can be certain Mueller will not stop pursuing Trump until he finds something. It's what prosecutors, especially those with a narrow focus and a big budget, do.
Your statement is factually incorrect. Read the report. There were multiple acts of foreplay extending over a period of months.
Until he finds something? He has already found plenty. Now he is building an unassailable case brick by brick, which takes time. It is ludicrous that the President's defenders assert that Mueller has found nothing just because his investigation is not a leaky sieve like this White House.
3
Drag this until after November. Win the midterm election in both Senate and House. Wait until the Democrats become POTUS, Senate, and House. Then appoint a new judge.
Just copy the GOP playbook. It's a cesspool - may as well get your hands dirty.
100
@Avi
So you're suggesting that we do not have a ninth justice for the remainder of Trump's term? And if another justice leaves, just keep allowing the numbers to fall? And this serves the nation, how??
1
Regarding Kavanaugh's little joke quoted at the end: What was going on with the President and Congress in the late 1990s was expensive and dismaying to ordinary Americans. Yet here Kavanaugh is, joking as if he were the host of a late night talk show. Kavanaugh is on record as worshiping Justice Scalia as a hero. It makes sense.
7
Sadly this op-ed speaks to the character of Mr Starr who has been revealed to have been short changed in the character department. I have reservations on the character of Bill Clinton but anyone who would accept a Trump nomination to a Supreme Court seat should not be considered. The next Supreme Court appointment may split the country apart, that is why Obama nominated Merrick Garland who may have been the one would be justice whose integrity and wisdom was admired across the political spectrum. Kavanaugh may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
12
It's difficult to understand the deference given to Judge Kavanaugh's various pronouncements and beliefs related to executive power, particularly his support for the so-called unitary executive theory. That theory posits that the President has all the executive power, as head of the executive branch, and therefore he could set aside laws passed by Congress that attempt to limit his authority.
The Bush-Cheney administration also followed this theory, and President Bush and some of his attorneys (those working under Vice President Cheney) were widely criticized for the memos justifying these views and the resulting abuses of power.
It seems the more we learn about Judge Kavanaugh and his views, including his "originalist" ideology regarding the Constitution, the better we can see that he actually has very poor judgment for a judge. I hope some of the people interviewing him at the hearings will state that directly since it's becoming so obvious.
9
Kavanaugh has often said that not only should a sitting president not be indicted for anything but that any investigations that could potentially implicate the president in criminal conduct should be curtailed.
Perhaps Kavanaugh is trying to explain his reasons, as head of Ken Starr's investigation of the murder of White House counsel Vincent Foster, for ignoring the irrefutable evidence pointing to a homicide and and for agreeing with the FBI's ridiculous conclusion that it was a suicide. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster....
While the FBI may not have arranged for the hit the evidence clearly shows that it orchestrated the cover-up. The senate should take a closer look at Ken Starr's files pertaining to Kavanaugh's handling of Starr's investigation of the murder. Participation in the cover-up would clearly be grounds for impeachment for obstruction of justice.
2
Democrats should demand that a vote on this nominee or any Trump nominee be postponed until the new Senate is seated in January or until the Mueller investigation is completed and the report thoroughly reviewed. No president should be allowed to pick two judges who will determine his fate in the event the Mueller investigation finds obstruction of justice by the sitting president or criminal activity by him as a candidate. There is also the question of the president's authority to grant pardons to his own campaign staff, family members and personal associates. These are issues that have not confronted other Senates under other presidents and they are very important issues. Democrats should make this demand loud and often starting now, but if McConnell chooses to rush through the hearing and vote before the midterms, Democrats should deny him a quorum.
61
The Mueller investigation of the Trump campaign's possible conspiracy with a foreign adversary, as well as the president's attempts to stop it are far more nefarious than the sex scandal Starr unearthed after years of poking around Clinton's real estate deals in Arkansas.
I hope the Democrats grill Kavanaugh on this given the stakes.
Should Mueller find hard evidence that any member of the Trump campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to tamper with fair elections is extremely serious, and actually meet the constitutional definition of treason.
Surely if such a crime exists, and the evidence is controvertible, well, there has to be a mechanism for indicting a sitting president. After all, what would prevent said president from acting in the best interests of the US, if he already did so to improve his chances of winning in the first place?
This is a line of questioning for Kavanaugh I wouldn't miss for the world.
The founders provided for an exit mechanism should a president be found guilty of treason--but they never envisioned their allegedly airtight system of checks and balances would fail as dramatically as we see occurring today.
All the more reason for a potential member of SCOTUS not to be rigid about presidential indictments.
54
@ChristineMcM, Agree, this entire election is obviously invalid, and no more ill effects from 45 should be allowed to go on.
1
Bill Clinton was not indicted because there was no criminal activity serious enough for indictment. But in Trump's case there are documented lies, tweets, even real indications of treason and obstruction of justice. So like Ken Starr's long drawn out dubious partisan investigation which concluded with a sexual misconduct, Special Counsel, Robert Mueller's investigation should continue unimpeded because the conclusion would not be of Trump's obvious sexual misconduct but of great deliberate unprecedented criminality by any President in our country's history. That said, Kavanaugh can have convenient regrets to get a seat on the Bench. Typical of Republican hypocrisy. For all his intentions to protect this President, only the Senate has that power to indict Trump. Hopefully there are decent and patriotic Republicans who can save our country. Although if confirmed the partisan Republican Supreme Court can continue with the Republican agenda for decades to come. Our Democracy would just be a sham.
70
There are a few Republicans "decent and patriotic" enough, NNI, who might vote to convict Trump (the House, by the way, does the indicting/impeaching, the Senate becomes the jury). But I seriously doubt their numbers reach into the teens, which is how many will be needed to reach the magical number, 67, to convict and remove Trump from office. It is mathematically impossible for the Democrats to reach 2/3 majority in the Senate this election. Just getting a simple one-vote majority is a high hurdle. At present, Democrats are barely odds-on favorites to take back the House, and unlikely, if they do, to also reach that magical 2/3 veto-proof majority.
Even if they win the majority in both houses, the Dems will still be between a rock and a hard place. All they will be able to do is block Trump's meanest impulses. Then, after 2 years of impasse, who's gonna look like the meanie?
@NNI Kavanaugh must be a really smart and prescient guy to have maneuvered years ago to advise against impeachment of Clinton so as to hedge his bets for 2018 Supreme Court nomination. How could anyone oppose such a bright judge?
"Hopefully there are decent and patriotic Republicans who can save our country."
Not in Congress. The "covfefe" GOPers there ouroborally compete to top (or bottom...) each other in the realm of crazy. Just look at how the two remaining possibly-patriotic Republicans, Mueller and Rosenstein, are treated.[1]
Even if Gym Jordan gets sacked, it'll only be after incontrovertible evidence and more of his own Benghazification of the congressional hearing process. (And he, of course, is but one of HUNDREDS.)
Which is why, on 11/6, we have to stop the Hope and bring the Change. We can't wait for that party-cult's malcompetence to end—our political climate, and actual climate, sure won't. Only hours ago, I got my city's mailer[2] for the primary and general elections, and you could cut my anticipation with a chainsaw! (It's too much for a knife.)
[1] Unlike "covfefe", who gets to negotiate the terms of his testimony, those two are ACTUALLY treated "unfair". Not many non-corporations get to decide what and when to talk about their crimes. He has it good. You could even say he was Born This Way...
[2] Complete with convenient where-to-go card, what "Voter ID" elsewhere would be if it was about democracy and fighting fraud instead of suppression.
Kenneth Starr spent 4 years going after the Clintons and all he got was Monica's blue dress.
Trump on the other hand is lying about team Trump's cooperation with the Russians in messing up the election.
I hope that Mr. Mueller nails the Stable Genius to the cross within 2 years.
77
That plus the suspected nefarious activity that the state of New York is looking into surrounding the Trump Foundation and monies being used for campaign purposes
4
So if the Democratic Trump impeachment charges mirrored the Clinton impeachment charges, Kavanaugh would have no problem with them? Of course he would, because he's a "Tribalist" just like every other wealthy Republican. Protecting their 'Thief in Chief' is their only goal.
21
Surely this means that the public is entitled to hear the same level of graphic detail about the extramarital sex acts that Trump has lied about.
104
@MadelineConant....no, Trump didn't do it in the White House with an employee. So it's none of our business as such. It's just a small part of his lack of ethics, morality and decency. But there's so much other evidence of that, in his authoritarianism, and wielding of power, that directly attacks our democracy and rule of law.
Kavanaugh should NEVER be seated. Forget his take on impeachment, indictment, etc....
His seat is not his. It belongs to Garland. The Dems should refuse to make a Senate quorum and not permit him to be confirmed.
This is highway robbery. They stole the presidency for W, they probably as it turns out stole it for Trump. They cannot steal this seat.
167
@William Fordes
If the D's break the established rules by sitting it out, dont cry when the R's do the same next time they are in the minority and D's are nominating a qualified candidate
Remember the D's great idea to 'go nuclear"?
2
What are Kavanaugh's views on lying to the Senate to get his seat on the federal bench? A fact that was revealed a couple years later.
His lie was saying he was not involved in the development of the Bush administration's torture program. Interestingly, the seat he was going to take was on the only federal designated to handle torture cases. The first case he heard was a torture case, needless to say he sided with the government.
If he was picked for his torture views a decade ago, is he being picked for his view of the President being above the law?
Given the substance of this article, taken with the recent remarks of Rep. Nunes would support the proposition that his pick is clearly to protect Trump.
Sick too, that the Democrat Senators are having to use FOIA requests to obtain Kavanaugh's work product when he was working in the Bush administration.
What kind of government of the people do we have when it chooses to lie and deceive the people. What kind of justice would we receive from a judge that would do the same.
119
It looks like Kavanaugh is just another Trump hack. The Republicans are doing everything possible to suppress his history, but what we know would indicate that Trump wants him to keep him out of jail.
A Justice of the SCOTUS MUST, and I repeat MUST be of the highest calibre, and Kavanaugh seems not to be. If he were as great as his groupies say he is, HE should release all of his history to public scrutiny - and he won't!
Under no circumstances can any American permit a prejudiced Judicial appointment, especially during a probably upcoming impeachment proceeding. The very attempt of Trump to appoint him is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Trump must go, and asap. This should be a country with rule of law and he is making a mockery of that and the Constitution on a daily basis.
35
@RealTRUTH, if the Constitution is infallible, Trump as such should be no match for it. Take any of those two assumptions that you wish. Whatever a glacier forms is such precisely because it’s in no hurry.
@RealTRUTH Congress is making a mockery of that and the Constitution on a daily basis.
3
Clinton had an affair with an intern and tried to equivocate the truth. Big deal.
Trump has assisted a foreign government in corrupting an election, has enriched himself and his friends at the expense of us all, and has continually lied. These are not equivalent. Comparing the two downplays the crimes of Trump. If Kavanaugh does not see this then there is no hope
431
I hate to think or
say it, there is
no hope. Kavanaugh
is a blatantly partisan
candidate. Under the
present system,
leadership, Republican
dominance of the Congress
and support for Trump,
it seems to be a huge
long-shot that he will
not be confirmed. If and
when the entire mess we
are in now reaches the
Supreme Court, it is
not difficult to sense
which way the wind
is blowing. I really hope
I am wrong.
3
Bill Clinton did not “try to equivocate the truth” (whatever that means).
He lied. He committed perjury.
Perjury is a crime, by the way.
2
@Sam There is no proof that Trump has assisted a foreign government, do you know something I dont? Until Mueller brings some credible proof, your statement is only slander, and the fact that a slanderour lie is the wishful thinking of many, including the NYT, and repeated every day doesnt make it true.
1
Judge Kavanaugh's views on presidential immunity and the separation of powers is concerning in the current atmosphere, as are his positions on issues on collective bargaining.
The simple fact is with a republican majority the democrat's position is irrelevant in the nomination process. Supreme Court Judicial nomination hearings in recent times (Roberts, Gorusch, …) have become a formulaic exercise where the judicial nominee has been rigorously prepared to avoid responding to any difficult line of questioning. The proposed justice offers scripted replies that he will respect judicial precedent and so forth. The selection process of nominees by the current president has been informed chiefly by a few ideologically aligned thinktanks.
After the song and dance of the nomination hearing, lo and behold, the Republican congressmen vote rank and file to nominate the nominated conservative justice.
Once on the bench the promise to respect judicial precedent is ignored, and decisions such as "Janus" and "Epic systems" emerge.
The judicial branch must be reasserted as an independent, objective, apolitical branch of government.
16
You know the pendulum swings both ways.
Stare decisis is still stare decisis barring future anarchy.
I would suggest the Dems take comfort in this when they elect their own candidate.
No one from either party appears to be a paragon of virtue in this anything goes society.
5
This partisan hack has no business being a Supreme Court Justice. I assume Congress is going to push this through anyway, given what we've just heard on the Nunes tape - he thinks obstruction by Congress is the only thing standing between Mueller and Trump being impeached and removed from office.
The rush to confirm Kavanaugh is another brick in the wall Congress is constructing to keep Trump - liar, criminal and possible traitor - in office - no matter what the Mueller investigation finds.
The motivation behind the nomination of Kavanaugh is more obstruction of justice. We already saw this kind of sleaze when Gorsuch jumped eagerly at the seat that should have gone to President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.
These corrupt people have no shame.
These antics are destroying the reputation of the Court - which was shaky after it chose W. to be president in 2000.
232
@fast/furious
Somehow besides the point, but, the electoral college system is outdated and belongs into the dust bin of history. How about one person one vote like we have in "my" country? Gore would have become president. That a right leaning High Court ultimately "elected" W. to be president is one of the most controversial episodes in American history. And considering the makeup of the current court, there is no telling what constitutionally questionable decisions await us . . .
6
@fast/furious The NYT vote count subsequent to the election in Florida determined that it was Bush who received the most votes. Sorry but you should really give up on that one.
But wait! Isn't this the same Brett Kavanaugh, that instead of quitting the "Starr Camber" vigorously went after Bill Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? Yest it is! Mr. Kavanaugh is a two faced liar and will be a perfect Trump lackey on the Supreme Court. He will say "liberal" kinds of things and then wholeheartedly vote for repressive alt-conservative assaults on our liberties.
47
Cue the ''feel good'' stories about this judicial nomination in 3 ...2 ... 1
The bottom line (for all republicans) is that things are said that ( on the surface) seem reasonable, then once in office or on the bench, are extreme to the farthest degree, or vote in lock step with party.
This person is no different - in fact he is on the record having said some extreme things already. ( like not holding the executive accountable)
He must be stopped from sitting on the highest court in the land. (or any court for that matter)
20
Kavanaugh is a conservative partisan. He believes in a presidency with enhanced powers, he is against abortion and is likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, to favor capital over labor, and to expand gun rights.
He is an able public servant, but consumes as if he were a millionaire. He buys expensive season tickets to baseball games for him and friends, a membership in the Chevy Chase Club that cost $92,000, and lots of other goodies that only a rich person can afford. It is hard to change one's habits in mid-life. Will he depend on loans and gifts from rich friends and associates, and what will they expect in return?
22
@Diogenes Kavanaugh's father is a very successful businessman. I presume he will inherit plenty in the next decade. He needs no loans or gifts traded for decisions. He can already well afford season tickets for the local baseball team.
So can my electrician, among many of my associates, who spend a lot of money (In my opinion.) on sporting events. They remain eminently qualified for their various occupation, just as Kavanaugh is an "able public servant". (You do not have to like him, but he is more than qualified for the Supreme Court.)
2
At a time when the potential partisan leanings of a Supreme Court nominee have arguably never been more crucial to the future of the Republic, the individual chosen for an open seat just happens to have played a crucial role in one of the most absurdly partisan scandals in recent American politics.
This most recent scandal may be many things, not the least of which is absurd, but it’s more than just partisan politics, despite the performances of incredulity by a certain number of Congressional representatives.
9
Hats off to the extreme right.
They will get this supreme justice seated on the court.
The government for big corporations by big corporations
will be in place for at least the next 30 years.
The individual person in this country will support them through
a tax system that is slanted in their favor of big corporations.
This system will only get worse as time goes on.
Good Luck
8
If I'm in error, someone please correct me. It is my understanding that impeachment of the president and the final verdict of the Senate are beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's purview. What will Kavanaugh do if Trump is impeached and the Senate convicts? Will he sit still when a Trump appeal for a felony committed while in office comes before the Supreme Court? Recuse himself? (Extremely unlikely in my view.) Write the majority opinion when the Supremes come down 6-3 on reversing the felony conviction?
It is getting way past time for a Constitutional Convention. The horse and buggy have long been supplanted by better, safer, faster means of transport. Means of communication used to today were inconceivable in the 18th century. The United States of America, as a name, is so far from being accurately descriptive as to be parody.
4
@Glen Let me explain what any high school student should know about the Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have life appointments to make them not beholden to the President or any other politician. Attempts to pack the Court by adding to the number of Justices have only been threatened by Democrat Presidents. And most countries around the world be grateful to have a federal judicial system like ours.
1
Judge Kavanaugh will never allow this president to be held accountable for any crime he may have committed simply because of the office he holds. Kavanaugh seems to have a problem understanding that the president is not above the law and desires that any president have a stress-free term in office which is ridiculous.
If the burdens of the office of presidency are too much for this president he should step down. Nobody twisted his arm and forced him to run for the nation's highest office.
Kavanaugh would do well to remember the wise words of President Harry Truman who said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Kavanaugh is a judge, not a fire marshal.
10
We're in the world of rampant speculation. So far, there is nothing indicating that Trump will be the focus of the investigation while there are a lot of people who worked on the campaign who have been or will be indicted on crimes discovered during the investigation.
If/when Trump is actually charged with something it is up to Congress to process and impeachment and there is no guarantee that will happen despite the report of the investigation.
Should and ex-president be indicted for crimes discovered during an investigation? I guess that all depends on the crimes. Starr and his team decided that the impeachment process was sufficient for Clinton's crime of lying to an investigator. Nothing more serious was ever found.
What if there were serious crimes, like the ones that launched the Clinton investigation and subsequent twists and turns. Those were a lot more serious than telling a lie about what seems to have been a consensual affair.
Of course we all still ask the question: Why is Trump so thin-skinned? Clinton was investigated for 7 years, Obama was hounded for all 8 years. Trump cannot bear an investigation of probable Russian meddling in the 2016 election where nobody has yet made a direct allegation about Trump. Perhaps Trump is just paranoid and cannot stand the spotlight when he isn't in charge. During his career he never liked anyone even suggesting that he wasn't the greatest human to have ever lived.
1
@George N. Wells Or Trump may be guilty.
12
@George N. Wells
Nixon was deemed an "unindicted co-conspirator" because a sitting president cannot be indicted. When that charge was made, Nixon resigned, was pardoned by his successor and the rest is history.
3
We would have been better off if Clinton
had used simple common decency and resigned
the Presidency.
After all how many of us can have sex with an Intern
on Government Property, let alone the Oval Office
and not be fired ?
Since Clinton did not resign and since he deceived those
around him in an attempt to get them to mislead the
Grand Jury, tampered with evidence
and since he flat out lied to the public via
his:
"That Women"
statement,
Clinton should have been impeached.
If Trump is guilty of deceiving/tampering with evidence
and/or Treason he should be impeached.
As for Kavanaugh -
well that is what Senate Hearings
are for...
Personally I rather see a bright Judge who
worked his way through Law School at night
and was a Public Defender and dealt with
the day to day legal problems of the average citizen
than someone who went straight from Yale or
Harvard into Supreme Court Internship and then
the Federal Government, or Law School or Big Firm -
looking after our Constitutional Rights.
Perhaps, after a Judge is approved,
there should be a national referendum on
the appointment and you need 65 % approval to
be seated on the Supreme Court
for a maximum of 12 years.
4
Does this mean he's suddenly become the Democrats' hero?
2
Kavanaugh is Trump's get out of jail card.
11
@DogThe President has done no wrong so you convicted him of what?. Please explain but you know you can't.
4
More important than Kavanaugh's role in the Ken Starr operation against Clinton is that Kavanaugh lied under oath the last time he was nominated for a judge position. Like Trump, Kavanaugh has a history of lying. He lied about his knowledge of the Bush White House’s detention and torture of enemy combatants. He said under questioning by Senator Durbin: "I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants, and so I do not have any involvement with that.” Documents in hand show he was not telling the truth.
As for Trump, the nomination is about Kavanaugh's willingness to block any prosecution of Trump for the myriad of laws he has broken. These laws include his involvement of foreign powers in his election, his violation of election laws tied to his sex scandals, as well as his violation of emolument clauses when he uses the US government as a personal business asset.
Will any Republican Senators display even a shred of patriotism? No!! Even some cowardly Blue Dog Democrats may roll over for Kavanaugh. The best hope is that Dick Durbin, who has the necessary documents, will vigorously press Kavanaugh to come clean about his lying under oath and that Kavanaugh will step down.
281
@jefflz Have a citation for claim that Kavanaugh worked on detention and torture issues? My understanding is that he _might_ have (and that Republicans are, as usual with this Congress, endeavoring to keep the evidence hidden). (I prefer my own side keep straight with the facts.)
4
@jefflz
Well said, jeffiz.
The article below this one says the White House is "sidestepping" a court's ruling on a medicaid work requirement. How long do we "sidestep" the law? Alberto Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, CEOs who caused the 2008 crash, all should be prosecuted. Kushner, Sessions, Trump Jr., all lied under oath, they should be prosecuted, Ivanka lied about real estate sales, Roger Stone's painter Williams has ignored two grand jury subpoenas, all the cabinet members who grafted money and committed insider trading should be prosecuted and jailed if found guilty.
What is this tentativeness, this fear of enforcing the law.
No, Nancy, impeachment should NOT have been off the table.
No, Holder, prosecution for the 2008 crash SHOULD have happened. Enron should have taken down MORE than Arthur Anderson.
What we have now is the avalanching snowball effect of all that tentativeness and cowardice.
LOCK THEM UP.
Brett Kavanaugh believes that the president is above the law and that his power is absolute. The White House was aware of this and that is why he was nominated. Trump and his lawyers will challenge any subpoena issued by Robert Mueller, knowing that the issue will wind up in the Supreme Court and that the conservatives will favor Trump. It is difficult to differentiate
Kavanaugh's view of the presidency from that of a king. That makes me wonder which side Kavanaugh would have been on during the War of Independence.
19
Everyone learns through experience, through the trials and tribulations of wending our way through life's path. This is also true in our professional lives as well. Physicians make mistakes; hopefully, their future patients benefit from the hard-earned knowledge gleaned in the course of a doctor's professional life. Why should this not also be true of those who pursue a professional life in the legal profession? Judge Kavanaugh did not arrive in this world with a comprehensive knowledge of the law; he studied and made decisions for his clients based on his best judgement at the time. Later, as his professional life lifted him into the higher realms of the political spectrum, he was faced with questions of the law as they pertained to what many of us have come to view as a flawed president. Kavanaugh's views which the jurist expressed to his boss, Kenneth Starr, were fixed in the moment he expressed them - just as our non-legal vista of the Clinton/Lewinski affair - was fixed in each of our own "moments of perception." Arguing that Brett Kavanaugh should not be seated on the Supreme Court of the United States because he, too, has undergone the human experience of learning as he matured, learning as he contemplated the fine points of the law which we layman have little understanding of is hugely short-sighted. Be brave and allow this man who has been seasoned in the crucible of his profession to be confirmed; yes, be brave.
3
He was selected because of his predispositions and others would be silly to ignore those predispositions. The crucible will not turn lead into gold. I do not think it is a question of bravery. He will no doubt be confirmed. I hope more for his bravery than ours.
18
@Sophocles; If your predisposition is to say a President is above the law because being on the job is so important, then you are saying we no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Confirmation means a vote for autocracy.
Bill Clinton's impeachment was about Presidential erections, which were NOT high crimes and misdemeanors....they were NOT about the rigging of Presidential elections, which is the high crime that Trump will be saddled with.
Big, big difference.
Kavanaugh may have displayed some common sense as a young staffer with Kenneth Starr, but will Kavanaugh have enough morality as a career Federalist Society rubber stamper to lay down the rule of law against the Cheeto-in-Chief who illegitimately appointed Kavanaugh to a Stacked Supreme Court based on the illegitimate 2016 election of that very same Cheeto-in-Chief ?
Kavanaugh would effectively be invalidating his own Russian-Republican appointment to the Supreme Court (along with Gorsuch's) if he had a decent jurisprudential bone in his body.
My bet is that Kavanaugh will become one of the greatest Republican pretzels of all time as he rationalizes being the next justice of the Supremely Hijacked Court.
118
Clinton’s impeachment was about perjury.
Perjury is a crime.
2
@Skippy
A few points...
1. In every jurisdiction in this country charging a person with Perjury REQUIRES that the perjurious statements be included in the charge. Nowhere in either the House charges or Senate trial are any actual statements listed that are considered "perjurous".
2. When Clinton's taped questioning to the OIC was "leaked" (in it's entirety) to the public, every conservative think tank and armchair lawyer went through his testimony with a fine-toothed comb and couldn't find ANY statements which were untrue, much less could be considered perjury (the biggest complaint I kept hearing from the talking heads was that his testimony was "like nailing jello to the wall").
3. In the Starr report, EVERY charge of Perjury or Obstruction involved Monica Lewinski, who was ruled as a non-material and irrelevant witness by Judge White in the Jones trial. Nothing said about or by Monica Lewinski had ANY legal relevance to any case at all.
4. The actual "charges" listed in the Starr report were silly, and would be laughed out of court... ex: "Monica claimed the relationship started in November, Clinton claimed it started in December", " On a particular date Monica claimed that Clinton touched her breast, Clinton claimed he didn't remember doing so", etc.
ALL of the impeachment "charges" were nonsense that the House managers didn't even attempt to prove or provide evidence for.
1
Skippy...'perjury' over whether or not Bill would admit to having erections with a person who was not his wife.
Get a grip on context.
Meanwhile, the current so-called Presidential Russian puppet cannot tell the truth under almost any circumstances.
Sad.
1
Who even needs human judges when it’s obvious from the selection process they come pre-programmed anyway. Why not a SCOTUS app?
4
Told you so. HE is Trumps Get-out-of-Jail FREE Card. As is anyone with a brain should be surprised. Thanks, GOP. November. Seriously.
68
@Phyliss Dalmatian
I disagree. Trump's most potent Get out of Jail card is Pence.
5
Mr. Kavanaugh is certainly qualified to be considered for the Supreme Court by his intellect and credentials.
But he is ultimately a partisan hack, and not a thoughtful adherent of judicial temperance and restraint. He led the witch hunt against Bill Clinton, which morphed from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky. He argued for the use of torture, under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Any jurist who truly considered the Constitution above all else would have never injected himself into such partisan battles.
Reject Kavanaugh.
Next, please.
51
If Trump were to have a case before the Supreme Court there would be some question as to whether Kavanaugh would have to recuse himself. You can't get around the fact that he was appointed by one of the litigants. A conflict beyond needing explanation.
21
We should all be deeply suspicious of ulterior motives in appointing Brett Kavenaugh. That being said, I can’t help but feel that defending his record is a no-win situation.
If Kavenaugh had supported indicting Clinton, we’d be accusing him of partisanship. Yet now, after it turns out he was against indicting Clinton, many may read that as overdeference to the executive branch.
I do not agree with most of Kavenaugh’s positions, but it is important to note that his protective views around the presidency were forged in a *Democratic* administration of political opponents.
11
Kavanaugh's position after President Clinton's impeachment was about strategy, not ethics nor law. It's the same strategy that informs Trump and his Republican Congressional supporters not to go along with firing Mueller.
1
Kavanaugh will just say whatever is necessary to get the job. Once on the bench he will be just as narrow minded and pro-authoritarian figure as he was chosen by the Federalist Society for Trump to be
130
Kavanaugh seems to be an activist partisan and has no business being on the US Supreme Court. It's not surprising that trump nominated him given his desire to elude justice.
169
Our President kills a passerby on Fifth Avenue and we should not try him during his presidency. We may impeach him if the Republicans accepts it.
What is it about legal things that Kavanaugh understands? In my opinion not much more than his model Scalia.
Enough of “light” jurists
20